Hon. President (Shri Pranab Mukherjee):I have given a very exhaustive statement. In addition to that, Foreign Secretary and our Ambassador to Russia have also briefed you after my bilateral meeting with President Putin. Still if you have some questions, you may ask. 

Question:Sir, as you said, ours is a very historic and a unique relationship with Russia. But still, the volume of bilateral trade and investment is very low. So, what was the impediment?

Hon. President:It is true after the change of Russia. Particularly in the 90s our bilateral trade and foreign direct investment, foreign direct investment actually started from the 90s when the economic liberalization programme was taken. That was the time when Russia was also in transition from one system to another system. That is why it has been agreed by our Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Putin that within the next ten years we will increase our bilateral trade from the present level of USD six billion to USD 30 billion, and our investment from less than USD one billion to at least USD 15 billion. 

And in my discussion with President Putin also he suggested that we shall have to encourage our companies to make investment. Particularly in the areas of hydrocarbons our people are interested. They are making investment in our nuclear energy. And Kudankulam project was discussed in detail. All these elements had been brought in the briefing of Foreign Secretary. So, I am confident that the decision and the target which we have fixed for our expanding bilateral trade and investment would be substantial.

Question:Sir, you have mentioned that this is the first time the Grenadiers are taking part and that India has in fact acknowledged both the Russian contribution to World War II but also the Indian contribution. This is something we have not seen as much in the past. When we did ask the Government about it the Minister said to us that in fact it was a legacy of the Congress Party that it did not acknowledge the contribution of Indian soldiers in World War I and World War II because they were part of an imperialist army. Could you give us a sense of how that evolution has come when today India is acknowledging the sacrifices of Indian soldiers?

Hon. President:First of all, you shall have to go back to the memory of history that how India participated in the Second World War. I am not going into the historical aspect of it, you will have to take the trouble of going through the pages of history. There was a long background of it. Without consulting the people and the leadership of India, the then Governor-General Lord Linlithgow declared participation of India in World War II unilaterally. In protest of that the Congress Ministries in eight Provinces in those days, which were elected in 1937, resigned. Madras Presidency, Bombay Presidency, United Province, Audh, Central Province, Bihar, Odisha - these Ministries resigned. So, there is a long history. Do not go back to the pages of history.

About First World War, it is incorrect to say that India’s participation was not there. Mahatma Gandhi cooperated in the First World War and received a medal which is called Kaiser-i-Hind, which he returned after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, as Rabindranath quit his knighthood. Therefore, before you ask these questions please refresh your background. In Second World War this was the situation. But nonetheless, as Defence Minister in UPA-1 whichever country I visited, I visited the memorial of Indian soldiers who sacrificed their lives either in the First World War or in the Second World War. Therefore, do not bring politics into it. President’s visit has nothing to do with politics.

Question:There was a move from Russia to supply arms to Pakistan. Did this issue come up in the bilateral meeting?
Hon. President:The position should be quite clear, and it is written in the statement also, that our relationship stands on a firm footing. Russia is and will continue to be a dependable partner of India in defence matters, in energy security despite the relationship with other countries developed by Russia or developed by India. That sentence I have used in transient to the relationship with others.

Question:In the last few days we have been hearing a lot about the Indo-Russian relationship. Basically the focus has been that this is an old and lasting relationship. But somehow you yourself have also mentioned that we need to make it more relevant to today’s youth and we need to connect at the level of this generation. Could you elaborate on that please?

Hon. President:That is the area where education, research, innovation, linking with the educational institutions is very important and relevant because the younger generation will have to update themselves on the contemporaneity of the relationship, its relevance and how it is beneficial mutually to each other country. We simply cannot depend on our legacy of the past. We shall have to build up the future. And that is the area where we shall have to emphasise on youth.

Question:Sir, as the Visitor of the Central universities you have always been talking about how our universities are not up there in the top 100. Now we have signed so many MoUs with Russian universities; there is a network that has been created. How do you foresee, is this going to really improve our situation in terms of our universities?

Question:I think we will substantially improve because after I have almost like a parrot repeated in every convocation and academic congregation, there has been substantial sectoral improvement in different IITs and universities. For the last one, one and a half years it has started happening. For instance, two Departments of Delhi IIT and Madras IIT have come within 50 of the world’s recognized best institutions. Universities established after 90s or updated after 90s, Guwahati University stands among the first 50s in that category. So, in different categories improvements have started taking place. And signing of memoranda is not like Aladdin’s magic lamp that next day onwards it will start. It takes some time, and it is happening.

Question:Sir, you interacted with the Indologists. That was a productive interaction and they seemed to have enjoyed a lot. A lot of them were talking about praised India’s democracy but they do not seem to be having the same respect for their own democracy. How do you view this?

Hon. President:I am not going to make any comparison between the systems prevailing in one country with the other. That is not my job. And the academicians will have their own way of interpretation. I suggested, I advised, your admiration and appreciation of our system and we are committed to Parliamentary democracy, and the very smooth transition from one political party to another political party in India by simply casting votes and declaration of results by the Election Commission is as simple as that. There is no hassle, there is no problem. It happened in 2014, it happened in 1977, it happened in 1989, it happened in 1991, in 1996 and so on. So, it is a totally hassle-free democratic process where transfer of power, change of power takes place. In many other countries it does not take place, but that is not my job to compare.

What I requested and what is relevant, and they agreed with me, is that in the study of Indology we must not always engage ourselves in the past. We should also bring contemporary relevance to the studies of those countries. If we just merely confine ourselves to what happened in the past, old systems, old history, then I think we would not be able to generate interest in the younger generation because they want to live in the present and look at the future, not look at the past. So, for that, contemporaneity and relevance is most important in the studies of Indologists in both these countries. We have second thing that is reassuring, DG of Indian Council of Cultural Relations informed me and I announced that we have extended the life of certain projects by two years and we will continue to stand by the support which we are providing through ICCR to these institutions.

Thank you.