India’s policy of continuing with the import of crude oil from Russia has not only helped stabilise the price of fuel price domestically but also softened the impact of economic sanctions on oil supply globally, Harsh Vardhan Shringla, a former top diplomat and the chief coordinator of India’s G20 Presidency, said in an interview on Wednesday.
On the sanctions imposed by the West against Russia, Mr. Shringla, who was on a private visit to Tamil Nadu, cited an independent estimate to assert that had India not purchased crude from Russia, it would have resulted in oil prices shooting up significantly.
“Imagine the impact that would have made across the world, especially vulnerable developing countries in the global south,” observed the veteran diplomat, adding that “volatility” in the availability of the commodity and its price had been controlled by India’s actions.
Mr. Shringla, who had also served as India’s Ambassador to the U.S., Bangladesh and Thailand, explained that Indian companies, after refining and processing the crude oil, had been selling the refined products even to Western buyers. “It is very clear that the oil, after the processing, is no longer seen as Russian oil. Value addition takes it out of the scope of sanctions.”
Emphasising that India was buying the oil from Russia within the price cap of $60 a barrel on the basis of cost, insurance and freight (CIF), the diplomat, who held the post of Foreign Secretary from January 2020 to April 2022, emphasised that “we have never contravened sanctions, multilateral or unilateral. We tell our suppliers not to use shipping lines, against which the sanctions are in force. So, our purchase of oil has all along been legal.”
As regards the crisis in West Asia and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, India’s principle had been “diplomacy and dialogue,” which had been captured in the G-20 resolution too.
On the implications of the People’s National Congress in the Maldivian parliamentary election recently, Mr. Shringla said “I do not see our relations with neighbours on a zero sum basis. We need to work with all elected governments in our neighbourhood. In the case of Maldives, there has been a long tradition of cooperation across the board and that sort of cooperation is indispensable.”
Referring to a number of Maldivians coming to Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala for medical treatment, he wanted the governments of the countries to strengthen people-to-people ties. “That is very critical.” In this context, he mentioned that the government had exempted neighbouring countries including Maldives from the ban on export of onions.
On the dispute between Indian (Tamil Nadu) fishermen and Sri Lankan (Northern Province) fishing folk, he advocated the continuation of dialogue between the two communities on a regular basis, adding that this should be facilitated by the governments. On the Katchatheevu row, he described it as one of the foreign policy legacy issues of the Congress period which had led to “enormous problems” that were avoidable.
As regards the implementation of the 13th Amendment of the Sri Lankan Constitution [which is an outcome of the 1987 Indo-Lanka agreement and which provides devolution of power to Sri Lankan Tamils], Mr. Shringla favoured continued engagement with the neighbouring country to ensure that all the provisions were implemented.
