'We need to be very vigilant as we are passing through some fraught times.'
"We need to deal with the People's Republic of China, but without illusions that they will come to our aid in any differences with the US," says Ambassador Prabhat P Shukla, who served in missions in Moscow thrice and was India's envoy to Russia between 2007 and 2011.
He also served in Brussels, London, Canberra, Singapore, Kathmandu and five years in the prime minister's office.
"We also know that during the recent Op Sindoor, they helped Pakistan as much as they could, and are now replenishing their stores."
"Incidentally, Beijing would also be looking askance at the growing closeness between the US and Pakistan, their 'iron brother'," Ambassador Shukla tells Rediff's Archana Masih in a detailed must-read interview.
India has welcomed the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska on August 15. How significant can this meeting prove for India, especially in the background of August 27, the deadline for the plus 25% tariff?
Pretty much all of the world has welcomed the meeting, except the Ukrainians themselves but also with some misgivings.
Mr Trump is talking about some territorial give-and-take, but the Ukrainians have made it clear that they will not yield any territory, and they have been backed up by the recent statement of European leaders.
Russia has its own demands, which are, in essence, recognition of the territorial gains it has made, no NATO membership for Ukraine, and the lifting of sanctions.
If even a cease-fire can be achieved, that could mean lifting of sanctions on Russia, and then, logically, on its trading partners. So, with the caveat that logic does not apply in human affairs, there is some room for guarded optimism.
As for the additional tariff, the hope must be that the changes in our import pattern, where we are importing a lot more hydrocarbons from the US, will blunt some of the more extreme positions adopted by the US.
We shall find out when the trade negotiators come to Delhi on 24 August. But perspective is also important here: Our trade surplus with the US is about 1% of our GDP. That's not insignificant, but it is not something that would damage our economy if we were to lose a part of that trade surplus.
Will a ceasefire between Russia-Ukraine mean a slackening of the US sanctions on India buying Russian oil?
If indeed, there is some relief from US sanctions, then oil purchases should also be covered.
Some additional points that are worth making: One, the US is very keen to promote its own sales of oil and natural gas. And India has stepped up oil purchases from the US by some 50% since the start of the year, and there is more to come.
And two, there is a challenge pending in the US judicial system against Mr Trump's right to levy tariffs, because under their constitution, that right belongs to Congress.
So, apart from the fact that these are unilateral sanctions, there are some uncertainties within the US itself, and we should have clarity on them going forward.
The meeting holds the 'promise' of bringing an end to the Ukraine war, said the MEA. However, Zelensky has vowed no concessions to Russia -- does this forebode a less than likely detente between Russia-Ukraine?
In my experience, territorial disputes are very hard to settle. You can see that in the case of India and the People's Republic of China, and the case of Japan and Russia over the Kuril islands.
So I, for one, don't expect a full settlement coming out of the Alaska summit, but a more limited agreement, which could prepare the ground for discussions between the parties involved.
Warmth between Russia and Ukraine is a distant hope, since the fighting over the last few years has left bitter memories on both sides. Truth to tell, I don't know how stable a truncated Ukraine will be, unless it gets reliable security guarantees and significant economic support.
Do you believe that the India-Russia relationship scaled down in the last 20 years as we grew close to the US?
Or in your assessment did we ensure the relationship was not seriously affected by our proximity to the US, and our purchase of American armaments and weapon systems?
I would suggest that some ups and downs are inevitable in any relationship, as we are currently seeing in ties with the US.
That said, our relations with Russia have been more stable, and I have found the Russians understanding our growing ties with the US, just as we have come to understand their close ties with the People's Republic of China.
On arms purchases, we have maintained a policy of buying where the offer was best suited to our technical and financial parameters. That has worked well, particularly given our large arms purchase budget.
Did, in fact, our boldness in buying Russian oil after the Ukraine war commenced, improve the relationship?
Was there an appreciation in the Kremlin for India's pragmatic courage in buying Russian oil?
We purchased Russian oil in large quantities for two reasons. There was, firstly, the straightforward point that it was discounted, so the price was good, and we paid in Rupees.
In addition, our purchases helped keep the oil flowing into the global market, without which, oil prices would have been in the 100-Dollar handle.
So, I think not just the Russians, but much of the world, including the US, appreciated our actions. The change under Mr Trump is because he was always keen to promote US hydrocarbon sales abroad.
Mr Trump has accused India of bankrolling the Ukraine war by buying Russian oil. How would you respond to such a charge?
The above answer partly takes care of this charge -- in fact, Russian oil had been price-capped, so as to minimise their earnings. But there is also the fact that the Europeans and the Americans themselves were also buying a goodly amount of Russian hydrocarbons and other products that their economies needed.
What's more, both the US and the EU bought refined petroleum products from us, based on Russian oil imports -- meaning thereby, that they, in effect, only offshored the crude imports, and bought the refined product.
Was Trump's outrage over India and Russia spawned by the failure to achieve a breakthrough on Ukraine which he has made a dominant theme of his foreign policy, and a successful resolution of which he likely sees as a route to the Nobel Peace Prize which he covets so much?
I would say that's part of the explanation, and affirmed by the obvious pleasure he takes in recommendations by other countries for a Nobel Peace Prize for him; but Mr Trump is also very keen to export US hydrocarbons all over the world, as noted above.
India is among the largest importers of oil in the world now, and hence an important market. Even in his first term as president, he had badgered the Europeans to buy US LNG and cut Russian imports of natural gas.
Will opposition to Trump's bullying end up improving India-China relations?
Wouldn't that be rich irony? Most of the world turned to the US these past few decades to find a shield against Chinese pressure tactics -- now the wheel would come full circle.
No, we need to be very cautious in our approach to the People's Republic of China: From 1962, if not earlier, to Galwan in 2020, that country, and its army in particular -- frequently an independent force, out of governmental control -- has kept up a stance of steady hostility towards India.
We also know that during the recent Op Sindoor, they helped Pakistan as much as they could, and are now replenishing their stores. We need to deal with the People's Republic of China, but without illusions that they will come to our aid in any differences with the US.
Incidentally, Beijing would also be looking askance at the growing closeness between the US and Pakistan, their 'iron brother'.
Also worth bearing in mind is the fact that the economy of the People's Republic of China is slowing, and facing serious headwinds, including unemployment, especially youth unemployment, high levels of national debt, around 300% of GDP, a real estate sector that is still in difficulty, and stagnant domestic private consumption.
It is no longer the powerhouse it once was. Our trade deficit of $100 billion is the second-largest single-country surplus the People's Republic enjoys with any country, second only to the US.
The implication is that we cannot pin any great hopes on the China connection.
Does this lead to the possibility of a Russia-China-India grouping?
We should move forward with the Russia-India-China grouping, reviving it as suggested by the Russians.
The other groupings involving the other two countries, BRICS and SCO, have already become unwieldy.
I well remember the old G15, a grouping of developing countries, which were good on rhetoric, but did little, and achieved nothing collectively.
So, a more compact group could lead to some understandings of value in the fullness of time. I have sat in on some of the RIC meetings and they did serve a useful purpose, and the discussions were non-polemical.
Also, will the BRICS countries unite to counter Trump's tariff?
As mentioned in the previous answer, BRICS is becoming too big to be able to work effectively together.
Even the EU, where all member-States share common roots and values, it is becoming difficult to maintain unity of purpose.
BRICS does not begin to share these attributes. It is good to keep meeting, but with a sense of realism -- we need to recognise that the US and the EU are the two biggest consumer markets in the world, accounting for some 70% of global retail sales.
The BRICS countries need these markets, and its members cannot substitute for them, even if we were to unite and buy from each other.
Before I address your last question, I should like to emphasise that the Indian economy has its own structural strengths, and need not depend on the favourable decision regarding sanctions or unity of action by affected countries.
Best of all, we have a buoyant domestic demand, and have the potential to address -- indeed, have addressed -- the pressure of sanctions in the recent past.
What we really need is to make the structural changes we need -- lower tax burden, lighter regulation, robust energy and defence policies, and protection against predatory exporters; in short, release what Keynes called 'animal spirits' -- a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction -- in order to lift our economy even further.
It won't be easy, but we can do it, and the rewards will be all the greater. This could turn into another 1991 moment for us -- a structural overhaul for long-term gain.
After hosting General Asim Munir for lunch in June, the Pakistan army chief is in America again -- why do you think Trump want closer ties with Pakistan?
Historically, Pakistan has played only two roles meaningfully in US calculations -- vis-a-vis India and in relation to Afghanistan.
It is apparent that Mr Trump is looking at Bagram in Afghanistan, and has been expressing concern that the People's Republic of China has taken it over, though there is some doubt about the veracity of this claim.
If there is really such a plan or desire in the US, Pakistan is the vehicle for implementing it. And Pakistan has its own reasons, to do with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan [TTP], for wanting the Taliban government brought under control or even ousted.
Pakistan would also want US help in containing the growing insurgency in Baluchistan, and the incipient troubles in its Pashtun areas.
The idea that Pakistan has 'massive oil reserves', which Mr Trump speaks of, doesn't seem realistic. They could, though it's unlikely on the evidence available so far, also be planning something against India; we need to be very vigilant as we are passing through some fraught times.
It's also worth adding, to elaborate on what I said above, that Munir's visits to the US would also be raising eyebrows in Beijing.
Recall how the Pakistanis felt the need for him to visit Beijing after his return from Washington after his previous trip. One of the intentions would have to be to smooth the ruffled feathers.
Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff