Editorial

In the shift in international politics to Eurasia, the vast region has drawn enormous attention of the major and regional powers. Many experts and analysts perceive this shift as a reinvention of British geographer Halford Mackinder’s theory of ‘heartland’ and ‘pivot of history’. In the evolving dynamics, present day Eurasia presents a mixed picture. Nevertheless, it is perceived as the key feature of new world order that is taking shape. In the ongoing interplay, Eurasia is witnessing the trend towards globalisation, technology and geopolitics–connectivity projects; rail, road and energy pipelines criss-crossing the Eurasian space. Are these the tools evident in the power play in Eurasia? Is the reasoning of Mackinder ‘who controls Eurasia, rules the world’ being revisited with vigour?

This special issue is a collection of articles and commentaries reflecting their perspective on the region. The first article has focused on the Russian–Chinese strategic partnership, which the author believes is firm. The author has also put forward the idea of ‘Greater Eurasia’—an idea that has flown from pivot to Asia. However, it has yet to be tested and developed. Greater Eurasia encompasses all the countries of the post-Soviet space. Their response is awaited. The second article has examined the role of Afghanistan, as widely perceived, to be a connector to Eurasia. The author has examined this role and opines that this role could also depend on regional conditions. Located between the zones of Eurasian politics, with Russia and China pursuing their respective projects with immense vigour and the centre of instability in the South Afghanistan, the Central Asian Republics (CARs) are adjusting to their security and economic interests. In their view, regional cooperation is essential. If they have to play their rightful role in the region, cooperation among them is the best way forward. This has been elucidated in the third article. The fourth article has critically examined the role of Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) and its capability to protect the interests of its members. With the accession of India and Pakistan as full members, can the SCO play a more effective role? The much discussed and debated issue the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is the theme of the next article. The author points out that the initiative has opened up immense opportunities for the countries through which it will transit. However, several sticky issues such as free-trade area between Russia, China and the CARs need to be addressed. Indeed, experts/scholars would keenly watch the future trajectory of BRI. In the next article, the authors have examined the prospects and projects that would help India to connect with Central Asia and beyond. In Indian strategic thinking, Eurasian region especially Central Asia is of significant value.

Since connectivity is the watchword for major players, the first commentary argues that due to high economic growth rates and skilled younger generation in the Indian subcontinent, it would be more productive to connect with Europe. The possibility of southern corridor should also be explored. Though the idea of a southern corridor connecting India, Bangladesh and Pakistan via Afghanistan and Eurasia is appealing, is it viable? The next three commentaries by Uzbek, Tajik and Kyrgyz are on Eurasia. All three emphasise the role of SCO in the region. Probably they are wary of economic integration in the EEU or the leverages and influence that will come with BRI. An interesting idea put forward by the Tajik scholar  is  worth  considering.  He  suggests  a  separate  grouping/understanding between Tajik-Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, since they are not members of EEU as of now.

Role of CARs should not be ignored as they can play an important role in the evolution of Eurasian politics. So the future of Eurasia needs to be carefully calibrated and understood by India, so that it can give an appropriate response in terms of strategic and security policies.