May 29, 2025 • 44 mins
Dr. Elizabeth Economy and Šumit Ganguly sit down to discuss the recent conflict between India and Pakistan, the roots of the conflict between the two nations, and how the United States and China fit into the relationship. Ganguly starts out by giving listeners an overview of the cross-border clashes in early May, where the tension from the two nations stems from; originating over a land dispute along religious lines in the state of Kashmir during the formation of India and Pakistan in the aftermath of the fall of the British Empire in Southern Asia. The two then shift to a conversation about how foreign powers, namely the United States and China, influenced the conflict; namely, through the Pakistani use of Chinese military jets to shoot down several Indian military aircraft, but also how foreign involvement may have helped to bring the conflict to a swift conclusion.
Recorded on May 14, 2025.
ABOUT THE SPEAKERS
Šumit Ganguly is a Senior Fellow and directs the Huntington Program on Strengthening US-India Relations at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is Distinguished Professor of Political Science Emeritus and the Rabindranath Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilizations Emeritus at Indiana University, Bloomington. He has previously taught at James Madison College of Michigan State University, Hunter College, the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, and the University of Texas at Austin.
Professor Ganguly has been a Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, a Visiting Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation and at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University, a Guest Scholar at the Center for Cooperative Monitoring in Albuquerque and a Visiting Scholar at the German Institute for International and Area Studies in Hamburg. He was also the holder of the Ngee Ann Chair in International Politics at the Rajaratnam School for International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore in the spring term of 2010. In 2018 and 2019, he was an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow at the University of Heidelberg, Germany.
Elizabeth Economy is the Hargrove Senior Fellow and co-director of the Program on the US, China, and the World at the Hoover Institution. From 2021-2023, she took leave from Hoover to serve as the senior advisor for China to the US Secretary of Commerce. Before joining Hoover, she was the C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and director, Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is the author of four books on China, including most recently The World According to China (Polity, 2021), and the co-editor of two volumes. She serves on the boards of the National Endowment for Democracy and the National Committee on US-China Relations. She is a member of the Aspen Strategy Group and Council on Foreign Relations and serves as a book reviewer for Foreign Affairs.
ABOUT THE SERIES
China Considered with Elizabeth Economy is a Hoover Institution podcast series that features in-depth conversations with leading political figures, scholars, and activists from around the world. The series explores the ideas, events, and forces shaping China’s future and its global relationships, offering high-level expertise, clear-eyed analysis, and valuable insights to demystify China’s evolving dynamics and what they may mean for ordinary citizens and key decision makers across societies, governments, and the private sector.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
>> Elizabeth Economy (00:08):
Welcome to China Considered, a podcast that brings fresh
insight and informed discussion to one ofthe most consequential issues of our time,
how China is changing andchanging the world.
I'm Liz Economy Hargrove, Senior Fellowand Co Director of the Program on us,
China and the World at the HooverInstitution at Stanford University.
Today I'm joined by my friend andcolleague Sumit Ganguly.
(00:30):
Sumit is a Senior Fellow hereat the Hoover Institution.
He's also one of the world's leadingexperts on India as well as on
the India Pakistan relationship.
We saw recently the outbreak of four daysof deadly fighting between India and
Pakistan in early to mid May thatended with a US brokered ceasefire.
China seemed to step in a bit, but didn'tseem to have an actual game plan for
(00:51):
how to resolve the situation.
I want to talk about the conflictitself and how China and
the United States fit in.
But first, I think this isa conflict that very few people,
including myself, quite frankly,really understand.
Can you give us, Sumit,a little bit of historical background?
Well, first maybe just tell us whatexactly happened and then perhaps we can
(01:11):
talk a little bit about the historyleading up to this because it's certainly
not the first time that the two countrieshave had a challenging interaction.
So maybe just whathappened in this instance.
>> Sumit Ganguly (01:24):
In this instance what happened is towards late April,
when it is quite pleasant in Kashmir,when spring has come to Kashmir,
which is an extraordinarilybeautiful part of the world,
some people have referred toit as the Switzerland of Asia.
There were substantialnumbers of picnickers just
(01:46):
outside the the summer capitalof the Indian controlled
portion of the disputed state of Jammu andKashmir.
The dispute goes back to 1947,from the time of the creation of India and
Pakistan and over which India andPakistan have fought three wars.
(02:09):
And while these mostly Indian anda handful of foreign
picnickers just outsidethe summer capital Srinagar
of the Indian administeredportion of Kashmir were
enjoying themselves andhaving food and drink,
(02:29):
quite abruptly a groupof terrorists attacked.
These picnickers,separated women and children and
then segregated Hindus and Muslims.
And they asked the Hindus torecite certain verses of the Quran
which any Muslim would know,but most Hindus don't.
(02:52):
And that's how they managedto segregate the men and
then proceeded to shootthe men in cold blood.
It was an absolutely gruesome, cynical and
pitiless massacre and26 tourists were killed.
A number of locals who wereMuslims actually took it upon
(03:14):
themselves to shield as manypeople as they could and
carry them away fromthe reach of the terrorists.
Obviously there was a colossalfailure in terms of
intelligence becausethe terrorists traversed an area
of 150 miles from what iscalled the Line of Control,
(03:36):
which is the de facto internationalborder between India and,
and Pakistan in the disputedregion of Kashmir.
So the fact that they were ableto travel that far into Kashmir,
Indian controlled Kashmir,reveals two things.
(03:56):
One, clearly there wasan intelligence failure and
very possibly some connivancefrom disaffected Kashmiris,
because how do you go 150miles in a heavily militarized
area without some shelter,some support from the local population?
(04:18):
In the wake of this attack,Prime Minister Modi,
who is a Hindu nationalist,made it abundantly clear that he
was going to make Pakistan pay a price forthe attack.
He announced that these terroristshad been supported by Pakistan,
(04:38):
an allegation thatPakistan obviously denies.
But it has denied similar accusations in
the past when there has beenfairly clear cut evidence.
A Pakistan based group calledthe Resistance Front took
responsibility for this attack.
(05:01):
And for about a week or so nothinghappened on the Indo Pakistani border,
though vigilance by the two militarieswere dramatically increased.
Shortly thereafter,India launched a massive missile strike
not only into the disputed areas ofKashmir, but into Pakistan proper.
(05:25):
Furthermore, sincethe first time since 1971,
it also used air power tostrike targets within Pakistan,
including at an air basewhich is widely believed
to have Pakistan's nuclearcommand authority.
And that I thought was a fairly bold and
(05:49):
one could even argue brazenmove on the part of India.
The Pakistanis, for their part,retaliated and, and the numbers vary,
but the claims go from three to fiveIndian warplanes were shot down.
(06:09):
It is fascinating.
I heard the Indian Air Chief Marshalon a television channel where he said,
in response to a question from an Indianreporter about the allegations
of the planes being shot down,his phraseology was wonderful.
He said,in combat there are always losses.
(06:31):
However, all our pilotshave returned home safely.
Which means that he's concedingsome planes were shot down,
but they managed to bailout over Indian territory.
So technically he's right on both counts.
>> Elizabeth Economy (06:51):
So I'm guessing from the way that you describe the massive
intelligence failure,
you're talking about a failure ofintelligence on the Indian side.
Is there any cooperation, has there everbeen any cooperation between the Pakistani
intelligence and the Indianintelligence such that you would think,
you know, maybe, you know,if this were truly not in the interest
(07:12):
of the Pakistani government andthere was no, you know, support.
And it doesn't sound like Prime MinisterModi has provided any evidence that
the Pakistani governmenthas actually supported.
Supported this.
Could there have been sort of some kindof intelligence sharing that could have
stopped this from happening,or is that just really not.
There's not even that kindof discussion going on.
>> Sumit Ganguly (07:35):
No. Unlike in the Cold War,
when even at the height of the Cold War,
the US cooperated with the Soviet Unionon a whole range of issues,
including, I was just discussingwith a colleague the other day over
lunch that there was a major agreementon the avoidance of accidents at sea,
(07:57):
which held throughout the course.
Cold War.
And there was the hotline that wasinaugurated after the Cuban Missile Crisis
and there were times when a flock ofCanadian geese set off a nuclear alert.
You know, our colleague here at Stanford,Scott Sagan,
(08:20):
has written about these kinds of episodes.
And there was a conscious efforton the part of both the US and
the Soviet Union to avoidinadvertent escalation,
to avoid inadvertent conflict.
There were a series ofconfidence building measures
(08:41):
that were put in place in the 1990s.
However, all those have completelyfrayed over the last two decades.
And most particularly after swarmingterrorist attack in November 2018,
which there isincontrovertible evidence that
(09:02):
the group that attacked the cityof Bombay had links with
the Inter Services IntelligenceDirectorate of Pakistan.
So whatever littlecooperation existed after
that has basically simply evaporated.
>> Elizabeth Economy (09:23):
So one of the reasons that I think the rest of the world
became so concerned, not only becauseof the, you know, sort of senseless
loss of life, was because bothPakistan and India are nuclear powers.
And there was, of course, a concern thatsomehow, you know, this might escalate.
You never want to see this kindof conflict in any case, but
(09:44):
when you have two nuclear powers with,as you've described,
very little sort of political diplomaticengagement that would, you know,
enable them to de escalate on their own,you know,
this caused quite, quite, I think,a lot of concern globally.
I mean, do you think that there was everreally a risk of some kind of use of
nuclear weapons?
(10:04):
Could it have escalated, you know,had the United States not stepped in or
other nations not stepped in?
Is there, Was that a sortof a realistic proposition?
>> Sumit Ganguly (10:17):
When two countries are implacably at odds and possess nuclear
weapons and have fought four wars andendured multiple crises,
one would be, it would be extremelysort of Pollyannish to suggest,
no, there's no dangerof nuclear escalation.
(10:38):
Again, the literature onpolitical science and
international relations is replete withdiscussions of inadvertent escalation.
In fact, Barry Posen at MIT wrotean entire book of how a conventional
conflict in Europe couldescalate to the nuclear level.
(10:58):
So that prospect,that shadow was always present.
But both sides had compelling incentivesnot to resort to nuclear weapons or
even engage in real nuclearsaber rattling because India,
(11:20):
nor Pakistan, India norPakistan want to be the country
that breaks the postHiroshima nuclear taboo.
That's number one.
And second, given the density ofpopulations on both sides of the border,
a nuclear exchange wouldbe just devastating.
(11:45):
During the height of the Cold War,
there were studies doneof a simple 1 kiloton
airburst over Charlottesville andover Leningrad.
This is all in the unclassified domain,mind you,
these are both fairly industrialcities in industrialized countries.
(12:11):
The devastation andthe human suffering that it would
have cost is simply mindboggling to the point.
As Sir Michael Howard, the greatBritish military historians once said,
perhaps this the survivorswill envy the dead.
>> Elizabeth Economy (12:34):
That is a very powerful statement.
So what is at the heart of the conflict?
Actually you mentionedthey fought four wars.
This has been going on since 1947,establishment of Pakistan.
Why, why and why can it not be resolved?
I mean those are sound likesimplistic questions but
(12:54):
I think it's important to understandwhat's at the heart of all of this.
>> Sumit Ganguly (12:58):
It's anything but simplistic.
I mean I think this is the critical issue.
I've had perfectly intelligent people saythere must be vital minerals in Kashmir.
And I said well if there are,I certainly am not aware nor have India or
Pakistan ever claimedthat there have been.
(13:18):
There are vital rare minerals in Kashmir.
No, it is not somuch about say oil deposits or
rare earths and the like.
It is much more about the following.
It has to do with the time when India andPakistan were created from
(13:41):
the breakup of the British colonial empirefrom what was called British India.
At that time there were twodistinct nationalist movements.
One for the creation of Pakistan,which said that the Muslims
of South Asia need a homelandbecause once the British leave
(14:02):
a predominantly Hindupopulation will marginalize and
maltreat Muslims andconsequently we need our homeland.
India on the other hand was built on theprinciple of secular civic nationalism.
That was the nature of the Indiannationalist movement, that regardless
(14:23):
of your ethnicity or linguisticbackground, your religious background,
you can thrive under the aegis ofa secular democratic plural state.
And the commitment tothis was quite genuine.
It was not a cosmetic commitment.
And Kashmir became an issue becauseit was a so called princely state.
(14:45):
Now there were 561 others whichwere nominally independent as
long as they recognized Britainas the paramount power.
But Lord Mountbatten,the last British Viceroy said well with us
leaving the doctrine ofparamount sea lapse lapses, so
(15:05):
you have a choice of eitherjoining India or Pakistan.
And if you're predominantly Muslim and
in an adjacent area then you willgo to Pakistan and if you're,
and if you're predominantlyHindu you will go, go to India.
There were a handfulof anomalies where for
(15:27):
example there was the state calledHyderabad deep inside India
where the monarch was Muslim,the population predominantly Hindu and
he wanted a Berlin corridor andIndia said, dream on.
That's not going to happen.
>> Elizabeth Economy (15:44):
Right. >> Sumit Ganguly
the Indian territory.
You're going to join us.
And it's to Prime Minister Nehru'scredit that there
was a princely ruler withinPakistan who wanted to join India.
And Nehru said, I'm terribly sorry,I'd like to have you.
But again, there's this problem.
(16:06):
You're nowhere near the border.
Kashmir posed a peculiar problem.
It had a Hindu monarchwho was quite autocratic,
who had mistreated hisMuslim peasantry very badly.
But the, it had a predominantlyMuslim population and
(16:28):
it abated both India and Pakistan.
And there was a contradictionin British policy.
On the one hand, predominantlyMuslim areas would go to Pakistan,
but the monarchs also had the final word.
(16:49):
So this is an inherent tension here andthe monarch in this case,
Maharaja Hari Singh, didn't wantto join either India or Pakistan.
He didn't want to join Indiabecause he didn't want
to give up his vast landed estates andthere would be land reform in India.
He didn't want to join Pakistan because hehad treated his Muslim subjects badly and
(17:11):
he thought he could havethis Switzerland of Asia and
thrive on tourism and apples and apricots.
Fruits grow in abundance in Kashmir.
I've been there as a tourist andI mean you literally stop by a highway and
you can shake a tree andyou can get a harvest of apricots.
(17:32):
Sounds amazing.
>> Sumit Ganguly (17:33):
It's an amazing place.
So he thought he could thrive on this.
And when the Pakistanisforced his hand in that,
they sent in troopsdisguised as disgruntled
tribals and attacked his realm.
(17:54):
And very soon they had reachedthe borders of, not the borders,
the outskirts of Srinagar,the capital where the maharaja was.
And in a panic he appealed to India.
India agreed to provide assistanceif two conditions were met.
One, he would have to signthe instrument of accession legality.
(18:16):
But Nehru,being a democrat with a small D,
said I will only accept this if a mancalled Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah,
who is the leader of the largestpopular organization in
the state which incorporatesboth Hindus and Muslims,
only if Abdullah grants his imprimaturto the accession so legitimacy.
(18:42):
And Abdullah said,I do not wish to live in a country
founded on religion andfurthermore, this is my homeland.
And so yes,once he got that from Abdullah,
he accepts the instrument of accession,sends in troops,
but not before Pakistan has carvedout one third of the state and
(19:06):
India two thirds of the state.
And it's pretty much remained the same.
There have been virtuallyno territorial adjustments,
despite three wars and multiple crises.
Today it is not aboutthe identities of these two states.
(19:26):
Pakistan lost more thanhalf of its territory
in 1971 when in a war with India.
And why did it break away the EastPakistan, which is Bangladesh today,
largely on the basis oflinguistic nationalism,
because Pakistan had imposeda one language formula which was
(19:49):
unacceptable to the Bengali populationin East Pakistan and ultimately
led to linguistic subnationalism andthen a military crackdown and
then Indian intervention leadingto the creation of Bangladesh.
So if religion alone couldnot make Pakistan cohere,
(20:09):
clearly that could not be the basis of,of nation building.
By the same token,one would be hard pressed to say
with a straight face that Indiatoday is a secular state.
>> Elizabeth Economy (20:26):
Okay, that was a tour de force.
>> Sumit Ganguly (20:29):
Thank you.
>> Elizabeth Economy (20:29):
Thank you. Shamit, I think you just took,
I don't know how many books you'vewritten, maybe 20 or more, and
gave us the best, the best narrative andtutorial through many of them.
No doubt.
That was just superb.
So let me ask you then,now let's zoom out a little bit and
(20:52):
talk about how thisconflict has played into or
played out in a broadergeostrategic space.
So one of the narratives that hascome out of this conflict has been
around the military hardware.
That was used by India andused by Pakistan.
And Pakistan of course was relying to someextent on Chinese military equipment.
(21:17):
Whereas India,I think had some Western equipment,
maybe some French, maybe some American.
And I think a lot of mediacommentators basically said
Pakistan emerged as the moresuccessful in this dog fight.
Is that your assessment?
Does it tell us something aboutthe state of play of Chinese, you know,
(21:39):
military equipment?
That should surprise us.
>> Sumit Ganguly (21:43):
Prima facie that seems to be the case, however,
I talked to a colleague ofours who will remain unnamed
because I don't have permission toquote him, explained to me that yes,
if those five planes were downed,that's a serious setback.
(22:05):
But apparently Western militaries,
when they carry out airsorties like this and
penetration into someoneelse's adversaries airspace
also have an entire suiteof planes accompanying
the fighters with electronicjamming equipment,
(22:28):
which makes it exceedingly difficult for
an adversary's aircraftA to intercept them and B,
also to protect themfrom incoming missiles.
He said, I honestly don't know ifthe Indian air force has that capability.
(22:48):
The last time India usedair Power was 1999, but
it was carefully confined toairspace with Indian airspace
with firing missiles into Pakistanicontrolled territory in Kashmir,
the heartland of Pakistan,was not attacked this time.
(23:10):
The planes flew intothe Pakistani heartland.
So yes, the Chinese,I think it's called the JC17 Thunder,
obviously is a capable aircraft, but
I think its capabilitiesmight be exaggerated owing
to the lack of this envelopethat the Indian Air force
(23:35):
may not have had to protecttheir fighter planes.
But nevertheless this willbear considerable scrutiny.
I can imagine Jane's Defense Weeklygoing haywire in the next few weeks,
carefully scrutinizing every skirmish,air skirmish, and dog fight.
>> Elizabeth Economy (23:59):
Right.
And presumably they'll have a better senseover time about exactly what capabilities
the Indians did bring to.
Did bring to the fight, did bring to bear.
>> Sumit Ganguly (24:08):
Yes. >> Elizabeth Economy
what about the broader sort ofgeostrategic landscape in terms of how,
I mean, not only China andthe United States, but
Russia might play into all of this?
What are the interests, as you wouldsee them, of the great powers in.
In this conflict?
I mean, it's a little bit complicated.
(24:28):
Right, because India has fora long time been very, you know,
closely aligned with Russia.
It is now a much stronger.
Become a much stronger partner ofthe United States, has its own territorial
conflict with China that has recently,you know, quieted down.
And Pakistan, for its part, I think,continues to get some military equipment
(24:49):
from the United States, nonetheless hasbecome much more closely tied to China.
How do you understand the kind ofgeostrategic gamesmanship around all
of this?
Yeah, a lot of this will become clearer in the next weeks and
months ahead.
But since a MiG 29 was shot down, and itis also believed that a Russian Sukhoi 30,
(25:11):
which is a fairly sophisticated aircraft,was shot down,
though we don't have independentconfirmation thereof,
we do know that the MiG was shot down,the MiG 29 was shot down.
However, the Russian S400 surface toair missiles apparently performed
extremely well, even based upon, say,accounts in the Financial Times or
(25:35):
by Reuters,which don't have a dog in this fight.
So I suspect that the Indianswill now think long and
hard about their continued relianceon Russian military technology,
particularly aviation technology, and
(25:57):
will fret about Chinese capabilitiesalong its northern borders,
which it has been beefing up lately.
But now I think the Indians will takethe Chinese, the People's Liberation Army,
Air Force, much more seriously,because there was a time a couple of
(26:19):
decades ago when the Indians hadsuperior aircraft, mostly Western,
purchased from abroad, butjust qualitatively superior aircraft.
But now, with the Chinesebuilding bases in Tibet and
with the performance of these aircraftthat the Pakistanis used from China,
(26:39):
it'll give the Indians pause about a lotof their Russian and Soviet equipment.
And obviously Western militarieswill carefully analyze how,
say, the Indian Raphael performed.
Not the Indian, but the French Rafael,
(27:01):
which the Indians had recently bought,performed,
which was part of the mixin these dogfights and
this recent thaw that youreferred to with China,
the Indians will have togive it considerable thought
because the thaw, as I have argued,is merely a pause.
(27:26):
It's not something that.
It does not mean thatthe central border dispute has
somehow miraculously been shelved orPut aside,
it's merely a pause as China deals with,you know,
economic disruption,which was happening anyway.
(27:50):
The, the tariff war with the United Stateshaving other fish to fry like Taiwan and
various other bottlenecks inthe Chinese economy behooved
China to try andsort of settle the border with India.
But the, the centrality ofthe dispute just hasn't gone away.
(28:16):
And consequently the Indianswill have to think long and
hard about how it deals with China and
an adversary that isbasically in hawk to China.
Between cpec, the,the China Pakistan Economic Corridor.
>> Elizabeth Economy (28:35):
Yeah.
>> Sumit Ganguly (28:36):
And its deep reliance on Chinese weaponry and
an implacable adversary.
The Indians will have to dosome serious recalculation and
hope that like previous administrations,
despite the mercurial natureof the Trump administration,
(29:01):
that it will proved to be atleast somewhat steadfast.
>> Elizabeth Economy (29:08):
Yeah, I mean, I do think President Trump has seemed to
relate well to Prime Minister Modi.
>> Sumit Ganguly (29:16):
So far.
>> Elizabeth Economy (29:17):
So far.
And, you know, certainly in the firstTrump administration, I think the quad,
you know, India, the United States,Australia and Japan,
that relationship was actually bolstered,you know, in contrast to
the relationship between the United Statesand the European, our European allies.
For I think, a set of reasons, some ofwhich have to do with sort of China.
(29:41):
I think the United States actually placed,the Trump administration placed
a higher priority on strengtheningour relations with our allies and
partners in Asia and India.
It was an important, I think a veryimportant component of that effort.
And I imagine that that will continue.
I think if we look at the early visits of,you know, Secretary Hexseth and meetings
(30:04):
with Secretary Rubio and, you know,former National Security Adviser Waltz,
a lot of importance was placed onthe countries in the Indo Pacific and
the relationship with the United States.
So, I mean, I take your pointabout the mercurial nature of the,
the president and the administrationwrit large, but I do think we've seen at
(30:25):
least some initial signs of continuityfrom the first Trump administration.
Bode well.
And I mean, it hasn't materialized, but
I think early on there was the sensethat India might be one of the first
countries to end up doing a tradedeal with the United States.
I don't know if you have anyinsight into where that stands.
I haven't heard much about it recently.
>> Sumit Ganguly (30:47):
Everything you have said is correct up to this point.
Trump has significantlymuddied the waters in
India by offering to mediatean end to the conflict.
This is the last thingthe Indians want to hear.
They have a staunch oppositionto third party mediation.
(31:12):
And this goes back to theirunhappy experience at the United
nations in 1947, 48,when they took the case,
the Kashmir case,to the United nations, not as,
not invoking the inherentright of self defense, but
as a breach of international peace andsecurity.
(31:38):
And they made fundamentally legalistic
arguments, not political arguments.
And Pakistan turnedthe whole issue on its head,
playing the victim that it'sreally we who are much smaller,
who are the victims of Indian aggression.
(32:01):
And completely dispensedwith the legal arguments.
And the Indians kept hammering away at thelegal arguments and they basically lost.
And they've neverforgotten that experience.
And consequently, they remain extremely
hostile to the idea ofthird party intervention.
(32:24):
And Rubio, Secretary of State Marco Rubio
muddied the waters even further by saying,
we can meet in a neutralplace to discuss this.
And this just raisedthe hackles of the Indians.
And a good friend of mine was saying thatI think now the trade deal is in abeyance.
(32:50):
The Indians are soangry with Trump and Rubio,
even though they are not publiclystating this, but they are livid.
And making a trade dealat this point would,
there would be the audience costsin India would be much too high.
>> Elizabeth Economy (33:09):
That is fascinating.
I mean, it helps explain, I think,why when the de escalation took place and
Pakistan said, yes,thank you to the United States for
intervening, and India remained silent.
And then, you know, President Trump,I mean, talk about muddying the waters.
I think maybe worse than that.
(33:30):
Apparently he said something about,yes, I promised, you know,
trade or you're going to get no trade.
And that's what brought them,what brought the deal together.
So I guess he probably brought two thingstogether that made India extremely upset.
The threat of, you know, no trade andthe fact that the United States
(33:51):
interceded in the conflict in a waythat India did not appreciate.
Let me just ask you on that front,then, you know,
whether or not you think India transmittedthat to the Trump administration in
advance of the Trumpadministration's efforts.
So did they go into it knowing thatthis was not welcomed by India,
(34:11):
or did they go into it not realizing that?
Because I think that says two verydifferent things about the administration,
the U.S. administration.
>> Sumit Ganguly (34:19):
The tragic part is that there is no ambassador in New Delhi.
There's just a DCM who'sa career Foreign Service officer.
And dcms, as you know, have limitedauthority, particularly in the present
administration, which is skeptical ofthe State Department to begin with.
(34:44):
Second, there is no Assistant Secretaryfor State for south and Central Asia.
The person is still awaiting confirmationhearings, let alone confirmation.
There is a Senior Director forSouth Asia on the nsc,
(35:04):
but there is no NSC director.
Secretary Rubio is wearing that hat.
>> Elizabeth Economy (35:11):
Right.
>> Sumit Ganguly (35:11):
Trump also made a statement which revealed his extraordinary
ignorance of the region,which has all the Indians laughing
with various memes on social media,namely that the Indians and
Pakistanis have been fighting eachother for thousands of years.
>> Elizabeth Economy (35:33):
Dear.
>> Sumit Ganguly (35:34):
Need I say more?
There was no India or Pakistan.
>> Elizabeth Economy (35:38):
Right.
>> Sumit Ganguly (35:39):
At present political formations until the 14th and
15th of August 1947.
>> Elizabeth Economy (35:45):
Yeah, you need, you need not say anymore, Shamit,
but what I need to say isthank you very much and
it sounds like there is a an excellentopening for an ambassador,
US Ambassador to India that youcould fill and that maybe we would
be well served by having you orcertainly someone of your caliber and
(36:09):
deep expertise helping to helpingeveryone understand both India and
the complex dynamics in the region and howbest the US And India can work together.
Because it sounds like this is nota problem that's going away and
US Needs your kind of expertiseto be able to navigate it,
(36:33):
I think in a useful way moving forward.
So thank you for taking the timeto speak with all of us and
help us understand this really complicatedand but fascinating set of issues.
>> Sumit Ganguly (36:47):
Thank you for this opportunity and particularly for the time.
Because normally ina conventional radio interview,
one has to explain all thisin less than 10 minutes and
one can barely scratch the surface.
Unlike in this podcast where youhave given me ample opportunity
(37:08):
to carefully delineatethe complexity of this issue.
>> Elizabeth Economy (37:14):
Well, you did it in a really fascinating way, so
I'm sure that all of our listenersare going to benefit from hearing you.
If you enjoyed this podcast andwant to hear more reasoned discourse and
debate on China, I encourage you tosubscribe to China Considered via
the Hoover Institution website,YouTube channel, or
podcast platform of your choice.
(37:34):
On our next episode of China Considered,we will explore a different
geopolitical conundrum and we will hearfrom former US ambassador to Russia,
Michael McFaul, who will share histhoughts on the Russia-China relationship.
[MUSIC]
Welcome to China Considered, a podcast that brings fresh
insight and informed discussion to one ofthe most consequential issues of our time,
how China is changing andchanging the world.
I'm Liz Economy Hargrove, Senior Fellowand Co Director of the Program on us,
China and the World at the HooverInstitution at Stanford University.
Today I'm joined by my friend andcolleague Sumit Ganguly.
(00:30):
Sumit is a Senior Fellow hereat the Hoover Institution.
He's also one of the world's leadingexperts on India as well as on
the India Pakistan relationship.
We saw recently the outbreak of four daysof deadly fighting between India and
Pakistan in early to mid May thatended with a US brokered ceasefire.
China seemed to step in a bit, but didn'tseem to have an actual game plan for
(00:51):
how to resolve the situation.
I want to talk about the conflictitself and how China and
the United States fit in.
But first, I think this isa conflict that very few people,
including myself, quite frankly,really understand.
Can you give us, Sumit,a little bit of historical background?
Well, first maybe just tell us whatexactly happened and then perhaps we can
(01:11):
talk a little bit about the historyleading up to this because it's certainly
not the first time that the two countrieshave had a challenging interaction.
So maybe just whathappened in this instance.
>> Sumit Ganguly (01:24):
In this instance what happened is towards late April,
when it is quite pleasant in Kashmir,when spring has come to Kashmir,
which is an extraordinarilybeautiful part of the world,
some people have referred toit as the Switzerland of Asia.
There were substantialnumbers of picnickers just
(01:46):
outside the the summer capitalof the Indian controlled
portion of the disputed state of Jammu andKashmir.
The dispute goes back to 1947,from the time of the creation of India and
Pakistan and over which India andPakistan have fought three wars.
(02:09):
And while these mostly Indian anda handful of foreign
picnickers just outsidethe summer capital Srinagar
of the Indian administeredportion of Kashmir were
enjoying themselves andhaving food and drink,
(02:29):
quite abruptly a groupof terrorists attacked.
These picnickers,separated women and children and
then segregated Hindus and Muslims.
And they asked the Hindus torecite certain verses of the Quran
which any Muslim would know,but most Hindus don't.
(02:52):
And that's how they managedto segregate the men and
then proceeded to shootthe men in cold blood.
It was an absolutely gruesome, cynical and
pitiless massacre and26 tourists were killed.
A number of locals who wereMuslims actually took it upon
(03:14):
themselves to shield as manypeople as they could and
carry them away fromthe reach of the terrorists.
Obviously there was a colossalfailure in terms of
intelligence becausethe terrorists traversed an area
of 150 miles from what iscalled the Line of Control,
(03:36):
which is the de facto internationalborder between India and,
and Pakistan in the disputedregion of Kashmir.
So the fact that they were ableto travel that far into Kashmir,
Indian controlled Kashmir,reveals two things.
(03:56):
One, clearly there wasan intelligence failure and
very possibly some connivancefrom disaffected Kashmiris,
because how do you go 150miles in a heavily militarized
area without some shelter,some support from the local population?
(04:18):
In the wake of this attack,Prime Minister Modi,
who is a Hindu nationalist,made it abundantly clear that he
was going to make Pakistan pay a price forthe attack.
He announced that these terroristshad been supported by Pakistan,
(04:38):
an allegation thatPakistan obviously denies.
But it has denied similar accusations in
the past when there has beenfairly clear cut evidence.
A Pakistan based group calledthe Resistance Front took
responsibility for this attack.
(05:01):
And for about a week or so nothinghappened on the Indo Pakistani border,
though vigilance by the two militarieswere dramatically increased.
Shortly thereafter,India launched a massive missile strike
not only into the disputed areas ofKashmir, but into Pakistan proper.
(05:25):
Furthermore, sincethe first time since 1971,
it also used air power tostrike targets within Pakistan,
including at an air basewhich is widely believed
to have Pakistan's nuclearcommand authority.
And that I thought was a fairly bold and
(05:49):
one could even argue brazenmove on the part of India.
The Pakistanis, for their part,retaliated and, and the numbers vary,
but the claims go from three to fiveIndian warplanes were shot down.
(06:09):
It is fascinating.
I heard the Indian Air Chief Marshalon a television channel where he said,
in response to a question from an Indianreporter about the allegations
of the planes being shot down,his phraseology was wonderful.
He said,in combat there are always losses.
(06:31):
However, all our pilotshave returned home safely.
Which means that he's concedingsome planes were shot down,
but they managed to bailout over Indian territory.
So technically he's right on both counts.
>> Elizabeth Economy (06:51):
So I'm guessing from the way that you describe the massive
intelligence failure,
you're talking about a failure ofintelligence on the Indian side.
Is there any cooperation, has there everbeen any cooperation between the Pakistani
intelligence and the Indianintelligence such that you would think,
you know, maybe, you know,if this were truly not in the interest
(07:12):
of the Pakistani government andthere was no, you know, support.
And it doesn't sound like Prime MinisterModi has provided any evidence that
the Pakistani governmenthas actually supported.
Supported this.
Could there have been sort of some kindof intelligence sharing that could have
stopped this from happening,or is that just really not.
There's not even that kindof discussion going on.
>> Sumit Ganguly (07:35):
No. Unlike in the Cold War,
when even at the height of the Cold War,
the US cooperated with the Soviet Unionon a whole range of issues,
including, I was just discussingwith a colleague the other day over
lunch that there was a major agreementon the avoidance of accidents at sea,
(07:57):
which held throughout the course.
Cold War.
And there was the hotline that wasinaugurated after the Cuban Missile Crisis
and there were times when a flock ofCanadian geese set off a nuclear alert.
You know, our colleague here at Stanford,Scott Sagan,
(08:20):
has written about these kinds of episodes.
And there was a conscious efforton the part of both the US and
the Soviet Union to avoidinadvertent escalation,
to avoid inadvertent conflict.
There were a series ofconfidence building measures
(08:41):
that were put in place in the 1990s.
However, all those have completelyfrayed over the last two decades.
And most particularly after swarmingterrorist attack in November 2018,
which there isincontrovertible evidence that
(09:02):
the group that attacked the cityof Bombay had links with
the Inter Services IntelligenceDirectorate of Pakistan.
So whatever littlecooperation existed after
that has basically simply evaporated.
>> Elizabeth Economy (09:23):
So one of the reasons that I think the rest of the world
became so concerned, not only becauseof the, you know, sort of senseless
loss of life, was because bothPakistan and India are nuclear powers.
And there was, of course, a concern thatsomehow, you know, this might escalate.
You never want to see this kindof conflict in any case, but
(09:44):
when you have two nuclear powers with,as you've described,
very little sort of political diplomaticengagement that would, you know,
enable them to de escalate on their own,you know,
this caused quite, quite, I think,a lot of concern globally.
I mean, do you think that there was everreally a risk of some kind of use of
nuclear weapons?
(10:04):
Could it have escalated, you know,had the United States not stepped in or
other nations not stepped in?
Is there, Was that a sortof a realistic proposition?
>> Sumit Ganguly (10:17):
When two countries are implacably at odds and possess nuclear
weapons and have fought four wars andendured multiple crises,
one would be, it would be extremelysort of Pollyannish to suggest,
no, there's no dangerof nuclear escalation.
(10:38):
Again, the literature onpolitical science and
international relations is replete withdiscussions of inadvertent escalation.
In fact, Barry Posen at MIT wrotean entire book of how a conventional
conflict in Europe couldescalate to the nuclear level.
(10:58):
So that prospect,that shadow was always present.
But both sides had compelling incentivesnot to resort to nuclear weapons or
even engage in real nuclearsaber rattling because India,
(11:20):
nor Pakistan, India norPakistan want to be the country
that breaks the postHiroshima nuclear taboo.
That's number one.
And second, given the density ofpopulations on both sides of the border,
a nuclear exchange wouldbe just devastating.
(11:45):
During the height of the Cold War,
there were studies doneof a simple 1 kiloton
airburst over Charlottesville andover Leningrad.
This is all in the unclassified domain,mind you,
these are both fairly industrialcities in industrialized countries.
(12:11):
The devastation andthe human suffering that it would
have cost is simply mindboggling to the point.
As Sir Michael Howard, the greatBritish military historians once said,
perhaps this the survivorswill envy the dead.
>> Elizabeth Economy (12:34):
That is a very powerful statement.
So what is at the heart of the conflict?
Actually you mentionedthey fought four wars.
This has been going on since 1947,establishment of Pakistan.
Why, why and why can it not be resolved?
I mean those are sound likesimplistic questions but
(12:54):
I think it's important to understandwhat's at the heart of all of this.
>> Sumit Ganguly (12:58):
It's anything but simplistic.
I mean I think this is the critical issue.
I've had perfectly intelligent people saythere must be vital minerals in Kashmir.
And I said well if there are,I certainly am not aware nor have India or
Pakistan ever claimedthat there have been.
(13:18):
There are vital rare minerals in Kashmir.
No, it is not somuch about say oil deposits or
rare earths and the like.
It is much more about the following.
It has to do with the time when India andPakistan were created from
(13:41):
the breakup of the British colonial empirefrom what was called British India.
At that time there were twodistinct nationalist movements.
One for the creation of Pakistan,which said that the Muslims
of South Asia need a homelandbecause once the British leave
(14:02):
a predominantly Hindupopulation will marginalize and
maltreat Muslims andconsequently we need our homeland.
India on the other hand was built on theprinciple of secular civic nationalism.
That was the nature of the Indiannationalist movement, that regardless
(14:23):
of your ethnicity or linguisticbackground, your religious background,
you can thrive under the aegis ofa secular democratic plural state.
And the commitment tothis was quite genuine.
It was not a cosmetic commitment.
And Kashmir became an issue becauseit was a so called princely state.
(14:45):
Now there were 561 others whichwere nominally independent as
long as they recognized Britainas the paramount power.
But Lord Mountbatten,the last British Viceroy said well with us
leaving the doctrine ofparamount sea lapse lapses, so
(15:05):
you have a choice of eitherjoining India or Pakistan.
And if you're predominantly Muslim and
in an adjacent area then you willgo to Pakistan and if you're,
and if you're predominantlyHindu you will go, go to India.
There were a handfulof anomalies where for
(15:27):
example there was the state calledHyderabad deep inside India
where the monarch was Muslim,the population predominantly Hindu and
he wanted a Berlin corridor andIndia said, dream on.
That's not going to happen.
>> Elizabeth Economy (15:44):
Right. >> Sumit Ganguly
the Indian territory.
You're going to join us.
And it's to Prime Minister Nehru'scredit that there
was a princely ruler withinPakistan who wanted to join India.
And Nehru said, I'm terribly sorry,I'd like to have you.
But again, there's this problem.
(16:06):
You're nowhere near the border.
Kashmir posed a peculiar problem.
It had a Hindu monarchwho was quite autocratic,
who had mistreated hisMuslim peasantry very badly.
But the, it had a predominantlyMuslim population and
(16:28):
it abated both India and Pakistan.
And there was a contradictionin British policy.
On the one hand, predominantlyMuslim areas would go to Pakistan,
but the monarchs also had the final word.
(16:49):
So this is an inherent tension here andthe monarch in this case,
Maharaja Hari Singh, didn't wantto join either India or Pakistan.
He didn't want to join Indiabecause he didn't want
to give up his vast landed estates andthere would be land reform in India.
He didn't want to join Pakistan because hehad treated his Muslim subjects badly and
(17:11):
he thought he could havethis Switzerland of Asia and
thrive on tourism and apples and apricots.
Fruits grow in abundance in Kashmir.
I've been there as a tourist andI mean you literally stop by a highway and
you can shake a tree andyou can get a harvest of apricots.
(17:32):
Sounds amazing.
>> Sumit Ganguly (17:33):
It's an amazing place.
So he thought he could thrive on this.
And when the Pakistanisforced his hand in that,
they sent in troopsdisguised as disgruntled
tribals and attacked his realm.
(17:54):
And very soon they had reachedthe borders of, not the borders,
the outskirts of Srinagar,the capital where the maharaja was.
And in a panic he appealed to India.
India agreed to provide assistanceif two conditions were met.
One, he would have to signthe instrument of accession legality.
(18:16):
But Nehru,being a democrat with a small D,
said I will only accept this if a mancalled Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah,
who is the leader of the largestpopular organization in
the state which incorporatesboth Hindus and Muslims,
only if Abdullah grants his imprimaturto the accession so legitimacy.
(18:42):
And Abdullah said,I do not wish to live in a country
founded on religion andfurthermore, this is my homeland.
And so yes,once he got that from Abdullah,
he accepts the instrument of accession,sends in troops,
but not before Pakistan has carvedout one third of the state and
(19:06):
India two thirds of the state.
And it's pretty much remained the same.
There have been virtuallyno territorial adjustments,
despite three wars and multiple crises.
Today it is not aboutthe identities of these two states.
(19:26):
Pakistan lost more thanhalf of its territory
in 1971 when in a war with India.
And why did it break away the EastPakistan, which is Bangladesh today,
largely on the basis oflinguistic nationalism,
because Pakistan had imposeda one language formula which was
(19:49):
unacceptable to the Bengali populationin East Pakistan and ultimately
led to linguistic subnationalism andthen a military crackdown and
then Indian intervention leadingto the creation of Bangladesh.
So if religion alone couldnot make Pakistan cohere,
(20:09):
clearly that could not be the basis of,of nation building.
By the same token,one would be hard pressed to say
with a straight face that Indiatoday is a secular state.
>> Elizabeth Economy (20:26):
Okay, that was a tour de force.
>> Sumit Ganguly (20:29):
Thank you.
>> Elizabeth Economy (20:29):
Thank you. Shamit, I think you just took,
I don't know how many books you'vewritten, maybe 20 or more, and
gave us the best, the best narrative andtutorial through many of them.
No doubt.
That was just superb.
So let me ask you then,now let's zoom out a little bit and
(20:52):
talk about how thisconflict has played into or
played out in a broadergeostrategic space.
So one of the narratives that hascome out of this conflict has been
around the military hardware.
That was used by India andused by Pakistan.
And Pakistan of course was relying to someextent on Chinese military equipment.
(21:17):
Whereas India,I think had some Western equipment,
maybe some French, maybe some American.
And I think a lot of mediacommentators basically said
Pakistan emerged as the moresuccessful in this dog fight.
Is that your assessment?
Does it tell us something aboutthe state of play of Chinese, you know,
(21:39):
military equipment?
That should surprise us.
>> Sumit Ganguly (21:43):
Prima facie that seems to be the case, however,
I talked to a colleague ofours who will remain unnamed
because I don't have permission toquote him, explained to me that yes,
if those five planes were downed,that's a serious setback.
(22:05):
But apparently Western militaries,
when they carry out airsorties like this and
penetration into someoneelse's adversaries airspace
also have an entire suiteof planes accompanying
the fighters with electronicjamming equipment,
(22:28):
which makes it exceedingly difficult for
an adversary's aircraftA to intercept them and B,
also to protect themfrom incoming missiles.
He said, I honestly don't know ifthe Indian air force has that capability.
(22:48):
The last time India usedair Power was 1999, but
it was carefully confined toairspace with Indian airspace
with firing missiles into Pakistanicontrolled territory in Kashmir,
the heartland of Pakistan,was not attacked this time.
(23:10):
The planes flew intothe Pakistani heartland.
So yes, the Chinese,I think it's called the JC17 Thunder,
obviously is a capable aircraft, but
I think its capabilitiesmight be exaggerated owing
to the lack of this envelopethat the Indian Air force
(23:35):
may not have had to protecttheir fighter planes.
But nevertheless this willbear considerable scrutiny.
I can imagine Jane's Defense Weeklygoing haywire in the next few weeks,
carefully scrutinizing every skirmish,air skirmish, and dog fight.
>> Elizabeth Economy (23:59):
Right.
And presumably they'll have a better senseover time about exactly what capabilities
the Indians did bring to.
Did bring to the fight, did bring to bear.
>> Sumit Ganguly (24:08):
Yes. >> Elizabeth Economy
what about the broader sort ofgeostrategic landscape in terms of how,
I mean, not only China andthe United States, but
Russia might play into all of this?
What are the interests, as you wouldsee them, of the great powers in.
In this conflict?
I mean, it's a little bit complicated.
(24:28):
Right, because India has fora long time been very, you know,
closely aligned with Russia.
It is now a much stronger.
Become a much stronger partner ofthe United States, has its own territorial
conflict with China that has recently,you know, quieted down.
And Pakistan, for its part, I think,continues to get some military equipment
(24:49):
from the United States, nonetheless hasbecome much more closely tied to China.
How do you understand the kind ofgeostrategic gamesmanship around all
of this?
Yeah, a lot of this will become clearer in the next weeks and
months ahead.
But since a MiG 29 was shot down, and itis also believed that a Russian Sukhoi 30,
(25:11):
which is a fairly sophisticated aircraft,was shot down,
though we don't have independentconfirmation thereof,
we do know that the MiG was shot down,the MiG 29 was shot down.
However, the Russian S400 surface toair missiles apparently performed
extremely well, even based upon, say,accounts in the Financial Times or
(25:35):
by Reuters,which don't have a dog in this fight.
So I suspect that the Indianswill now think long and
hard about their continued relianceon Russian military technology,
particularly aviation technology, and
(25:57):
will fret about Chinese capabilitiesalong its northern borders,
which it has been beefing up lately.
But now I think the Indians will takethe Chinese, the People's Liberation Army,
Air Force, much more seriously,because there was a time a couple of
(26:19):
decades ago when the Indians hadsuperior aircraft, mostly Western,
purchased from abroad, butjust qualitatively superior aircraft.
But now, with the Chinesebuilding bases in Tibet and
with the performance of these aircraftthat the Pakistanis used from China,
(26:39):
it'll give the Indians pause about a lotof their Russian and Soviet equipment.
And obviously Western militarieswill carefully analyze how,
say, the Indian Raphael performed.
Not the Indian, but the French Rafael,
(27:01):
which the Indians had recently bought,performed,
which was part of the mixin these dogfights and
this recent thaw that youreferred to with China,
the Indians will have togive it considerable thought
because the thaw, as I have argued,is merely a pause.
(27:26):
It's not something that.
It does not mean thatthe central border dispute has
somehow miraculously been shelved orPut aside,
it's merely a pause as China deals with,you know,
economic disruption,which was happening anyway.
(27:50):
The, the tariff war with the United Stateshaving other fish to fry like Taiwan and
various other bottlenecks inthe Chinese economy behooved
China to try andsort of settle the border with India.
But the, the centrality ofthe dispute just hasn't gone away.
(28:16):
And consequently the Indianswill have to think long and
hard about how it deals with China and
an adversary that isbasically in hawk to China.
Between cpec, the,the China Pakistan Economic Corridor.
>> Elizabeth Economy (28:35):
Yeah.
>> Sumit Ganguly (28:36):
And its deep reliance on Chinese weaponry and
an implacable adversary.
The Indians will have to dosome serious recalculation and
hope that like previous administrations,
despite the mercurial natureof the Trump administration,
(29:01):
that it will proved to be atleast somewhat steadfast.
>> Elizabeth Economy (29:08):
Yeah, I mean, I do think President Trump has seemed to
relate well to Prime Minister Modi.
>> Sumit Ganguly (29:16):
So far.
>> Elizabeth Economy (29:17):
So far.
And, you know, certainly in the firstTrump administration, I think the quad,
you know, India, the United States,Australia and Japan,
that relationship was actually bolstered,you know, in contrast to
the relationship between the United Statesand the European, our European allies.
For I think, a set of reasons, some ofwhich have to do with sort of China.
(29:41):
I think the United States actually placed,the Trump administration placed
a higher priority on strengtheningour relations with our allies and
partners in Asia and India.
It was an important, I think a veryimportant component of that effort.
And I imagine that that will continue.
I think if we look at the early visits of,you know, Secretary Hexseth and meetings
(30:04):
with Secretary Rubio and, you know,former National Security Adviser Waltz,
a lot of importance was placed onthe countries in the Indo Pacific and
the relationship with the United States.
So, I mean, I take your pointabout the mercurial nature of the,
the president and the administrationwrit large, but I do think we've seen at
(30:25):
least some initial signs of continuityfrom the first Trump administration.
Bode well.
And I mean, it hasn't materialized, but
I think early on there was the sensethat India might be one of the first
countries to end up doing a tradedeal with the United States.
I don't know if you have anyinsight into where that stands.
I haven't heard much about it recently.
>> Sumit Ganguly (30:47):
Everything you have said is correct up to this point.
Trump has significantlymuddied the waters in
India by offering to mediatean end to the conflict.
This is the last thingthe Indians want to hear.
They have a staunch oppositionto third party mediation.
(31:12):
And this goes back to theirunhappy experience at the United
nations in 1947, 48,when they took the case,
the Kashmir case,to the United nations, not as,
not invoking the inherentright of self defense, but
as a breach of international peace andsecurity.
(31:38):
And they made fundamentally legalistic
arguments, not political arguments.
And Pakistan turnedthe whole issue on its head,
playing the victim that it'sreally we who are much smaller,
who are the victims of Indian aggression.
(32:01):
And completely dispensedwith the legal arguments.
And the Indians kept hammering away at thelegal arguments and they basically lost.
And they've neverforgotten that experience.
And consequently, they remain extremely
hostile to the idea ofthird party intervention.
(32:24):
And Rubio, Secretary of State Marco Rubio
muddied the waters even further by saying,
we can meet in a neutralplace to discuss this.
And this just raisedthe hackles of the Indians.
And a good friend of mine was saying thatI think now the trade deal is in abeyance.
(32:50):
The Indians are soangry with Trump and Rubio,
even though they are not publiclystating this, but they are livid.
And making a trade dealat this point would,
there would be the audience costsin India would be much too high.
>> Elizabeth Economy (33:09):
That is fascinating.
I mean, it helps explain, I think,why when the de escalation took place and
Pakistan said, yes,thank you to the United States for
intervening, and India remained silent.
And then, you know, President Trump,I mean, talk about muddying the waters.
I think maybe worse than that.
(33:30):
Apparently he said something about,yes, I promised, you know,
trade or you're going to get no trade.
And that's what brought them,what brought the deal together.
So I guess he probably brought two thingstogether that made India extremely upset.
The threat of, you know, no trade andthe fact that the United States
(33:51):
interceded in the conflict in a waythat India did not appreciate.
Let me just ask you on that front,then, you know,
whether or not you think India transmittedthat to the Trump administration in
advance of the Trumpadministration's efforts.
So did they go into it knowing thatthis was not welcomed by India,
(34:11):
or did they go into it not realizing that?
Because I think that says two verydifferent things about the administration,
the U.S. administration.
>> Sumit Ganguly (34:19):
The tragic part is that there is no ambassador in New Delhi.
There's just a DCM who'sa career Foreign Service officer.
And dcms, as you know, have limitedauthority, particularly in the present
administration, which is skeptical ofthe State Department to begin with.
(34:44):
Second, there is no Assistant Secretaryfor State for south and Central Asia.
The person is still awaiting confirmationhearings, let alone confirmation.
There is a Senior Director forSouth Asia on the nsc,
(35:04):
but there is no NSC director.
Secretary Rubio is wearing that hat.
>> Elizabeth Economy (35:11):
Right.
>> Sumit Ganguly (35:11):
Trump also made a statement which revealed his extraordinary
ignorance of the region,which has all the Indians laughing
with various memes on social media,namely that the Indians and
Pakistanis have been fighting eachother for thousands of years.
>> Elizabeth Economy (35:33):
Dear.
>> Sumit Ganguly (35:34):
Need I say more?
There was no India or Pakistan.
>> Elizabeth Economy (35:38):
Right.
>> Sumit Ganguly (35:39):
At present political formations until the 14th and
15th of August 1947.
>> Elizabeth Economy (35:45):
Yeah, you need, you need not say anymore, Shamit,
but what I need to say isthank you very much and
it sounds like there is a an excellentopening for an ambassador,
US Ambassador to India that youcould fill and that maybe we would
be well served by having you orcertainly someone of your caliber and
(36:09):
deep expertise helping to helpingeveryone understand both India and
the complex dynamics in the region and howbest the US And India can work together.
Because it sounds like this is nota problem that's going away and
US Needs your kind of expertiseto be able to navigate it,
(36:33):
I think in a useful way moving forward.
So thank you for taking the timeto speak with all of us and
help us understand this really complicatedand but fascinating set of issues.
>> Sumit Ganguly (36:47):
Thank you for this opportunity and particularly for the time.
Because normally ina conventional radio interview,
one has to explain all thisin less than 10 minutes and
one can barely scratch the surface.
Unlike in this podcast where youhave given me ample opportunity
(37:08):
to carefully delineatethe complexity of this issue.
>> Elizabeth Economy (37:14):
Well, you did it in a really fascinating way, so
I'm sure that all of our listenersare going to benefit from hearing you.
If you enjoyed this podcast andwant to hear more reasoned discourse and
debate on China, I encourage you tosubscribe to China Considered via
the Hoover Institution website,YouTube channel, or
podcast platform of your choice.
(37:34):
On our next episode of China Considered,we will explore a different
geopolitical conundrum and we will hearfrom former US ambassador to Russia,
Michael McFaul, who will share histhoughts on the Russia-China relationship.
[MUSIC]
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!