(1) Compute the strategies of moderates and extremists.

Evaluate the
contribution of revolutionary terrorists.
• The nationalist response in India was articulated differently in different phases of
India’s freedom struggle. The early nationalist response (moderate phase) began
with the formation of the INC in 1885 till Surat congress (1907) when the extremists
appeared dominant on the political scene.
• The basic difference between the two nationalist responses lay in their perception of
British rule and its articulation in concrete programmes. While the moderates
considered British rule as a ‘boon-in-disguise’ and had faith in British’s sense of
justice, the extremists had no faith in the ‘benevolence’ of the British rulers and
wanted to establish complete ‘Swaraj’ or ‘self-rule’.
• As a result of the difference in their perceptions with respect to the British rule in
India, the moderates and extremists differed substantially in the form of the
strategies adopted. The early nationalist response in India was based on
‘constitutionalism’, which got transformed into the following two-pronged
methodology.
• Creation of a strong public opinion to arouse public consciousness and then educate
and unite people on common political questions.
• Persuade the British government in India and British public opinion to introduce
reforms in India to attain political rights and self-government stage by stage.
I. On the contrary to the strategy adopted by moderates, the extremists favoured a
strategy of direct actions, such as passive resistance, boycott, swadeshi, national
education etc, to overthrow the colonial rule.
II. However, despite constituting contrasting viewpoints, the two groups supplemented
each other with their response, according to Bidyut Chakraborty, extremists were an
offshoot of the process emerged due to moderate campaign.
Contribution of Revolutionaries
 • The revolutionary movement, during India’s freedom struggle, was largely the
outcome of the same set of causes which gave rise to extremist wing in nationalist
politics. They differed from the extremists in the sense that they wanted quicker
results, discounted the value of persuasion of moderates and low-grade pressure
politics of extremists. Hence, they advocated the cult of the 'revolver and the bomb'
as they believed in the principle of ‘propaganda by deeds’.
• Their contributions are as follows.
I. They filled the political ‘vaccum’ whenever mainstream movement was in passive
phase.
II. They displayed remarkable heroism and inspired youth to sacrifice for freedom.
III. Their biggest success came in the form of annulment of division of Bengal (1911)
when British took the decision to check the increased revolutionary activities.
I. However, they failed to understand that the British rule wasn’t only based on
coercive force of the rulers but also reflected the ideological domination, which
Gramsci refers to as ‘hegemony’. Thus, to ever throw the colonial rule, the first step
was to create an counter-ideological movement to destroy the ideological
domination of the rulers. This is known as ‘war of position’, which was an important
strategy of Gandhian phase of Indian national movement.

(2) Evaluate the role of following sections of Indian society in the

national movement.
• Women
(1) After being neglected for long, the question of contribution or participation of
women in politics during India’s freedom movement has emerged as a new area of
research in historiography.
(2) However, despite being a highly patriarchal society, women participated in the
freedom movement in multiple modes.
For eg:- There are examples of women successfully protecting their states in
comparison to their male counterparts.
 Bimbai Horkar defeated Britishers in guerrilla warfare. Also, Rani Laxmibai and
Begum Hazrat Mahal played heroic roles in the revolt of 1857.
I. However, women contribution changed significantly since the advent of Gandhian
mass movement.
II. The advent of the 20th century and the rise of Gandhi as a ‘mass leader’ witnessed
the women participating in the nationalist politics despite constraints of social
practices such as Purdah system, backwardness and low level of female literacy
women participated in the freedom struggle through 2 parallel processes.
• DOMESTICATION OF PUBLIC SPHERE :- Women participating in the streets
without compromising on their domestic values.
• POLITICIZATION OF PRIVATE SPHERE :- Women handled situations in their
families when nationalism entered households through the activities of the male
members.
• One of the most important factors for the women participation in the freedom
struggle was the advent of Gandhi and growth of the popular factor. Gandhi’s call
led to the large scale participation of women in the freedom struggle. He held that
women, due to the inherent qualities of self-sacrifice, and tolerance, were ideally in
such a way that not only each active in civil disobedience, such as shop picketting,
was possible for women, but each act of the constructive action was especially suited
to women.
• On Gandhi’s call and insistence, many women including Madame Cama, sister
Nivedita, Annie Besant, Sarojini Naidu, Manibel Patel, Vijay Laxmi Pandit, Sucheta
Kriplani etc. participated and played an important role in India’s struggle for
freedom. Usha Mehta of Bombay came into prominence during the ‘Quit India’
movement and started a secret radio called ‘voice of freedom’. Aruna Asaf Ali
remained underground for many years, hoisted the National flag in Bombay and was
instrument in founding the socialist wing the congress. Sarojini Naidu, being deeply
affected by the partition of Bengal in 1905, joined the Indian freedom struggle and
played a very important role in the ‘salt satyagraha’ (1930).
• In this way, women active participation, not only swept aside old taboos and
customs, but also proved to be instrumental in providing vigour and strength to the
national movement.
• Workers
• The beginning of the 2nd half of the 19th century heralded the entry of modern workers
in India with the introduction of railways, post and telegraph. However, the presence
of colonial rule in India presented a dual challenge to the working class – an
imperialist political rule and economic exploitation at the hands of both foreign and
native capitalist classes.
• The earliest attempts to organise labour movements to improve their economic
condition were started by philanthropists, like S.S. Bengalee, Sasipada Banerjee etc,
and were isolated, sporadic and aimed at specific local grievances.

• However, soon many prominent nationalist leaders like B.C. Pal, G. Subramaniam
Aiyer, Lalaji etc started emphases on better conditions for workers and pro-labour
reforms. This led to alignment of labour movement with the wider national
movement, which was evident, for the first time, during Swadeshi Upsurge when
workers participated in wider political issues and organised strikes under A.C.
Banerjee, Premtosh Bose, Chidambaram Pillai etc
• The world war 1 and its aftermath, along with the emergence of Gandhi and
formation of AITUC (1920), led to a broad-based national movement with the
emphasis placed on the mobilisation of the workers and peasants for national cause.
• In the late 1920’s a strong communist influence on the national movement lent a
militant content to the labour movement resulting into unprecedented industrial
unrest such as 6-month strike in Bombay Textile mills (1928). However, despite good
workers participation in CDM, there was a dip in the working class movement in
1931. In the period 1945-1947, workers participated actively in the post-war
national upsurges.
• Peasants
The sub-altern school of historiography, represented by Ranjit Guha, Gyanendra
Pandey, Sumit Sarkar etc, have highlighted the role of peasantry.
• The peasant movements in India has been instigated by a distinct set of issues talking
prominence at a particular period of time, though the basic character of all issues
remained attached to the structure and function of the agrarian system in different
regions. However, the dominant issue that instigated such movements was the
exploitative policies that resulted into inequitable agrarian relations between
landowners or zamindars and peasants, impoverishment of the Indian peasantry and
unfair administrative and judicial systems.
Different phases of peasant movements in India
(1) Phase- 1 (1857 – 1899)
• During this phase, peasant movements appeared to be localised in India owing to
the varying degree of the consciousness among them on the one hand, and variation
in the intensity of exploitation under a particular revenue system on the other hand.

• The movements were directed against the immediate exploiters such as foreign
planters and indigenous zamindars and money lenders, and was directed towards
specific and limited objectives and redressal of particular grievances such as
lowering of rent, reduction of taxes etc. There was no anti-colonial target of these
movements.
For ex – Indigo Revolt (1859 – 60) in Bengal, Deccan Riots etc
• Peasant movements, during this phase, were largely unorganised and no continuity
of struggle or long-term organisation. Also, these struggles occurred within the
framework of old societal order lacking a positive conception of alternate society.
(2) Phase – 2 (1900 – 1920)
• The peasant movements underwent subtle transformation in terms of their intensity,
character and territorial reach due to the following major factors.
• Strengthening of the national consciousness and movement.
• Deepening of the British rule and increasingly exploitative policies in India.
III)Arrival of the Gandian strategy of mass movements.
For ex – successful peasant movements such as Kheda movement, champaran
satyagraha etc.
• These movements turned out to be the training ground for the prominent leaders of
the national movement, who integrated mass of peasants with the anti-colonial
struggles in India.
(3) Phase – 3 (1920 – 1930)
• The movement strengthened by the participation of a communist or left-oriented
leadership.
(1) Evolution of a pan-India perspective with the formation of a pan-Indian peasant
organisation i.e. all India Kisam sabha in 1936.
(2) Development of autonomous character of the peasant movement in the country vis-
a-vis national movement.
• Instead of localised demands, general demands such as reduction in land revenue,
minimum wages and land reforms.
• During the passive phase of civil disobedience movement (1932), many leaders took
to organisation of peasants for outlet of their energies in the form of protests.

• During some instances, the peasant movements appeared to take communal form
such as Mappila Revolt (1920’s) etc.
(4) Phase – 4 (1930’s onwards)
• The relatively autonomous character and increasing radicalisation of the peasant
movement during the last phase of the national movement led to the growing
revolutionary ideas among the peasants.
 • Renouncing the Gandhian ideas of non-violence and satyagraha under the influence
of communist elements, the peasant movements was aimed at decisive struggles
against the colonial rule and the native vested interests in the country.
For ex – Tebhaga movement (1946) against permanent land revenue system in
Bengal; Telangana movement against absentee landlordism and exploitative LR
system.
• However, despite the long history of the peasant movements in India. It hasn’t
resulted into any concrete gains for the peasants. The issue of land reforms has
remained an unfinished agenda. The dissatisfaction with the Indian state has given
rise to left-wing extremism in the rural society.

(3) What are the unique features of Gandhian movement? Compare

the philosophy of civil disobedience movement (CDM) with Quit India
Movement (QIM) and give reasons, why QIM is called as most un-
Gandian of all Gandian movements.
II. The Gandhian phase of the Indian national movement (1917 – 1947) radically
altered the nature of the Indian nationalism by initiating a completely new phase,
which was contrastingly different from the earlier phases of moderates, extremists
and home rule league (HRL)movements. The practical demonstration of the changes
brought about by Gandhi in context of India’s freedom struggle, was that Gandhi led
the Indian masses into, what Bipin Chandra calls as , one of the most ‘spectacular
mass movements’ the modern society has ever witnessed.
III. At the theoretical level, Gandhi creatively redefined the nature of the freedom
struggle and devised a highly original conceptualisation of social change and
political action. In contrast with the constitutional and extremists nationalism,
Gandhi introduced the technique of ‘non-violent satyagraha’ as the only technique
capable of meeting the nationalist aims and aspirations. He used this technique in
envisaging the most ‘spectacular mass movement’ based on the strategy of
STRUGGLE-TRUCE-STRUGGLE. This strategy comprised of active phases of
 direct actions such as boycott, processions etc as well as passive phases of
constructive programmes.
IV. In addition to radical departure from the past in terms of technique and strategy of
political action, the aim of the nationalist movement was also redefined. Unlike the
pre-Gandhian nationalists conception of ‘swaraj’ as political freedom, Gandhi
defined ‘swaraj’ in its widest possible connotation as not merely political liberation
but also human emancipation based on social, spiritual and moral foundations.
V. Gandhi was the only effective nationalist leader who deviced a method which, for
the first time brought about the national aggregation of an all-India character. The
most spectacular aspect of the Gandhian mass movement was women participation
in the freedom struggle which was hitherto a neglected question.
VI. In terms of the spatial expansion of the national movement, Gandhian political
strategies brought about the radical charges in the congress, from a mere platform
to a movement, whose sphere of influences was expanded even in the remote areas.
It was Gandhi who influenced congress to take up the concerns of peasants and
workers and thus, facilitated their integration with the mainstream of nationalist
movement.
VII. Unlike earlier nationalist leaders, who were primarily concerned with political
reforms, Gandhi combined in himself the role of a socio-religious reformer and a
leader of nationalist movement. He simultaneously launched movement not only
against the British rule but also emphasized on eradication of untouchability,
communal discontent and revival of Khadi etc. In this way, Gandhian phase
transformed India’s national movement into a multidimensional movement.
Comparing philosophy of CDM and QIM
• Based on Gramsci’s theorization that the dominant class maintains its position of
domination through a mix of coercive force and consent through the instrument of
ideological and cultural domination (hegemony), Gramsci proposed two different
strategies for challenging the domination – ‘war of position’ and ‘war of
manoeuvre’.
• According to Gramsci, the ‘war of position’ is the strategy to resist cultural and
ideological domination to create counter-hegemony. This was employed in the
India’s freedom struggle in the form of CDM which involved wilfull disobedience of
authority. This was aimed at exposing the real character of the rule and thereby
challenging the myth of ‘benevolent despotism’ and by creating a state of dilemma
and erosion of colonial authority.
• On the other hand, QIM represented Gramscian strategy or philosophy of ‘war of
manoeuvre’, which involves a phase of open conflict between antagonistic classes.
It involves physical overwhelming the coercive power of the rule. This was reflected
in QIM which was the most militant, spontaneous and the least controlled movement.
This movement was unique in the sense that, unlike his other movement, Gandhi
allowed the use of force by the people against the state and thus was the direct attack
on the British rule.
• However, quit India movement (QIM) ,the most militant and least controlled mass
movement in the Gandhian phase, has been called to be the most UnGandian of all
Gandian movement. This is so because, in a radical departure from past, where
Gandhi emphasized on a non-violent struggle against evil and not evil-doers,
straightway asked the Britishers to quit India and, for the first time, allowed people
to use arms for self-defence. Encouraging Indians to fight, Gandhi called for ‘Do or
Die’ but do not remain alive to see the country in the state of slavery. He refused to
condemn violence by the people and projected it to be reaction to the bigger violence.
• However, scholars like Francis Hutchins argue that, at the end of the day, Gandhi
was a politician and a strategist. He allowed violence as non-violence was no more
required. Moreover, Quit India movement was spontaneous movement owing to the
fact that top leadership was arrested and it was the grass root leadership and the
common man that became the leader of the movement.
(4) Critically examine the relevance of Dalit perspective of Indian
national movement.
• According to Bipin Chandra, Indian National Movement was one of the most
spectacular mass movements seen anywhere in the world. However, the nature of the
national movement remains a contested academic issue. The idea of India has been
a contested concept where debate revolves around the description of political
activity from 1857 – 1947 among different schools of thought.
• Dalit scholars reject the nationalist view that INM was a broad-based and all-
inclusive movement against the British rule. They considered that the national
movement didn’t have an effective programme to ensure into the struggle against the
British. They held that the concept of nationalism, in the Indian context, goes beyond
the overacting relationship between colonial rule and the people as it also include
mutual relationship among different segments of society. In this sense, the aim of the
INM wasn’t limited to the attainment of freedom but had to lead to the creation of a
qualitatively different society, devoid of caste antagonism which the INM, according
to Dalit scholars, didn’t achieve.
• The Dalit perspective rose as a reaction to the social stratification, in the Indian
society, leading to the Brahmanical hegemony. It was reflective of anti-caste
sentiments in the society. It rejected the very basis of the national movement that
India was a nation that needs to be liberated from the foreign rule. B.R. Ambedkar
condemned the notion of a nation in a caste-divided Indian society and felt that
oppressive brahmanical hegemony was worse than the foreign rule. In this context,
he held that INM was wrongly aimed resulting in a life of contradiction of political
democracy without social democracy which is sine qua non for a nation to exist.
• The Dalit scholars like Jyotibha Phule attacked the idea of INM against the foreign
rule and acknowledged the positive aspect of colonial rule and appreciated it for
establishing the rule of law in a stratified Indian society. He held that the ‘Peshwa
Raj’ was worse than the British Raj.
• However the Dalit perspective has been criticised as being too narrowly conceived.
Ambedkar has been criticised as anti-national by nationalists and right wing
 historians. On the contrary, according to scholars like S.N. Gaikwad, Ambedkar was
correct in rejecting the elite hegemony and, in this way, he forced INC to be more
responsive towards the concerns of Dalits.

(5) Examine the relationship between fundamental right and

directive principles. To what extent judiciary can be considered as the
guardian of FR’s.
• Although the fundamental rights (part 3) and directive principles (part 4) appear in
the constitution as distinct entities, both are types of rights that had developed as a
common product of the national independence movement. The fundamental rights
represents civil and political rights and are negative obligations of the state not to
encroach individual liberty. On the other hand, DPSP’s, represent socio-economic
rights, and are positive obligations of the state to take steps to ensure people’s
welfare.
• According to Granville Austin, in his work ‘The Indian constitution – cornerstone of
a nation’, the fundamental rights and the DPSp are the core of the commitment of
the Indian constitution to the aim of social revolution. These two parts connect
India’s future, present and past as it give strength to the pursuit of the social
revolution in India, which has been an aspiration since the freedom struggle. It is in
this context of importance of the FR and DPSP that Austin has referred to them as
the ‘conscience ‘ of the Indian constitution.
• Despite the fact that both the parts form an internal part of the constitutional
‘conscience’, the manner in which the relationship between them has been read and
interpreted has varied over a period of time.
• Despite the idea that the fundamental rights and directive principles form integral
parts of the constitutional ‘conscience’, the relationship between the two parts has
been interpreted differently by judiciary and the legislature. While the judiciary has
followed a positivist approach whereby it gave precedence to FR’s as they’re
enforceable as opposed to the DPSP, the legislative followed welfarist approach to
 give paramount importance to DPSP over FR’s wherever conflict existed. This
difference in interpretation was evident in Champakaran Dorairajan’s case (1951).
• However, post-Minerva Mills case (1980), the debate on relative importance of FR’s
and DPSP’s was put to an end. Reiterating the doctrine of HARMONIOUS
CONSTRUCTION given in Keshavananda Bharti case (1973), the supreme court
held that the constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between the
fundamental rights and the directive principles. Thus, to give absolute primary to
one over the another is to disturb the harmony of the constitution and balance
between the two parts, which forms an essential feature of the basic structure of the
constitution.
• Thus, judiciary has applied integrative approach whereby the provisions of
fundamental rights is read and interpreted along with the directive principles with a
view to define the scope and ambit of the former. Moreover, correlative
interpretation of these parts is necessary for the realization of ideals inscribed in the
constitution such as socio-economic & political justice, liberty and equality.
• Right to life (Art 21) has been read with directive principles in Art 47 and Art 48A
to recognize right to pollution free environment.
• Right to education (21A) has been accepted as being paramount by reading Art 45
with Art 21.
III) Art 23 and Art 24 deal with rights against exploitation and reflects the principles of
Art 39(C).
IV) Art 46 of DPSP provides a guidance for affirmative actions under Art 15(4) and Art
16(4)
Judiciary as the guarantor of fundamental rights
• According to Lord Bryce, there’s no better test of the excellence of the government
than the performance of its judicial system. Judiciary, in a democratic setup like
India, acts as an institution that checks any attempts or tendency to convert
democracy into ‘tyranny of the majority’.
• One of the most important arenas for the assessment of performance of the judiciary
is the realm of fundamental rights of the citizens. This is so because constitutional
experience in different countries, including India, shows that the reality of the
existence of such rights is tested only in the courts.
• In the Indian context, owing to the fact that Indian constitution has created a ‘fiercely
independent judiciary’, the performance of the judiciary in protecting FR’s of the
citizens has been quite satisfactory. According to Upendra Baxi, there’s a great
sense of satisfaction with the performance of the supreme court of India, which is a
recognition of its positive role in protecting rights of the people.
• According to Madhav Khosla and Ananth Padmanabhan, there’re 3 major
developments that allowed SC to play its role effectively and enlarged the arena of
its intervention.
• Emergence of the doctrine of ‘Due process of law’, which became a constitutional
guarantee in Maneka Gandhi case (1978).
• Broadening of judicial matters became evident with reinterpretation of the world
‘life’ in Art 21 to guarantee a wide range of socio-economic goods.
• Procedural developments such as institutionalisation of PIL.
• However, scholars like Pratap Bhanu Mehta argues that the role of SC has been both
positive as well as problematic for Indian democracy. He argued that while SC has
actually upheld the basic liberties but its record in questioning government laws
related to preventive detention have not been satisfactory. Moreover, though SC has
protected the Freedom of speech and expression, it has given leeway to the
government actions banning books to appease orthodox sections of the society.
(6) ‘The idea of citizenship has acquired a new meaning, content and
purpose in the democratic world’. Comment. Explain the idea of
citizenship found in part IVA of Indian constitution.
• In usual terms citizenship is seen in terms of legal or formal status which explains
the relationship between state and its citizens. However, according to Rajeev
Bhargava, the idea of citizenship goes beyond the legal-formal framework to denote
substantive membership in the political community. Moreover, citizenship may be
seen as a condition that is continually evolving and changing. According to him, the
form and substance of citizenship in each historical period reflect the dominant
configuration of socio-economic and political forces of each historical period.
For eg:- In the classical Greek republics, citizenship was an expression of the
inherent centrality of political element in human nature.
• In the contemporary democratic world, the idea of citizenship encompasses both the
concept of rights and duties. Many nations across the world have transformed into
developed economies by embodying the principles of ‘responsible’ citizenship which
is based on the idea that while emphasizing on the rights guaranteed by the
constitution, all the responsibilities and duties laid down by the constitution or state
should also be exercised and respected.
For eg:- Every year, during September 17 – 23, people in USA celebrate the
‘constitution week’, using the time to reflect on the rights and responsibilities of
citizenship.
• In the same line, the Indian constitution is credited with balancing citizen’s rights
and duties. While it embodies fundamental rights guaranteed by the state in part 3,
it also acknowledges the importance of duties and responsibilities of the citizens as
enshrined in part IV A of the constitution.
• The concept of duty is not a navie concept in context of the Indian society. Since
ancient times, there has been a stress on performing one’s ‘kartavya’ i.e. an
obligation recognised and effected by law to conform to a particular standard of
conduct towards the society and state or country. However, no such duties for the
citizens were incorporated in the original constitution of India at the time of its
 commencement in 1950, but it was only by way of 42nd constitutional amendment act
that a new pattern of national conduct was introduced in accordance of Swaran
Singh Committee in the form of fundamental duties in part IVA of the constitution.
• The fundamental duties in the Indian constitution are inspired by the constitution of
erstwhile USSR which declared that the citizen’s exercise of their rights and freedom
is inseparable from the performance of their duties and obligations. Thus, the
chapter on fundamental duties was included in the Indian constitution so that the
citizen’s should become conscious that in addition to to the enjoyment of rights, they
also have certain duties to perform as well and thus it was intended to establish a
democratic balance .

(7) Discuss the current developments in India-Nepal relations. How

do you look at the growing strategic partnership between Nepal and
China from the perspective of India’s national interest.
(i) India and Nepal, considered to be ‘neighbours trapped by apprehensions’ are in
‘dependency – dominance’ relationship, which is based on three basic notions
o Nepal’s location between India and China
o Power asymmetry between India and Nepal
o Historical dependence of Nepal on India in terms of trade and commerce.
(ii) The relationship suffered a decline when India was blamed for an unofficial blockade
along Nepal’s southern borders and also suspected to play a part in regime change
in Nepal following Nepal’s constitutional crisis. Events such as these strengthen
perception of India as a ‘bully’ in the south Asian region.
(iii) However, Nepal-India relations saw an upward trend in 2018 as high level
bilateral visits gradually helped remove the mistrust. The leadership of the two
countries agreed to review, adjust and update the ‘Treaty of peace and friendship of
1950’, a long-time demand of Nepal. Such initiatives by the leaders of the two
countries have helped promote goodwill, trust and cooperation and have injected
fresh momention to consolidate the multi-faceted relations between India and Nepal.
 Growing Nepal-China partnership
(i) China’s engagement in Nepal, India’s Himalayan neighbour, is not new. However,
the engagement becomes crucial owing to the fact that China’s newfound economic
power is unmatched. China’s active outreach to Nepal in recent years is being
mainly considered to be prompted by India’s increasing force posturing along its
border. At a time when India is confronted with negative sentiments in Nepal, China
has been ‘reaping a good harvest of positive perceptions’. According to S.D. Muni,
the two most important factors in this active engagement between Nepal and China
are ---
• China’s determination to push itself strategically in South Asia.
• India’s attitude of alienating its neighbours through its flip-flop approach.
What does it mean for India?
• The sheer scale of China’s plan, its economic clout and its active engagement with
Nepal on a priority basis, which is evident from the fact that Xi Jinping’s visit to
Nepal was first of its kind in over two decades, challenges India’s privileged position
in Nepal.
• However, according to SD Muni, India needn’t to press the ‘panic button’ or employ
ill-conceived diplomatic moves in response to Nepal China card. This is so because
the growing closeness between Nepal and China appear to be high on symbolism
than on substance.
• Nepal’s eagerness to engage with China fits perfectly in Nepal’s long tradition of
pursuing a diversified foreign policy and partners, taking advantage of its key
geostrategic position. Moreover, Nepal cannot dispense with its reliance on India.
 (8) To what extend India-Russia relations can be considered
strategic. Do you think that there’s enough scope to move beyond
defence in Indo-Russia relations.
(i) Strong relations with Russia is a key pillar of India’s foreign policy, ‘similar political
and strategic perceptions of the global affairs used to be the defining feature of their
relationship, which was defined to be ‘strategic’ in 2000 and now, further, elevated
to be ‘strategic & privileged partnership’ in 2010.
(ii) However, given the geo-political and geo-economic shifts both at the regional and
global levels, there has been significant divergences in the policies of the two nations
to deal with the evolving international scenario, esp the rise of China and the impact
it has on the broader regional and global order. While there has been a deepening
of Russia-China strategic partnership due to commonality of interest in political,
economic and strategic domains, India, on the other hand,has been involved in
architectures such as ‘Quad’ to counter China’s aggressive in the Indo-Pacific
region. It is in this context of substantial divergence between the two countries it is
being urged that the potential of the strategic partnership between the India and
Russia hasn’t been realised.
(iii) Apart from it, the bilateral relationship between India and Russia focus
heavily on defence cooperation, while the economic partnership remains
listless($10Bn)even as the respective relations of the two with other states have gone
rapidly. In 2016, as a trade partner, India stood at 17th position in Russia’s list, while
Russia stood at 26th.
(iv) Therefore, in order to achieve the true potential of their ‘strategic and privileged
partnership’, India and Russia must diversify their areas of cooperation beyond
energy and defence. India and Russia’s relationship cannot flourish on defence
along with systematic changes underway in international relations. New dimension
of cooperation needs to be found to build a strong economic and strategic
partnership.According to C. Raja Mohan, as middle powers, there’s a lot India and
Russia can do with each other. According to Shyam Saran, steps such as
operationalisation of INSTC and improvement of people-to-people contact can bring
change in status-quo