This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
{
"authors": [
"Sharanya Rajiv 64592"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie India"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie India",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"South Asia",
"India",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
The special and privileged strategic partnership between India and Russia now spans across both Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific.
Source: Moscow Times
Last week, Narendra Modi was the first Indian prime minister to visit Russia’s Far Eastern city of Vladivostok. He was there to attend the 20th India-Russia Annual Summit followed by the fifth Eastern Economic Forum (EEF), in which he was the chief guest. During the visit, the sides announced a slew of bilateral deals.
These ranged from expanding cooperation in military technology and civil nuclear energy — for which Russia is India’s foremost partner — to hydrocarbons, mining and space, among other areas.
Most significantly, the countries signed a joint statement that recognized Greater Eurasia and the “regions of the Indian and Pacific Oceans” as forming part of a common space and agreed to intensify consultations on complementarities between their respective integration initiatives.
The special and privileged strategic partnership between India and Russia now spans across both Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific.
The first is a mutual recognition of converging interests in the Indo-Pacific region.
While Russia may not be quick to adopt the term — with leaders like President Putin continuing to use the term Asia-Pacific — its invitation of Prime Minister Modi as the EEF’s chief guest is an acknowledgement of the confluence of the Indian and Pacific oceans.
To understand this overlap, we must consider Moscow’s criticism of the Indo-Pacific concept. It supposes that the U.S. and Japan, who “authored” the term, plan to impose it on others. Russia thinks the West is unlikely to establish an equitable regional mechanism that considers the legitimate interests of all players, which threatens to fragment this shared space.
Moscow also considers regional states, particularly those in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), to be the central elements in regional integration and cooperation processes. This, in turn, does not stand in opposition to India’s vision for the Indo-Pacific, which is premised on inclusiveness, openness and ASEAN’s centrality and unity.
The second process has a longer history — cooperation in their shared extended neighborhood in the Eurasian continent.
On Russia’s vision for a “greater Eurasia” during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in 2016, President Putin observed an emergent integration area and proposed a Eurasian partnership — with the Eurasian Economic Union as one of the centers, and with close partners like China, India, Pakistan and Iran.
While Moscow’s deepening partnerships with Islamabad and Beijing worry India, both have shared interests in ensuring a more prosperous and stable Eurasia. India is working alongside Moscow in initiatives across the continent.
These range from transport corridors, particularly the long-delayed International North-South Transport Corridor which became partly operational last year, to regional organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization — which India was admitted into in 2017 with Moscow’s support.
Finally, the Russian Far East will now serve as a crucial point linking the continental and maritime geographies. In Vladivostok, India unveiled its “Act Far East Policy” and announced a $1 billion line of credit for development projects in the region, while both sides signed an agreement to develop a Vladivostok-Chennai sea route, which can become India’s springboard in the Northeast Asian market.
Prime Minister Modi noted that the Far East “will become a confluence of the Eurasian Union on one side and the open, free and inclusive Indo-Pacific on the other.”
As the future of the Indo-Pacific is intrinsically linked with that of Eurasia — and both are the site of competition among major powers — this is well thought out.
This provides a new vision for the India-Russia partnership. It could also help mitigate the strategic and political divergence that several commentators have highlighted in recent years — particularly Russia’s partnership with China and India’s with the West.
However, this does not indicate that Russia will turn away from China nor that India will turn away from the West. These relationships are driven by deeper strategic and economic imperatives. What it does indicate is that India and Russia are expanding their foreign policy options.
Sharanya Rajiv, 64592
Carnegie India
Sharanya Rajiv is a senior program coordinator and research assistant at Carnegie India
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
The ASML MoU with Tata Electronics is an indicator of how far the Indian semiconductor ecosystem has come. This ecosystem has been years in the making and represents real commercial logic.
Konark Bhandari
This paper examines the relationship between India’s evolving space policy and the corresponding growth in private space ventures. It analyzes both the enabling factors created by recent regulatory changes and the persistent challenges facing entrepreneurs in this capital-intensive, highly regulated industry.
Harshan Vazhakunnam
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia
The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.
Shruti Mittal