The following text represents the reviewer's conclusion about the book Bhagwat J., Bisen A. Evolution of India's Polar Policies. Cham: The Palgrave Macmillan, 2024. 297 p.
The book co-authored by Jawahar Bhagwat and Anurag Bisen devoted to evolution of the modern India’s Polar policies. A distinctive feature of this study is the authors' unique experience based on practical, government, and academic activities. Both are veteran submariners, commanders of different types of submarines for many years. After retirement J.Bhagwat received Ph.D from University of Mumbai (India) and from Saint-Petersburg State University (Russia). He has published in top Russian and foreign professional journals. A.Bisen served in the National Security Council Secretariat of India’s government. He was instrumental in drafting of India’s Arctic Policy (released in March 2022). Now A.Bisen is senior fellow at the Vivekananda International Foundation, one of the leading think tanks in India. Both authors actively participate in academic cooperation with Russian scholars on Arctic issues.
The authors interpret Antarctica as a starting point to more broad understanding of India’s Polar policy. Both Antarctica and Arctic create global dimension of India’s Polar policy. For the first time this research offers a complex vision of India’s polar perspectives because none of the previous studies focus on this issue. In addition, there has been no detailed research on India’s strategic interests in the Arctic, engagement in the Arctic, linkages with the Antarctic policy, and relations with the major Arctic powers. Most analysts have advocated that science should be leveraged as India’s main focus, notwithstanding other interests. Sure, scientific research in the Arctic is vital. However, the authors suggest that science policy and science diplomacy alone cannot be considered a state strategy.
Research is focused on the understanding of historical, geopolitical and geo-economic developments, to formulate a new perspective for India’s policy with respect to the Arctic. This work would endeavor to contribute to the evolution of India’s Polar Policies and encourage further studies from diverse geopolitical and geo-economic angles. The authors demonstrate that India’s present role in Arctic affairs predominantly concentrates on the scientific aspect. This makes India’s Arctic policy very narrow and that doesn’t fit to national interests.
The objectives of the research include the study the of historical evolution of India’s Antarctic policy as linked with India’s Arctic involvement, historical developments and Arctic policies of the Arctic states, India’s relations with the Arctic nations, and India’s modern Arctic policy. This results in original vision of how to improve India’s Polar policies that corresponds to growing India’s role in the world policy. The Arctic is viewed through two perspectives. India’s scientific interests in the Arctic on the one hand; on the other hand, what the Arctic implies strategically for India regarding resources, shipping, geopolitical and geo-economic considerations.
The authors reveal interesting features of India’s Arctic policy. First, they consider that India’s Arctic efforts have been minuscule, and not commensurate with either capabilities or national interests. At the political the Arctic region is underestimated. Recent developments such as the massive Chinese engagement in the region; the interest taken by Japan, South Korea, Singapore. etc.; and the abiding involvement of the Arctic powers still are not recognized within the government and policy makers. India still follow its traditional foreign policy with the political angle prevailing. At the same time the Ministry of External Affairs still predominates in foreign relations.
This is relevant to modern too narrow vision of the India’s Arctic policy. Underestimation of the Arctic by decision-makers and academic experts also has resulted in a lack of national capacity on Polar issues. While India has made progress in polar research, it lags behind other Asian countries in terms of infrastructure, research capabilities, and international collaborations in the Arctic. Only recently has there been a recognition of the fact that trade, commerce, technology, scientific research, environment, health, culture are also contributory to a country’s relationship with the world, and hence its foreign policy.
Second, the authors demonstrate that India’s approach in the Arctic policy is similar to Russia’s vision that makes potential for productive cooperation. India seeks a reformed Arctic Council when it resumes interactions with Russia in line with India’s principle of multilateralism. As Russia, India interested in creating a more accountable, inclusive, just, equitable and representative multipolar Arctic policy fit for addressing the twenty-first century challenges. The Authors emphasize that Arctic should not become hostage to the re-emerging big power rivalry.
Third, India’s thinking interprets the Arctic as a source of global prosperity. This position differs from popular ‘global commons’ concept. If the last is used to challenge rights of the littoral Arctic states, India recognizes special rights of littoral states including Russia. Most of Indian experts consider Arctic policy as encapsulated in the idea ‘One Earth, One Family, One Future’ that means the interconnection between the Arctic and the rest of the world. In India global vision of the Arctic is actually inherited from Antarctic scientific cooperation. This is why India can play a constructive role in supporting stable multilateral governance and sustainable development in the Arctic.
Forth, the authors are optimistic about Russian resilience in coping with political, fiscal and technological challenges caused by the western sanctions introduced after the beginning of the Special military operation in Ukraine. Authors also mention Russia’s strong position in the Arctic: though the U.S. regularly issues declaratory strategies concerning the Arctic it is currently deficient in hard security deterrence. The U.S. is lagging behind in establishing a military presence to compete with Russia. The U.S. can demonstrate its strength through NATO exercises, nuclear submarines patrolling in the Barents sea , satellite capabilities, drone technology and increased access to military bases in Norway, Sweden and Finland (after signing agreements in 2021-23).
Fifth, Indian experts recognize that Russia’s national security interests in the Arctic requires an advanced naval, air force, and army presence. They also agree that Russia’s military strategy is defensive rather than offensive. The Russian armed forces in the Arctic and the Northern Fleet are quantitatively significantly less than during the Cold War. The authors emphasize that while Russia conducts military exercises within its exclusive economic zone, NATO conducts exercises near Russian borders and some time without intimation to the Russian authorities thus provoking Russia.
Sixth, the authors explain that India is unhappy looking on too closed ties between Russia and China because it contradicts the principle of multipolar Arctic policy. But more deep concern stems from the fact that China and India are in an adversarial relationship in spite of some normalization. At the same time they believe that India and China can cooperate in the Arctic in the framework of multilateral mechanisms because New Delhi and Beijing do find common ground, and cooperate in international forums such as the BRICS, the G20, SCO and in Climate Change Conferences, where both countries leverage their convergent interests to shape international trade rules, to ensure their continued domestic development and economic growth. As the authors mentioned, impressive China’s activity in the Arctic stimulated India to articulate its own position just to balance China.
After reading the book, it is evident that India and Russia have an impressive potential for cooperation in the Arctic. Why it moves so slowly? The authors argue some institutional problems as a barrier. The main actors in the Arctic region are the Ministry of Earth and Natural Sciences and the National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research while some ministries are also involved. There is no whole-of-government approach on India’s engagement with the Arctic. The next step would be the development of a road map for the Arctic policy. But for further steps India needs investing and developing expertise in maritime, legal, environmental, social, policy, and governance aspects of the Arctic.
Authors’ analysis looks very balanced and free of ideological bias. This book will be useful for all who interested in modern India’s Arctic policy. Reviewing book contribute to more deep understanding of India’s thinking about Arctic and shows necessity of more broad dialog between Russian and Indian academics and decision-makers.
Valery Konyshev
RANEPA, Saint-Petersburg
Also read the publication:
Norway’s Shelf Oil And Gas Resources: Overview
