Shadow over an old friendship

Why is India busy snubbing Russian civil and military overtures? And did Russian President Vladimir Putin administer India a kick on the shins during his recent visit here?

Mohan Guruswamy Delhi

The recent visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to India has left both sides less than happy. India's ties with Russia have been under strain for sometime, with the Russians chafing over New Delhi's attitudes. Many Russian diplomats speak of the unhelpful and rude behaviour of diplomats and senior defence officers. They don't object so much to South Block's Washington obsession, but to the obvious tilt against Russia.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) regime shifted arms purchases to Israel, which is understandable given the close ties that the Israeli leadership had forged with the BJP and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) hierarchy. First, Israel is seen as a frontline State against the Islamic alliance. Second, the military purchases from Israel assured the BJP and the RSS of a regular source of funds.

Others in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) regime had their own favourite arms-supplying countries. George Fernandes favoured France and South Africa. Dozens of unused South African armoured personnel carriers hardened against mines in Kashmir stand testimony to the stupidity that accompanied some of these purchases. That Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy favoured the Mirage 2000 to replace the aging MIG-21 is surprising, considering that the makers of the MIG series have a new MIG MRCA on offer. He also enjoyed a reputation among the Russians for being overbearing and rude.

The Russians cannot understand why the tilt against them continues despite the regime change. Several senior Russian diplomats have privately complained about the inordinate and seemingly deliberate delays in arranging for the Russian ambassador-designate,Vyacheslav Trubnikov, to present his credentials. By denying Trubnikov the formal status of ambassador, the ministry of external affairs (MEA) ensured that he took no part in Putin's meetings with India's leaders.

Trubnikov is an old India hand: he headed the KGB's operations here. He then went on to head the SRV foreign intelligence service before becoming Russia's first deputy foreign minister. Putin handpicked him for India, and by seeming to snub him, the MEA indirectly snubbed Putin. The ambassadors of several other countries, lower in the waiting list than Trubnikov, were able to present their credentials. This single act of diplomatic vandalism by an MEA labouring under false notions of diplomatic propriety, cast a shadow on the Putin visit.

Although the Russians suggest otherwise, I believe that Putin's remark on a veto-less Security Council membership is not simply a case of misunderstanding and of the translators' missing nuances. Putin was giving us a kick on the shins for various acts of omission and commission. What he meant, Russian diplomats say, is that Russia opposes the supposed "no veto" regime that the Americans are privately advocating, because this will ensure that the NATO powers will

continue to dominate even the enlarged Security Council. Instead of the single veto regime that prevails now, the Russians would like to see a system that will allow a certain minimum threshold of opposition to the majority to act as a veto. This is akin to the blackball system with regard to membership that prevails in most of our clubs. K Natwar Singh, having been the president of the Delhi Gymkhana, will no doubt be conversant with this.