The Hindu : Dealing with Washington & Moscow

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Dec 16, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Dealing with Washington & Moscow

By K.K. Katyal

India's relationship with Russia is a case of consolidation... With the U.S., it is a reversal of old, negative trends.

NEW DELHI could draw comfort from the manner its ties with the U.S. and Russia have shaped of late. There is little doubt about the importance of the two relationships to India, both individually and collectively. The exclusive superpower status of the U.S. imparts a special quality to its ties with India. The smooth equation could pave the way for help and support in various areas, notably political and economic. Also, it sends positive signals, from New Delhi's standpoint, to others especially the Western powers, influencing their approach to India. Russia is no longer a superpower and its relationship with India is devoid of the ideological content that characterised the Soviet Union's dealings with India. Nonetheless, the relevance of mutual ties has been retained, even enhanced, in the present-day changed context. In the past, India's special relationship with Moscow created suspicions in Washington while an occasional tilt towards the U.S. was misunderstood by the Soviet Union. That was the inescapable logic of the power bloc rivalries of the Cold War era. There are no such risks for New Delhi now because of the understanding and amity between the U.S. and Russia.

New Delhi cannot take for granted the continuance of its smooth equations with the two powers, because disagreements and divergences are not altogether absent and, if not tackled or contained in time, could develop into major problems, even crises. That emphasises the need and importance of regular interaction and of frank and candid exchanges for possible mid-course corrections. The recent contacts between India and Russia, climaxed by the Russian President, Vladimir Putin's visit to New Delhi, and the exchanges between senior officials of India and the U.S., notably the Prime Minister's Principal Secretary, Brajesh Mishra's meetings in Washington, served precisely this purpose. It does not mean that all the differences have been resolved or have vanished but it does mean that misunderstandings would not get out of control.

Given the history of New Delhi's relationship with Moscow and Washington, there is a qualitative difference in India's dealings with the two powers. Its relationship with Russia is a case of consolidation or of guarding against a slip-up. With the U.S., it is a reversal of the old, negative trends, of strengthening the "new beginning", made during the former President, Bill Clinton's trip to India.

The friendship with Moscow is time-tested. Russia did not take the sanctions route after the May 1998 nuclear tests by India; it did not succumb to pressures to cancel the cooperative arrangement to set up nuclear power plants in Tamil Nadu; the sale of its defence equipment to India has been accompanied by transfer of technology and has now moved on to the next higher stage — of joint designing and development and co-production. This is a significant dimension to the bilateral ties, the delays in the supply of spares and occasional hiccups in the execution of the defence deals notwithstanding. Russia, as mentioned by Mr. Putin, is prepared to expand cooperation in the field of nuclear energy "within the framework of international rules and obligations". At the same time, he saw a case for "improvement" in these rules and obligations.

As regards regional matters, Russia has been consistent in its support to India on Kashmir and related issues. In the joint statement on the Putin visit, Russia accepted the Indian stand that Islamabad needed to fulfil its obligation to prevent the infiltration of terrorists across the Line of Control and to eliminate terrorist infrastructure as a "pre-requisite" for the renewal of peaceful dialogue with Pakistan. Instinctively, however, Mr. Putin appeared to favour the line he had taken at a multilateral conference in Almaty, Kazakhstan, when he unsuccessfully worked for a meeting between the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, and Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf. This was evident from his reply to a correspondent's question that "everything should be done in order to settle all disputes, including the dispute between India and Pakistan, by peaceful means". The recent memorandum of understanding between Russia and Pakistan on the feasibility study of a gas pipeline suggested that the ties between these two countries may not remain frozen at the present stage. Is Indian diplomacy geared to meet that contingency?

The weakest link in the Indo-Russian relationship is the abysmally low level of trade and investment — a problem that the two sides resolved to address. It is not an easy job and the degree of success would be a material factor in the evolution of the bilateral ties.

Trade and investment have been strong links in India's ties with the U.S. which, otherwise, passed through several phases even in the short span of four years — since the Clinton visit in March 2000, especially in the context of the adversarial India-Pakistan relationship. The ups and downs, however, have not affected the stability achieved as a result of conscious efforts by the two sides. Had that not been the case, the disillusionment in New Delhi over the U.S. inability to restrain Pakistan from promoting terrorist violence in Jammu and Kashmir or the differences on Iraq would have de-railed the relationship.

To start with, New Delhi found itself in a happy position, with the U.S. showing complete understanding of India's concerns on terrorism. That was also the period when the U.S took a stern view of Islamabad's role in promoting jehadi trends and of its "moral, diplomatic and political support" to "freedom fighters" in Jammu and Kashmir. Washington was far from impressed with the steps, purported to have been taken by Gen. Musharraf for the restoration of democracy. All that changed — to India's disadvantage — after 9/11. Islamabad acquired a new relevance, thanks to its geographical position, in the U.S.-led coalition's operations against Afghanistan. Gradually, however, the imbalance was set right, partly because of the realisation in Washington that the fight against terrorism would be incomplete if the jehadi outfits in Pakistan continued to operate and religious fundamentalists held sway there. Gen. Musharraf was, therefore pressured into taking corrective steps.

There are limits to the U.S. diplomacy in dealing with Islamabad on India-related matters. Pakistan continues to be crucially important to Washington in the context of the unfinished fight against terrorism. This importance will increase if and when the U.S. carries out its threat to attack Iraq. India realises this — and, as such, no great hopes are pinned on Washington, though the evidence of continued violation of Pakistani commitments is conveyed to it from time to time. On its part, the U.S. keeps on repeating its exhortations to India for the resumption of dialogue with Pakistan, but New Delhi sticks to its tough line — "no talks till the infiltration of terrorists continues". Washington is not convinced but leaves it at that.

What does the narration of this sequence show? That a good part of India-U.S. relations is hyphenated — to use the expression of the former External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh — to Pakistan, and this creates complications. But the resultant divergences have not affected their dealings. As a matter of fact, this has led the two sides to shift their focus to bilateral matters. And there is a hope of an advance in this area.

On another important issue on which the U.S. has set its heart now — Iraq — the positions of India and U.S. differ, but this too has not created a serious problem in the bilateral field. This is so, even though India, giving up the earlier low-key stance, is now conspicuously vocal on the subject. New Delhi is opposed to the doctrine of regime change, to any unilateral action, outside the parameters set by the U.S. Security Council. This obviously runs counter to the U.S. stance. In the past, such divergences could have derailed the bilateral ties. To maintain the positive trends in the two cases — pronounced in the case of India-Russia ties, and promising in regard to the U.S. — is a challenging task, requiring skill and sustained effort. The immensity of the task is not to be underestimated.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Harvest of hatred

Micawber's folly

Dealing with Washington & Moscow

Courts & minority education — I

Beyond the Modis

Probity in judiciary

A great humanist