Modi's Foreign Policy Masterclass: Navigating the Chakravyuh with Russia & Europe | Chakravyuh | Ep 09 - Chakravyuh

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is India Today podcasts.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
Prime Minister Narindromodi will be heading to China for the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit. He will then be going to
the United States of America later in September for the UNNGA.
The External Affairs Minister is heading to Russia. The National
Security Advisor was recently in Russia. The Russian President will

(00:28):
be coming to India later this year. There's a lot
happening internationally globally, and India is right in the center
of this Chuck Review of changing dynamics and equations internationally.

Speaker 3 (00:43):
To talk more.

Speaker 2 (00:44):
About this and where are we in this Chuck Review,
it is my proud privilege to welcome on the Chuck
Review podcast Ambassador Kawal Sibil. Ambassador Kal Sibyl is the
Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University. He's been our ambassador
to Turkey, to Egypt, to France and to Russia and

(01:07):
a Deputy Chief of Mission in the United States of
America with the rank of an ambassador. You've you know,
forty one years of diplomacy, Sir, You've served across the world.

Speaker 3 (01:16):
Welcome on the Chuck Review.

Speaker 1 (01:17):
Thank you very much, thank you for inviting me.

Speaker 2 (01:20):
So where do you see India right now in midst
of this global chuck review as we look at America
suddenly cozying up to Pakistan and ase Munir you know
is in America for the second time in a couple
of months, the way America calls Pakistan a phenomenal partner

(01:41):
in the war on terror, and the way twenty five
percent plus an additional twenty five percent sanctions have been
imposed on a close strategic partner that India is.

Speaker 1 (01:50):
Well, you know, we've been We have been through these
kind of difficulties in the past. The country that has
sanctioned us the most and weakened our strategic rise in
a very material way for a few decades for the
United States of America. After the nuclear deal in two
thousand and five, relations began to improve and the United

(02:14):
States walked back from those sanctions, realized that they were futile.
Since India had gone nuclear, there was no way that
they could push back India's nuclear programs, So they had
to reconcile with a new India and potentially much more
powerful India. And since we had also started liberalizing our economy,
so they had then an enhanced economic interest in the

(02:37):
Indian market. And then it is around this time, not
quite there were problems that were arising in US China
relations because China had begun to rise phenomenally, and after
Chijinpin came to power and these unveiled his cards, then
it was quite clear that it was not the China

(02:57):
of Dang Shaping or hu Jintaou that US was dealing with,
but a much more assertive nationalist China, which has certain
ambitions and which had declared that by twenty fifty they
will be at the center of international relations, which means
either equal to or displacing the United States. So that
also increased US interest in India. And then there was

(03:22):
a big change in India US relations, where today US
is our biggest economic partner, biggest trade partner in goods
and services, biggest investor in India. There are become a
very significant defense partner, with about twenty twenty two to
twenty four billion dollars of defense trade between the two countries,

(03:43):
and so many other agreements have taken place in order
to strengthen our defense ties, whether it's the Foundational Agreements
or Malabar exercises or bilateral air naval seass air naval
land exercises, try services exercises. They named the Pacific Command
as the Indo Pacific Command. There's a cord. There is

(04:03):
the whole Intero Pacific strategy. So look at the change.

Speaker 3 (04:08):
And now are we doing another change?

Speaker 1 (04:10):
Meant know what I meant is that there are these
fluctuations in international relations and India has gone through them.
And not only as India survived, but India has immerged
stronger as the challenges have become stronger. We've had to
redefine our own thinking and approach and policies and have
emerged stronger. As I said, fourth largest economy this year

(04:32):
and third largest by twenty thirty. Though, mind you, the
gap between US and China or US in the United
States is very considerable. But we are a rising market,
a huge consumer market one point four billion people, where
domestic consumptions will go up rate of growth sixty six

(04:53):
point whatever percent. Look at the huge prospect other countries
have in the Indian market, I mean Western countries in particular. Therefore,
India is going to be very very important. Look at Europe,
they are growing at one percent, half percent or whatever else,
and other countries, small countries. They may be growing at
a rapid rate, but the market is too small.

Speaker 3 (05:14):
How do you then see America behiving in the manner
in which I'm.

Speaker 1 (05:18):
Coming to the question you ask me, and then I'll
answered this yes, And then in terms of this chuck
review business and everything else that you mentioned, we came
out of it in flying colors in the G twenty.
I mean, the G twenty would have collapsed but for
Indian diplomacy because we managed to have a joint statement

(05:41):
and a joint statement even before the G twenty concluded
on the very first day. We were able to negotiate
and announce the joint statement at a time when there
was fear that the West, led by the United States
and Europe, would not reconcile to any formulation which was

(06:02):
not going to be very damning against Russia. True, we
managed it and China as part of G twenty. All
of these countries knew that if India had a G
twenty success, it will raise our profile internationally. Like China
staged the Olympics in two thousand and eight, and it
was the moment for China to strut on the international

(06:24):
stage and g twenty was the kind of an event
for US where we made a mark on the international stage.
So it's not as if we've not faced challenges and
conflicting situations, animosities, situations where we thought there may be
an impass where we were able to manage that. Now

(06:46):
what had happened with the United States is really puzzling
if you ask me, And it's all related to the
personality of President Trump and the forces that have propelled
him to power in the United States. He has upturned
international diplomacy and the international system. The United States role

(07:08):
in the world. United States diplomacy is not going to
be the same no matter Trump is there or is
not there, because they are in the process of wrecking
the system that they themselves created to their advantage and
found that because of their profligacy and the indebtedness and
living off the back of the world, thinking that this

(07:29):
is going to continue forever, and has accumulated debt levels
which are unmanageable. True, he wants therefore now to revive
the US economy, but revive the US economy by trashing
everybody else by using taliffs. The whole wto was created
by the United States and to avoid the order in

(07:50):
order to precisely avoid this free for all in trade
and everything else MFN. As you rightly said, that was
the logic that you deep decize international trade so everybody benefits.
Now he's totally wrecked that erector system. And then unfortunately

(08:11):
there is something personal that has gotten into the Holy
equation between Trump and India. If it was purely on
the basis of pure politics, one can have a particular analysis.
But if it is personal, then how do you analyze
a narcissistic man, a highly egoistic fellow?

Speaker 3 (08:31):
So should we? If I may?

Speaker 2 (08:33):
You know when you say something personal happened, something personal
happened during Obsendur or after obsur because Prime Minister and
not in Remodi and India were quite you know, quick
off the block. Twenty January Trump was sworn in. I
was there in America was reporting it. The February Prime
Minister and in Remodi went there.

Speaker 3 (08:51):
We were told the.

Speaker 2 (08:52):
Economy together will be five hundred billion dollars by twenty
thirty and a bilateral trade agreement in some form soon
and by four we'll have it. Is it during option
do that he desperately want Donald Trump wants wants a
Nobel praise. And because he wants a Nobel praise, he
wants India to say, yes, we got the cease fire
because of you, because we didn't say it. Now he's

(09:14):
throwing the you know, the trade deal out.

Speaker 1 (09:17):
Look, if this analysis is right, and I don't think
it's wrong, what does this show the man? Simply he
didn't get credit for something, he's wrecking the relationship with India?
Is this? This is puerile, This is childish. This doesn't
make any sense. But should relationship between countries can't be

(09:37):
based on this kind of personal whims And if you
are personally annoyed as something, therefore you do not look
at the larger relationship, look ahead in terms of what
are the equities that you must protect, what is the
geopolitics behind it? You can't discord that this is this
is pure, this childish, This is puerile. To use the

(09:58):
word again.

Speaker 2 (09:59):
Now, should we have for a moment just to play
the devil's advocate because we know the trade deal is
important and it's important for our people and their people?
Should we have given him credit even if he didn't
deserve it.

Speaker 1 (10:13):
Look, the point is that, as you rightly said, in February,
Prime Minister when there, and we were surprised at the
substantive joint statement that was issued. In fact, the new
administration began to own all that was agreed during the
Biden administration in terms of ICT and everything else, technology, transfers, relationship,

(10:37):
trade five hundred billion dollars. You said, and we had
agreed that we will have an interim trade deal and
then a proper comprehence comprehensive feed not free trade, but
multi sector, multisexual trade agreement by September October when we
had the Cord Summit, and we have six rounds of
negotiations face to face plus several virtual engagements of a

(11:01):
commerce minister has been there more than the once. I
understand it's not a secret that what was negotiated between
the USDR and the Indian side was satisfactory to the Americans.
Satisfactory they presented to the Trump But and I had
anticipated that, And if you look at my ex things,
I said that now that he has kicked Europe in

(11:25):
the shins and got such a one sided deal, and
he has kicked Japan the way he has, I didn't
use those words X. He's going to be tough with
in there.

Speaker 3 (11:33):
I remember, and this.

Speaker 1 (11:34):
Is precisely what happened. Since he had tasted blood. He said,
India can't get away with this, So I to have
everything open, or almost everything open, as was said by
Jamie Grierson. He said, we presented it to Trump, We
put it on his table. He said everything should be open,
almost everything should be open. So he decided that he
could then squeeze in there and then the operations since

(11:57):
would happened when he was in southde Aaa. Yeah, maybe
he felt that his peace agenda had now got derailed
because a new flare up had occurred and India had
shown muscle, which he didn't expect India to do. So
sitting in Saudi Area, now, what was whispered in his
ears in those Arab circles, I don't know that is

(12:20):
That is one aspect. The other is that he's always
been a bit enamored of Pakistan. Remember when Imran Khan
went to the United States when he was Prime minister there,
he talked about mediating between India and Pakistan and he said,
I raised this with Modi, but more he is a
tough man. He said, I'll deal with it myself. You
don't have to do that kind of thing. Now now that

(12:43):
this operations in Dur occurred, he thought he might go
back to playing that role of a mediator and this
and that and that. In the meantime, also there is
this scrypto deal and don't underestimate it. As I understand now,
I have no facts to be access fact, meaning I
have no evidence in my hand to back this. But

(13:04):
as I understand from good sources, and these are not
our sources, but sources European sources and from the Middle East,
that the brother of the UAE has invested two billion
in a in a cryptocurrency deal in which which has

(13:31):
as partners people around Trump and his family and our friend,
this fellow, Steve Whitkoff, and it is sixty percent to
the Trump entourage and with Cough's thing and forty percent
now the Pakistan Army so called Field Marshall money, they

(13:54):
have taken a share of this. And Shaikh Tamum or
whatever his name, has put in one sy put two billions.
So one point two billion is going to the Steve
whit Koff and that beach fellow. And who's got link,
the one who got the link?

Speaker 3 (14:10):
Yeah, with Pakistan.

Speaker 1 (14:11):
Also, then this is the background of also his annoyance
or his pro Pakistani inclination that there is a big
personal business interests involved in this scrypto business, which Muni
has facilitated because he signed a separate contract with this

(14:33):
company which has been floating in the UE. So maybe
this has also contributed to his benign attitude towards Pakistan.

Speaker 2 (14:45):
But the Trump tars that he wants to build in
India in various cities. I mean, we are a big
country and as you know, as you very rightly pointed out,
so that we're going to be the third largest economy
in the world in the next five years. Pakistan is
a failing state if is he actually taken in one
by the cryptocurrency, two by oil, because six I think

(15:05):
sixteen or seventeen times in the past there was an
attempt to find oil, including by American companies, Canadian companies,
European companies. They found no oil. All their attempts failed.
If there were minerals to harness, China would have tried
to harness that before Pakistan, before the United States. So
is Munir leading Trump up the garden path and is

(15:26):
he willingly going up that garden path.

Speaker 1 (15:31):
Well, I superficially one can say that. But this is
saying that these guys don't think for themselves. They have
no facts available to them. They are taking decisions, you know, impulsively,
with nothing concrete to back them. I don't know if
this is entirely true or not. However, there's another angle

(15:51):
to this. China is the biggest partner of Pakistan. Yes,
the CPC is the flagship project of the CPEC. They're
building up Guada, which is right next to Budozaistan and
right next to the offshore and onshore oil and everything else.
One has never heard of China showing any interest in

(16:14):
trying to go in for a project which would bring
them energy which they can transport very easily through the
CPEC to China. Now, if China sitting there and in
the most privileged position and never thought of the possibility
of exploiting the mineral resources of Pakistan, where is America

(16:34):
imagining this? Then you have this problem in Balozaistan. Now
they've declared the Blozistan Liberation Front a terrorist organization. Now
is it that the Americans have learned no lessons in Afghanistan?
They want to go in there and get a few
Americans killed or have what do they have in mind?
It doesn't make any sense. No, it doesn't because it

(16:56):
doesn't make any sense true. So and this and then
are the general Kerrilla. He says that the phenomenal counter
terrorism cooperation between the United States and Pakistan, and this
he says a few days after operations Sindur and of
course the Pelagama attack, which means that they don't think
that the counter terrorism includes anything which relates to Pakistani

(17:20):
sponsors of terrorism against India. So they very narrowly defined
their counter terrorism as only directed against American interests. So
what is this war on terror?

Speaker 2 (17:30):
No, but they're not even looking after American interests, are they?
Because they can't be so myopic that they have forgotten O.
Sama bin Laden was found in Abbattabad in Pakistan, exactly,
the fact that close to three thousand people died in
nine to eleven.

Speaker 1 (17:45):
And the Pakistani hand in that, and.

Speaker 2 (17:48):
There was a Pakistani hand in that, and I want
you to elaborate on that, Sir. And the fact that
more than two thousand, seven hundred US and NATO soldiers
were killed in Afghanistan in Afghanistani was Pakistan that was
aiding and abetting the Hakhani network. So if Pakistan is
directly or indirectly responsible for more than if I may
close close to five thousand, five hundred or six thousand

(18:11):
American lives lost. And yet they call Pakistan a phenomenal partner.

Speaker 3 (18:16):
They are more than my OPI.

Speaker 1 (18:17):
In the Mumbai attack. Also, Americans were six.

Speaker 3 (18:19):
Americans were during twenty six eleven.

Speaker 1 (18:21):
Absolutely, and then you remember the statement, the testimony given
by Madelin Malan Malan in the saying that the Akhanian
network is a veritable arm of the II. Absolutely, So
it doesn't make any sense. Now, how do you make
any sense out of nonsense? I mean, I can't, I

(18:44):
can't do that is Pakistan now? Therefore, therefore see the
second angle that United States wants to now being away
Pakistan from China. Yeah, complete nonsense, nonsense, complete nonsense for
two three reasons. One that the United States and China
together in different degrees, helped Pakistan to become a nuclear

(19:08):
weapons state. Yes, and who were the nuclear weapons directed
at Pakistan? US? When it comes to when it comes
to Obama, when he went to China twenty whatever ten
or something, whatever, the date, and he said that they

(19:31):
had agreed that in United States and China will together
work for stability in South Asia the G two. Yeah,
we protested against that, and the Americans started walking away
from that. Now, the thing is that what they want
to win Pakistan away from China. But how are they
going to win Pakistan away from China? Are they going

(19:53):
to sink in the kind of money in Pakistan that
China has done? Are they then going to replace China
is the biggest defense supplier to Pakistan. This is a camera.
This is a kind of a fantasy that some people
seem to have with regard to what they can do
in Pakistan. And therefore there's a big question mark, big

(20:15):
question mark, almost unthinkable. What is a reason? What is
the reason that they are they're molly coddling Pakistan building?

Speaker 3 (20:25):
What comes to your minds?

Speaker 1 (20:26):
It's obvious, no part of it to counter India's right
keep a pressure point on India.

Speaker 3 (20:35):
So they haven't changed.

Speaker 2 (20:36):
They may call us the comprehensive strategic partner, but the
aim is a subservient India.

Speaker 1 (20:43):
India. No, no, no, no, they know they can we can't
be a survival India. When even when we were weak.
We were not servile. So when we are strong, we
are not going to be servile, certainly not. I think
they understand that. They understand that the previous administration understood
it and specifically status that we're not looking for a
military alliance. We know that India is against military alliances.

(21:07):
It's a long game. Progressively, they want to be in
away India from its past relationships. So it's not as
if they think that India is the country that can
be pressured into doing what they want. I think this
must they understand. But in order to make sure that
India wings do not grow too large and starts flying

(21:28):
up in the air far too high, they need some
pressure points. So the Pakistan, Pakistan is the most important
and the more and the immediate pressure point.

Speaker 3 (21:39):
And the other one is Bangladesh.

Speaker 1 (21:40):
Now that again, yes, because the manner in which they
they work for the outsta of Shei, Casina and God,
these Islamists into power, knowing fully well that this is
what is going to happen. They opened a new pressure point.
And here's the irony of it. Who's trying to bring

(22:02):
pak Bangladesh and Pakistan together? China? Yeah, they had Wanghi
had a meeting through with both of that, and America
got into the game. So both China and the United
States see indirectly working together to create problems for India
in Bangladesh.

Speaker 3 (22:21):
North America want India to raise.

Speaker 1 (22:25):
Well, while you know want India to rise. India will
rise whether they want it or not. But the point
is they must have some leavers of pressure and they
would like to retain those. That doesn't mean that they
only want to rely on the leaders of pressure. They
also have separate vital interests in India for obvious reasons.

(22:46):
So they'll continue to quote us and have relationship with us,
but not give up. There are other other options now
in a very different way. We have to be realistic.
We do these things ourselves, don't We We want to
keep a foot in every door, but not with the

(23:07):
same kind of intention of using leaverages to destabilize or
put pressure on others, but to protect our interests. Now,
we are very solidly committed to our relationship with Russia
no matter what United States thinks.

Speaker 3 (23:25):
And you're very confident of that.

Speaker 1 (23:26):
You've been yeah, and therefore the United States has been unhappy.
They've been saying that, and now Trump has brought this
issue up in the air once again, rather surprisingly, objecting
to our oil trade and a defense trade away the Russia,
which means rankles within the system. After all, he's not
alone in this. There must be other people who are

(23:47):
also the same view and feeding this kind of thing
into the system. So despite that, India stood firm. Now
they can argue that India may have whatever is they
views on Pakistan, but we have our own interests in Pakistan. Therefore,
we will continue to have a relationship in Pakistan. If
India doesn't want to, thinks that it has strategic autonomy,
that we do have strategic autonomy, so we'll do what

(24:09):
we want.

Speaker 2 (24:09):
And what did you think of India's statement that when
we said America continues to buy uranium, hexafluoride or palladium
or chemicals and fertilizers from Russia, not a word after
that Europe continues to buy leg from Russia and no
sanctions on them, but twenty five percent sanctions on US,
no additional sanctions on China.

Speaker 3 (24:31):
So is he just bullying India, just pure bullying?

Speaker 1 (24:35):
Yes, yes. And the fun thing is that I we
was looking at Youtist six. I put it on on
X this morning, I think, well, yesterday I looked at
statistics from twenty twenty two, when the Ukraine conflict began
and when Europe was applying all the sanctions that they
could possibly think of along with America on Russia. The

(24:58):
total total import of Russian gas, LNG and defined petroleum
products is two hundred and fourteen billion dollars. Wow. And
if you look at the LNG imports from Russia beginning
twenty twenty two, every year they have increased by a

(25:19):
sizable percentage. Yes, right, Look at the hypocrisy of all this.
Look at Turkey is the biggest buyer of refined products
from Russia, no sanctions. Japan gets a very sizable amount
of oil from Russia because they were in fact partner
with US in the trialateral deeds with the Americans in Sakhalin.

(25:41):
They're still getting I understand. I'm not too sure to
the figure that eight percent of the energy needs of
Tokyo it comes from what they import from Russia. So
Japan is not targeted what India is India? But why?
And the funny part is and this you know, I mean,

(26:03):
you know even as well as I do. And we've
said that officially, there is the Americans who encouraged US
yes to buy continue buying, and others to and continue
buying Russian oil so as to keep the price of
oil globally stable. Because the five million barrels a day
went out of the market, that's the Russian oil, then

(26:24):
the price of oil would have shot out to maybe
two hundred dollars and would have affected the American consumer.

Speaker 3 (26:31):
So when he knows.

Speaker 2 (26:32):
All of this yet he says this, does he expect
India to just staste, silent accept it like several countries.
You know, Japan is a treat ally and it accepted it.
South koreas a treaty ally. They have American forces deployed
there and they've accepted it. European Union, though European Union
now is saying no, we haven't committed the money. Japan

(26:53):
also seems to be furiously backpeddaling, saying it's we may invest.

Speaker 3 (26:57):
He just wants that big headline. Should we are to
give them that big headline.

Speaker 1 (27:01):
See, there's a big difference all the three entities you mentioned, EU,
South Korea, Japan. They're also dependent on us for their security. Yes,
there's a China threat in Western Pacific. There's no Ukraine
War where Russia is seen as a threat, so they
have very little room for maneuver. We don't depend on
the United States for our security. We have more room

(27:22):
for maneuver, and therefore we should exercise that room. That
doesn't mean that we should have raising battle with the
United States on this, but we have more freedom of
maneuver and we should use that. And therefore, why should
we bend unnecessarily and and and and promote and nominate
him for the Nobel Peace Prizes to just to satisfy

(27:45):
his ego and be on his right side.

Speaker 2 (27:47):
Because if you satisfy his ego today, then he'll start
riding roughshow of you tomorrow.

Speaker 1 (27:51):
Once again, Yes, something else will happen, because when we
don't buy something American and buy something Russian or French,
they can come back to it, because once they have
tasted blood, they'd like to taste more blood and pressure
you more.

Speaker 2 (28:04):
So are we, in your appreciation, perhaps so far the
only country that stood.

Speaker 3 (28:08):
Up to his bullying.

Speaker 1 (28:11):
Even more than us. Yeah, yeah, but Brazil has been
very forthright. That does he consider himself the emperor of
the world. He said this about Trump, so Indonesia is
also now their backs are up. Yeah, well, you know,
we have to play our cards carefully. Look, at the
end of the day, I can say all this, you

(28:32):
can say all this. We can feel extremely upset at
what is happening, the unfairness of it, much more unfairness,
the absurdity of it. What point is America is the biggest,
strongest power in the world, the biggest economy in the world,
our biggest economic partner, biggest technology partner, biggest investment investment partner.

(28:55):
And although more and more American policy is being defined
by the kind of positions that Trump takes, which have
deeper routes in the country, the MAGA base, and this
and that, the complexion of American politics has changed. Nevertheless, nevertheless, ah,
there continues to be bipartisan support in the US Congress.

(29:17):
You know, for us though everything is subdued because people
are afraid of Trump. He has become extremely powerful in
that sense because he's totally arbitrary. Supreme Court is under
his control, to the Senate is and so is the House.
And there are the corporate sector. There is a corporate
sector which is still very interested in India and will

(29:40):
want to continue to invest in India. They want to
get out of China, and the other country which offers
them the similar kind of scale and opportunities in terms
of talent is India. They would like to go. Mind you,
if there are tariffs in the short term, they have
then to decide what to do. But they are interested. Therefore,

(30:00):
our long game has to be this, uh, pushback as
much as we can in a dignified, restrained manner at
the governmental level, keep doing. The corporate sector and the
Congress people, all those elements now actually their elements in
the Biden administration was speaking up yeah and referring to

(30:24):
the folly of Trump in alien alienating a country like India.
We should continue our engagement with them, and as I've
been saying, we should actually make the American policy makers
feel the heat of Indian public opinion, which means therefore,
our press, our think tanks, they should get in a

(30:45):
civil society. They should come into the forefront and point
out to the inequity in the iniquities and inequities of
American policy towards India.

Speaker 2 (30:56):
American press, if I may, they've been saying that the
tariffs are being paid for by the American taxpayer prices
in America are going up, and you know they are
unable even their opposition, as you very rightly pointed out,
the Democrats are asking their secretaries, you know, of uh
A commerce that who's paying for it?

Speaker 3 (31:17):
It's the American consumer. But then they seem to be
just selling.

Speaker 1 (31:20):
Yeah, but then see that he's imposed tariffs on everybody,
including the countries like Brazil with which US has a servilus,
and even small countries likely so through. So I mean,
that's a generalized problem, not limited to us. To us therefore,
why that debate is interesting in order to understand what's
happening in the United States doesn't it's not something India

(31:43):
centric as such. So we have to look at where
we can steer through this difficult period at the government
level by pushing back responsibly in a very mature way
with a long term in view. But as I said
earlier in repeat, so far, what had happened is that
the western countries, America included, they've had a great benefit

(32:07):
of having a pliant Indian media, an Indian public opinion.
Really oh yes, yes, yes, then they never had to
defend barring one or two, they don't. They didn't have
to defend themselves. Look at the way of our press
gives space to foreign ambassadors, to any any lesched thing
that's published in the Western press. They put it in
the country.

Speaker 3 (32:27):
A section maybe, but that's not a large.

Speaker 1 (32:29):
Section, large section. And are think tanks, which are our
most prominent thing tanks, what is their agenda?

Speaker 3 (32:35):
No, but now we're countering them, now we're counting them.

Speaker 2 (32:37):
So for example, on oil, when they said don't buy
Russian oil, the entire.

Speaker 1 (32:43):
I applaud that. What I mean is we should do
much more, much more. So that therefore that they their
embassy here, everybody they actually then relay back to their
policy makers, to the State department. The kind of agitated
sentiments there are in India. What the Trump administration and
doing put them on the defensive. All this while we

(33:04):
have been on the defensive because the Western media is
against us, even nose against us.

Speaker 3 (33:09):
That it is.

Speaker 1 (33:09):
The Financial Times published is an article that India has
imported one forty billion dollars worth of oil ever since
the sanctions began. First of all, apart from the fact
that the Americans said that go ahead and do it
and wanted us to do it, the fact is that
there were no sanctions or oil sanctions.

Speaker 3 (33:25):
And it's still sanctions. There's a price, and.

Speaker 1 (33:27):
We bought it within the price capital It was perfectly
legal what we did. So yet look at the FT
article they're giving very soonister, look to it, you know,
as if we were unlawfully benefiting from purchase of Russian
oil and selling it to the West.

Speaker 2 (33:44):
So I have so, you know, when I was covering
the Cargio War in nineteen ninety nine, I did think
that the Western media was biased against India. Some of
their articles, you know, they were even though Pakistan was
the aggressor, they wouldn't want to say that.

Speaker 3 (33:59):
And over the years, you know, when we were reporting
let's say.

Speaker 2 (34:02):
First the Postpoken sanctions, then the you know, the meeting
between Wajpei and Clinton, or just Onan Singji's meetings with
Stroke Talbot if I remember the name correctly right now,
then the NSSP is something that we were reporting very extensively.
Next step in strategic partnership man Mohan Singh and George
Bush and then Obama and Modi and all of that.

(34:24):
The American media, for some reason, even recent operations Sindhur,
they would push the Pakistani propaganda not Indian facts. If
eleven Pakistani air bases have been decimated, they would still
say how many planes have India lost? I completely buy that,
So I completely take that argument. But my only point
is now India has started fighting back on facts and calling.

Speaker 3 (34:48):
Them out on their propaganda.

Speaker 2 (34:50):
The bigger picture, I would think that Indian and America,
being the two most powerful democracies should be on the
same page in dealing with let's say the Pakistani a
threat to the world or to the Chinese expansionism.

Speaker 3 (35:03):
But we don't see that happening.

Speaker 1 (35:05):
I was smiling when you said the two biggest democracies.
This is something. It's okay. We should keep saying that
because it sort of gets us bonus points with people
who don't think very much two big democracy. Look at
American record of dealing with them after we were the
biggest democracy in the world right from the time we

(35:26):
got created as a country. And which is the country
that America sanctioned the most, and which is the country
with the United States built up a communist dictatorship which
totally you know, the putas Western values everything else openly

(35:47):
the pudas Western democracy. They built it up into the
kind of monster that we have today. So where was
the democracy? And then when it comes to Pakistan, Pakistan,
I don't much democracy has been there in military rules
everything else. But they were always siding with it, putting
pressure US, pressure on us on Kashmir, UH, ignoring terrorism

(36:10):
against us.

Speaker 3 (36:12):
UH.

Speaker 1 (36:12):
You know, AH when I was in Washington, AH, this
UH the annual report on terrorism that was published by them,
it didn't include the ethnic lensing in Kashmir, all the
Casmiria pundits that were and there was a footnote and

(36:34):
they explained why in the footnote that we haven't included
this as part of terrorism because there's a debate which
says that the governor of Kashmir actually encouraged these people
to watch things like that. That's it against that the
kind of raught experience but I personally had when dealing

(36:56):
with Asia Watch and Human Rights Watch and everything else.
The pressures on us on human rights violations, rapes of
Kish media women by the armed forces, this and that,
pressures on us to create a human rights commission and
wanting us also to share with them what will be
the terms and conditions of setting up this human rights commission.

(37:17):
There were such abismal abominable pressure on us that period.
They never recognized that we have we are a democracy,
we have internal challenges. There is a whole issue of
protecting our territorial integrity from attacks by a foreign country,
protecting ourselves against terrorism, and forget that. Look at this

(37:41):
what happened later c AA and and also the amendments
to our you know, there's Article Article three seventy and
the other agitation in Delhi, this and that and that.
They've always they've always attacked us that backsliding out democracy, authoritarianism.

(38:04):
We've become a semi demo, semi authoritarian authority in.

Speaker 3 (38:08):
Elected autocracy is the word that they wanted.

Speaker 1 (38:10):
To So they sing about, you know, democracy bringing us
together as a rhetorical flourish is fine, But if you
look at the actual policies of the United States, they
they're very heart headed, and they haven't they've cared two
hoots whether the country is a democracy or not a democracy.

(38:31):
If their self interest demands that they deal with autocracies
and commons states and libilitary government, they'll do so very happily,
and they've done that all along.

Speaker 2 (38:41):
But right now, are they looking after their self interest
or you know, they're looking after Trump interest more than
after American interests, because you know, I would have thought
that this is the time they would need COD to
be very very strong, very powerful, and this is the
year where India is to host the Court Summit. But uh,
you know, their attitude towards India does look very well.

Speaker 1 (39:02):
I'm very skeptical about the Court Summit with the kind
of burning of bridges that Trump has done with India.
Can you imagine him coming here in October for the
courts of it and being welcome and having a huge
rally where Prime Minister embraces him and.

Speaker 3 (39:22):
No, you're absolutely right.

Speaker 1 (39:24):
So unfortunately, I think and the manager in which he's
dealing with China, he's given another ninety day reprieve to
China that because he doesn't have the courage to inflict
the same kind of tariffs on China, because China will
push back and told China has told them that if
you impose tariffs, breakdown of dialogue between us, and then

(39:45):
they can apply reverse sanctions, as they're doing in some areas. Now. Therefore,
the future of QUAD, uh my mind is a bit doubtful.
Now you look, a Prime Minister Sharif is going to Japan. Yes,
my suspicion because Japan always follows the leader of the

(40:06):
United States. If United States opened up to India, we
had a nuclear deal, Japan restart to US in a
very big way. Now that the United States is making
trumpet making soft noises on Pakistan. Uh, So somebody has
figured that Navash can go to Japan engage with I

(40:31):
believe the Chief Minister is also going madam, So I
don't know whether if you have difficult ties with the
United States, what would be uh the kind of glue
that will keep wart together. Uh. Australia seems still to

(40:54):
be quite fun in its whole approach towards India. Japan
is miffed, very deeply miffed, and they want to have
more independent foreign policy. But knowing what happened in Pelgam
and Sindhur and our problems with the United States, I'm

(41:17):
a bit surprised that they've chosen this timing to invite
Shabasharif to Japan.

Speaker 3 (41:23):
How do you see our relationship with China move forward?

Speaker 2 (41:27):
Given what happened at Gualwan through twenty to this thor
to this talk of Prime Minister and in the remodi that
he may be traveling, you know, to Tangent for the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization's summit.

Speaker 1 (41:42):
You see, it's not as if a kind of a
dialogue at the highest level has not happened before. After
our Prime Minister has met Shijin Ping and they had
a discussion about how to move forward. As a result

(42:03):
of that, some steps were taken Mansor over Yatra, and
that they will issue visas, and that they'll have airlines
flying with each other. These are some of the things
that flow from that conversation that the two had. Now,
if you want to build up on that, you don't
build up by saying that you are hosting the SEO summit,

(42:25):
but I won't attend. Why won't you attend? And SEO
is not owned by China. True, we have equities with USHA,
we have equities with the scentillas countries. It's an opportunity
for us, therefore, to mark our presence there and to
show that we are also a player and we don't

(42:46):
want to be excluded from this platform or we turn
our back to this platform. Why and if this gives
us an occasion to have another conversation with she In Ping.
Purely in terms, this is not earlier diticipated purely in
terms of what Trump is doing to us. It's a
signal that the more you attack breaks, the more you

(43:07):
attack uh these countries, the more you will push them
to confabulate with each other to see how together we
can they can ward off these illegal pressures that are
coming from.

Speaker 3 (43:20):
With China or unlikely.

Speaker 1 (43:23):
Oh no, In fact, you know, China has always been concerned,
and in fact I have said that part of the
reason why they continue to be difficult within the EDGs
because we've walked into the American camp. Yes, so the
fact that we had plooral relations with America was a

(43:43):
point of concern there. Now moment we have difficulties with America,
the Chinese may reason that we are more vulnerable. They
can put more pressure on us because we cannot we
cannot talk about our relations with the United States and
cord and everything else as a counter pressure against China

(44:03):
Chinese expansionism. So what conclusion will China draw from this?
Whill China draw the conclusion that here's the time to
make concessions to India and woo it into the anti
American camp, or here is the time where India is
weak that we generate more pressure on India. There's been
no letup in terms of pressure. We've not had the

(44:23):
escalation on the on the border. They keep renaming UH
locations and sites in Aru Natal Pradesh, giving them all
kinds of fictitionals names. We are. Their activities in the
Indian Ocean UH are problematic. They have AH they were

(44:45):
immediately Dimmlity delegation came to Bangladesh after the Units game.
So their politics in our region hasn't hasn't changed, don't
mind you. We have a covered ground in Maldives and
in sei Lanka, but the child and hasn't gone away.
And in Pakistan we saw during operations in Du we are.

(45:05):
Our own Deputy Chief of Army Staff said publicly that
they are real time information on intelligence and ir on
India's military deployments.

Speaker 2 (45:22):
Western analysts say that r c IS is a project
that will not take off. Russia, Inda China can never
be three strong countries together because of the mutual suspicion,
especially between India and China, and Russia also would not
want to see a very powerful China.

Speaker 1 (45:40):
How do you see ri s well? I see began
when I was Foreign Secretary. I was at the genesis
of it, and that was the phase when US unilateralism
was a problem with everybody, so including India, and wanted
to push back against it and have India China Russia.

Speaker 3 (46:00):
This is a Russian members.

Speaker 1 (46:02):
Prime Minister Primarkov's idea, which China was not very enthusiastic about,
and India went a long since Russia was pushing this
and we had this r C business, we had the
so then it didn't quite work out because the India
China ties didn't get improved. Russia counted on some kind

(46:23):
of improvement in battle ties between India and China, which
didn't happen. Therefore, they lost a little bit interest in
this particular format and we had brick. They wanted to
enlarge it and bring another continent into it. No, that
was Brazil. Then it became bricks because China pushed for
South Africa to come in, so it had a greater
intercontinental spread. So r C per se is not going

(46:51):
to work. Bricks can work, bricks can bricks, ricks can work,
and bricks attraction has increased. And now with Trump's policy
is against everybody and is wrecking the international system, trading system,
and political system, there will be an inclination, even though
they will not like to openly confront all of them

(47:13):
in the United States because Trump is so unpredictable. But
they'll see the writing on the wall and they have
to think medium long term, and therefore they like to
be part of a group which will build pressure against
America's high handedness, and therefore it will be hedging strategy.
So therefore more and more countries will be interested in
Bricks and some of the directions of bricks thinking and policies,

(47:37):
deed organization, trading in national currencies, having their own bank,
strengthening its capacities to provide loans, and everything else in
terms of development, working together on un related issues SDGs
and environment and everything else, climate change. So there's so
many issues on which they can work together. They will
work together that can get a push. I see, I

(48:00):
was a bit surprised that Lava, the Russian foreign minister,
spoke about the r I see, I don't think that
we need to we need to get into this. Uh,
this will be unnecessary and it will be misconstrued very
badly in the United States, needlessly.

Speaker 2 (48:21):
Because the Americans are anyway saying that even if Bricks
moves forward, you know, some say that bricks cannot work.
American analysts say that if you even think about deed organization,
it will anger Trump and they'll be content country.

Speaker 1 (48:35):
I may i interject here. They say that bricks won't work.
But is the Transatlantic atlance working true? I mean so,
I mean, yes, there are in bricks. You have countries
like China and India and Russia, and you've got smaller countries,
especially the partner countries South Africa relatively must breaks are small,
but it is a lot of punch. But there are

(48:57):
other countries which are small country, so they cannot all
be on the same wavelength on all issues. Iran is
also is also there, so there will be differences. To
the point is there will be some issues of the
kind that I mentioned earlier on which they can be
on the same wicket, where these are cross cutting international
issues which don't involve bi lateral relations that much, and

(49:20):
on that they can via differences. I mean, so therefore
they can have they can have an agenda. But to
say that it will be an alliance and it will
work openly against the West or United States, no, that's
not the intention at all, at least certainly not India's intention.
We want bricks as a forum to provide to generate

(49:45):
more space for countries like India to play a bigger
international role as well as the global South countries. Therefore,
the international agenda should not be dictated solely by the
traditional hegemonic powers, the G seven. That's the idea, Yeah,
but to work cooperatively. Otherwise you're going to have a
different kind of trevage in the international system where the

(50:06):
West on one side and the others on the other side.
India doesn't want to get into that situation.

Speaker 3 (50:12):
Because otherwise we all.

Speaker 2 (50:13):
All that will happen is we're replacing America with China,
and earlier America was bullying people, then China will start
bullying people in case only one country or to become
more powerful than not.

Speaker 1 (50:24):
Really, you think China can bully Russia, of that matter,
bully India, after all, we've had this thing in Galwan
to both extent that the bully es. But you think
Russia will accept bullying off China or countries like Vietnam
will also accept bullying by China. Yes, nobody wants a
confrontation with China. We don't also want a confrontation because

(50:48):
we recognize that China can't be trifled well, but when
it comes to the other side, America is a hegemon globally,
and so within the transitt Atlantic Alliance is America. Native
is America. So therefore they could exercise a weight within

(51:09):
their own alliance system far great, far greater than what
China can wield within bricks or in large bricks or whatever.
I don't think it's the same situation.

Speaker 2 (51:21):
Do you think this conversation that will happen between President
Trump and President Putin in Alaska, will tensions come down?
And will that have an impact on America's additional twenty
five percent tariffs on India in case the forward movement there.

Speaker 1 (51:36):
This is the absurdity of it. He was using this
twenty five percent tariffs, additional tariffs on India and the
tariffs on China in order to bring a point of
pressure on Russia that look, I'm going to starve you
of your remaining of your oil revenues when two of

(51:59):
the biggest buyer of your oil are going to be
sanctioned by me. And therefore, when they go into this
conversation in Alaska, he thought he would have the upper hand.
Eventually what happened. China said nothing. Doing you do this
and we will mean a breakdown or dialogue between us
and Trump has seen the writing on the wall another
nineteen days. India is considered to be a weak partner,

(52:22):
so he sort of went ahead and announced it twenty
five percent. But once they settle something and they have
a frame byk agreement of thoughts, then what's the rational
of applying twenty five percent tariffs on India for buying
Russian oil when he's reaching out to Russia and trying
to normalize or begin the process of normalizations Russia. Is

(52:43):
absurd as sheer, brutal bullying. It didn't make any sense.
I mean, he had in mind to deal with the Russia,
but he's trying to shoot at Russia from India's shoulders.

Speaker 3 (52:56):
Why we now that that hasn't happened, So should we have?
Should we have been stronger?

Speaker 1 (53:02):
Incidentally, he gave twenty one days. That's the reason he
gave twenty one days that he may not need to
actually impose these twenty five percent It's a sheer. How
should I say?

Speaker 3 (53:14):
I mean, you as a diplomat, you don't want to
use the word stupid.

Speaker 1 (53:17):
It doesn't make any I mean, the point is that
he knew he's not going to do it because he's
going to reach some agreement with Russia. Therefore you won't
feel the need. But he's just in a very thoughtless manner,
without concerned about the consequences of this, just playing a game.
He's just just playing a very very costly diplomatic game

(53:43):
with India unnecessary.

Speaker 2 (53:45):
Like the word you said, costly game. Will this cost
the United States? Because when we were reporting NSSP and
India and America coming close, we had an entire generation
of our seniors who would say, never trust Americans. They
will stab you in the back when you meet pakistanis

(54:07):
in track two circuits anyway, they say, never trust Americans.
Look at the way they use abuse and abandon us.
They will do the same to you. So we were
growing up in our journalism listening to that never trust Americans.
And then you know that close bonn homie that that
were you know, the two of the largest and the

(54:27):
strongest democracy is coming together and Trump, you know, and
that big puppy jumpy between Prime Minister Narramodi and Barack
Obama first and then you know Modi with Trump Modi
with Biden and then Modi with Trump two point oh.
The entire impression was so we were able to do
an Article three seventy because the Americans were with us.

Speaker 3 (54:49):
Nobody said anything.

Speaker 2 (54:50):
We were able to do Balacourt because there was pressure
on Pakistan. Nobody said, you've crossed the international the line
of control and hit across the international border.

Speaker 3 (54:59):
So that's a reallyationship that's working for India.

Speaker 2 (55:02):
And then largest trading partner, largest investment partner, all of
that is working. Then we started buying military hardware from
America except the fighter jets.

Speaker 3 (55:10):
So far, you know, the C seventeen, great aircraft.

Speaker 2 (55:13):
We were told, the Chinooks, the apaches, all of that
is going great guns. But when it comes to the
fighter jets, that skepticism was there. Rafaals fine, the Russians
have been a trusted partner, but Americans not so sure
because they want to know where they will be using
those aircraft against whom will you be using those aircraft

(55:34):
and all of that. So even in the Air Force,
some people we were speaking to over decades, they were
skeptical of American fighter jets.

Speaker 3 (55:43):
Your take on this moving forward? Are we back to
that era?

Speaker 2 (55:46):
Will it cost the Americans because this now that everyone
has seen all of this, they'll say, can we trust
the Americans?

Speaker 3 (55:51):
Are they reliable or they're clearly not reliable.

Speaker 1 (55:55):
I think at the back of the mind, we were
very clear we're not going to put all our eggs
in the American basket, which is why we've determined that
we will not allow them to influence our ties with Russia. Similarly,
while we were part of God and the Indo Pacific concept,
we maintained our contacts with China despite Galvan. We maintained

(56:21):
China is first, or actually purely in terms of good
straight is our largest thirty billion dollars. We never close
those doors. If you look at the kind of conversations
that we've had our defense minister, even after Galban, our
defense minister has met the Chinese defense minister. How many

(56:44):
times Jai Shankar has met Wangi countless time we've had
the twelve rounds or more of military level dialogues and
we've had special representatives. We maintained that dialogue. Why did
we do that because we didn't want to be calm
an instrument in US hands in its policies towards China.

(57:05):
We wanted to keep an independent line to China which
would not be influenced by American priorities and American initiatives.
Is something which Macro France said that why should we
pay the policies, Why should we pay for the confrontational
policies of America guests China that we must keep our

(57:28):
strategic autonomy. We have independent interests. We also had a
similar kind of an approach at the same time. Why
did we take leadership of the Global South in order
to be able to have greater weight in the international
system In the G twenty we played a bridging role.

(57:53):
We have maintained our membership of BRICKS as well as
of SEO. We have also maintained a low level dialogue
with Iran. We continue to invest in Chavah, the North
South International Corridor. We have been along with Russia, backing

(58:18):
that we have in the sense that pragmaticism, what did
pragmaticism demand that if America changed this outlook towards us
for their own reasons, why why should we withhold? What
withhold from our side any move which will bring us

(58:44):
some benefits of our relationship with the biggest economy in
the world and the biggest source of technology and the
biggest source of investment. Therefore, if we want to have
ambitions to rise, can we rise in opposition to the
United States or in cooperation with the United stas not
subservience to the United States cooperation with the United States.

(59:05):
And I think that's very sensible decision. Now, the rhetoric
that was accompanying our improved ties with the United States,
because democracy stuff like that, that that rhetric, I suppose
h is part of what you do in terms of diplomacy.

(59:28):
I mean, it's a kind of a leavening of diplomacy
that you have a kind of rhetoric to which you
think would appeal to elements in the United States and
the Congress and elsewhere.

Speaker 2 (59:39):
So if this is what Trump is looking for, you know,
that big headline, should we have given him that big.

Speaker 1 (59:44):
Headline coming to this, coming to just to complete the thought?
And therefore, I think it was normal for us to
open our doors to the United States without closing doors elsewhere,
without closing doors elsewhere. So that's what we were doing.
But this doesn't mean that we had begun to trust

(01:00:06):
the United States. Fully, there may be some people who
may have held that way within the system that it
was the biggest partner and it will help us to rise,
and we must reach out to them. Maybe some elements
of that kind were there, But on the defense side,
what you mentioned, we spurned the F eighteens and the

(01:00:28):
F sixteens. We went in for the raffiles because we've
found that rafiles was a better bet for us. You know,
we've had a lot of problems with the United States
in terms of already talk about easing export controls and
everything else. But if you look at in every conversation
that I've had with the Americans, even after retirement, in

(01:00:50):
every conversation there is something new hurdle which needs to
be crossed in terms of easing export control because at
every stage that tells you no, no, Now you like
our NATO partner, everything is free for you can be
exported to you. But actually know you have to keep
signing document after document after document and now I ta no, no,

(01:01:10):
you have to In fact, this came out in the
Joint Statement in February, so then you know this initiative
d T T I never produced anything. G four or
four engines four one four engines. We run into trouble, delays,
in supplying of the helicopters and everything else. So this

(01:01:33):
is how what America America is. So wherever in terms
of the long holl aircraft, we can't get them from
anywhere else, the big holl aircraft. So therefore we went
in for that. Very helps our movement of our troops
and material in the North and the So these are pragmatic,

(01:01:54):
rational decisions to take advantage or improved ties with the
United Synamic to what you said, should we have done
to him what the pakistanis doing?

Speaker 2 (01:02:05):
No, if I may, okay, so pakistanis never But if
I may, so, somebody promises him a golf course.

Speaker 3 (01:02:12):
Give the man a golf course.

Speaker 2 (01:02:13):
Somewhere, you know, let him call it Trump golf course
in some corner of our country.

Speaker 3 (01:02:17):
If he wants a big ticket.

Speaker 2 (01:02:19):
India will invest so many billion dollars in America. He's
not giving you a timeline. There is no deal that
is being signed. There's no pen being put to paper.
It's like an MoU fine will invest in America in
fifty years from now.

Speaker 3 (01:02:31):
Give him the deadline.

Speaker 2 (01:02:32):
Take the trade deal if it suits us, minus that
compromise on agriculture and dairy.

Speaker 3 (01:02:36):
That's only my question to you, see you.

Speaker 1 (01:02:39):
We don't operate like that. We are a functioning democracy.
It's a process driven democracy. It's not a democracy where
the leader at the top can take any decision, whimsical
decision or decision that personally benefits him. Now, if Kata

(01:03:00):
gives him a five hundred billion dollar playing five hundred
million dollar plane, you think an Indian leader could give
him that kind of satisfaction if loosely Saudi Arabia said
we'll invest five hundred billion, and ue he says we will.
Also in Japan says we'll invest three hundred and fifty

(01:03:22):
or fifty five hundred billion, and can we do that?
We are answerable. We are answerable to our people, to
our parliament, to our system. We have a very live
opposition in the country. So we can't make loose statements
like this. We'll be pillodied within our own country. Are
you a serious government or a non serious the American

(01:03:44):
and you're trying to please him personally by saying that
you will invest this and this can't be done. We
have to be reasonable, rational, mature, sober in what you say,
in the commitments you take. We can't play this game.
We can't play this game. It's not a kind of
a situation where, uh, look what Tim Cook did. What

(01:04:11):
does it remind you of, h that one of the
biggest corporate chiefs in America trying to please Trump personally.

Speaker 2 (01:04:20):
And yet he continues, I mean they want to continue
investing in India and not.

Speaker 1 (01:04:24):
But sir, no, to answer your question, I don't think
we needed to do that at all. We have to
deal with Trump on a rational basis, on an equal basis,
on a defensible basis. We can't. We can't sort of
go out and try to flatter him and please him
and be psychophantic in our foreign policy. That's ridiculous. We're

(01:04:47):
not a Banana republic.

Speaker 3 (01:04:49):
And right now we stand up in the even but
at the same time respect us.

Speaker 1 (01:04:54):
At the same time, sorry to interrupt you. At the
same time, we don't need to antagonize him unnecessarily. We
have to be mature, play the long game.

Speaker 2 (01:05:01):
So if you were to, you know, look into the future,
do you think we will have some kind of a
trade deal by fall? Do you think he will respect
our red lines on agriculture, dairy and fisheries. Because the
Prime Minister has now made it very.

Speaker 3 (01:05:15):
Clear, Key hit hit or.

Speaker 2 (01:05:24):
That's India's red line. Will Trump respect it? Or it's
better not to have a trade deal than have a
bad deal, and we then, you know, just grin and
bear it and diversify.

Speaker 1 (01:05:38):
So far as if Trump insists that agriculture has to
be opened up and dairy has to be opened up,
there will be no deal. Agriculture in some respects, whether
it's pistachios or walnuts or bandberries or blueberries or whatever,
those things can be done. But when it comes to emos,

(01:06:01):
those sort of things, we're not going to agree. When
it comes to blood meal for the for the bovine,
we're not going to agree. And there are people in
the USDR who understand the cultural.

Speaker 3 (01:06:12):
Sensitive indiational sensitivity.

Speaker 1 (01:06:15):
But if if at the highest level Trump and and
uh Lutnique and all they don't understand this and they
think that they can bra beat India into making concessions
on this, then I suppose they will not be a
trade deal. Now. The one thing which is unpredictable is

(01:06:39):
that Trump changes position. He unlike the Chinese on anybody
else who believe in loss of faith, he doesn't believe
in that. He said, I'm going to resolve Ukraine in
two days war in two days and look at what
has happened, which China keeps changing his position and knowing
that actually his bluff is been called this taco business

(01:07:01):
that they talk about, so he can land up on
his feet by contradicting his own positions. And therefore it's
not entirely impossible that with one or two additional concessions
here and there, we might be able to strike a
strike a deal. It's possible. But the warmths from the

(01:07:26):
relationship and the trust that was being built up that
has that that won't be repaired. That's gone, But that
won't be repaired because now.

Speaker 2 (01:07:35):
There will be Mother would rahimand Haremka the Guard Party.

Speaker 1 (01:07:44):
Yeah, what I mean? Calling India dead economy? Why does
he want to have a trade deal with the dead economy?
Why does he measure his words? Joe, whatever he wants
to say, he just bloots it out without fear of
concern about consequences. When this mocking of India, Mm hmm,
is this is this mature? This is not this very

(01:08:05):
immature way of looking at things.

Speaker 2 (01:08:08):
There are some in Pakistan who say, Sir that that
there could be tensions with Pakistan once again that Absindur
is still on and next time, with both China and
America being closer to Pakistan, it will be tougher for
India in more ways than one, you know, militarily. In

(01:08:28):
case Pakistan gets radars, I don't know who will pay
for it, since Pakistan's a purpose state and you know
Pakistan's economy better than I. China may give it to
them for free. Will America give it to them for free?
Or give them fighter jets for free to counterbalance India?
Do you see that happening toughening of ours?

Speaker 1 (01:08:46):
No. If if the United States wants a collapse of
India US ties, then these at the things can happen,
giving them fighter planes and this and that, or radar
uh radar they would give quietly uh rad as they
could get quietly. But interesting though, mind you, that how
China was in the past. China has accommodated itself to Pakistan.

(01:09:11):
Playing ball both with the China and the United States.
They've reached the models wend where China could live with
Pakistan also leaning towards the United States, and therefore tomorrow
the United States it decides to h increase his presence
in Pakistan. China can live with it.

Speaker 3 (01:09:30):
I think China will live with it.

Speaker 1 (01:09:33):
China can can live with it.

Speaker 3 (01:09:34):
But that's the collapse of CPC.

Speaker 1 (01:09:36):
No, no, no, no. But in America won't go that far.
China has ever spoken against the CPEC ever, never indicated,
never never never. I'll tell you an anecdote. When I
was falling secretary, I had this talks with the Armitage

(01:09:59):
who came here to Delhi or f S level talks
if you like. And at that time, this is two
thousand and two, I raised Gadar with him and told
him the implications of Guada. He didn't respond, So towards
the end of the conversation I told him, I said,
mister Deputy Sector, you didn't respond to my concerns. He said,

(01:10:20):
we never thought about it.

Speaker 3 (01:10:24):
And this was after threatening to bomb Pakistan to stone age.

Speaker 1 (01:10:29):
They have they have never they can. Yes, indirectly, you're
right about they say, you know, bore the br I
that projects should be financially sustainable, viable and the asset
those things. Those things they say, but that is the

(01:10:50):
larger framework of the bri I. But CPC per se
because they know it's very sensitive in so far as
Pakistani is Kristan. It is the core of the relationship.
For them to take a position against CPC would actually
then have meant do something to undermine it.

Speaker 2 (01:11:06):
So so it's amazing they care about Pakistan's score sensitivities,
but they usually don't care about India score sensitivities.

Speaker 1 (01:11:14):
Much less, much less.

Speaker 3 (01:11:17):
How do you see India Europe relationship?

Speaker 2 (01:11:20):
You know this recent trade agreement with the UK talking
about We were just interviewing Commerce Minister Huge Goyle and
he was very hopeful that we will have a robust
trade agreement. We could have a rubist trade agreement even
with the European Union, though he's sometime back had said,
you're so close and yet so far. But you've served
as an ambassador, you know in Paris. Your take on

(01:11:44):
how Europe looks at India and India looks at Europe.

Speaker 1 (01:11:48):
No, actually, I was thinking about this that with the
problem with China and our problems with the America now
UH and the fact that Russia is under sanctions and
therefore beyond a certain point we're not being able to
expand our trade, the difficulties of payment and everything else.

(01:12:13):
We have an opportunity today because of tensions that have
developed between the United States and Europe, where US has
openly come out against the European Union, in fact advocate
the breakup of the European Union. Chap like Ellen Musk,
is also joined in the fray. The French, you asked me,
what very unhappy with the EU Russia America deal deal,

(01:12:41):
and they're quite saying, where is going Where is the
seven hundred and fifty billion dollars of purchase in the
last next three years of American lang is the company
that have to buy Where is this money going to
come from that we promised six hundred billion dollars of investment.
Where is that money going to come from? In the
kind of indebtedness of the big European country are facing
and buying of Russian or US defense material. Naturally, the

(01:13:06):
French in particular are very unhappy that if Europe, which
has powerful defense industries, is going to buy American stuff,
then what happens to the European defense industry too. So
here's an opportunity when there are differences that are developing
between US and Europe and the Transatlantic Alliance is in trouble.
Europe needs as we need to develop new partners, and

(01:13:32):
India is obviously a very very attractive partner for Europe today,
much more than before, much more than before. If they
had to decrease their alliance on the United States and
they have problems with China because of the manner in
which China conducts his trade, India is a very attractive

(01:13:53):
partner and so for us Europe becomes very attractive. And
therefore I think if we can't push this India, you FDA,
it will help both sides. So now it may not
be easy. It may not be easy because after all
their twenty seven countries and everybody has to be in agreement.
Then the European Parliament has to discuss it, and then

(01:14:14):
then they bring it all extanious issues.

Speaker 2 (01:14:17):
How do we stop them from bringing all those extraneous issues.
This is a thing you can't I mean, the White
Man can be talking down to us.

Speaker 1 (01:14:24):
The thing is that if they feel that they are
cornered of it and the near new partners, and then
they have to have more supple positions on some of
these extanious issues, including some some agreement on this carbon
tax or whatever they want to apply opportunities there I
think Europe there, Europe together under a million people and

(01:14:52):
six hundred million people whatever, Yes, six hundred million people
and a huge economy, huge huge economy if together is
a massive economy. So they are a very attractive partner
for us if we can strike this agreement and the
UK India UK agreement will provide that broad, broad framework

(01:15:15):
because the concessions we've made to the UK, and I
think that's the reason our Prime Minister very wisely was
in a hurry to sign this to the UK, both
with problems with the American view and to set the
template for our agreement with the European Union. So I
hope we can go through. It may not be easy,
but I hope by the end of the year. They say,
I doubt it, but this is the direction in which

(01:15:38):
we should go.

Speaker 3 (01:15:39):
Are we moving forward peace smeal? If even if you
move forward peace meal? That does that work with you know,
in terms of an agreement, does that.

Speaker 1 (01:15:48):
Work or just the trouble with Europe at the current
current is that the European Union currently is headed by
people who are viserally anti Russian. Yes, whether it's Vandala
or Kaya Kalas or that chaf from Lucian Lithuania who's
the head of the whatever. So ah, if there were

(01:16:12):
a different set of people, it might have been a
little easier, but but nevertheless, we try to move vander Lane.

Speaker 2 (01:16:24):
As you know, the entire team was here, and so
there is no way that we will let go of
our close strategic partnership with Russia.

Speaker 3 (01:16:35):
All the impression that I get.

Speaker 2 (01:16:37):
You know, when Prime Minister and Intermodi was there interacting
with the President Putin and they had this long conversation
one on one, the Russian analysts and officials we were
speaking to seem to indicate that India's one country Russia
truly trusts. You've been our ambassador there, you know Russia

(01:16:59):
much closer. What is your take there?

Speaker 1 (01:17:05):
I think we should not be starry eyed about our
relations to any country, including a very good and steady
friend like Russia. Russia has his own national interests to
pursue his own national interests, and Putin has been saying
quite frankly that I'm not friends with any country. I
look after Russia's national interests. Now, it just so happens

(01:17:25):
that in Russia's national interests is geopolitical interests, and our
national interests and geopolitical interests have not collided over the
last several decades, and that has built a very solid
basis of confidence in each other. And I've seen that
at personal level of when ambassador there that when our

(01:17:47):
side raised some demands on the Russian side, some very
sensitive demands putin, never said no, never, always willing to
look at it if they can. I'm talking about serious matters,
always willing to see if we could be accommodated. Like
if I may know, for example, when we needed during

(01:18:12):
cargill A, he reminded us that we gave you what
you wanted. We took it out from our own.

Speaker 3 (01:18:19):
Stocks, thirteen ninety tanks.

Speaker 1 (01:18:23):
There are other example, you know, the the nuclear summary submarine,
and there are others technologies and this and that. So
he's a permanent member of the Security Council. Biggest country
in the world, massive resources. If it didn't want to
have a captare income of eighty thousand dollars in the

(01:18:44):
United States, can survive forever in the sense that they
have water, they have energy, the biggest producers of one
of the biggest producers of wheat, their self sufficient. Now
with the sanctions, they've developed their own domesticity capability is
very strong military power, very biggest, bigger, biggest, one of

(01:19:04):
the biggest art were country of the United States in
terms of nuclear cahability.

Speaker 3 (01:19:10):
And now six D missiles versus now with.

Speaker 1 (01:19:14):
The native range against them in the conflict over Ukraine.
They've developed new ways of handling the latest technology is
thrown at them, and therefore I would say that time
has come for us to actually increase our defense collaboration
with Russia to understand from them what are the new

(01:19:36):
technologies they have developed to address the new challenges of
modern warfare, which our mality chaps keep talking because they're
facing those problems, and therefore we should be able to
actually talk to them more on these matters. Now, it's
always an asset for us that you have at least

(01:20:01):
Russia as a non well it's a Western country in
that but let's say as a non non Western countries
in the Security Council, and France as a European countries,
two countries that you can rely on which different degrees
work independently of the United States. These relationships are important, important,

(01:20:26):
and Russia even even more so. So I would say
that in no circumstances we should willingly, willfully not willingly,
willfully uh DEALUTAH ties with Russia. Now, it just so
happens that in the overall ah you know, scope of

(01:20:49):
our foreign policy, when are relations with other countries like
the United States developed with European Union, if we have
a trade agreement with Australia, we've had that. With the
Middle East Gulf countries, our relationship has wide and deepened
to a great degree. And now with Brazil we are
thinking of increasing our relationship. The part of Russia automatically

(01:21:12):
becomes less and therefore doesn't weigh as much in the
overall scheme of things, but in the areas which are
vital for US is weight is still there. Therefore, we
should look at Russia, our relationship with Russia simply in
the light of our expanding relations with others. The core
of our relationship with Russia remains very vital and important,

(01:21:36):
and that should be preserved.

Speaker 2 (01:21:37):
The nuclear submarine, the S four hundred, I believe now
we're looking at the caliber, you know, the long range
missiles we're looking at. I don't know if you're looking
at the fifth generation fighter jet, because sometimes at cooperation
it moves forward and then it stalls. And one thing
that I've never been able to understand, and you can maybe.

Speaker 3 (01:21:55):
Perhaps guide us, sir.

Speaker 2 (01:21:57):
Why haven't we been able to get a fighter jet
engine to make in India, either from Russia or from francese.

Speaker 1 (01:22:05):
The Russian engines are not that.

Speaker 3 (01:22:08):
Fuel efficient, but something's better than nothing. At least we'd
have our own engine made, an India engine.

Speaker 1 (01:22:15):
There are two things. One is that we've always wanted
not to be dependent on anybody and develop our own theoretically,
and therefore we've been hesitant in collaborating with others than
being entirely dependent on others because that will stall our
own r n D efforts. Ah, that has been a

(01:22:36):
bit of a problem in terms of our attitudes and
thinking we can do it ourselves, we say, and then
it doesn't get done in the timeframes that everybody still waiting.
So that's uh, that's one issue. The other is that
nobody will give us full technology, that hot hot, what

(01:22:56):
a hot technology? What is called? They won't give us.
They only talk about eighty percent or whatever else. And
then I'm told and I say, this is some authority
that people who are willing to give us even eighty
percent say that you can't absorb it they say, we
are willing to give you, but you can't absorb it.

(01:23:18):
And in a more enlightened in a more enlightened moment,
our own chaps will admit they can't really absorb it.
At this stage. This is a conundrum. But I see
the debate that is now taking place within our country.
The time has come to go full steam.

Speaker 2 (01:23:36):
So you've been an ambassador to France and you've been
an ambassador to Russia. Overall scheme of things, looking at
how the relationship has panned out over the past decades
and years and more recently, or the fighter jet engines
from military hardware and the way America has behaved, who

(01:23:56):
do we move forward with?

Speaker 3 (01:23:59):
In your view, I.

Speaker 1 (01:24:03):
Think if we we must keep a foot into UH
Western technology, and France therefore is the best bet. There's
more equality in a relationship, UH, there is being a
smaller country MH. They have a different attitude when they

(01:24:27):
deal with US. They're very export dependent UH, and they
know that they are in severe competition with the United States.
They don't want to lose their share of the global market. Therefore,
they are interested in keeping big foot in the Indian

(01:24:49):
defense market.

Speaker 3 (01:24:50):
And they've been reliable.

Speaker 1 (01:24:51):
They've never sanctioned us. Never remember after our nuclear test
have I was ambassador there, Shark said, with India as
a business as you rule, we oppose the sanctions. They
didn't never apply sanctions. Two countries, Russia and France. They
they did not allow a consensus to be developed in

(01:25:14):
the West, led by the United States, to sanction India. Uh. Now,
but then there are things that that that France can't
give us. Ah, And therefore we go to Russia when
it comes to a submarines, when it comes to h

(01:25:41):
trials technology, when it comes to uh you know, for example,
in our own nuclear submody in program, apart from the
leases that we got from them, they have played a
critical role. So in terms of developing our own nuclear
reactor for our submarine and who would give this to us?

(01:26:07):
Ramos is a huge, huge success, huge success. Ah. Now
we're working at an extended range of Dramos. So there
are certain areas in which and one m's not underestimate
the power of the Russian summarine fleet. Yes, M. I

(01:26:28):
mean we shouldn't buy any Western propaganda about On the contrary,
people who know know that it's a very powerful fleet,
very effectively. So and then when it came to Sukhois
and all, they've been the mainstay of our force and
that Raphal is filling up a different gap in our technology.

(01:26:51):
So I think these are the two partners that we
should continue to deal with with America. There are apart
from certain big holy aircraft, there are other areas like
underwater sea technologies. And trouble is that the maintenance of

(01:27:14):
very expense, extremely expended, very very expense.

Speaker 2 (01:27:17):
Even with the f thirty five's, I believe it's between
forty five and fifty and insanely expensive.

Speaker 1 (01:27:23):
Extremely expensive, and it puts a huge pressure on our bullet.
And then there are other attendant conditions that come with their.

Speaker 3 (01:27:32):
With their equipment, end US agreements.

Speaker 1 (01:27:34):
And after what happened in Kerla, I don't know how
much is in.

Speaker 3 (01:27:39):
The Karla California. I believe there's been another emergency landing recently.

Speaker 2 (01:27:45):
No, you're absolutely right, But what a fascinating conversation I
wanted to talk more about, you know, Prime Minister and
ar In Remodi, and you know the country's engagement with
with West Asia.

Speaker 1 (01:27:57):
With you, that is a huge, huge success of our
foreign policy that these countries are thinking extremely pragmatically that
India is a huge energy consumer right next door. It's
a rising country economically, rising, great agriculture potential. We need food.

(01:28:22):
We can have food corridor, we can have energy corridor,
we can have connectivity corridors. We can build mutual dependencies
which will benefit both countries. And the interesting thing is
that both Ue and Saudi Arabia have given the highest
awards to our primeister. But the Western media and the

(01:28:48):
Western circles, academic and others, including their sympathizers in India
talk about minorities and everything else. The golf countries, conservative
golf countries, they don't buy this in their actual policies.

(01:29:08):
They don't buy this.

Speaker 2 (01:29:11):
Because they know that in India it's truly a democracy
and it's.

Speaker 1 (01:29:15):
You know, to have them on our side also weakens Pakistan. Yes,
quite apart from the bilateral aspects of our ties. I
think that's a huge success. Of course, it is not
to be fair. The groundwork were laid by the previous government, yes,
oh absolutely, But the manner in which Prime Minister Modi

(01:29:37):
has built that ties it deserves applause. It is a big,
big success.

Speaker 2 (01:29:42):
And this is one of the one relationship. Again whether
it's with Ue or Saudi Arabia. Even with Katar, we
were able to bring back our naval officers and men.

Speaker 3 (01:29:54):
The overall relationship is holding Indian in good stead.

Speaker 1 (01:29:57):
And we are very pragmatic about it. But we know
what cutter is.

Speaker 3 (01:30:00):
Yea.

Speaker 1 (01:30:01):
But we got the cute prime mister when there, we
got the Kataamir here. Very pragmatically, we've got our feet
on the ground.

Speaker 2 (01:30:09):
So you're not worried or unduly worried about the direction
the headwinds that we're facing with the United States on
the trade deal, because military exercises are happening, technology, the
satellite launch and all of that is happening.

Speaker 1 (01:30:24):
It is a very strong word, but what I what
I would say is that is a new challenge and
that we have to face that challenge in a very
mature way thinking of the long term, not getting into
the wrangles verbal or otherwise with a non predictable man,

(01:30:44):
highly egotistic man like Trump who wants to win constantly.
So we have to be careful. But we have to
stand our ground.

Speaker 3 (01:30:54):
We have to stand up.

Speaker 1 (01:30:54):
We have to stand our ground and very mature way,
very mature way, we should push back the United States
without getting into a verbal scrap with him.

Speaker 2 (01:31:04):
In this chuck review, Abhiman, you knew how to enter,
he didn't know how to exit. Arjun knew how to enter,
exit and come out on top. I'm not saying to
defeat the enemy. In Corral's case, he did. But in
this international diplomacy, you know, the chaikiniti is all about
sam dam dandabhaid for the best for the country.

Speaker 3 (01:31:26):
Where do you see in there?

Speaker 1 (01:31:28):
I see India being a version of origin. I think
we'll well, we can get in and get out of
check review. We've done this right from the time of
our independence. Look at the challenges we have faced. Country
was broken up, refugees, killings, wars inflicted on US terrorism
sanctions in certain effort to deny US strategic technologies, keep

(01:31:56):
us subordinate in terms of our our role in the
world by not giving us the kind of independence that
we were uh autonomy that we are looking for, but
we maintained it. We remain non aligned. Now we talk
about our strategic autonomy. Despite all these challenges, we've become

(01:32:20):
the fourth largest this year, the largest in a few years.
We've developed impressive capabilities in so many areas digital area,
for example. Ah, so we have faced these challenges with
the burden in some ways of making sure that our

(01:32:43):
one point four billion people now get access to certain
levels of comfort and prosperity. Which country in the world
has faced this? Only country is China. But what did
China do in the greatly forward? Killed a few millions
in the Cultural revolution, killed some more, then insisted only
one child. Now they're facing a huge problem, got into

(01:33:07):
the private lives of individuals and forced them to accept
how to actually how to actually structure their own families.
So this kind of and then of course no dissent,
no freedom of expression, no political party, everything comes from

(01:33:27):
the top. They've done it their way at tremendous costs,
but they have achieved a mendous success. We didn't have that.
Neither our civilization, nor our society, our background, our way
of thinking would have allowed this. I mean, we have
a very different kind of people. So we've had to
cope with our issues, our problems, our ambitions, our aspirations

(01:33:52):
in the context of our civilization, our way of thinking
live and let's live live and let's live and respect diversity,
and within that I think we've done feasibly.

Speaker 2 (01:34:03):
Well, I think we've done exceptionally well and I hope
you know we continue to do exceptionally well. But for
joining me here on this Chuck Review special podcast, Ambassador Comlsile,
many thanks, my pleasure, Thank you very much. And this
is the point that we really want to emphasize on
the challenges have been immense, but India, like our in

(01:34:25):
Chuck Review, has the capability to come out on top.
That is all I have for you on this special podcast.
Many thanks for watching, stay with us on the Chuck
Review Podcast, subscribe, like, and keep watching India Today.

All Episodes

Modi's Foreign Policy Masterclass: Navigating the Chakravyuh with Russia & Europe | Chakravyuh | Ep 09

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Modi's Foreign Policy Masterclass: Navigating the Chakravyuh with Russia & Europe | Chakravyuh | Ep 09