logo
India faces a Russia dilemma

India faces a Russia dilemma

Indian Express07-07-2025
India may again find itself in an uncomfortable diplomatic fix. US Senator Lindsey Graham is slated to introduce a bill that seeks to impose a 500 per cent tariff rate on American imports from countries that continue to buy products from Russia. He claims to have the support of 84 co-sponsors and the backing of the US President Donald Trump.
If passed, India's diplomacy will be put to a stress test once again. It is likely to also trigger a debate around the strategic utility of India's relationship with Russia. Even if the bill fails to sail through, Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to India in the coming months will probably set off similar discussions.
Practitioners and strategic analysts are divided on the issue. Russophiles have argued that the India-Russia relationship is rooted in history and has stood the test of time. The genesis of this thought lies in India's experiences with the Soviet Union during the Cold War years, with the India-Pakistan war of 1971 being the watershed moment in the friendship. That event created substantial affinity towards the Soviet Union (later Russia) among the Indian public and political elite, while concurrently generating deep antipathy and cynicism towards the US-led West.
The Soviet Union also supported India through the sale of arms at a time when the West (primarily the US and the UK) would openly arm Pakistan with sophisticated and advanced weapons while turning down India's requests. Further, they argue the Soviet Union was India's sole trusted partner with a veto in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), particularly when the West raked up issues pertaining to Jammu & Kashmir. As per this school of thought, the experience of history demonstrates Russia's reliability and creates an obligation for India to support it. Russia, for them, stood with India when the latter found itself isolated by the West for most of the Cold War period.
This school also contends that India and Russia are natural partners as their core interests do not conflict. Thus, they argue that the Moscow-Delhi relationship transcends any upheavals in the global order and is critical to maintaining India's strategic autonomy. Finally, any effort towards distancing from Russia would further push it into China's orbit of influence. Per them, an isolated Russia that is more dependent on China presents a significant challenge for India.
Lately, a second strand of thought (Russoskeptics) has argued for strategic pragmatism when it comes to India's relations with Russia. It calls for a more pragmatic approach to modern-day Russia, notwithstanding the traditional and historical relationship with the Soviet Union. They endeavour to absolve India of any moral obligation by alluding to the latter's historically ambiguous and even contrary position on matters related to Indian interests vis-à-vis China.
Moreover, they highlight, and rightly so, that in the Russia-Ukraine war, Moscow is an aggressor that has violated Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty in a blatant disregard for international law. And thus, Russia does not deserve India's moral support in its unjust war.
In addition, they point to the deepening strategic partnership between Russia and China as threatening India's security interests. This school also views Russia as a declining power that can do very little to augment India's comprehensive national power. On the contrary, Russia's expansionist tendencies have an adverse impact on India's relationship with the US at a time when its interests align far more closely with the West, owing to the changing geopolitical realities. This has significantly altered the cost-benefit matrix for India when it comes to its relationship with Russia.
Morals and ethics aside, there are legitimate strategic reasons, grounded in realism, to argue for either side.
The Russoskeptics point out that India's diplomatic capital is not infinite. And thus, it would not be prudent to spend it all to salvage the relationship with Russia, mainly for two reasons. Firstly, Russia continues to be the primary adversary of the US. And there is a possibility that proximity to Moscow may impede cooperation between New Delhi and Washington. Secondly, Russia may no longer be trusted as India's biggest defence and energy partner, given its massive dependence on China, economically, militarily and diplomatically.
Notwithstanding the pragmatism and realism displayed by the Russoskeptics, they must answer two critical questions: Will making an enemy out of Russia and pushing it into a possible China-Pak-Russia nexus serve India's security interests in Asia? And would New Delhi be comfortable with the idea of Moscow selling its premium weapons to Pakistan? Moscow is already flirting with Rawalpindi and testing the waters to see if Pakistan could be its new prominent military partner.
Further, while the Sino-Russian relationship stands firm, we are yet to see it adversely impact India-Russia ties in any significant way. This perhaps suggests that either the Russia-China relationship is not deep enough, or India-China relations have not strained to a point yet for Beijing to resort to coercion through Moscow.
Thus, India cannot afford to downgrade its relations with Russia yet, and it must persist with its balancing act. This would require four actions on India's part. First, conveying to their American counterparts that China should continue to remain the preeminent source of their strategic convergence. Second, while diversifying arms imports from Russia makes strategic sense, it would be imprudent to seek diversification beyond a certain limit, which makes Moscow a little insecure. India needs to find that acceptable ratio.
Third, India would need to engage China to ensure that the bilateral relations do not stoop to a point that Beijing feels the need to capitalise on Russia's dependence. Lastly, India must urge Russia not to close the door on themselves. If it wants to avoid slipping into China's sphere of influence and wants India to be on its side as a friendly centre of power, it has to allow India some space to work with. A good start for Moscow would be revisiting its Eurasia policy.
The writer is a research analyst with Takshashila's Indo-Pacific Studies programme
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Indian embassy advises citizens to avoid non-essential travel to Iran
Indian embassy advises citizens to avoid non-essential travel to Iran

Business Standard

time11 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

Indian embassy advises citizens to avoid non-essential travel to Iran

The Indian Embassy in Iran issued a travel advisory on Wednesday, urging Indian nationals to avoid non-essential travel to Iran. The advisory comes amid rising security concerns in the region over the past several weeks. "In view of the security-related developments over the past several weeks, Indian nationals are advised to carefully consider the evolving situation before undertaking non-essential travel to Iran," the Indian Embassy said on X. Further embassy also "advised to continue to monitor the latest regional developments and follow updated advisories issued by the Indian authorities." For Indian nationals currently in Iran who wish to return, the embassy has noted that options are available. "Indian nationals already in Iran, and interested in leaving, may avail the commercial flight and ferry options which are available right now," it said. The advisory follows a sharp spike in regional hostilities that began with Israel's launch of 'Operation Rising Lion' on June 13, bombing Iranian military and nuclear facilities. In response, Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks against Israeli targets. The United States, in support strong for Israel, retaliated with attacks on key Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan on June 22. The Iranian Armed Forces launched retaliatory strikes, targeting key positions across the Israeli-occupied territories and on the US military airbase in Qatar. The 12-day war came to an end on June 24 when Israel declared a unilateral halt to its aggression, announced on its behalf by US President Donald Trump. Washington maintains that Iran's uranium enrichment programme could lead to developing nuclear bombs, while Tehran has consistently denied the claim, insisting that its nuclear programme is meant for civilian purposes. In July 2015, the Iran nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was signed between Iran and several world powers, including the United States. The agreement capped Tehran's enrichment level at 3.67 per cent and reduced its uranium stockpile to 300 kilograms. The deal collapsed in 2018 with Trump's unilateral withdrawal of the US from the accord. Since then, Iran has started exceeding agreed-upon limits to its stockpile of low-enriched uranium in 2019, and began enriching uranium to higher concentrations up to 60 per cent purity, which is very close to the weapons-grade level. Earlier this month, Iranian President Pezeshkian signed into law a bill suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The state broadcaster of Iran reported that Pezeshkian ratified the bill after Parliament approved the legislation.

India, Asean drift apart as Trump tariffs strain trade ties and trust
India, Asean drift apart as Trump tariffs strain trade ties and trust

Business Standard

time11 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

India, Asean drift apart as Trump tariffs strain trade ties and trust

It's still far from clear what President Donald Trump's tariffs will eventually look like. But the pressures they will put on stable trading relationships — even those that don't directly involve the US — are already visible. Ties between India and the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations are already fraying: They're being pushed into different camps, and the free-trade agreement they signed in 2010 could become an unexpected victim of the turmoil. Trump might be the immediate cause of this rift, but, as always, China's massive manufacturing overcapacity is at the heart of the problem. Even if no country knows what rates they or others will face, everyone can be reasonably certain that the mainland's tariffs will be the highest of all. Unfortunately, this also means that there's a big incentive to help Beijing game the system enough that we all trust each other less. But, for some, there's also the tempting possibility that China's overcapacity can be turned from an enemy into an ally. Any country that remains integrated both with China and those that are putting up tariff walls could, if it wanted, become a location for the trans-shipment of goods. Instead of paying the higher China levies, importers would pay lower ones imposed on the third country — and share a bit of the take with local partners. Tariff arbitrage could become as profitable in the future as interest rate arbitrage is today. The more countries that impose anti-dumping duties on China, the more money the successful trans-shipper would make. The US, for one, is already very concerned that parts of Asean might take this route — which is why Trump's trade deal with Vietnam included a clause that any goods suspected of being trans-shipped would pay double tariffs. For countries like India, it's an even greater fear. India's commerce minister caused a bit of a stir recently when he described Asean as 'China's B-team.' That was certainly impolitic. But, perhaps, not entirely unjustified. New Delhi has been trying to update its free trade agreement with Asean for a while. Its particular focus has been to tighten rules-of-origin requirements — the way in which you ensure that a free trade agreement only benefits local producers in both countries, not those shipping goods that originate elsewhere. Indian officials feel that Asean has been going slow on these discussions. Meanwhile, news broke in May that the bloc had expanded the scope of its parallel FTA with China. They achieved that in double-quick time — negotiations only started in November 2022 — which raised a few eyebrows in New Delhi. Some in India, clearly including its commerce minister, now seem to think that tariff-free trade with Southeast Asia is the same as opening your market to China. That isn't true — or, at any rate, not yet. But the fact is that member states simply aren't doing enough to reassure their other trading partners, including India. It would be a nightmare for most countries, including India, if closed-off blocs were to replace today's open trading system. Yet Trump's actions, when combined with China's overcapacity, are taking us there. Any country that wants to trade with both sides of the divide — which, clearly, many in Southeast Asia would prefer — will also need to be able to be very transparent about the goods it is exporting, and how much value has been added domestically. In other words, it's Asean's move: They will have to step up and give most of their trading partners, not just India and the US, a clearer view into their supply chains. The US is clearly worried that some countries will evade its tariffs. Those concerns will be shared, especially by India. New Delhi seems to believe that, if world trade blocs form, then Asean has already chosen its side — and it won't be the one India picks. Trade's impossible without trust, and these two partners will have to work to rebuild it.

After ‘manhandling' of Omar on Martyrs' Day, NC ups the ante on L-G
After ‘manhandling' of Omar on Martyrs' Day, NC ups the ante on L-G

New Indian Express

time17 minutes ago

  • New Indian Express

After ‘manhandling' of Omar on Martyrs' Day, NC ups the ante on L-G

SRINAGAR: A day after police personnel allegedly manhandled J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah at the Martyrs' Graveyard, the National Conference on Tuesday demanded an apology from L-G Manoj Sinha for the incident. Senior NC leader and Deputy CM Surinder Choudhary said that whatever happened on Monday, the L-G is responsible for it, and he should apologise not only to the government but to the people. 'People have given a mandate to the Abdullah government, and he (L-G) should apologise to that mandate, the Constitution and the Indian democracy. He should apologise to the martyrs, who gave up their lives for the country's freedom,' Choudhary said. 'Whatever happened yesterday, it should not have happened. It is unfortunate. There was no attempt from our side to violate law and order.' Omar Abdullah said, adding, 'I want to tell that 'Hamari sharafat ko hamari kamzori mat samajhiye' (Our decency should not be mistaken for our weakness). We will not make any sellout with the aspirations and dreams of J&K people.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store