Yesterday there was a telephone conversation between the Prime Ministers of Armenia and India, about which there is the following paragraph in the report. “The activation of political dialogue, as well as the expansion of cooperation in economy, high-tech, education, culture and other areas of mutual interest, have become important.”
Who especially emphasized the activation of political dialogue, Nikol Pashinyan or Narendra Modi? This is significant because the political dialogue between Armenia and India is noticeably passive, especially considering that India is perhaps the number one military-technical partner for Armenia after 2021. In any case, most of the current armaments of the Armenian army are purchased from India itself.
Meanwhile, against this background, it is quite noticeable that there is practically no equivalent political and economic cooperation, partnership, and communication. Meanwhile, if there is, for example, military-technical cooperation, purchases, but all that is not accompanied by adequate political and economic dynamics, it probably means that military-technical is just trade, nothing more. And just by the logic of trade or business, the military-technical cooperation, not having a stable and active military-political and geo-economic component, cannot have high security effectiveness.
The question of who particularly attaches importance to the activation of political dialogue and other communications is not at all secondary. Is it India that raises this issue or Yerevan?
I suspect that India is unhappy with the lack of activity. After all, New Delhi has been active in that direction since 2021. Let me remind you that Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar arrived in Armenia for the first time, and in general it was the first visit of an Indian minister to the post-Soviet Caucasus.
The deepening of the status of a global player makes the Caucasian policy “must-have” for India. And here, New Delhi has one realistic support: Armenia. But, if for Armenia, India is just a means for the informational cover of the reformation of the army, it certainly cannot satisfy New Delhi.
Of course, working comprehensively with India has its complications. But, today there is no simple work, and in no direction. Meanwhile, there are, rather, there should be strategic priority developments and scenarios for the states, and India should have a significant importance for Armenia in that sense.
Political analyst Hakob Badalyan
—