top of page

By:

Dr. V.L. Dharurkar

12 February 2025 at 2:53:17 pm

The Unlikeliest Constant

Why India’s bond with Russia survives sanctions, summits and shifting global power. In an era defined by broken alliances and transactional diplomacy, the India-Russia relationship has proved oddly resilient. While the West seeks to isolate Vladimir Putin over Ukraine and China tests the limits of American power in Asia, India and Russia continue to conduct business with an ease that defies geopolitical fashion. Their partnership, rooted in Cold War history but adapted to a fiercely...

The Unlikeliest Constant

Why India’s bond with Russia survives sanctions, summits and shifting global power. In an era defined by broken alliances and transactional diplomacy, the India-Russia relationship has proved oddly resilient. While the West seeks to isolate Vladimir Putin over Ukraine and China tests the limits of American power in Asia, India and Russia continue to conduct business with an ease that defies geopolitical fashion. Their partnership, rooted in Cold War history but adapted to a fiercely multipolar present, has become one of the quiet constants of global politics. India’s ties with Moscow stretch back to the aftermath of the second world war, deepening during the Soviet era and reaching their emotional peak under Indira Gandhi in 1971. Those were years when ideology and necessity aligned. The Soviet Union is long gone, and today’s India is scarcely the Congress-led, state-heavy economy of old. Yet the relationship did not fade with the red flag. It was rebooted in 2000 when Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Putin forged what they called a “special and privileged strategic partnership.” Narendra Modi has since made it more pragmatic, more commercial and no less durable. Common Interests The glue holding the relationship together is not nostalgia but interest. Russia offers what India needs at scale: defence hardware, energy, fertilisers and strategic depth. India, for its part, offers Russia a massive market, diplomatic breathing room and the legitimacy of engagement at a time when Europe and America keep their distance. The war in Ukraine has only sharpened that logic. As western buyers recoiled from Russian crude, India stepped in with enthusiasm, becoming one of Moscow’s largest oil customers. Discounts eased India’s inflationary pressures while keeping Russia’s export revenues flowing. Washington protested. Delhi ignored it. Strategic autonomy, long a slogan of Indian diplomacy, suddenly acquired a very visible balance-sheet. Behind the oil tankers lies a deeper strategic symmetry. Russia has pivoted from west to east, not out of philosophical conviction but because isolation has given it little choice. It now sees Asia, above all China and India, as its economic rear-guard. India, meanwhile, sees Russia as both hedge and partner: a hedge against American overreach, and a partner in weapons systems that Western suppliers are often reluctant to share on easy terms. Defence Ties Defence remains the hard core of the relationship. From fighter aircraft to missile systems and submarines, Russian technology still underpins large sections of India’s military machine. Even as India diversifies suppliers to include France, Israel and America, Russia remains the single most embedded defence partner. This explains why sanctions have dented, but not broken, military cooperation. Economics, too, is being retooled. Bilateral trade has surged since 2022, heavily tilted in Russia’s favour because of energy imports. Both sides speak of pushing it towards $100 billion in the coming years. That will require India to sell far more than pharmaceuticals, tea and engineering goods. It will require Indian firms to understand Russian consumers, logistics snarls and payment systems insulated from the dollar. There is also a demographic logic emerging. Russia, ageing and labour-starved, needs skilled workers. India, youthful and credential-rich, is keen to export labour. Agreements to place tens of thousands of Indian workers in Russian industry point to a new phase of engagement. Modi has also sought to clothe realpolitik in culture. Visa relaxations, tourism drives and talk of reviving old cinematic and artistic exchanges evoke the 1970s, when Raj Kapoor was as beloved in Moscow as in Mumbai. Yet this relationship is not without its cracks. Russia’s growing closeness to China unsettles Indian strategists who remain locked in an unresolved standoff along their Himalayan frontier. Moscow insists it can manage both friendships even as New Delhi quietly doubts it. Meanwhile, India’s parallel courtship of the West through the Quad, defence deals with America and trade talks with Europe, creates an inevitable tension with its Russian alignment. India insists it can walk multiple paths at once. So far, it has managed to do so with surprising agility. The India–Russia partnership is neither sentimental nor revolutionary. It is conservative in the oldest sense: it preserves arrangements that continue to deliver power, profit and protection. In a world tilting towards blocs and binaries, India is betting that strategic ambiguity is still viable.   (The writer is a researcher and expert in foreign affairs. Views personal.)

Manipulating Gandhi: A History of Misrepresentation

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

Manipulating Gandhi

Few historical figures command the universal reverence that Mahatma Gandhi does. His enduring legacy of non-violence, justice, and social equity continues to shape political discourse in India and abroad. However, Gandhi’s iconic stature has also made him a prime target for political manipulation. His image has been invoked, reinterpreted, and misused by political actors to further their agendas, often distorting his teachings and intentions in the process. Nowhere is this more evident than within the Congress party, where even Gandhiji’s own relatives have played a role in misleading the public about the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and selectively curating his legacy to align with their narrative.

For decades, Congress leaders have positioned themselves as the rightful custodians of Gandhiji’s principles. From Jawaharlal Nehru to Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, the party has regularly cited the Mahatma’s philosophy to legitimize its policies and counter opponents, particularly the RSS and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). But behind the familiar rhetoric lies a carefully constructed mythology that deliberately obscures Gandhiji’s more nuanced relationships with India’s other political forces, including the RSS.

Contrary to popular belief—and Congress propaganda—Mahatma Gandhi maintained cordial relations with the RSS, even praising its discipline, social work, and efforts toward eradicating untouchability. During a visit to an RSS camp in 1934, Gandhi expressed admiration for the organization’s dedication to national service and simplicity. His words, documented in his newspaper *Harijan*, affirmed that any group inspired by sacrifice and service was bound to flourish. The RSS, inspired by this endorsement, continued to grow and develop, integrating Gandhi’s name into its morning chants alongside other revered Indian leaders. Despite these connections, the Congress has long perpetuated the myth that Gandhi held the RSS in contempt—an effective tool for casting the organization as an extremist threat.

This narrative was further manipulated after Gandhi’s assassination in 1948. While the RSS was briefly banned by the Congress-led government, subsequent investigations, including the Justice Kapur Commission, exonerated the group from any involvement in the murder. The commission found no evidence that the RSS played a role in Gandhi’s assassination, yet the Congress has persistently implied otherwise, casting the RSS as a scapegoat in a broader ideological battle. The distortion of these historical facts has served the party’s interests, allowing it to paint its rivals as enemies of the Mahatma’s vision.

Such ‘selective’ memory extends even to Gandhi’s own descendants. Figures like Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of the Mahatma, have played an active role in sustaining this misrepresentation. For instance, his claims in 2017 that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had “never willingly” visited the Sabarmati Ashram, are emblematic of the Congress’s broader strategy. By insinuating that Modi, a former RSS member, does not genuinely honour Gandhi’s legacy, the party seeks to undermine the BJP’s credibility. Yet, records show that Modi has visited the ashram multiple times, both as Gujarat’s Chief Minister and as Prime Minister, rendering such claims disingenuous.

As the Congress battles for relevance in an evolving political landscape, its manipulation of Gandhi’s image reveals more about its own insecurities than it does about Gandhi’s actual beliefs. Far from embodying the inclusivity and non-violence that Gandhi championed, the party has weaponized his legacy as a tool of division. The careful omission of Gandhi’s relationship with the RSS, combined with the selective promotion of certain aspects of his teachings, highlights its willingness to distort history in pursuit of political gain.

The Indian National Congress, founded in 1885 as a modest gathering of English-speaking elites, would have remained a drawing room affair had not Gandhi infused it with mass appeal. By adopting non-violent civil disobedience, Gandhi galvanized millions, turning the Congress into a potent political force.

However, after Independence, Nehru, who shaped the narrative of India’s struggle for freedom, elevated the Congress as the vanguard of resistance while marginalizing other figures and movements.

The RSS was duly demonized, painted as reactionary and complicit in communal tensions. The question remains why? It was Gandhi’s charisma that helped the Congress. Did his political heirs fear the RSS as another charismatic force post-Independence? That would certainly explain why a false narrative was created about Gandhi’s relations with RSS.

Despite ideological differences, the RSS had mourned Gandhi’s assassination, with its daily ‘shakhas’ suspended for 13 days. This was a powerful, if overlooked, demonstration of the group’s respect for the Mahatma.

Today, a new generation of Indians are seeking a more honest reckoning with their nation’s history. It is time the Congress’s efforts to appropriate and manipulate Gandhi’s legacy and distorting his relationships with other entities, particularly with the RSS, by presenting a one-sided narrative, India’s grand old party goes against the very principles of truth, non-violence, and inclusivity that the Mahatma symbolized.

Gandhiji’s legacy deserves far better than to be reduced to expedient political rhetoric, and certainly better than to be twisted for narrow electoral gain.

Comments

bottom of page