The Hindu : Old friends in changing times

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Dec 02, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Old friends in changing times

By K. K. Katyal

Vladimir Putin's visit is meant to be used to check the practical implementation of the strategic partnership between India and Russia and to give a new push to it.

THOUGH PART of an ongoing process, within the framework of close bilateral ties, the Russian President, Vladimir Putin's visit to India this week is certain to evoke unusual interest. Even the friendliest of relationships is not to be taken for granted — it needs to be nourished continuously; one, to guard against a slip-up and, two, to update its content in the light of changing circumstances. If Moscow's close friendship with New Delhi could survive the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the cataclysmic events before and after, there is little doubt it will retain its strength and robustness and forge ahead. However, an occasional course correction — or redefinition — will be necessary. It should not cause dismay or alarm.

After the demise of the Soviet Union, the new rulers in Moscow sought to change the ground rules for the conduct of the relationship with India. Sentiment was taken out and replaced by realpolitik. This was evident from the speed with which the 1972 Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation was substituted by an unadorned version. Soon after, however, the tendency to romanticise bilateral ties re-appeared both in New Delhi and Moscow. Nothing very wrong about it, for after all, it flowed out of good intentions. But there was the danger of losing sight of the changed realities — in global, regional and bilateral contexts. But now again the merits of a pragmatic approach have begun to be realised — and, hopefully, would inform the bilateral dealings in the future.

There is need to take a balanced view of India's relationship with Moscow. Just because Moscow has to operate under certain global compulsions and has other priorities — such as Europe, the U.S — one should not be cynical. In the same way, euphoria or expectations of out-of-the-way help will be misplaced.

India and Russia have a mutual relevance in several areas, especially in the geo-strategic context and as multi-ethnic societies. That accounts for their multi-faceted relationship — it encompasses different sectors, including political consultations, economic and commercial ties, cooperation in trade and economy, science and technology, culture, education, space science and research, peaceful uses of nuclear energy, defence, energy security. Given its depth and expanse, it is rightly described as one of the most important bilateral relationships. It is marked by a wide convergence of views and interests but let it not be forgotten, differing perceptions are not altogether absent.

Trade and economic matters are the weakest links in the bilateral field. After the rupee arrangement, apparently attractive but with hidden distortions, was given up, the two sides were unable to establish a stable pattern. The switch in Russia from the command economy to free enterprise and the crime situation added to the problem. Figures tell a sorry tale, howsoever viewed. The Soviet Union's share of India's exports used to be 18.3 per cent in 1980-81; it dropped to 16.1 per cent at the end of the 1980s. Last year, it was down to two per cent. Imports from Russia, too, dropped from 8.1 per cent in the Soviet era to just one per cent last year. This is highly unsatisfactory, for, in the long run, economic links sustain bilateral relations. Arms sales, howsoever massive, are no substitute. There is a case for urgent, effective remedial measures.

This will be the third summit in two years. During Mr. Putin's visit to India in October 2000, the two sides signed a Declaration of Strategic Partnership, establishing a framework of cooperation in the new millennium. In November last year, when the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, was in Moscow, a new declaration on international terrorism and a joint statement on strategic issues, calling for the establishment of a new "cooperative security order" emerged out of their discussions. Obviously, they intended it to lay the basis for a multi-polar world. Mr. Putin's upcoming visit is meant to be used to check the practical implementation of the strategic partnership and to give a new push to it. The framework of cooperation is to be enlarged with the involvement of the private sectors of the two countries, with special attention to investments by one side for ventures in the other. Several documents are to be signed during the visit — on political and economic cooperation, on issues connected with intellectual property rights, cooperation between Samara region of Russia and Karnataka and on telecommunications. And last but not the least, Iraq is certain to be taken up.

The resolve of the two sides to counter international terrorism may be given a concrete shape, with the plans to set up a joint working group — of the type already in place as part of India's dealings on this subject with the U.S. and U.K. During the previous two summits Mr. Putin's stand was conspicuously forthright. During his New Delhi visit, for instance, he, on the basis of "absolutely true and verified information", underlined the nature of international terrorism thus: the same individuals, the same terrorist organisations were conducting terrorist acts from the Philippines to Kosovo, Kashmir, Afghanistan and the Northern Caucasus (a reference to Russia's problems in Chechnya). And during Mr. Vajpayee's visit to Moscow, the Russian President disapproved of the "double standards" of the international community in the fight against terrorism. The joint statement issued then stressed that "international law" needed to be the basis for "decisive measures against all states, individuals and entities which render support to harbour, finance and instigate terrorism" and against those promoting terrorism in other ways. Then there was the joint call for the completion of talks under the U.N. auspices on the draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism and for suppression of nuclear terrorism.

On Kashmir, too, there was no ambiguity about Russia's stand — it wanted "foreign interference to be stopped", the issue to be resolved "through compromise" and called for "unconditional respect for the Line of Control". At the same time, Moscow made no secret of its preference for the resumption of dialogue between India and Pakistan. There is nothing to suggest a change in Moscow's line, though Russian sources now hint at appreciation of New Delhi's caveat that a conducive atmosphere needs to be created, with an end to infiltration of terrorists across the LoC.

New Delhi will do well to realise that the present Moscow line on Pakistan may not remain frozen for all time to come and that, at some point, the two sides may start interacting with each other. Some two years ago, the visit of Mr. Putin's special envoy, dealing with Chechnya affairs, to Islamabad led to fears about a "parallel relationship". It had followed a "chance" meeting between Mr. Putin and Pakistan's President, Pervez Musharraf at the U.N. Millennium Summit and reports from Islamabad of a possible Putin visit to Pakistan. And, at Almaty, Russia appeared closer to Pakistan than to India as regards the resumption of an India-Pakistan dialogue. Moscow, however, said that nothing would be done at the cost of its close friendship with India.

Russia seems alive to India's concerns on several other matters — on New Delhi's claim for a permanent seat in a reformed U.N. Security Council (it is an academic issue, at the moment) and its anxiety to play a role in Afghanistan. It takes a positive view of India's keenness to associate with the Shangai Forum of six (Russia, China and four Central Asian republics) on counter-terrorism in the region.

However, the temptation to over-interpret the pro-forma talk in the last three or four years, in reply to media queries on a strategic triangle, comprising India, China and Russia, has to be resisted. Somewhat inexplicably, it was taken as a serious proposition. The contradictions between India and China or Russia and China had not been fully resolved. Also, a triangle is bound to be perceived as an anti-U.S. bloc. Each of the three countries is trying to be close to Washington and would not like to be seen to be ganging against it. At present, the triangle will be no more than the sum total of the bilateral ties of these countries.

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Trial and errors

Spreading scourge

Old friends in changing times

Persisting with folly