By R. Suryamurthy
When Prime Minister Narendra Modi met President Vladimir Putin in the bilateral summit in New Delhi on December 5 and both leaders reiterated their ambition to raise bilateral trade to USD 100 billion by 2030, it sounded, at first blush, like a confident projection of strategic convergence. The joint statement stressed “mutual interest in expanding bilateral payments mechanisms” and “strengthening settlement in national currencies.” The language was polite, almost forward-looking. But underneath the diplomatic phrasing lay the central truth that shapes India–Russia commerce today: the payments problem is no longer a footnote to the relationship—it is the relationship.
The gap between ambition and reality begins with an awkward imbalance. India’s imports from Russia—fuelled almost entirely by discounted crude—crossed USD 60 billion last year, while exports to Russia struggled to reach even a sixth of that. Even by the conservative estimates of trade specialists at the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), nearly USD 40–45 billion of the current trade volume is locked up in a system where Russia earns a pile of rupees it cannot use, remit freely, or convert into dollars without triggering Western sanctions. This is not just a “technical issue” in the diplomatic sense. It is the single largest obstacle to deepening commercial ties—bigger than tariff barriers, logistics constraints, or sectoral mismatches.
For decades, Indian and Russian officials have tried to devise creative ways to trade around the dollar. But the history of rupee–rouble settlement mechanisms is not a story of innovation; it is a chronicle of recurring friction, periodic improvisation, and long bureaucratic hangovers. The first-generation arrangement—set up during the Soviet era—looked visionary in the 1960s and 70s, when Moscow supplied everything from defence hardware to industrial plants and accepted rupees for payment. But by the late 1980s, the flaws were undeniable. The rate at which the rupee converted into the rouble was essentially political, not economic. Over-invoicing crept in. Clearing accounts ballooned. By the time the Soviet Union collapsed, India owed billions in rouble-denominated liabilities that had to be renegotiated for years.
The scars of that period still shape bureaucratic instincts. Financial regulators on both sides remain wary of non-convertible, politically determined settlement arrangements. And yet, India and Russia now find themselves caught in a strangely familiar loop. Western sanctions have pushed Moscow out of the dollar-dominated financial system, making national-currency settlement the only realistic workaround. But because the rupee is neither fully convertible nor widely accepted, Russia cannot use the rupee surpluses for imports beyond India. Nor can it hold them indefinitely without suffering value erosion. The result is an accumulation of hundreds of billions of rupees in special Vostro accounts in Indian banks—funds that represent real Indian payments for oil, but unrealised Russian purchasing power.
This mismatch has paralysed trade expansion. The Modi–Putin meeting acknowledged the need for a “reliable and predictable” payments system, but the carefully constructed phrasing could not hide the larger anxiety: Without fixing the settlement architecture, the USD 100-billion target is rhetoric without ballast. The GTRI, in a recent assessment, put it even more sharply: “Without a modern rupee–rouble settlement system, Russia may remain India’s biggest oil supplier—but not a serious export market.” That single sentence captures the structural imbalance at the heart of the relationship.
India’s exporters are already feeling the pinch. Pharmaceuticals, tea, textiles, auto components, and engineering goods—all traditional Indian exports to Russia—have seen only modest growth despite the enormous expansion of Russia’s import needs after the Ukraine conflict. Indian exporters complain that shipments take weeks to clear because Russian banks struggle to route payments. Some firms have been told to wait months for reimbursements. Others have had to renegotiate contracts in euros or dirhams, adding layers of cost and risk. This is not how a country becomes an export market; this is how it becomes a logistical ordeal.
The irony is that India–Russia trade is not inherently unbalanced. Russia’s import dependence has opened windows in machinery, pharma, processed food, chemicals, and even consumer goods. But Russia needs a currency it can use, and India needs a settlement system that protects its banks from secondary sanctions while giving exporters payment certainty. Neither requirement has been met.
This is why the current moment feels so pivotal. For the first time in 30 years, India is importing at historic volumes from Russia, yet unable to translate that leverage into a broader economic partnership. The energy trade—attractive during the discount years of 2022–23—now risks becoming a financial cul-de-sac. Russian oil companies do not want additional rupee accumulation. Indian refiners complain that Moscow increasingly demands payment in UAE dirhams or Chinese yuan. And each shift introduces new political considerations: dirham payments require navigating the sensitivities of the UAE’s banking sector, while yuan invoicing comes with strategic baggage India would prefer to avoid.
India tried to solve the mismatch by encouraging Russian entities to use their rupee balances to invest in Indian government securities. But Russia balked at the idea of holding long-term rupee assets without liquidity guarantees. Moscow floated the idea of a composite settlement mechanism—part rupee, part rouble, part third-country currencies. New Delhi has been receptive but cautious. Every small move now operates under the shadow of sanctions compliance, risk monitoring, and the unpredictable geopolitics of the Ukraine war.
The Modi–Putin joint statement tried to break through this gridlock. It called for “expanding bilateral payments mechanisms,” “strengthening consultations,” and boosting the use of national currencies. But the absence of a concrete framework was telling. India would like a modern, convertible-channel settlement system that protects against sanctions. Russia wants a way to use its rupees without being trapped in non-convertible instruments. Each side accepts the problem; neither yet has the solution.
What complicates matters further is that the settlement problem is beginning to distort the trade basket itself. Oil dominates so overwhelmingly that it masks stagnation elsewhere. Defence trade, once the anchor of the relationship, has plateaued as both countries face resource constraints—India because of tighter capital budgets, Russia because of wartime priorities. Technology partnerships have promise but limited commercial scale. Nuclear cooperation is a bright spot but not a trade driver. What remains is oil—and oil alone carries the entire weight of the bilateral trade headline.
Meanwhile, the implications for India’s exporters go beyond delayed payments. Many firms worry that Russia’s pivot toward China could close opportunities permanently if the financial logjam is not cleared soon. Chinese firms, with access to yuan settlement, are moving into sectors where Indian exporters once had an advantage—pharma generics, processed foods, electronics, machinery. The longer India takes to construct a usable settlement system, the more space China gains in the Russian market.
In that sense, the payments issue is not just a financial bottleneck; it is a strategic risk. India cannot afford to lose ground in a market where geopolitical goodwill remains high, but commercial access is shrinking. Nor can it continue a trade relationship where nearly all growth comes from one commodity paid through an improvised, politically constrained clearing arrangement.
A realistic path forward would require three steps: designing a modernized rupee-rouble settlement mechanism indexed to transparent, market-linked conversion norms; using a hybrid system that allows partial settlement in third-country currencies without undermining rupee viability; and giving exporters payment certainty through a regulatory safe lane insulated from sanctions spillovers.
None of this is easy. But the alternative—letting the payments issue linger—is worse. It risks turning a historic partnership into a transactional, energy-heavy relationship with no long-term architecture.
This is why the reaffirmation of the USD 100-billion target, though politically bold, feels economically hollow unless supported by financial engineering of the sort Delhi and Moscow have long avoided. The ambition is not unrealistic; the settlement framework is. Trade, after all, is not about sentiment or historical ties. It is about whether money can move with speed, transparency, and credibility.
Until the payments system is rebuilt, India–Russia trade will remain an imbalanced equation where numbers rise, but opportunities shrink; where energy flows, but value addition stagnates; and where political warmth is offset by financial cold reality. The Modi–Putin meeting sought to signal momentum. But momentum requires mechanism—and that is still missing. (IPA Service)
India’s Transition To New Labour Codes Regime Facing Hurdles 