REWIND

New Delhi, 4 December 2025

PARLIAMENT AND THE OPPOSITION

By Inder Jit

(Released on 15 January 1985) 

All eyes are on the new Lok Sabha, which is due to assemble today for its first sitting. How will it fare? Will Parliament continue to slide downhill, as during Indira Gandhi's time, and decline further? Or, will it recapture some of its lost glory and elan and play its due role as during Nehru's time, widely acknowledged by experts as Parliament’s “golden period”. Incredibly enough, most people seem to feel that the Lok Sabha poll has raised a big question mark over Parliament. Some have even gone to the length of writing off Parliament arguing: “Rajiv Gandhi has won 400 seats. The Opposition is down to a bare hundred. Atal Behari Vajpayee, Chandra Shekhar, Bahuguna, Satyasadhan Chakraborty and other Opposition stalwarts have been defeated. You can now forget Parliament”. But in saying so these people seem to miss out on one basic fact of life. Quantity has never been a substitute for quality. You can have a large but ineffective Opposition. Equally, you can have a small but effective Opposition. 

Parliamentary democracy provides for a Government by discussion, debate and consensus. The Opposition is an integral and vital part of the system and is hence known in Britain as Her Majesty’s “loyal” Opposition. But the prefix “loyal” does not detract from the Opposition’s basic responsibility. Its principal task is to keep Ministers and civil servants on their toes and ensure good government. Numbers are undoubtedly important. They are, however, not crucial. In fact, India’s first Lok Sabha faced a somewhat similar situation. The Congress Party, led by Nehru, bagged 364 seats. The Opposition totalled 119 members. Nevertheless, the Lok Sabha was effective, thanks to two factors. First, Nehru bent over backwards to encourage the Opposition and to set up healthy conventions. He also proved through word and deed that no democratic Government should ever ride roughshod over the Opposition, howsoever weak and divided. Second, the Opposition, which included some eminent public men, conducted itself with great responsibility. 

Most Congress-I men seem to have a wholly erroneous understanding of parliamentary democracy. Over the years, they have come to believe that they can do what they please as the majority party. But parliamentary democracy is not rule by a brute majority. Indeed, Nehru sought to make this quite clear, recognising the harsh reality that the Opposition, though small, represented a majority of those who had voted. As the Leader of the House, in addition to being the Prime Minister, he rose above party considerations time and again and expressed himself in the best interest of healthy parliamentary functioning. On one occasion, he even ticked off one of his Ministers and came to the rescue of the Opposition. The Opposition wanted some information but the Minister stalled on the plea: “This cannot be given in public interest.” A visibly agitated Nehru was soon up on his feet and intervened to state in so many words: “Mr Speaker Sir, I see no public interest involved. The Minister should give the required information”. 

There can be no two opinions that Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee and some others among the Opposition leaders will be greatly missed. Many Parliament watchers, therefore, hope that the BJP’s plans to bring Mr Vajpayee -- and Mr Chandra Shekhar -- back into the Lok Sabha will succeed. Nevertheless, the Opposition still has several distinguished leaders on its side to make Parliament both lively and effective, provided they take their job seriously. (Parliament calls for concentrated hard work and vigilance – and got just one “great” speech in a session!) Prominent among those who will continue to adorn the Lok Sabha are Mr Jagjivan Ram, Mr Charan Singh, Prof Madhu Dandvate, Mr Indrajit Gupta, Mr K.P. Unnikrishnan, Mr Biju Patnaik, and Mr G.M. Banatwala. The House will also have the benefit of the ability and long experience of Mr H.M. Patel, who was a member of the Janata Government and held the portfolio of Finance initially and then of Home. In addition, the new members include Dr Dutta Samant, metropolitan Bombay’s well known labour leader and stormy petrel. 

Happily, for the new Lok Sabha, Mr Rajiv Gandhi has made it known that he will do all within his power to make Parliament both effective and purposeful. He is clear that this will not be possible without the active cooperation of the Opposition. Accordingly, he has taken certain actions which have pleased even his critics and roused hopes. In the first place, Parliamentary Affairs has been made the full-time responsibility of one Cabinet Minister. Mr. H.K.L. Bhagat has been elevated to Cabinet rank; earlier he was number two to Mr Buta Singh, who proved to be a highly successful Minister of Parliamentary Affairs. At the same time, he has been given two able Ministers of State -- Mrs Margaret Alva and Mr Ghulam Nabi Azad. Secondly, Mr Gandhi has made an unprecedented gesture to the Opposition as proof of his intent. He got Mr Bhagat as the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs to call on top Opposition leaders in Parliament and seek their support and cooperation -- apart from his decision to invite them individually for talks on major issues confronting the nation. 

Outwardly, Parliament has appeared to get on with the job. Inwardly, however, its health has deteriorated. Not many realise that Parliament provides a forum for an open and honourable struggle for power. Various recognised conventions, rules and procedures essential for the smooth running of Parliament have been broken and defied. Ineffective and shouting has often taken the place of argument and reasoning. Parliamentary privilege has been repeatedly and wantonly abused to sling mud and character assassinate adversaries in the style of the market place. Often, the Opposition has appeared to be the villain of the piece. But it is more sinned against than sinning. True, they shout, create pandemonium and even walk out on occasions. But what are they to do when questioned are not answered or truth brazenly suppressed, notwithstanding India’s motto of “Satyameva Jayate” which blazons in a neon tube above the Speaker’s chair. It needs to be remembered that Parliament’s greatest power lies in its ability to ask questions from the Government and, indeed, from the Prime Minister himself. 

In sharp contrast to the sorry spectacle in India, the mother of Parliaments continues to grow. New initiatives have been taken and ideas implemented without diluting Westminster’s strength in any way. Some eight years ago, the House of Commons, chronically dissatisfied with its procedures and anxious to adapt them to changing demands made upon it, set up a Select Committee on Procedure to make recommendations for the more effective performance of its functions. The Committee, which sat between 1976 and 1978, carried out a broad and significant review of the way the Commons worked and held as many as sixty-eight meetings before finalising its report. Expectedly, the Committee divided on many details. But it was agreed on many major points, especially the following basic diagnosis: “the balance of advantage between Parliament and Government in the day to day working of the Constitution is now weighted in favour of the Government to a degree... which is inimical to the proper working of parliamentary democracy.” 

The Committee produced seventy-six recommendations with but one aim: “to enable the House as a whole to exercise effective control and stewardship over ministers and the expanding bureaucracy of the state for which they are answerable.” The incoming Government in 1979, headed by Mrs Margaret Thatcher, accepted both the Procedure Committee’s order of priorities as well as the essentials of its recommendations, especially in regard to the appointment of permanent select committees. Equally significant was what Mr St. John Steves, the Leader of the House, said in June 1979 while moving for the appointment of the select committees. He saw them as the means of enabling the Commons “to subject the executive to limitations and control; to protect the liberties of the individual citizen, to defend him against the arbitrary use of power; to focus the mind of the nation on the great issues of the day by the maintenance of continuous dialogue and discussion; and by remaining at the centre of the stage to impose parliamentary conventions or manners on the whole political system”. 

There is no magic remedy which can restore health to Parliament overnight. The process has to be slow and long. Nevertheless, a meaningful beginning could be made in two ways: by taking a fresh look at the rules of procedure which have reduced Parliament to ineffectiveness and, more important, by adopting the committee system with such modifications as are necessitated by our requirements and traditions. Parliament has neither the time nor is it equipped to take an intensive look at various policies and programmes always. It should normally discuss only matters of general policy and leave the details to be thrashed out in parliamentary committees. But we have ill-advisedly discarded this healthy system. A good few committees were set up in Mavalankar’s time. However, these were scrapped and we have now highly-publicised informal Consultative Committees, which have been debunked as “so much trash” by none other than Mr M.N. Kaul, who was Secretary of the Lok Sabha from 1946 to 1964, and by Mr S.L. Shakdher, former Secretary-General. 

Much will eventually depend upon Mr Rajiv Gandhi and his approach to the Opposition in practice. (The Opposition can still claim to represent a majority of the voters. The Congress-I polled 49.16 per cent of the votes polled.) The signals from Mr Gandhi so far are undoubtedly encouraging. He is also opposed to the “hulla groups” and will not permit his partymen to indulge in rowdyism. How the new members will conduct themselves is anybody’s guess. Fortunately, the Lok Sabha Secretariat, headed by Dr Subhash Kashyap, has organized an orientation course for them apart from producing ready reckoners’ on parliamentary procedures entitled: Abstracts Series. A close circuit TV has also been installed to keep members informed about the happenings on the floor. Ultimately, we need to be clear about the true nature of a healthy and purposeful democracy and of Parliament itself. Mr Rajiv Gandhi has clearly a special responsibility. But the role of the Opposition is no less crucial. Parliament can become strong and effective only if both sides are willing to go by the rules of the game and cooperate purposefully. -- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 5 December 2025

Putin Visit To India

IMPLICATIONS ON FOREIGN POLICY

By Dr. D.K. Giri

(Prof of Practice, NIIS Group of Institutions) 

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to India is being closely watched by world leaders on two counts. Russia is engaged in a heavy war in Ukraine since 2022. While the latest peace talks are being carried out as Putin has just threatened Ukraine, “roll back or be ready to be wiped out”. At the same time, serious efforts are being made at the behest of America to end the war. Talks are being held regularly with multiple formulas and options to bring about a ceasefire. The American President Donald Trump put a 28-point plan on the table to end the war. After first round of discussion in Geneva last month with Ukrainian President and his delegation, the plan was reduced to 19 points. However, New Delhi will be the centre of the world attention this week for Modi-Putin bilateral meeting. 

An op-ed critical article in a leading Indian newspaper titled, “World wants the Ukraine war to end, but Russia does not seem serious about peace”, written by Philipp Ackermann, Thierry Mathou and Lindy Cameron, the Ambassadors of Germany and France respectively, and Cameron, the British High Commissioner in Delhi. In a strongly worded article, they have accused Russia of an unprovoked war on Ukraine, raised the violation of fundamental international principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity. They hinted that Russian appetite for territorial expansion and global destabilisation goes beyond Ukraine. The article read, ‘Russian fighters are making dangerous and escalating incursions into European space’. 

Characterising Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as a humanitarian catastrophe and sets a precedent for small independent countries to be vulnerable to such aggressions from bigger powers. They have cited examples of forcible transfer and deportation of children to Russia. They wondered how Russia has escalated the aggression since the latest peace talks began by launching 22 of his largest air attacks and the last week alone, 1200 drones and over 60 cruise and ballistic missiles. 

The article ends by reaffirming their countries’ unwavering commitment to support Ukraine both with military and non-military means. The Ministry of External Affairs has issued a mild reaction suggesting that such articles, just on the eve of a visit of foreign dignitary to India as an invited guest, is “unusual and unacceptable diplomatic practice. 

America has been highly critical of India’s buying of Russian oil despite the war and the sanctions. President Donald Trump had imposed additional 25% tariffs on Indian exports to USA. In his inimitable temperamental style, he had said, “India and Russia, two dead economies, cannot make any impact”. In the meantime, Indian purchase of Russian crude oil has dipped since last August. It was 17% less by September and could fall to a record low in December. 

India was buying 1.8 m barrels per day (cbpd) crude oil. It is estimated to be 60,000-65,000 bpd in December. Indian refineries including the one owned by Ambani have begun reducing their purchase of Russian oil to avoid violation of American, European and British sanctions. According to Helsinki-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CRECA), India has been the second largest importer of Russian oil preceded by China with 7.75 b USD. 

Let us scan what is on Putin’s mind during his two-day visit to India, 4-5 December; what does he seek to achieve? How does India navigate its foreign policy while deepening ties with Russia? Some analysts anticipate strengthened ties and closer collaboration, while quite a few others including myself are sceptical of Russia’s intentions of meeting potential benefits, and are questioning the current partnership. 

To read between the lines of two statements, one by Dimitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman in a virtual press interaction with Indian media, and another by the President Putin himself, Peskov said, “We are looking forward to ensuring our rights to sell to those who want to purchase oil and their rights to buy our oil”. He added that Russia is willing to address India’s concern over the ballooning trade deficit. India’s trade deficit stood at record high as India 68.7 billion, India exported to Russia $5 billion worth goods in trade and imported 63.7 billion out of 68.7 b total trade in 2024-25. Bulk of the trade consisted of India’s purchase of Russian oil and defence items under the ‘Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership’. 

Putin said about the purpose of his visit, “main part of the plan on India visit is to elevate cooperation with India and China to qualitative new levels”. He added that “he would discuss expanding Indian imports to Russia”.  What raises the hackles of analysts and strategists is Putin hyphenating India and China. Since early this year because of Trump’s tantrums, New Delhi seems to be moving closer to Russia and China. One would have thought the bonhomie with the latter (China) is symbolic and for optics. But Putin’s statement indicates a possible Troika (India-China-Russia) vis-à-vis USA and Europe. 

That is risky and serious shift in India’s foreign policy since the first NDA government under Vajpayee and even 10 years of Manmohan Singh which marked a steady growth in India-America bilateralism. The jury is still out wheher Narendra Modi can balance the two rival blocks America and Europe vs Shino-Russian forever-pact. I tend to believe that it will be a hard and tortuous path to tread upon. New Delhi will have to eventually choose either or. 

On bilateral issues, Putin will be co-chairing with Modi the 23^rd India-Russian annual bilateral Summit. The annual bilateral Summit between the two countries began in 2000. During the visit, talks will include renewed cooperation in trade, defence, energy, political, economic, scientific and people-to-people ties. New Delhi is likely to ask for the safe return of Indian nationals recruited in Russian military. 

Another significant deal would be the signing of an Agreement in order to enable India’s skilled and semi-skilled professionals to work in Russia which is desperately short of man- power in various sectors. Formal negotiations on such an Agreement started with signing of the TOR in August 2025. India’s new Consulate General in Russia’s Yekaterinburg will deal with the mobility issues of such workers going to Russia. 

Another important item on the agenda would be a Free Trade Agreement with Euro-Asian Economic Union (EAEU), comprising Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. A bilateral trade under the FTA is aimed at $100 billion by 2030. Currently, India has a large deficit with EAEU mainly due to heavy Indian imports of Russian oil. FTA is supposed to address this imbalance. 

The discussion on Ukrainian war will be what the world is pontificating on. Whether Ukraine will figure in public joint communiqué made by the two leaders, is also a question. If it does, it will have significant implications for India. If it does not, then also India would be a subject of criticism by Western powers. Let us watch and wait. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 3 December 2025

India’s Exports Slide

WILL LABOUR CODES HELP?

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

India’s exports have witnessed a slide in most sectors, as per latest reports, in view of the current geopolitical situation and the pressure of US tariffs, The fault lines have widened with the rupee falling to its lowest value while exporters, especially small and medium-sized firms continue to face sustained pressure. Though the trade pact with the US is close to finalisation and it is expected that the tariffs would be brought down to a maximum of 25 to 30 percent, if not less, the position now is far from encouraging. As is well known, presently two-thirds of its merchandise face 50 percent tariff, comprising reciprocal duties and additional penalties tied to its purchase of Russian oil.  

India’s export-oriented policy efforts have not only faced weak global demands but intense competition from Asian peers that have historically exported their way to prosperity, enabling labour shifts out of agriculture. Many of the economies have become preferred destinations for entrepreneurs and firms relocating from China. Mention may be made of relative newcomers like Vietnam which recorded strong export growth during the post-pandemic period, when the global economy has been slow, both the country and China increased their world export shares while India slipped. 

India’s goods export growth averaged only one percentage point above world GDP during 2014-2024. Though comparisons cannot be made with countries such as Indonesia, Brazil etc, it is significant to note that even Vietnam tripled its share of world exports from 0.6 percent to 1.7 percent during this period, almost equalling India’s 2024 share of 1.8 percent. 

While the much-awaited deal with the US is expected any time, there is good news for the country as the European Union is eyeing to forge a broad agenda with India to firm up a free trade pact, a defence framework agreement and a strategic agenda at their annual summit on January 27. According to diplomatic sources, the free trade agreement to be sealed at the summit in New Delhi will be a ‘living document’ on which work would be continued to iron out any unresolved issues.   

Added to this, after the meeting of the Indian Prime Minister with his Canadian counterpart on the sidelines of the G-20 summit, it was decided to begin negotiations on an ambitious ‘Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement’, as per a statement of the external affairs ministry. It is understood that the agreement will cover goods, services, investment, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade and dispute settlement. It has also been reported that India and Israel will soon begin negotiations for a free trade agreement (FTA), according to Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal with data showing that exports have grown in November. 

While the government is quite seriously aware of the matter and has rightly taken a prompt decision by clearing the Rs 25,000 crore Export Promotion Mission after a long time and also the Rs 20,000 additional free collateral credit to support exporters grappling with global trade uncertainty. Priority support has been identified to sectors such as textiles, leather, gems and jewellery, engineering goods and marine products hit by US tariffs. 

Along with this, the Reserve Bank of India decided to cushion exporters in stressed sectors by announcing relaxation under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) by extending the time available to exporters to realize and repatriate export proceeds from the existing 9 to 15 months. The shipment time has also been increased from one to three years, giving exporters greater flexibility to manage orders and supply chain uncertainties. Credit debt relief measures have also been announced for twenty sectors that have been hardest hit by the slowdown. 

The need of the hour is obviously on improving quality through technological upgradation, specially in labour-intensive sectors through innovative designs and better marketing in foreign and unexplored markets with the government helping through its trade missions abroad. Moreover, cost-effectiveness is also a key factor in Indian goods making entry into foreign markets in a big way. 

In this connection, start-ups have to be encouraged as most of them have high quality skills and are aware of the needs of global markets. Their operational problems and marketing expenditure are, of course, big problems which have to be supported by the government. A section of economists feels, and quite rightly, that India lacks marketing skill in various areas and promotional activities. 

In the current situation, the four labour codes announced recently may augur well for the growth of the Indian economy as also the export front.  Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that “the codes will serve as a strong foundation for universal social security, minimum and timely payment of wages, safe workplaces and remunerative opportunities for our people, specially Nari Shakti and Yuva Shakti”. He further stated that the reforms will boost job creation, drive productivity and accelerate the journey to Viksit Bharat.  

One cannot but appreciate the new labour codes that have been approved recently. It is a fact that rigid labour laws prevalent in the country had been hurting entrepreneurship growth. A large provision in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 forbid enterprises with 100 or more workers from laying off workers under any circumstances. This draconian provision, complemented by other rigidities encouraged firms, especially the labour-intensive ones, to remain small. 

At the same time, Indian trade unions have condemned the government's rollout of the new labour codes, as a “deceptive fraud” against workers.The government claims it is seeking to simplify work rules and liberalise conditions for investment. It says the changes improve worker protections, offer new rules of social security and minimum-wage benefits. But it also allows companies to hire and fire workers more easily.It remains to be seen whether with these labour codes, India will be able to attract more foreign investment to the country.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

New Delhi, 1 December 2025

Spotlight

New Delhi, 2 December 2025

From China To Europe In 20 Days?

By Dr. Maciej Gaca

(Expert, Centre for Intl Relations, Poland) 

In September 2025, the Chinese container ship Istanbul Bridge, owned by Sea Legend Line, left the port of Qingdao and, after less than three weeks along the Northern Sea Route, arrived in Gdańsk. Chinese announcements spoke of a “historic shortening of the distance between Asia and Europe,” while Polish media reported a “logistical breakthrough.” Is this the beginning of a new era, a harbinger of a geographic revolution that is about to reshape the world map? Or perhaps just a spectacular experiment intended to serve as a symbol? 

The Port of Gdańsk announced that it was “opening up to a new transport reality.” The impression was powerful. But anyone who has followed Arctic shipping for years knew that behind this impression lay something else: geopolitical staging. The Arctic had once again become a screen onto which a film about the future was projected, before that future had even happened. 

The Illusion of Speed

The route travelled by the Istanbul Bridge through the Northern Sea Route (NSR) is approximately 13,000 km long – almost 7,000 km shorter than the route through the Suez Canal. On paper, this means cutting the journey in half, but in practice, the time saved is no more than 30–40%, and the cost increases significantly. Escorting a Rosatomflot icebreaker costs between $300,000 and $500,000, and cargo insurance is up to 70% higher than for tropical routes. Every shipowner knows that a shorter route in the Arctic is not cheaper. 

In 2024, 25,887 ships transited the Suez Canal, transporting 1.57 billion tonnes of cargo. During the same time of year, only 97 international transits were recorded along the entire Northern Sea Route – a total of 3.07 million tonnes. This represents less than 0.2% of global container traffic. Even if the NSR shortens the distance by 6,000–8,000 km, it cannot match the infrastructure that has developed over decades around the Suez Canal: ports, shipyards, rescue and maintenance systems, and a fuel bunkering network. The Arctic remains a seasonal route, not a systematic one. 

As Malte Humpert of the Arctic Institute notes, a voyage through the Arctic resembles more of a “showcase passage” than an element of everyday logistics. The NSR is navigable for only 90 days a year, and the rest of the time it is shrouded in ice thick enough to exceed the capabilities of the Chinese research vessels Xuelong and Xuelong 2, which can only break through 1.5 meters. By comparison, Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers, the Arktika class, can cut through ice up to three meters thick and are the only real guarantee of the route’s passage. This means that every Chinese vessel on the NSR is navigating not on the “new route,” but within the Russian corridor. 

The Myth of Cooperation &Language of Inevitability

China's Polar Silk Road concept is no ordinary infrastructure project—it’s a carefully crafted narrative with a global reach. It aligns with the doctrine of “strategic narrative communication”, in which Beijing combines technological PR, soft power, and geopolitical messages into a single coherent message: “China is in the Arctic, and it has a future there.” This banner, moreover, is suspended under other ambitions, Beijing’s dream of technological autarky. 

Slogans about “20 days from Asia to Europe” or “reducing CO₂ emissions by 50%" function here as modern myths of progress—these are numbers intended not so much to describe reality as to create it. 

Meanwhile, the boundaries of this “new era” are still defined by the old geography of power. Russia demands permits for every transit, controls navigation data, and sets its own escort rates. Moscow, not Beijing, decides who passes through the NSR and when. China knows these conditions and accepts them – because in return it receives something invaluable: the symbolic status of a “near-Arctic power”, which can proclaim itself as the architect of the future. 

In Chinese state media – from Xinhua to China Daily – every Arctic voyage is presented in the tone of a “strategic test of peace,” in which technology overcomes nature, and cooperation replaces competition. But behind this language lies politics – what is being tested is not so much navigation but the reception of the message. The West, including Poland, often reacts to this message precisely as Beijing expects, with a tone of grandeur and inevitability. Polish media echo Chinese keywords: “breakthrough,”“strategic corridor,”“new era of shipping,”“Gdańsk at the center of global trade.” In this euphoria, fundamental questions are lost: who really holds the key to the ice gates, who controls the infrastructure, who profits from this narrative? 

As Napiórkowski wrote, “the myth of modernity is not a lie, but an excess of meaning” – and it is precisely this excess of meaning, fuelled by technological exaltation, that makes the “Polar Silk Road” something of a modern myth of the discovery of a new world. However, this world has long been occupied – by Russia, its nuclear icebreakers, and the sanctions-protected geopolitics of survival. 

Strengthening Instead of Change

In reality, the Arctic has not opened up to the world – it opened up to the Russo-Chinese treaty. And Russia, not China, is its main beneficiary. Every ship sailing through the NSR contributes to the Russian budget: fees for escorts, pilots, port services, and insurance will exceed $260 million in 2024, and over $400 million in 2025. These funds finance the maintenance of icebreakers like the Arktika and Sibir, and indirectly, the Russian war machine. 

Chinese investments only deepen this mechanism. The Yamal LNG and Arctic LNG 2 projects, co-financed by CNPC and CNOOC, now constitute one of the pillars of Russian energy exports, enabling the Kremlin to circumvent sanctions and maintain gas profits. According to Reuters data from September 2025, shipments from Yamal to terminals in Tianjin and Zhoushan are already regular, with payments made in yuan. 

In this symbiosis, Russia provides territory, raw materials, and political resilience, while China provides capital, technology, and narrative. This is not a collaboration between equal partners, but an architecture of dependency. Moscow becomes the executor, while Beijing becomes the narrator and investor, exporting its own understanding of globalization through the language of soft power and communication tools. 

On a symbolic level, the Arctic has thus become the arena for a “storytelling contest.” For Russia, it is a stage of survival, for China, a theatre of progress. For Europe, however, it’s a risky field where every economic decision has political consequences. 

Formally, there’s talk of “opening new trade routes,” but in practice, it only opens up a new path of dependence: on Russian infrastructure and the Chinese narrative. Therefore, the NSR doesn’t change the balance of power—it cements it. It only changes the language in which we talk about this relationship. 

Balance of Opportunities & Risks

Proponents of Arctic shipping like to emphasize that the NSR can shorten container transport times between Shanghai and Rotterdam from 35 to 22 days, and CO₂ emissions by up to 25%. This is true—in theory. But in practice, any delay due to weather, ice jams, or lack of port infrastructure erases this benefit within hours. The lack of bunkering stations means ships must carry more fuel, reducing their capacity. And the risk of having to evacuate or repair in extreme conditions means costs that outweigh the benefits of a shorter route. 

The most important factor, however, remains the political factor. The NSR is not neutral – it is a corridor controlled by the state waging war. Joining its exploitation means participating in maintaining its economy. In this sense, the balance of opportunities and risks becomes a moral balancing act: every decision to “open up to new possibilities” is also a decision to legitimize the current state of affairs.---INFA 

(Copyright, Indi News & Feature Alliance)