As a keen student of history and politics, Gordon Brown will be aware how intimate the ties once were between the Labour Party and India. In the aftermath of independence in 1948, Delhi was regarded in Labour circles as a natural leader of the emerging new Commonwealth, a nation in the hands of a Congress Party which claimed (as Labour did) to stand for the common man and which was committed to swift economic growth through the scientific application of socialism.

By the 1960s, however, it was apparent that Indian socialism was no more effective than that which the Wilson Governments had sought to implement in Britain. Two decades later, many Indians were starting to conclude that it was not the British Empire, but the advice from “experts” at the London School of Economics subsequently, that had undermined their prospects. Meanwhile, the personal connections between British politicians of all stripes and their Indian counterparts had, sadly, weakened.

The India that the Chancellor will visit from tomorrow has changed dramatically in a decade. The extent of that transformation should not, however, be exaggerated. Much of the country remains rural and poor and has little in common with the bright and booming cities of Bombay and Bangalore that Mr Brown will encounter. Yet, if anything, the fact that there are still “two Indias” is what makes this country and its future so exciting. There are enormous untapped resources that are available. Provided that its political class sticks to the formula propounded by the University of Chicago in the 1970s and not the LSE a decade earlier, India will surely experience many more years of exceptional progress.

This is reason enough for Mr Brown to vary his travel diet. The Chancellor has been to the United States on numerous occasions during his tenure. That is perfectly logical, since the major international financial institutions are based in the US, but as an aspiring Prime Minister Mr Brown should be familiar with the world that lies to the east as well as the west of London. It is right that he seeks to understand India by seeing it for himself. This should also inspire him to think about how Britain and India can exploit their extensive connections of history, language, culture and people to their mutual advantage. For Indians, like Americans, are our “cousins”.

This tour will be dominated by economics and trade. There is a wave of Indian money flowing to Britain at present, which is sustainable if business executives and ministers here are savvy and open-minded — the welcome bid by Tata for Corus in the steel sector is but one indication of that potential. Britain should be India’s natural first port of call in Europe, just as India should be the place where British companies feel comfortable as they seek to break into Asian markets.

Mr Brown will appreciate all this, but the challenge for him is to articulate this relationship in full, rounded language. He can, at times, seem to be one-dimensional, pushing the same rhetorical buttons repeatedly. This is the chance for him to show the width and depth that this challenge and opportunity demand of him. He also has to deploy charm to convince India’s leaders of how much they have in common with what used to be described as the “West” in the Cold War era (when Delhi affected neutrality). Tony Blair has spent much of his time in office seeking to make Britain a “bridge” between Europe and America. Under Mr Brown, Britain can also be, and should want to be, a bridge between India and America.