Indian Diplomat Explains: India vs US vs China & Trump | Syed Akbaruddin | FO492 Raj Shamani

34:21And then the shopkeeper says,

34:26otherwise that guy is following everywhere. So you can see what you would call the mental stress that the families are. When you are outside India, your island of support is your family and your embassy because there are small number of people. Now if they start getting stress or the children start getting stress, you're naturally going to be more stressed than otherwise. So, number one is that. But more difficult is... Do they face threat? They don't face threat, but they face continuously hostile and intrusive monetary. But there must be some inherent threat, right? You can't trust that country at all.

35:04Of course. Like, you can't trust anything that the Prime Minister says. How can you trust somebody who's on a local level? Sure. And that's true. But we haven't had occasions, except in some cases where you had physical threat but if the mental harassment is enough to keep you worried for all times so there is one thing about the family but more important is that you see you are a targeted person anytime you are there for example your car I think the Indian number plate was 27 so wherever you go 27 they will say what the Indian so it's and Islamabad is not like Delhi or Mumbai a huge city it's a smaller city and so everybody knows who's an Indian who's not an Indian some of the other diplomats are also little cagey of meeting you because their primary job is what their primary job is to work with the local people so they don't want to engage very much with you given they want to be seen as engaging with the locals and people have a fear so you have a fear and the people of Pakistan are generally much more forthcoming than their government.

36:15But that said, the people are kept away. They are not allowed to engage with us. So you become more insulated. You find it difficult to engage with them. And then, as you said, diplomats, the life of the country and Pakistan is the master in deceit and deception. So we get used to them telling, no, don't worry, we'll do this. No, we didn't know this, that, etc. But in reality, we know where they are coming from. But we have no expectations because that's the nature of their state. Their state thinks or it's built on an ideology that if India succeeds, they fail. This is their simple ideology. And therefore, they will do everything to undermine us.

36:58And our goal is to make our country successful. Pakistan, frankly, to me, is something which is in our rear view mirror. It is going back further and further. And we need to look ahead. And it will remain a problem because of the asymmetrical threat they pose to our society. Because they think their society cannot flourish if they see a flourishing India. And that's the big thing they have to overcome. We, I think, need to look forward. And Pakistan will remain a major concern for us in a security. But economically, in terms of well-being, we have moved ahead. and I think our way is to look forward rather than to keep looking at the rear view mirror because they will keep falling back.

37:46We've looked at it cricket. When I first was watching cricket, Pakistan used to beat us all the time. Today, every time we say number eight, we have beaten them eight, zero, whatever else, etc. and all. So it's a reflection of the reality of the two countries. We've moved ahead and we are now realizing our potential. They are falling back. Got it. But why do we even need to be there as a diplomat? What's the need to be in Pakistan? Because, and I'm saying this, you can't trust the country. You don't find any favorable conversation or behavior when you move there. Anything that you will try to do, they'll try to do probably opposite.

38:30You don't have friends. whatever you will if you'll come down to some sort of mediation some kind of solution with their local authorities will be overturned by either army or somebody which has vested interest and you face perpetual threat when you're there right there's no scope for dialogue as well every time you've tried to do something they still come back and do something with security So why do we even need to go there now When we have seen enough times that nothing happens And nothing has been achieved even after we go there You are right in a way But let's look at it in a different manner So it's a country of 200 million It has no beneficial impact on us like you've listed But its scope for creating unnecessary problem for us is immense So if we have a limited We don't have a huge establishment If we have a limited presence Of those who understand that society Who can read that society Because it's important to Understand what your Enemy is doing Because we can then be prepared So that small presence Serves a purpose Every presence Doesn't need to be expanded Those days are gone We have a limited presence We don't have as you said For all the reasons There's no dialogue going But understanding that society And the way it is evolving Is important Because we can't change geography Geography is what binds us together Prime Minister Atal Bihar Iwajwai used to say That this is it For good or bad We are linked together And we need to understand What are the not so good trends in there So that we can take evasive action Not that we get it right We may get it wrong also But it's worth that small little investment Where we are back to When I started I told you Observation was the only thing that I was gaining in some places I'm back to in Pakistan The relationship is that primordial That only observation Finding out, reporting here Sometimes we get it right Sometimes we may not get it As a diplomat there in Pakistan Were you able to gather real-time observation or information which would be true because I would assume that half of their resources on you would be how you should get wrong information and deceitful information so that you don't get it right ever.

41:04So everything which would come to you would be tampered in some way. Sure. But I'm not talking of close information. There is open source information which is available if you can understand Urdu. You can read their papers So you can understand That there are Trends growing Interesting Now I mean How does How did the ceasefire happen? Like what's the process of it? So Is it like America pressured us And they Mediated What's the role? Like how did it happen? So let's be clear In India-Pakistan Ties There are only two parties There is no scope for It's a doctrinal principle for us That there is no scope for Now Now it has been said that there were many countries who were saying, look, you all are our friends, please don't.

41:57So Saudi Arabia was engaged, UAE was engaged, Qatar was engaged because they see a large amount of Indians, Pakistanis in their society also. And the US was also engaged. So in these sort of things, there are lots of messages passed on that, OK, they are saying, and they say, OK, you tell us. So our understanding has always been, yes, we have been communicating with everybody, saying the same thing that if Pakistan stops, we are ready to have a ceasefire. And yes, maybe that message was communicated through various ways. And Pakistanis, as you said, they wanted to verify and trust. So they contacted us and we then said, so the final decision and the initial impetus was ours.

42:41whether it was through different channels and many people were involved in that perhaps but that doesn't make them mediators that doesn't make them facilitators it makes them in this day and age people can communicate through different ways may have communicated I don't know so it's so the Pakistani chief or army person called us to confirm that I've heard this is this what is okay with you We said yes If you say We are ready And let's agree to this Okay So it was final agreement Is between us It was also That That it was only Them and us Nobody else Yes everybody will say Don't fight We need to have peace We need to You both of you Should work out And that's not unusual For any country to say We also say In other conflicts So why is like Portus asking for credit So you know all my understanding of global issues is linked to understanding international relations but to understand Portus you need a psychoanalyst I mean you need to understand what goes in his mind that I am not competent I must say I haven't learned those arts I have learned arts which are more conventional but it was not him who did that okay there was a badass move that you pulled a while ago which was in regards to Pakistan when Pakistani ambassador came answered nobody Chinese ambassador came answered nobody like I mean took no question from the press you went there and you said I will actually take questions you took five questions right and made sure that you release a statement that I'm doing five times better or like I'm allowing five five X more questions to be asked to me as India and you allowed everybody to ask you questions few of them were Pakistani journalists you went to Pakistani journalists you shook hands and you told them that stop war stop terror stop terror and then start dialogue, right?

45:03Because they were saying when will you start talking about India and Pakistan and when the dialogue will start. That was one of the most badass moves. I'm sure thousands of people have told you. But do you genuinely believe that stopping every dialogue with Pakistan, just ignoring them blatantly is the way forward until they stop terror? So, states communicate with each other in many ways. We cannot have an official channel to smooth our ties unless they stop terror Because it's just not acceptable in a democracy We've tried this many times Previous governments used to say there should be uninterrupted dialogue And we realize that it's not working So the best way for India-Pakistan is to ensure a back channel And a back channel has its advantages It can be denied, it can be questioned, it doesn't exist in media light.

46:07So perhaps that's the best way. But no formal talks until backchannel worked. I mentioned to you in the first time, backchannel seemed to have worked. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif came despite the foreign office saying that he's not going to come. So there are backchannels of people who can work this out. And this is the common practice in difficult situations. So you can have backchannels. They say that the ceasefire and part of it was also through back channels. But back channels will inevitably mean some Indian person and some Pakistani person. And this happened even during Lahore. I remember even during Kargil, there were back channels of different people helping out, passing information, telling Nawaz Sharif that your army is involved.

46:51So back channels are an important thing. And maybe that's the best way. Front channel serves no purpose. We've tried it. It will not work because both have to come back and explain. And it's not until you have some commonality, there's nothing there to explain. But it's been more than 24-25 years now that we're facing terror from them. And the terror has not stopped yet. So our long-term strategy of whether back-channeling it or being at the front foot, everything has failed. At what point does any of our strategy work? because they're just being reckless day by day so a state which is being reckless we can ignore if it is far off if we have a border with them whether we like it or not the effort of some sort should be there present every time otherwise we are in a world where it's very easy to create narratives and it's best that even if it is for narrative stake we better have it because we not only have to win the battle against terrorism but we have to win the battle of narrative against terrorism and that's as important and so for those you can knowing fully well that it may not work try it Prime Minister Modi went to Lahore not because he thought everything will change he thought I'll give it a try we know it didn't succeed and we followed that path but it is important for back channels to be there because we are both nuclear countries and we don't want to go down that route.

48:28And it's important to have a modicum, a minimum level. States should have minimum level of contacts. Whether recognized or not, it's not the issue. We'll come back to them again when I talk about other countries' relation because other countries are also crucial in this particular part with them. Let's talk about your other win. One of the big wins were ICJ. what was that scenario? Explain us that you helped India become the judge of the ICJ and it was for the first time that from a permanent five members somebody who was a non-permanent member who beat a permanent member explain us that in detail so that we know So you see elections in a country attract attention everybody says Now we're going to have elections Everybody is following What is that?

49:23Election to international bodies Don't attract that attention So people think that we try And we win, we win We don't win, we don't win So it was one of those elections Where we had decided That maybe we will not contest This was to the International Court of Justice We had thought that Okay, it's a fire of body It may not have an impact on India Why do it? And then something happened with major change This was the issue of Kulbush and Yad Because we took it to the ICJ Because we found a small little opening That we can use internationally to stop his execution Because military court there in Pakistan Had given the decision to execute So we went to the international court of justice saying that Pakistan is in violation not of a bilateral treaty but their commitment to the world.

50:24And that is a convention which Pakistan benefits also from. And they couldn't say no. So it went to the ICJ and we won that case. Then we realized, hey, it's important for us to have some guy there not because he will totally change the view in front for us but we can understand what are the thinking in those places if we have a permanent person there again just a small little one person and we thought this is important so we decided to contest but we were too late and again I was one of those who said we are not going to win because most people contest and canvas for that for more than a year, a year and a half and we had from June to November about five, six months and I said we don't win and then it was decided, the Prime Minister said, I know that you don't think it is.

51:24That decision is taken. Now, if the Prime Minister of India says this decision is taken, I'm there to implement it. So he said, what you want, I will do. But this decision is taken, you have to contest. I know your views. But that discussion is over. And so I went back thinking that what am I stuck in this? How am I going to win this? My career is gone. because you know I cannot say no but I had said no all these things are going through my mind then we decided that look every time there is a regional division when we read it we found that there was no formal regional division so you could there were five places there are seven judges only five will get selected doesn't have to be region although the conventional till then was that every region should get one and we knew the one from our region And they had been canvassing for a long time and it was difficult to just get into a one-on-one.

52:19So we expanded our interest beyond Asia. We started seeking African help. We started seeking Latin and American help. And India's network was very good. So I was only the, if I may say, the trench warrior there. There's a whole big system behind it. The external affairs minister, the prime minister. One of those stories I can tell you. the first vote that we got was before we announced formally and I think Prime Minister met the Uzbek president somewhere so the Uzbek ambassador came to me I need to meet you urgently and I said yeah what's it come he said I have a request that I'm going to vote for you I said but I haven't announced the candidate he said no here's my letter no candidate vote for India's candidate so it enthused us so much because here was a guy coming and telling before we announced based on the talk between our Prime Minister and their President.

53:17And that told us that, no, we have to push because it's serious business. Everybody is involved. And so for the first time, we won. You see, the UN has a, if I may say, a flaw in that it ensures that only five countries who are permanent members will scratch each other's back and the others we are like lesser humans and we realize that if you are fighting against the UK in a 15 member vote they already have five tied up because they are all friends those five will vote for each other so the others they need to get only three more or four more out of ten we have to get eight out of the ten and that was a difficult thing but we just pulled it off because I think many who were telling the UK, no, we'll vote for you, were also telling.

54:17And you know, diplomats, there are ways and ways of communicating. So we won that election purely because of the push of the bigger machinery we had. Smaller countries, because everybody's vote counted. US also supported, right? Nikki Haley? Yes. So Nikki Haley, to be fair, shut down the US opposition to us. so the understanding between her and me was that we are both friends don't choose between friends we understand you have to vote for them and that's alright you vote for them but don't canvas against us and to her credit she immediately shut down saying that I agree with you I will not I have told my people don't canvas against India but you know we have this long tie up and that was fine the US they voted for someone else yes they voted for UK but they did not canvass because they were canvassing against us.

55:13Canvass meaning they were not putting their candidate in front of us. No, they were going to other countries and saying hey, why do you want India because UK is a better friend. I mean we have seen this, their relationship is decades and perhaps centuries old. So they were saying and we said fine, let's agree to our media, you support them, we will not ask you for your vote but you don't go and ask others not to vote for us. And that helped in a way. And a lot of countries helped us small, big, etc. It also was a reflection of India's coming of age at a diplomatic level. So, you called over 60 people?

55:57What was it? Yes. I mean, called, pushed, texted, did a lot of things. You know, in diplomacy, you have to use a lot of tools and it's best I don't reveal those tools because some are not savoury but it happens what's the most not savoury tool you have used I'll make sure that I don't relate it to this one I'll take it as a hypothetical some other situation well you know tell me a tool no there are multiple tools for countries like India so we also are providers of assistance we say okay I will vote for you in this you vote for me in that and so there were many of these you scratch my back I scratch your back it's normal in diplomacy give and take normal diplomacy is always give and take there's no such thing I take everything and US can do that they do well then they land up in problems no country through diplomacy then there is another form you call it war you call it force etc in diplomacy you only win by taking more you don't win by winner takes all you take more somebody takes less and that's give and take and that's part of diplomacy anything more it has to be force or war or battles there are some other tools that are available got it but once we became once we got this position right judge at the ICJ which is a prestigious position do you think we we didn't use it to a fullest so The issue is that the judge is an independent judge And to be fair Our judge was a judge of the Supreme Court Who has a record of independence So our issue is not that We didn't want an independent judge He is independent and that is how it should be But what happens is In these matters If you start engaging at that thing Otherwise it's a blank hole We don't know what it is We then realize that Okay, in this case I can do a trade-off somewhere Somewhere, something else, etc.

58:08So it's important for a growing power To have representation in every place It's important for that Like we have It's not The cause benefit for relationship with Pakistan Is very small We don't gain much But we don't lose much also So even with the ICJ It's an important international law thing Yes, some countries don't obey the law That's alright But as a rising power, as a power which wants to expand its influence, it's best for India to be at all high tables. Got it. But I was reading a critique and the comment was that India, even when they got the judge position at ICJ, showed that they only care about their interest in the convulsion case and they were only bothered about their own issues.

58:57They lost an opportunity to grow their influence and show the world that the world matters also can be dealt with Indian power or Indian diplomacy or India's opportunity at a high seat table. Did you use that opportunity? No, I think it's unfair criticism for the simple reason the judge is an independent judge and he has given several independent judgments. It doesn't reflect the Indian government's view. the government of India even within India the judges have a But does he only care about Indian issues? No he is participant in all so he participates and votes in every judgment that comes in front of the ICJ and to his credit I think whoever wrote this may have written in the first flush at that stage today he has given judgments and his individual judgments in a whole host of cases and it shows that an Indian judge can also stand up and in some cases at the cost to India also.

59:57Because you see, again, countries look at this differently than judges do. And some countries may be happy with us. Some countries may not be happy with us. But that's part of the power game as you grow. You need to be in every place. You may gain some, some. You may not gain from some. Yeah. You also personally led the 10-year campaign in front of UN to make sure that Masood Azhar becomes a global terrorist and get tagged at that right after 26 11 it took you so many years to do that and convince every time you would put that in front of the global board China would block it true right and eventually I think in 2019 it happened that they called and they tagged Masood Azhar as a global terrorist yes what do you think what convinced China to not block it anymore so you're That this was an effort that we were putting for several years.

1:00:53Many of my predecessors tried. I myself tried. This was not my first attempt. I tried. So what happened was that this was after the terrorist attack in 2019 in Jammu and Kashmir. And so what happened was it was so egregious that the whole world felt that this was not something that is acceptable. Now, we knew that China would again create problems. So the only thing that made me do is, I said I lost three times before. I've tried, it didn't work out. Let me try another time. And this time, you see, we did a procedural thing, which is different from the past. What we did was we said, all right, if you block it, we will take it to an open meeting and you or whoever is against it will have to justify openly why you're doing it.

1:01:49Before it used to be in a committee. And this was not something that they bargained for. Because the Chinese like to do these things quietly under the table. Hidden veto. Yes. They didn't want to do it openly and so they started negotiating with us saying we were in an election thing. So they started saying that oh this is election related. And I told them but you didn't allow us in the beginning before our elections were declared. Now, because elections are declared, you are using our domestic issues with them. And we said, all right, we worked with all the 14 other countries saying that let's put it to a vote.

1:02:27And I was thinking that, okay, let China veto it. Openly saying, I veto this designation of this terrorist. And that was fine even if we lose it. So I think they also calculated that the price was too much for them. And so it was how much you raise the price in a negotiation. Everybody has a price. And at a certain stage, you give up because you think the price is too much. And I think in that one, we were fortunate that we raised it in such a manner that the Chinese were not able. And then they just haggled about the date. They told us 15th April, 22nd April, finally on 30th or 1st of May or something, they agreed.

1:03:10It was during the election period, etc. But it was of course a come down for them. But they realized it is a smaller loss than going out and defending them publicly. Yeah. So because you were louder and you were more public about their hidden agenda and how they are blocking. And blocking a tag of somebody who was a blatantly big criminal and a terrorist all around the world. They saw it as a loss. Okay. So because it was because of loud. So one side of me in this wants to appreciate you because somebody who caused so much trouble in our country is finally now tagged as a global terrorist. Is not being allowed to travel freely.

1:03:57There's a travel ban. There's account freezing happens. funds will not be able to rotate very freely to him a bunch of things which will happen so a part of me who's Indian want to really appreciate like thanks for doing this but other part of me also says what difference does it make to him because he's a global terrorist still surviving still doing the mischievous things still causing troubles to India getting all his weapons from back channels from all around the world probably China supplying some of their weapons also openly in public forum he's going out and talking about taking revenge for his family members account freezing i think makes no sense because terrorists would never do it publicly on their account travel ban makes no sense because they will not travel openly they'll travel in shadows so what difference does it make to call him a global terrorist and do all of this nuisance So you are right If you see it in very If I may say hard power terms But you also have to see it In a different light Which is not everything or nothing In life there are many shades of grey So there is do everything Kill him, put him under arrest etc Or do nothing This is somewhere in between And in international law That's what is maximum feasible But more importantly is that even today Pakistan says he is not in Pakistan.

1:05:27So you can see that even they keep on saying that he is not there. Their foreign minister has repeatedly said we don't know where he is, what he is doing. Periodically they say maybe he is dead also. So at least the narrative part we are gaining. So this is a complex situation of one, eliminating terrorism fully, which I agree with you that it hasn't led to. But it has given us the upper hand in narrative building. It has made even Pakistan wary of saying that no, actually he is my asset, etc. Openly, subterraneanly, what they do is a different situation. So I would think we've gained a little.

1:06:13it's minimal gain but it's nevertheless a gain in diplomacy small gains add to a big gain and so if it wasn't there's other guy Hafiz Saeed he's also been done and yet every few years he tries and says lift my ban I am no longer associated so if there wasn't an impact they won't be doing it obviously there is some impact not to the extent we want but there's some impact that's why they are saying remove this ban on me I'm now an honest citizen I'm not associated with this this grouping at all that grouping doesn't exist also they say they change the name that's fine but I think we must not disparage the incremental gains you said in diplomacy there's grey lines every time I hear grey from a diplomat my antenna goes up and it reminds me of Graylist, FATF's Graylist.

1:07:14Pakistan has been on FATF's Graylist at least three times yet no country which is our friend has formally designated Pakistan a sponsor of terrorism. We have been trying it for so many years nobody calls them out for things what are we doing wrong? Why hasn't India been able to actually prove Pakistan as a state of terror? So, in international law there is no such thing as a terror state. It doesn't exist. The only place it exists is the US. US designates state. Otherwise, so for example, the reason is terrorism is seen as an individual crime. Legally, terrorism cannot be within a state's role because a state within its territory has sovereign authority.

1:08:12So, it cannot be a promoter of terrorism legally because in legal terms, a sovereign, even if he is a despot, cannot be a terrorist. Terrorist is an individual or a group. So, the whole international architecture of counter-terrorism is designed only for groups or individuals. Isn't it lopsided and flawed? again I think we are back to that same argument is everything or nothing okay let's say let's say US decides okay for example forget US we are in G20 we are in Quad we are in Bricks we have so many of our friends all around the world they also help Pakistan our friends can start at least probably putting sanctions or some kind of economic damage to them but this doesn't seem to happen.

1:09:07What's the point of India being friends with so many people and being in so many of these institutions when we can't even tackle forget tackle our problem of neighborhood we can't even make our friends convinced that they are a sponsor of terrorism. Don't support them so much. So yes, one is you're looking at the formal designation. I am looking at who's investing in Pakistan now. Now US is right, isn't it? now US. I'm saying in general, but none of the Europeans are investing in Pakistan because they see their investment not getting returns. So, you have China investing and even China has pulled back its investment compared to what it said.

1:09:49It said 60 billion under the Belt and Road today. It is much lesser than this and they realize that they have a problem. So, I think what we need to look at is again that we are building blocks. It's a work in progress. don't see it again as an end by itself a work in progress in international law you see you are young so you are used to a system where if you take your mobile phone you press it updates and so within five minutes everything is changed I live in the harsh realities of countries where change is only incremental so I gain a little bit I'm happy with it and I start building more. What have we gained over the years?

1:10:35At least in regards of this problem. Or terrorism? Like over the... How and... Okay, let's say we've called them... We've identified few terrorists and we have made them global terrorists. We have told the world that they are doing this. But in the narrative war, they're still getting support of two superpowers. That is China and US. Probably that's the only country in the world which is getting support from both of these superpowers who are also anti in some sort. So what are we able to do? Their investment, weapon investments or infrastructure investments is being sponsored by China. So they are helping.

1:11:17IMF, International Investments, which is largely US, they're also helping them. So how have we able to block them from anything? So here's the challenge. You are looking for India, Pakistan is a smaller country it's a much smaller country it's a nuisance country true but for the rest of the world they're looking at that it's a 200 million country and they're looking at it could become worse so for example the IMF etc. and all they look at it things will be worse than what they are today we are of the view that nothing is worse than now we've already seen them I mean it's only a shade better or shade worse and that's all but for the others you know there was a time when every terrorist even now look at the list of terrorist acts anywhere you will find some linkage with Pakistan so the rest of the world is worried that it may have more and more of these we have been by and large been able to insulate them from us yes now we also have a much more proactive response Should there be a terror attack?

1:12:32We will respond. So we are not looking at the world for all that. We are looking at the world only as a stage where we can promote our view. Not as somebody who will help us. We will handle Pakistan ourselves. Frankly, young India and assertive India can handle Pakistan by itself. It is a challenge, but it's not what it was once upon a time where we were not even thinking of responding. Things have changed with us We now have the capabilities to do this So we will handle our terror problem ourselves And I think the bigger takeaway from a world of today is That countries are on their own Absolutely, absolutely See, Pakistan you said it's no more a challenge anymore So that's probably one thing for India it doesn't even concern India apart from few security reasons young India is not bothered about them I think young Pakistan also is not bothered about Pakistan itself they are also I meet so many you know when you go to UK or US and you bump into some Pakistanis and they are fed up of their institutions themselves if they probably have some sort of rider influence they'll be the first ones to finish off all their problems way before India as well.

1:13:56Right. So that's gone. That's done. But there's still a problem. And to me, that's something concerning that why India is a growing power not being able to finish all their at least terror support. If not, let's say humanitarian grounds, you support them to build infrastructure, 200 million people's life are in danger etc etc etc just cut off their like their terror funding in some way can't we do that no I mean you see you can do that if it is not state sponsored if it's not state sponsored if a state uses terror as a means of as a weapon you can't do that can't the world see that Pardon? The world is embroiled in its own problems.

1:14:53We agreed that let's keep the world out. Because the world, we've tried this. We went to the UN on Jammu and Kashmir and we know what happens. Because the world looks at these things from their interests. They do not look at right or wrong. Everything is interest based in engagement of states. So, some states may gain, some states may not gain. Some states may have an issue with India. So this is not the game we should play of looking at the world to solve our problem. We are big enough. We will solve it in incremental ways. And that's the best way to do it because it should not disrupt our own development, our own growth.

1:15:34As you said, Pakistan itself, the challenge is their own. Domestic challenges are much more than external challenges for them. And they will sort themselves out or they will be pulled down by themselves. let's focus young India should be aspirational should look at thing yes we should ensure that our security is not undermined that's the only issue as far as Pakistan is concerned for us that they don't undermine our security and we have been becoming more and more assertive in that let's hope that the last assertion sends a signal that terrorism may lead to much sharper responses than it has in the past you also said like US tags it right and I think as of as we speak right now director of intelligence Tulsi Gabbard if I'm pronouncing her name right she said Pakistan is a nuclear threat all of a sudden Pakistan is a nuclear threat now so do you think that A.

1:16:33has to do something with India's influence over the world and B. is it that maybe after this statement world will look at Pakistan a different way or nothing will happen no it's not always between nothing or everything what's in between what's your guess that what will happen if US calls somebody a nuclear threat do they do something about it or do they just make a statement and keep it so no they do do something but it's always a balance they will always look at okay is this worse for us or is this better for us right now they have quoted in the nuclear field, they feel that is a threat. However, they may see it's helped us in something else.

1:17:19I don't know what is the deal between Pakistan and the Trump administration and a whole host of other things. They will do their calculations. Again, we don't need to look at the world for our solutions. Our solutions will be homegrown. We will have to address it ourselves. And that's how a power will do The rest of the world is only limited role And either foreign policy or diplomacy can play a limited role And let's not make it the only player in this act I mean for us we are the only players right Because everything concerns us So our world view You might say that okay There is very little that we can do But I think in today's world, there's a lot that can happen if we don't do even a little or a lot.

1:18:10So there's a lot of problems going on. Let's look at India's worldview and India's current stance. First is, we are friends with Iran and we are friends with Israel. We are friends with America and we are friends with Russia. we deal with France and we deal openly or through softly in certain way through China as well. So countries that hate each other all around the world we are friends with all of them. Is this a right strategy? So as a country's interests expand it has to engage with everybody. Now whether you call it friendship or not we'll let's leave it. But engagement with everybody is essential because your interests are so diverse.

1:18:58Let's take Iran, the Gulf and America or Israel. These are four people coming from different directions. So look at the Gulf. Look at our interests in the Gulf. The Prime Minister himself has gone 15 times to the Gulf countries. No other, I think it's not acknowledged enough that that is the region which has changed its approach to India the most. in the last 10-15 years. 200 billion of our trade is with them. About 10 million Indians are there. So, we have a large stake there, right? Now, you say, all right, so therefore, we must always be only supportive of the Gulf, which is the call that you would make if you look at this.

1:19:43But let me tell you what is in it for India to be engaged with Iran. Now, Iran is a country of 90 million. It also is a country which provides us access, hopefully, either through Chabahar or through the north-south transport corridor. So, our geography to the west is blocked by Pakistan. And Iran is the gateway for us to Central Asia and the rest of West Asia, etc., that side. So, if we give up on Iran, sure, if I listen and say, all right, let's give up. then you are reducing your strategic space. You are saying, okay, I am going to give up on Central Asia totally. They don't matter to me. But that's not what a rising power can do.

1:20:34It has to look at it. That, look, at some stage, I will gain from that. And finally, Iran and India have a civilizational engagement which goes back hundreds of years. Also, there are many Indians who have cultural bonds with Iran. Like many Indians have cultural bonds with the Tamils in Sri Lanka. So similarly, Shiite Muslims in India have a cultural bond with them. And we need to take that into account also. So for all those reasons, we are engaged with Iran, but we are not entangled with them. So we have greater stake in the Gulf. So therefore, you have seen that we have been more vociferous when the Gulf was attacked than when Iran was attacked.

1:21:18But we are engaged with both of them Without getting entangled Now Israel So Israel again Our engagement with Israel has only grown I have seen that as a diplomat in my lifetime That how much it has grown Because there are defense engagements There are engagements related to agriculture Engaged to technology etc. etc. There is a good increase Now but Prime Minister has only gone to Israel only two times in the Gulf he has gone 15 times so you can see that we are moderating now some people say oh he went there and then Israel attacked Iran yes leaders go to everybody's countries so am I responsible for what my host does then after 3 days I am not responsible you are just conflating my engagement with them bilaterally with their approach to the region but will you not call it an intelligence failure why is it an intelligence failure that two days before the big wars are going to happen the prime minister of your country is there so let's see how these things work let's see how these things work these things are planned much in advance say two months three months maybe more at that stage there is no indication of what is going to happen how did that war the strikes happen Israelis themselves have confirmed now it was because there was a target of opportunity that means somebody told them just one day before or whatever that they are meeting so they went and struck now they could have if that opportunity was not there they would have done it later on maybe so why am I to be blamed if the intelligence at that stage didn't show me anything there is no intelligence which said that it will begin with that strike so I think it's unfair to conflate a leader if we do this no leader will go to anybody else because after 5 days after 15 days there is something or the other happening in the world and you will blame that leader saying oh you knew it it was an intelligence failure you didn't go there so I think it's unfair to place blame on a bilateral visit it was not a regional visit It had nothing to do with Iran etc.

1:23:44It was a bilateral visit about improving our ties. And those visits happen and they will continue to happen. And we shouldn't read into it a larger motive. Or on the other hand, blame it for a failure. But why didn't we condemn when the attacks happened? Right. Isn't it like now that you said that Iran is important for us because they help us reach West Asia, Central Asia. Israel is important to us because of defense and technology and precision tech which they provide us both are important America is important to us because they are important to everybody surely because of the market capitalization that they have in the world so everybody is a friend or let's say everybody is someone who we want to engage with why didn't we condemn?

1:24:32because my interests are higher in some other place am I going to condemn them when I know that there is going to be an attack from Iran on the Gulf where I have 10 million Indians there, where much of my remittances come from, where much of my oil comes from, where much of my urea comes from. So I will calibrate. So calibration, we are not, foreign policy is not a running commentary for cricket. I mean, we have to calibrate and look. So we calibrated and saw that this is going to happen here And therefore, let's not say we immediately spoke out when the attack was where our interests are. In crisis, we have to look out for our interests, not for doctrines.

1:25:20Because the last strike and your condemnation of the last strike is not going to stop the next strike. We have to ensure that the next strike is not done. And therefore, we calibrated. It's a judgment call. It was done, but we are not the only ones. This issue was discussed in the UN recently. 130 plus countries supported the attack, condemned the attack against Gulf, but they did not condemn the same attack against Iran. So it's not that we are the only country which didn't do it. We are in with the global mainstream, which saw this as an interest-based issue. And we look increasingly, these are things that you weigh purely on your interests, not only on abstract principles.

1:26:13And you may say, oh, but we want to be principled. In diplomacy, we've been through this engagement that principles are important, but interests surmount principles. But then when similar things happen in, let's say, Bolivia, Pakistan, Oman, their supreme leaders or their leaders or people at top leadership, When something happens to them, we condemn. Even those are problematic states and it's probably against the interest of either Indian audience's sentiment, Indian citizens' sentiments or world leadership or US. At those times, we have condemned always. We have done it this time. Yes, but our interests in Bolivia are limited compared to our interests in the Gulf.

1:27:00The Gulf is where our interests are. The Gulf is where we have invested more. So when we have invested more in Gulf, where our interests are more, why do we then send on a humanitarian ground, we send medical aid to run? Humanitarian assistance, even the Gulf states will send. Look, you cannot have all. Isn't it like we're displaying too much? Like there's no specific stance that we have. We have a stance. Like we are saying that, hey, on humanitarian grounds, we're going to support you. but we are not going to condemn your death no humanitarian grounds is a forward looking support it's like we are forward so we are providing medical aid to Iranian citizens yes in the time of crisis but we are not telling them that we are with you no so our signal is that we are helping you we are talking to you because they are helping us pass our our tanks and our ships through their straight of our moves so we are showing every signal in the world that we are in talks with them yes but we are not telling the world that hey so you again you are only going to 100 % you say be everything with Iran I can be with Iran on many things I need not be in Iran on everything what you are telling me is either you be with Iran on everything or not on anything and my view is I am with Iran on 60 % of the thing 70 % of the thing I may not be in 100 % of the thing and this is acceptable in diplomacy if it was not acceptable to Iran why would they have left our ships?

1:28:47Fair They understand also we have compulsions they understand they have had compulsions we have not told them that criticize everything that Pakistan does we know that sometimes they are neighbors they have challenges so it's an issue of calibration and calibration should not be treated as weakness. Okay. So let's say India's strength right now is diplomacy talks all around the world and we are engaging with everybody. We have a lot of friends. We have less enemies. We have few in the middle. Okay. So that's where we are at. And what is India doing right in this is protecting the interest of Indian citizens and because of which we have seen time and again, whether it was russia ukraine war and sanctions against russia whether it's tariff war whether it's iran israel indian citizens are getting the help that that we want because of these stocks so right thing is we are getting the right price okay and we have our trade-on with everybody we're not paying a premium in the world of war of somebody else's which is a good thing what do you think what's the price India is paying?

1:29:57Because everything comes with a price. If we don't take a stance there's a price that we're paying. So we're already paying a price for people who think that only doctrine should be the basis, not interest. So there will be some people who will feel like that, who say doctrine is more important than interest. Now this is an age-old discussion. There will always be some in form of doctrine. There's someone in form of interest. So those who are supportive of doctrine will say, but there is no country in the world which has only gone for doctrine. There is no country. So for example, Russia. Russia is critical of what they did, but they did in Ukraine.

1:30:41So it's not that they followed the doctrine always the same. So every country where its interests are concerned will let go of doctrine. Every country There is no country in the world Which when faced with this crucial choice Between doctrine and interest Interest generally will Generally will overcome doctrine And this is what is happening for us And there is no country in the world Who hasn't done it Including Iran I know on discussions On the test ban treaty Iran was telling us Oh you must fight You must not be against nuclear weapons etc You must be against this Brownian testing. Finally they went and voted for it because their interests were.

1:31:26This is fine. And every government in India does that. Do you think the price that we are also paying for protecting our interests by not taking side of anyone is that nobody supports us also when that crisis comes? When this Operation Sindhu happened, none of our friend countries supported us. China, okay, not a friend. they didn't Middle East good friend they didn't your Russia good friend they didn't none like all around the world nobody America in fact Turkey we had some relationship they were the ones providing enough support and arms to Pakistan America saying that we are friends with India then actually influencing IMF to give money to Pakistan so the price that India pays to stand in the middle is that nobody supports India as well.

1:32:24But you are assuming that India is wanting the support of everybody on that issue. This is what is India's position on India-Pakistan issues. Says, we keep the whole world out. We will handle Pakistan ourselves. That has been the consistent position for 70 plus years. That on these issues we don't want you. So, all our engagement with the other countries was not that hey support us our engagement was to tell them okay this happened from now onwards if it happens get ready of what will happen so if you have any no any leverage with Pakistan please tell them this is what is going to happen we have told them but it's always good for the others to say so it's preemptive in nature our engagement with the world after Operation Sindhur was a preemptive thing for the future Not to gain support on that We don't need support from I mean if you look at the countries we've gone It was not for gaining support of some country or the other etc It was to announce we have a new approach This is the approach Should Pakistan do it Don't blame us in the future And that's the way we need to look at it Rather than we are not a country which looks at the past And tries to assuage the past we generally have been forthcoming and saying that okay that has happened, if it happens in the future this is what we will do, we made our doctrine clear, now if it ever happens again, all countries know what we will do you talk about doctrines and what we what we signal the world right now I didn't get something, I was very as an Indian for the first time I have to say that just like me, there are thousands and millions of Indians who are also very happy that the way our leadership is handling the issues right now, right?

1:34:27That we are silent and we make sure that everything is smooth. And then the big proof point was Iran let our ship pass through. That was a big proof point. then what became problematic to me our foreign minister he issued a statement that Iran is getting nothing in exchange right that's what he said you remember what he said yes so if Iran is letting our ships pass they are getting nothing in return now he also like there was also a statement that we are negotiating on phone on a tanker-by-tanker basis. Do you call it a success of a foreign policy that a foreign ministry is actually talking to Iran on a tanker-by-tanker basis?

1:35:23China has a framework. Japan has a framework. Russia has a framework. They all have a framework with Iran of how and what will happen when issues like this happen in the world. India is doing phone by phone. How is this a success for us? No, it's a success because today of the ships being released. Russia has no ships there which have. So, each country has a certain leverage. China's leverage with Iran isn't well known because 95 % of the oil goes to China. And it's the sole, so it has leverage with them. So, it has a different framework. But does Europe have that framework? there are more than 120 ships stuck there none have been gone only 3 or 4 have moved out of it 22 ships are also yes are stuck sure because our leverage is limited to that and as leverage comes it will be worked out so the proof of the pudding is in the eating whether it was one by one or it was all together is a process oriented issue on that you cannot decide oh foreign policy is successful because this is a process was more delayed some processes are more delayed some processes may be easier and some countries have greater leverage some countries have lesser leverage but we have maybe greater leverage with the Gulf so you have to judge us with the level of leverage despite not despite being critical saying that oh India didn't come we were able to get our ships out at least two of them right now 22 ships and 611 seafaires are still stuck in the west of Strait right do we not have enough leverage to get that out as well so does France have so does Germany have so there are many other countries which are big which the Japanese ships are stuck there so it's not about doing it in the abstract.

1:37:30We have to look at it case by case and be a little bit more granular in our understanding. And in that granular understanding, we are doing the best for our interests. We are gaining some others. So we are filling up from Fujira, which is outside the zone. Indian Navy is bringing those ships to our ports. And so we have increased purchases from somewhere else. And that is because our ties with that country are perhaps stronger. We have greater leverage. There have been reports that a Russian ship which was going to China has diverted to India. So we have leverage there. So leverage can vary from situation to situation, from country to country.

1:38:14You said let's think about it on a granular level. On a granular level, do you think that the Iranian ships that we confiscated, which were a part of Shadow Fleet, we had to let go of that in a part of negotiation right now? So, first of all, what has been put out is that they are not Iranian ships. They are not owned by Iran. Okay. But a shadow fleet... Shadow fleet can be Russian, can be any countries, Panamian, it can be Liberian, etc. Shadow fleet is only those which are not insured through lawyers, but are insured through other countries, etc. It was proved that it was... Not actually proved, but earlier it was accused.

1:38:59It was accused, but yesterday the foreign ministry has said, first of all, there is no such deal. Second is that these are not even Iranian ships. And third, that we have not discussed this issue with Iran at all. So, we'll have to go by what they said most recently. If they are not Iranian ships, why is Iran interested in them? So, but Iran is right. We are leaving that ship, right? I don't know. We are leaving that ship. The two ships that we are releasing? No, no. Those, which ships are we talking about? The Shadow Fleet. Yeah, the Shadow Fleet. I don't know. But maybe they are releasing. But there may be some other trade-offs somewhere.

1:39:37May not be this. Because trade-offs, all countries have trade-offs all the time. I mean, diplomacy is all give and take. So, don't think that it's only take, take, take. That's only in chess we have. Take, take, take and checkmate. you recently put out an article about diplomacy and current situation of India where you addressed three challenges and three things that people are calling us out on and you gave a beautiful line there you said we were poorer but louder and what did you say can you complete it for me wealthier and more guarded what do you mean by that so I you know that's been a thinking that I have picked up after my retirement that when I see Indian foreign policy from outside, that means I stay in Hyderabad.

1:40:27For example, it's not in Delhi. So I see that the young and the ordinary Indian want something else from foreign policy than the traditionalist wants. And that is, I want jobs, I want opportunities, I want better visas I want remittances etc etc that's the young Indians aspiration and I see that that's being reflected in our foreign policy because what has happened is in the 80s we were the most vociferous we were more noisy we were more upfront in giving a commentary on everything so if somebody hits Libya we would be the first to condemn if someone goes to Venezuela we would be the first So we were openly speaking much more And then we were not Because at that stage if you look at it And I have done a little bit of a study That in 1980s Our economy was linked with the globe About 15%, 15-17 % Today it's 50 % So while India matters to the world The world matters to India also So we have to be more guarded and cautious and careful than we were in the past.

1:41:52And that's the reflection of India. You ask an ordinary Indian in Telangana or Hyderabad, they'll say, my cousin is in the Gulf, he is sending their money from there. They want that sort of a security. So it's those interests have changed. Therefore we are much more cautious In our articulation Than when we were When we had nothing much to lose By saying anything to the world We have been very critical of the US before We have been very critical Of other countries before Because at that stage it didn't matter Even for the world it didn't matter What India said Today India matters And the world matters to India In that article you said Because the growing influence of India we're rising silence is a strategy it's not weakness and because the world matters to us way more than it used to so comparing what we used to do in 80s versus today would be not right way to look at it right but in that thing i want to read exactly things so that i don't miss out and correct me if i'm wrong you said that india's foreign policy should be judged not by ideological purity but by whether Delhi can reduce exposure without surrendering agency.

1:43:11That's exactly what you wrote? Yes. Do you think that Okay. First is this is a good framing by a senior diplomat. Fair enough. It's a very I take it as a left-handed compliment. I'll pocket it. But I want to push you and you you specifically spoke about whether Delhi can reduce exposure without surrendering agency. And in this exposure, you meant by three things. Energy, technology, capital. Our exposure on energy is on Russia. It has gone from 1 % to 33%. Our exposure on technology, which is on America, semiconductors is higher than ever. Without them, probably we'll be not here. and our exposure in China we have subtly again started dealing with them and letting their capital come in our country right so the exposure in last decade has not reduced anywhere it has exponentially grown what exposure or reducing of exposure are we mentioning here so you're right that the exposure has not reduced that said the world has fundamentally Chained in the last 10 years And we are in a transition And it's not proper to judge us in the middle of the transition And say if I tell you That in the middle of your exam I hold you and say Hey this question you've done wrong so you will fail I have three other questions to answer Give me my space to answer them So my whole point is Yes our exposure has grown And we understand that And therefore we need to perhaps look at other forms of energy.

1:45:00So we've already started, for example, the nuclear, the Shanti bill. Or we are wanting to exponentially increase the solar. That will not mean that we need to keep on importing more. Because this sort of a thing is creating vulnerabilities. And those vulnerabilities, when we have to face a situation like this, constrain our approach. We then look at our interests rather than the doctrine. So we always, if you reduce the vulnerabilities, you have greater space to do your deals. So energy, we have to reduce our dependency because also we have to reduce the dependency from one region. Because now that one choke point has tied up.

1:45:51Maybe we need to do it. And about Russia, So my view is simple on Russia That look, it's an economic issue We used to buy as you said Less than 1 % We increased it to 40 % Then we found that We are being charged more for our other thing So we recalculate and say Okay, I was gaining from that transaction Now I am losing from that transaction So I recalibrate So this has nothing to do with our ties with Russia or our friendship with Russia. It's a trade transaction. And trade, we need to be brutally clear that it's a give and take of economic. If the economic circumstances now are against us, I will not do.

1:46:41If it becomes better again, I will then do again. So we need to be frank enough to acknowledge that we don't need emotion in this. We need economy and calculation, not emotion in judging our ties with any country. You were saying there were vulnerabilities. India, you said India's interest and India's a growing power. And we should look at just our interest from completely economic standpoint, not on any other standpoint. And today, if you criticize our strategy, which you seem to like it at this point, that silence is not weakness, is a strategy which if people are commenting or questioning on it, you feel that it's unfair because it's like middle of exam paper, you're asking me whether I've failed or passed.

1:47:35That's what your stance is. That's what we established in the first half. on this see in the same article you talk about reducing exposure, in the same article you talk about being silent and right now you said that we need to think about our vulnerabilities don't you think this is the whole problem as we grow more we are getting more dependent so the ideal way would be that we are a rising power, we need to be more independent and we need to manage our own things so that we can be more powerful in the world and right now nobody questions me because I'm doing right but as we grow right now what it looks like at least judging it mid-exam paper because the facts are our dependency on energy supply chain global distribution global influence global power neighborhoods around us everything is increasing because our interests are rising, our interests are growing.

1:48:38And if the more and more the world deals with us, more and more we flourish. Doesn't that make us even weaker? Because if economics, you're saying keep that in the interest, like keep that at the forefront to decide all your policies and all your decisions right now. Our economic dependency or interdependency will keep growing. So that doesn't make us a powerful state at the end of the exam paper. that actually makes us the most black male able society in the world because we will be dependent on so many people as we grow more. So you are looking at it in a linear manner. That I am here, so I will just extrapolate from where I am to the next level.

1:49:26So it will just grow. but in the growth of economies it need not be just one straight line it goes and then there is an exponential change and that's why all countries which are developing are usually debt ridden it's normal that when you are growing you borrow more you put in investment and then the returns comes much later so it's the same thing that what we are doing now getting from outside is to build from inside. For example, let's take again, let's take solar or nuclear. Today, we are dependent on China for solar modules. But once we have solar, our dependence on electricity or energy from hydrocarbons will reduce.

1:50:19So, you are not seeing the whole picture. You are seeing that, okay, if I go like this, I will have one, say 100 megawatts or 500 gigawatts or 1000 gigawatts, it will keep on increasing. Yes, it will keep on increasing but it will end. It's the same with nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is very expensive in the beginning. So, you have to put up front all the cost. After that, your only cost is maintenance and uranium purchase. So, my point is that if you build the fundamentals or foundations here, it will change towards the latter half and that's why I have answered the weakest question first and now come my stronger questions and you have just exponentially assessed me saying that okay first question 2 out of 10 so all questions 2 out of 10 I am not going to be that next question is 8 after that is 9 after that it is 10 and then I am through will you tell me the place where India is today where do we get 2 out of 10 and where do we get 8 out of 10 as of now?

1:51:24Sure. So, our dependence on energy is clearly a weakness. And so, the only way to counter it is to diversify so that we can have ability to trade off one against the other. Now, that's one clear area, energy. Because a fast-going country needs energy. And we will need much more now than we will need later on because then we will move to a phase where we don't need external energy. We will generate it internally. So, right now our dependence is highest on energy. Our next thing is capital. So, we are growing at a time when capital movements are not what it was when China grew 25 years ago or 20 years ago.

1:52:10So, investment has become more a challenge. A third one is exports. so China and most countries grew because you could export to anybody. Today every country is saying no I will put barriers for exports. So our challenges have become much more than normal countries who have grown in the past their challenges were and that's why we are doing this more of building this way that way etc because the challenges are more. We can't keep quiet and just do it. We can't make too much noise and just do it. So you will see it as a contradiction. One way you're doing this, one way you're doing that. But that's how the world is and we have to navigate an uncertain world.

1:52:54We talk about all the challenges and I like talking about that a little bit more because it is economics point of view. But last question on the big challenge which is not economic which is about growing influence of India. So you said our influence is growing. So are our challenges. But over the years, we have done a lot of good work. Yet, after that, we have not been able to achieve anything in, like anything with regards to, let's say, having our influence over international bodies. For example, IMF gave money to Pakistan for 24 times. That's, I don't know how. So even 25th time they'll be back and doing it.

1:53:47India says that Pakistan, whatever they're doing is not our concern because we don't care. Yet we protest it every time. So we keep protesting it. Nobody listens to us. What kind of rising influence is that? So let me give you a counter to this. Hyderabad, it's part of India. Yeah. Agreed? Absolutely. There is no question about Hyderabad being part of India? Absolutely, yeah. Perfect. Look at the record of the UN. Every year, Pakistan, there is an item on the United Nations Security Council agenda. The Hyderabad question. So, let me explain. What is this? You may be thinking, strange, I came back to Hyderabad.

1:54:34There is no question of a question of Hyderabad. But there is an agenda item. So the way the process works in these international bodies is simple. If one country which has brought that dispute or that issue to the Security Council wants to keep it, it will be interminably. If there is a case or not case or nothing, there is no case about Hyderabad now. But in 1947, when the Nizam and the police action were taking place, this was an issue there at that time. And nothing happened there, it finished. but Pakistan writes and it's continued. Now we have a choice we can spend our energy there or we can say nonsense let them do what they want how does it matter to me but it will be there forever it will be there till Pakistan decides not to write and say so the procedure in these bodies is such that it is a maze you can either bang your head and get hurt or find ways out of the maze.

1:55:37So, I am not interested in finding a solution to this maze whether they want to write and is this a dispute? No, it's not been discussed for 75 years. It's not an issue for me. I don't see how it is. Even Pakistan doesn't see but it is out of cussedness. They write that. Every year they write, please keep this on the agenda. So, my point is that international bodies are reflective of the procedures they are. It's like UK The UK is no longer Among the top 5 countries In the world In any matrix Yet It's a permanent member And we cannot change it Because it's not like My instant phone I cannot update it So I Either say I don't want anything To do with the UN Or I say Okay This part I don't take I have many other things I'll do with that So that's how we need To look at these things I will gain What I want The rest I'm not bothered about And it does not do Any harm to me It's okay But are you comparing Pakistan's issue of Hyderabad with our issue with IMF?

1:56:40Our issue with IMF, we have always said this is not our issue. We will protest and give up because in international law. Don't we say in public, in international law, in front of the world that the world is funding. If they are allowing IMF to actually fund Pakistan, they are funding terrorism. We said open your law. Yet 82 % vote come in favor. Yes, because we are doing it to place our view. Not that we are pushing. Look, every negotiation we discussed, there's a price to pay. You can pay the price and up it. Or you decide that, okay, I will not up it. I leave it at this price because it's not fundamental to my...

1:57:26So, are we ready to up the ante so much? we think that look today our share of the IMF is X which is very small it's comparable to our economy down the line when our economy grows when our share becomes up then we will still have this point to plug in then if I give it up now as a point and suddenly raise it afterwards unless I have a reason I will find it more difficult so my thing is there are some enduring issues which we need to place on record but we don't fight hard adequately because there's a price you can get anything done whether here or elsewhere if you put in that much effort but you can't put all this effort for every time like we discussed on Masudazar etc.

1:58:17We raise the bar so much but it's a one time effort I cannot keep on raising the bar every time like this so I decide that okay I have if I may say so I have bigger fish to fry so I am going to look after those fish not this issue it is difficult it's not something that we like but I cannot solve all the problems of the world okay so one side can be what will happen to the IMF loan in Pakistan so let it be the other side is where if tomorrow my contribution in IMF grows bigger I should be able to backtrack it that consistently over the years I've been able to block it. That's why now I'm raising the bar and like completely blocking it.

1:59:04Let's say in a hypothetical situation today, we had to raise a bar and be like, this is the issue we really care about and block their funding. What price potentially we could have been paid? No, the price is that you will have to give up your other goals. Obviously, like what price? What do you think? What leverage other people will play on us? No, so the US will start saying, will you follow us like Pakistan follows on everything. Are we ready? No. We are not Don't follow US. No. So, I think it's so unfair to say we follow. Look at the Board of Peace. Trump has put up a Board of Peace. Pakistan has joined that.

1:59:43We have not joined it. Because we know this is not a real institution, international institution. So, we just say, okay, we haven't said we are not going to join. Because you will unnecessarily antagonize it. We said we are considering it, etc. We are not going to join it. So, there you are. So, look, if you want to pay all the price, then you won't be India. So, India will do a balancing act. It's not a 100 % clean act. It will be sometime this way, that way, etc. But that's the nature of the thing because our goals are different. We will sacrifice some smaller in negotiation or in anything. You give up smaller things for bigger things.

2:00:24And that's our goal that we give up. we look at the bigger things. Right now our goal is by 2047 we should be on par with developed economies. And that's a good goal. It's a long term goal. We all need to strive to that and see can we reach that. Smaller goals for the present we keep them on the back burner and see how it goes. See for that goal of developed economy rising economic interest everything. A lot of people say that we don't actually consider you US doesn't consider us a friend the critics say that they are sort of our bosses whatever they'll say we have to follow do you believe in that?

2:01:08not at all but every time they say something we'll have to we eventually follow in by hook or crook no I mean apart from the tariff thing we probably followed almost everything no I think there are many many cases where we haven't followed we don't openly say but it's for example the US doesn't like us negotiating with Iran at all to get our ships. It hasn't stopped us from going and negotiating and we openly said we are doing it one by one. If it is working we will try again. The US doesn't want it wants people to send ships there. Minesweepers etc. and it doesn't even mention our name because they know that we are not a country which takes a side like that.

2:01:52So there are I can give you another whole list of things where we are not so on the war in Ukraine did we support the US? No. The US asked to repeatedly vote for us, don't abstain. We didn't. So I don't think there is anybody in the world who thinks that India will be following the US. Even the US doesn't think that way. There may be some people who are here want to prove a point who say that but in reality it's not what the A lot of people questioned it. And I was sitting with one very famous teacher in India. He teaches geopolitics and trains IAS students and bunch of people for government exams.

2:02:37He's a good informational guy and has a funny take as well. His name is Khan sir. I don't know if you know. Yes, yes, of course. You know him, right? So, what he said that... So, US is our boss because a friend doesn't give commands. A friend can only suggest certain things. Like for example, Russia is our friend. Russia can say that, yeah, don't do this. I can give you a better deal. And if I give you a better deal, come deal with me. That's what Russia did in the US, Ukraine, Russia scene. But US comes and be like, stop this or else we'll do this. They threaten you. They command you. And right now, the moment seen got little hard for them with the global economy, with oil prices, they say, we allow India.

2:03:24Who is US to allow India? How can US allow a nation which is independent, democratic and free? Like, why do we even hear these kind of statements and language without repenting? So, what you are saying is that different countries have different styles of engaging with others. And what you are saying is that, for example, India. Different presidents and prime ministers have different styles. Different prime ministers have different styles. That's a fair point to make. But the US, for a long time, it acts and behaves like a great power. It is hierarchical in nature. And so is China by that quality.

2:04:08China is also like this. The sort of things they were telling during Galwan, if you look at what they were saying, we insist that India do this. So, great powers who have a hubris will perhaps fall prey to hubris. And it doesn't mean to say that... What do you mean by hubris? It's over-enthusiasm and sort of what we say, arrogance. All right. Arrogance. And if you are a great power for a long time You develop an arrogance The Russians lost large amount of their territory So they are not in the same league as the US Because what is worse than losing territory for a country Because it is a traumatic experience for any country If you lose a territory And therefore the Russians I mean look at us Many people tell us you are too soft doesn't mean that if our demeanor is soft and we talk to everybody politely that we will agree to them oh you are not too I remember people telling me Maldives how dare Maldives tell me anything if I was there and this was another diplomat saying if it was in my backyard I would have gone and hit them now that's their approach our approach is very different we will handle it in a different way when they are in trouble they will come to us etc etc This happened in Sri Lanka.

2:05:37Who was the first country to help them during cyclones, during their big problem with their economy? We gave them 3 billion or 4 billion dollars. But we haven't gone and told Sri Lanka, do this, do that. I think it's a stylistic difference. And style is important. But we shouldn't mistake style for substance. And it's better not to engage in style Because different countries have different styles of telling What is a style if you have to put it? Ours Ours is a style of Being hard headed But not showing it openly So we appear soft But we are not all that soft Yes, increasingly we are becoming assertive And that's the right thing Because otherwise people may not take us seriously But it's always an evolving thing We are transitioning from a country Which was not so strong and powerful To a country which has a much stronger say now So we still have remnants of that past style And some people don't like if we are assertive also So we try to balance it No, let's not do it right now We will do it in due course, etc It's a transition which is a generational thing It will take when young people like you are in positions of authority You may become more assertive And which is the right thing to do We have seen ourselves grow from a difficult situation And therefore we are much more cautious in our approach Okay, so our style is that How would you call America style?

2:07:21Explain in one sentence In one sentence My way or the highway Either you are with us Do you think they are losing power on that? Yes, clearly There was a time when America could get away By saying my way or highway Today they are not able to do that Absolutely correct Because you can say that When the world was unipolar Today they are not the only pole there We can work with many others Everybody else can work with others And America has to come to grips that this is not a unipolar world but it's a more if I may use a term it's a world in which promiscuity is not a vice it's not a human relationship but it's a state-state relationship where you know you have multiple partners and you are proud that you have multiple partners it doesn't work in an individual relationship but so that's how it is and the US has to get used that the unipolar moment it had a time from the end of the cold war till about 2007 etc it could do what it want it could get its act done today no Russia style?

2:08:39Russia so many people say Russia is always default position is near what do you mean by near near is no so any view you say default position is no then begins the actual discussion. So, many Russian foreign ministers were called Mr. Nyat. Because the default position for anything is... And I don't blame them because look at Russia in the past. It was... It has been the biggest loser in all these in terms of its strength or its global power weakening compared to what it was during World War II, etc. That time it was part of the top three. And then in a multipolar world when its parts broke off etc.

2:09:30It had weakened. So it doesn't want to change. So it will be the most resistant to change. And that's why they used to call it Mr. Niyadh. Alright. Then Israel. I love like talking about styles of countries. How they deal like based on your opinion. I am not too familiar but I have had some engagement with Israel and I find they are extremely strategic in their choices. Many years ago, I had gone once to Israel with our foreign minister then and Nataniya was then also the prime minister. And he spent almost three hours The Prime Minister of Israel On a breakfast with the External Affairs Minister of India And it was clear to me That they had on a long term basis Said that this is the country That we want to engage So they would say Whatever you want tell us Not how to do it We will find ways You tell us what you want So it's a style which is they are thinking very long term we say that the Chinese think long term but the Israelis are thinking very very long term and that's part of their relationship with us is a thought process which started much earlier and they are a country which is about 12 million or something they see a friendship and a long term friendship with a country and they said perfect for us I was speaking to someone senior Indian racial bodies and they said Israel you can define Israel's every move, every citizen's thinking, every government officer's thinking, every business person thinking, every person who has left Israel and is living somewhere else, you can define it in one line long term strategy for growing influence because they want to survive there's nothing else they do, anything else apart from this whether it's their investment choices it's their individual technology choices innovation choices building the family culture dealing in wars or something like there's only one line I think they've brainwashed themselves into just thinking this you may not be wrong because I came to almost the same conclusion without the existential threat and it's true those who have faced that sort of a danger will always think of it in existential terms.

2:12:06And I understand where they are coming from. But in that, what has also happened is that sometimes there are excesses if you look at it in that manner. Because today's world, they don't need to do this kind of stuff. Today is not about existential crisis anymore. There was a time. I agree with you absolutely. Because Israel is a country which has many advantages to it. And it's a country with a lot of thinking people. they have contributed a lot to the world from the Jewish community. There have been great thinkers, writers, etc. But I think they are also in that transition from concern about existence to a thinker that now we need to perhaps modulate these things.

2:12:54Exactly. Like these kind of conversations and decisions is way above my pay grade. But whatever little I understand just from a pure small citizen of a country, I could say they will benefit more if they open up and be friendly than they would benefit from the way that they're doing today. Like a large part of, I'll tell you just anecdotal situation and anecdotal incidents. Large part of my friend circle of entrepreneurs, they have started having their doubts about Israel now. And they were all very pro because the way relationship is growing. And now all of a sudden, they have nothing to do with it.

2:13:35They don't live in Iran. They don't live in Gulf countries. They don't live in US. They probably won't even do business in Israel. But that sentiment, if it's changing on a ground level, there's something needs to be fixed. True. Even in the US, by all polling, it's seen that the younger people are much more critical than the generation before. Because a lot of them admired Israel and its achievements. But what the younger generation is seeing is a rather harsh form of Israel. Which doesn't reflect its full but that's what it's seen. And therefore there is that allure of Israel has diminished compared to what it was.

2:14:20Exactly. Like I admire what they've done. Just like every entrepreneur would admire. because they're so little and they have figured out a way to win maximum achievements, maximum Nobel Prizes maximum influence over the world, the money like just every story you read about them it's incredible just the smallest story is which people often overlook as well that they're a deserted land and they didn't have water and in just 10 years they converted into a land with excess water so they not only do it for the world but themselves true and all of that charm is now reducing because of the other things that they're doing I agree with you absolutely I mean but states have to all states are recalibrating and I think this is the time for everybody to look at these things but aren't we scared of China in some way no I don't think we are scared of China I think scared is not the right word to use what's the right word to use the right word to You use this, yes, we are cautious.

2:15:26Yes, we are calibrated. But calibration, caution for a country which is handling another country about five times its size is not weakness. It's maybe... But they blatantly bully us almost everywhere. And what have we succumbed to? Apart from this, we haven't succumbed to any of the things that you said. We haven't succumbed. Okay, they said this about one of our citizens. Okay. they keep causing us trouble every now and then what else do you need pardon like we import a lot from them there's a trade deficit and who is forcing us it's all Indians who find it cheaper they're importing and if you ask most businessmen they want to import more at the end of the day there's a trade deficit on a country level true now it can be citizen problem entrepreneurs problem government problem policy problem I don't know I'm just asking you a genuine thing because of let's say maybe economic interest are we scared because of economic interest?

2:16:28No. Again we see that China is in many ways frenemy enemy but in some areas we gain from them. What friendship? I don't mean friendship I meant frenemy yes there can be let's not tag it they're somewhere in the between that can be one but tagging them frenemy is also bad because but we are They are not clear enemies But they are not clear friends They are not friends at all Why a friend? This is fine Because There are many things That we gain from our engagement With China Let me give you an example So We are producing A lot of pharma But The raw material For the pharma comes from China So Our exports are increasing Because our imports From China Are also increasing That's number one Again, if you want more solar panels, the cheapest photovoltaic sales coming from China.

2:17:29Now you can say that I don't want to buy for China, I will have costlier ones. That's cutting your nose for no reason. So my point is that they will be in a multipolar world. They will be something that you gain from some country. We should isolate that and say, okay, we gain here, we lose here. Yes, it has led to a trade deficit. And we've calculated that yes, we must stop the trade deficit. So we will push for more exports. But our challenge is that the things that they are making and the things we are making, there are many complementary things. So they will not buy from us except if our quality improves.

2:18:07And that's where we have to work out. And China didn't become the big export juggernaut that it has without effort for the last 25 years. We've just started on this path. and so we must give ourselves time and space to do it. Again, it's like all the time we are judging ourselves in one point in history and one point in history is good to understand, okay, this is where we are but are we on the path towards trying to do better? Yes. Have we succeeded always? No. But that's the nature of the game. We will succeed in some. We may not succeed in some. And if you gain anybody who succeeds 80 % in his life is considered a big success.

2:18:52So if a country is doing that much and getting about 80 % better than where it was, I think it's a fair thing to say that the country is also doing well. Fair. But let's put trade, economics, all of these things aside. Do you think China's influence over our neighborhood countries? They have done way better job and we have lost there. It's true that China has become a major player in our neighborhood But it's not only our neighborhood This is our problem But it's not only our China is the largest trade partner with maybe 140 countries Fair We care about our 5-6 We care about our 5-6 And that's a fair thing to say So our engagement economically we cannot compete today with China because they have deeper pockets and we will not get into a race of giving more because the small country will play both of us and gain more but how deep pockets do they have compared to us when they can actually deal with 140 countries or 150 countries we can't even deal with 5 no I think it's not fair to say that because you are saying those 5 were the ones who matter for us.

2:20:12And that's a fair thing. So, we should actually invest most of our energy in the five because whoever wins neighborhood probably has a fair shot of winning the world. Agree. Because, I can put it reverse, that without winning the neighborhood, you cannot win the world. That's a fair thing to put. So, the issue is that it need not always play like this. So, look at Cuba and USA. it's now 70 plus years they have an animosity doesn't stop USA from becoming the supreme power in the world but leave that aside there's Mexico, there's Canada but Canada, sorry Mexico's relationship with the USA has not always been good they've had major major challenges not even now but even before that but influence and trade relationship have been over the last 20 years before that they also had a problem So I take your point that China has disproportionately invested in our neighborhood compared to us.

2:21:15So the only way we can address them is a challenge that we have to tie them up more with our structure. So there were times when we were giving large number of scholarships to study. Now we have a challenge that our younger people want to study more. So the opportunities of a growing country means that you will not be able to compete with a country which is five times the economy. It's about five times. So our thing is that where we have advantage, we will try and gain. And slowly we will. Plus we have a cultural advantage which China doesn't have. But sometimes anomalous situations do arise. Like in Bangladesh.

2:22:00The relationship was flourishing until there was internal dislocation in that country. Now it will take time for us to set it back. Sri Lanka we are doing now much better than what it was because we have invested a lot now in Sri Lanka. Bhutan, we have always had a very good relationship. In fact, Bhutan, much of electricity in Delhi comes from hydroelectric power which we have invested in Bhutan. we have challenge with Pakistan so leave Pakistan out I will not get into that discounted as Cuba fair enough larger one so if you look at it Nepal the challenge is that many of their elites we have seen what has been the same elites which had a challenge with India have been creating problems for themselves internally.

2:22:58We hope that with a new leader who is more representative of the Nepali people their engagement is more because he also comes from what we call Mades which is the area which is similar to our part of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar etc. and all. He speaks mightily etc. and all. So our hope is that they will be more understanding because previously it was the people of the Kathmandu Valley who were dominant. So Nepal is a work in progress but Nepal recently he issued a statement he wants greater Nepal everybody is all of a sudden out of somebody wants greater China, somebody wants greater Bangladesh somebody wants greater Nepal what is this happening?

2:23:42why is everyone coming and just greater greater? Pakistan nobody listens but they also want something greater so aspiration is... why is every neighborhood all of a sudden started saying this in India? I made it a we either think that we can be silent let them say no I don't think we say that but I think what we say is that there are other ways there are other ways to tackle this so one way is that we just immediately say but you are saying that so you were saying that we are not saying with USA we are scared or something with China now are you telling me that we are scared of Nepal obviously not that's what I am saying like don't you think that because we because we don't say some anything to even smaller countries in front of the world it puts us in a bad position?

2:24:29In a weaker position rather? So strength is not determined by the volume of rhetoric. Absolutely not. So I'm asking what would strength look like? Because from the optics it doesn't look like strength. From economic standpoint, yes it looks like strength. So the thing is that they will make those statements and we have seen behind closed doors they say something else. So here's your choice. You can slap them on the wrist or you can say, okay, now it's done. Let's get down to business. And we've chosen the latter half. Even with Bangladesh, you saw that they said they will not play cricket in India, this, that, etc.

2:25:12The new government has come. They send their national security advisor to quietly talk with us. So those countries understand but they will always be, always be in a neighboring country there will always be a segment of population which wants to use or misuse or abuse this and say oh the big brother is worrying. And this is the challenge of all big countries whether it's India, China or USA you will see that in the neighborhood there will be some elements of this. So there's US also made a statement about China and India in the same line. They said, we won't make same mistake with India that we made with China.

2:25:55What do they mean by it? From a diplomatic point of view, tell me in easy language. It's not unusual for countries to realize that rising powers could be a challenge for them. So, they saw that basically they are acknowledging that we made a mistake with China that we allowed them to be a developing country and therefore we gave them the benefits of trade which they have now used and grown in such an exponential manner that they are a challenge for us. That's their experience with China. So their fear is that other countries also may do this. But I think that is a US style of communication which thinks that they gave anybody anything.

2:26:47Nobody gives anything to anybody unless it's in their mutual interest. So they thought China is a big market. Let us do this. Let's give them. Let's get into the market. So they did what they did. Similar with India. India will rise irrespective of whether US says or China says or China likes or India likes. The curve is not going to change. It will be a little bit up and down. That's understandable. You can push it a little below. You can push it up or something. but the natural growth of a country is its own. So let's look at our own growth. These are rhetoric and they can do what they want or say what they want.

2:27:28And best, this time China had a good policy for many years. Their thinking was, bide your time, hide your talent. We are exactly in that space. Bide our time, wait for the opportune moment. and do our things what we want keep our head down and let's focus on strengthening ourselves the rest will take care of ourselves foreign policy the best foreign policy is 8 % growth but you can't like we can't get into economics because it's another it'll open a different thread 8 % growth there are insane number of factors etc etc etc like we can't we can't we should not enter that arena it'll take me 5 more hours to prepare for that right It's a topic of interest But coming back to How do you interpret this warning?

2:28:20No Do you even interpret this as warning? So first of all That it has a thread of truth Is not disputable That no country which is on top Wants others to rise But They are engaged with us Because they see us As a possible partner In many things Where they want to balance out Other equation So he may have said it, may have said it crudely, may have said it imprudently But we understand that very well that our rise is not going to be something which everybody will support in every instance We have seen that in their actions also So it's not something he has given us some new thing This is a thinking that all people who are engaged with countries understand to the extent that they can work with us, they'll work.

2:29:17To the extent they cannot, they will not. And I would think that the American thinking still is that India's rise is in the interest of the US because they see it as a balancing factor in this part of the world. tell me as a when you were in when you were a diplomat you were in the ministry you were here everywhere serving our country in other nations and in india as well sometimes do you genuinely hate media because they they create more chaos beyond okay do you think that media actually sometimes make things worse some strategic leverages you lose because of media ruckus And you have to instantly give answer to the citizens inside.

2:30:01It's true that sometimes diplomacy is best done behind closed doors. Because the nature of that engagement, sometimes it is always better. So, for example, very delicate negotiations, whether with the US or the nuclear deal or with China or with Pakistan in the past. It's best because emotions should be kept out of hard way of engagement. And as a democracy, we will always bring it out. But open channels need not be the best way of arriving at solutions. In some cases, yes it is. But it's also a fact that sometimes the media helps us. and I can mention some cases where when the media was making a noise we explained saying that look you are asking for this but it's not possible for us at all look at what our media is doing so it works both ways and as a democracy this is a small little challenge that we have to accept because it also helps us but shouldn't we work together in order to actually win narrative war against the world like Indian diplomats, Indian media, Indian government, everybody should work together in order to make sure that we are not showing that we are divided inside the country.

2:31:34We actually show strength as whole and be like, hey, it's against the world. We may fight in all our own things. Let us fight. Let us fight for the truth. Let us fight for the rights and the wrongs. But in front of the world, we should together partner and be like we are the national assets and us against the world. I agree if that's what we should aspire for So there was a journalist who once told me A senior editor He said diplomats and journalists may be siblings But we are step siblings And his argument was that On many issues we may be together But on some I am going to agree And there was actually another journalist who once told me And I don't know whether it's true but this is the Hindi phrase she used and so you can understand the thinking basically that the horse can't become too friendly with the grass otherwise it can't eat anything, it will starve so if that's the mindset it's going to be some areas that you will always diverge like step siblings, you may be siblings etc but I think the time has come now because India's performance is outpacing the perception of India.

2:32:57Yeah. And see, just an example if I give you. Look at the UPI. Everybody is so fascinated that, you know, you can spend 100 rupees. I don't remember when I last spent 100 rupees. It's all through digital. Everybody comes and says, oh, this is a country. But the perception is, oh, Indians are this, etc. So, our performance has outstripped our perception. And it's time for us to work together to enhance the perceptions. And that can not come by government alone. Government is an important player. But it's not the only player. And globally, governments have depended on the media Look at the BBC, it's funded from the British Foreign Office There are other channels which have gone global Al Jazeera was started with the seed money or huge fund from Qatar It's today a global channel So it's time for us to look at creative ways in which we can work because the world is as much about narrative as it's about reality.

2:34:13True. Perception is as important as is reality. And it's important for us to work at least on a common minimum issues. Okay, on these, they will be on domestic issues. You may want to do what you want and that's a fair game there. But on global issues, it's time to encourage creative thinking. It's also time for the government to start opening up and give data, information, which can be easily absorbed and used. So both ways, I think this is now the time because it can be a factor and a big factor for improvement very rapidly. true i was sitting with few on business owners entrepreneurs and world leaders a while ago and somebody made a loose comment and said that uh they were their telecom giant sitting okay so somebody was very well active in south africa morocco a bunch of other places one of the largest players and then there was other person who was in like pakistan and bangladesh and turkey and places like these right so one business owner he said that he just put it India Pakistan Bangladesh one window in one blanket and they said that yeah we don't look at these markets because we don't know about financial inclusion financial transparency is not there I don't know how to do collection etc etc and just put it all there and so till that point I was also of a belief that enough of one UPI we have done now not everybody can talk just talk about UPI UPI UPI in the country like we need to talk about other innovations as well but that day I realized like a large part of the world still doesn't know about our UPI success they still put us in the same blanket as these other very less developed nations and they consider that we all are in the same and they call like somebody called India highly cash economy and you don't know what money will come what will not come it's very difficult to me that was fascinating and before I could enter and say something a large player from Pakistan and Bangladesh he said that India is a very different market because Bangladesh and Pakistan he just said one thing which is like ask any Indian telecom player they'll tell you ask them the percentage of recharges which happen through cash or through UPI or through credit card and they'll tell you the difference between 10 years ago and today right huge ask any telecom player in Pakistan and Bangladesh what is the percentage of online transactions and this and then you would get to know that 90 95 percent of their economy still dependent okay like in today's world india make nobody can believe that you have to go to a shop give money to get recharge done no matter how influential you are like that is so we have leapfrogged the financial inclusion part we have just killed that part and you know all these global businesses like the American ones Spotify your YouTube Netflix you know they they don't consider Pakistan Bangladesh is a big market you know why because they don't have credit cards to even pay for their subscription there are no debit card credit card there's no system so UPI has really killed it so to your point in our country we talk enough of UPI but in the world we still need to go out and talk about it because that's our export So that was the first part.

2:38:10And the, oh, I got deviated because I got so excited. The other part was about the journalist thing. I was speaking to one journalist and I told them that, hey, you know what? Why are you always negative? Like why as a journalist, you're always negative. and as an Indian who is now traveling all around the world I want to show the good sides of my country I want to show the strength of my country so that I can drive better narrative I can build better friendships I can probably through some videos some podcast some conversation people start thinking that it's good to invest in India so I want to drive more money from the world to our country and I want to show the strength of a country that it's no more the country of snake charmers which true you know few people still believe so i want to change that so i don't want to go there and talk about how how we are fighting and what we are doing and you know just don't be like there are times where we have to be negative and talk about realities of country but not every day and the journalist said something very nice he said you know raj you and me we both are working towards the same goal you want to highlight the strengths of our country to the world to drive investment.

2:39:33We want to highlight the problems of our country to the current people who are leading it so that they can fix it so that the more investments come. I like that point. It was a very fair thing to say. He's like, as a journalist, my responsibility is, yes, there are thousands of kilometers road getting developed every day, getting constructed every day. But there's one pothole which I care about. fix that. So you can talk about thousands of kilometers of road I'll talk about potholes and I like that. No, as long as your heart is in the right place does not matter whichever way you come. True. True.

2:40:12I agree that you know it's a if your goal is the same you can reach it through positivity or framing it in a more in a manner which is more challenging to the government and if it improves them why not? And both are not mutually exclusive. I think there will be and always there has to be that. Otherwise, you're not a democracy. True. Tell me a very important thing which is about the international bodies. Don't you think they're completely useless today? I want to elaborate this question with stating some facts. UN was created to prevent wars. United Nations were created for that. We've had Korea after that.

2:41:04We have Iraq. We have Iran. We have Russia. We have so many more. I can keep counting, counting. Wars keep happening. The Gaza thing happened. Like just, and right now, it's going on in a short time, right? World Trade Organization was created for free trade of the world. We're having the biggest trade war of the world right now as we speak at this point, right? IMF was created to stabilize economies which are falling. They have given funds to Pakistan 24 times as economy still in trenches. So any global body that we speak of today they are all essentially failures. Like nothing has happened. So there is a saying that the UN was not created for to lead mankind to heaven.

2:41:56It was created with the hope that it will ensure that it doesn't descend into hell So it's a low barrier that international bodies are trying to fulfill But let's take some of the things that you said and let's examine that So let's take peace and security where you said which is the most visible Yeah, right now So the peace and security architecture of the UN has a design flaw. And that is not by chance that the design flaw. That is purely by choice that the design flaw was created. Which is that if there are any of the five permanent members involved, the UN cannot do anything. Because that's how the veto is there, so it cannot do.

2:42:49Any of the five members or its very close ally cannot do. Therefore, by definition, it was only entrusted with the responsibility of second degree, third degree peace and security issues. But doesn't that mean you are giving power to five bullies and be like, you can do whatever you want to. Agreed. So, the logic, absolutely that's our interpretation. Their interpretation is different. is saying that these are the only five who can lead to a world war in 1945. So their argument is if you push any of them into a corner, it will be a world war. And their goal was to ensure that a war like cataclysmic war, like the World War II or World War I should not happen.

2:43:41So their argument is that it hasn't happened. Yes, second degree wars are there. also wars where one of the big powers is violating laws and doing it are happening but there has not been a clash among those five directly Okay Explain You said one of the five members Russia is in always trouble and they are causing Russia has not fought directly with the US But you said any war concerning these five people will not be fought. No, will be fought. But it cannot handle by the architecture of the UN. So it will not deal with those. But US directly waged war, which was an economic war. By implicating, implementing sanctions over Russia, right?

2:44:33Yes. But that's not a, again, that's not a peace and security issue. It's an economic issue. What does world war look like? I don't think anymore there is going to be a scene where two world economies are gonna be gonna send their foot on soldiers in some territory and gonna fight it with each other right it's not going to happen in today's world it's going to be done through trade economy influencing other countries neighborhoods by attacking bombardingly by using advanced weapons by sending drones by doing cyber attack by putting economic sanctions all of that is happening so it's not happening with each other so where has US or Russia send drones against each other where has economic sanctions happen economic sanctions happen yes but again it's not economic sanctions also if you look at it the US and China have been very careful they make the noise they draw back every time so I'm not I wish what you say is true that the cataclysmic scenario you said will not happen doesn't happen.

2:45:44I wish you are true. Do you think it will happen? You never know. What do you think? No, I hope that they should not happen. But never say no. What's your guess? Will it ever happen? No. As we are alive, like will it happen? As a diplomat, I will never say no to anything. I'm not saying which power fights who. No. Don't say that. But do you think the way we are heading is the possibility of… So, the thinking is that the nearest the world situation now, if you look in history and if you try to learn from history, the nearest the world situation now is when it was between the two world wars. That there was instability, there were use of economic tools, there were use of proxies, there were one country eating up another country, etc.

2:46:35and all. This is the most tumultuous period since between the two wars. So, you draw your own conclusion. If you go logically, maybe there is danger. But maybe there is too much of interdependence. It may not happen also. So, let's hope for the latter, not for the former. But the situation clearly is the worst it has been since World War II. You saw China also put their ships around Taiwan. Yes, I read that also. And that they have never said that they have not given up that goal ever. It's only a matter of time. The one year left, the clock is ticking. I don't know one year or not. Yes, but it could.

2:47:22But let's be clear that that's been their long term goal. That's been an issue that they are pursuing. And that is a legacy defining moment for a lot of Chinese leaders. So, it's something that we have to be prepared for or plan for. But coming back to the, I interrupted you, I'm sorry, for the UN thing. Right. So, I told you that from the peace and security, the issue was not to get heaven. That there will be peace on earth. No. The issue was that there will not be a configuration like World War II. Where both the things. proxy wars proxy wars have been happening before even during cold war Angola war or Mozambique war or something there have been many proxy wars no this is also in the 70s it's happened even during the cold war it has happened but it's become worse now and because the lethality of weapons has increased but if you don't have it let's take it is it the world better of without having it or having something to deal with low level conflicts.

2:48:36But does it ever, like has it ever happened that some issue they have solved? Yes. There are many issues. The ones that come into light, it looks like they have been effectively useless. I'm sorry you use harsh words but that's what the world is saying. It's a thing to say that if you look at the history, they have been So let's move. India, there have been 80 countries who have decolonized after the UN declaration of decolonization. So have they promoted a norm which led to decolonization? So never in the history of mankind have there been so many what we call nation states. Before they were empires The British Empire, the Russian Empire, Chinese, whatever else, etc Indian Empire, etc But independent states of this number Have happened only after World War II So they set up a norm So in a normative sense, they helped in doing But there are many other things that the UN does Other than peace and security So let's take humanitarian assistance I mean, today there are about 25 million refugees in different countries.

2:49:59Those countries don't have the capacities to deal with it. It is UN bodies like the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. There are humanitarian bodies who are helping out and channelizing. Even when we were sending assistance to Afghanistan, we worked with what's called the World Food Program. Because we couldn't send to Afghanistan directly. Pakistan was not allowing us. So we sent through Iran. Biscuits were sent for students in this. Medical equipment is sent. So there are a lot of things which don't catch the eye, which the UN and its bodies are doing. And whenever you have a challenge, you say, let's go.

2:50:41So for example, with Iran, everybody doesn't say, US should check whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not. They say, go to the International Atomic Energy Agency. So there are some agencies, there are some bodies which are doing, they do it quietly and we need not, because they are not in the news doesn't mean that they don't exist. They work and they successfully are able to stop us from descending to hell. interesting so the UN is if I have to sum it up in simple words anything which which concerns the top 5 or their friends or their friends it will not no laws no laws are followed like nothing is followed because we have seen that happen the top 5 the big bullies the big friends the whatever superpowers etc you want to call them everything else they'll be they'll try and address those control them so you essentially answered my next question also because I was going to ask you that we have been trying to become permanent members in so many years and China has been blocking there as well.

2:51:48So, why do we need to become a permanent member? Because of this. The moment we become permanent member, then our interest also will concern the world. Then they will not touch us. Also, Will it happen? So, permanent membership for? So, let me put it in two ways. One is, for an aspirational country, which, it has to set goals. and it's a good aspirational goal to say I want to be on a table which decides because in diplomacy there is a thinking if you are not on the table, you are on the menu card and we are too big now for anybody to digest on the menu card so we think that we are ready for the next level so that's the aspiration whether that happens or not I can't answer because international organizations don't change easily But that said, then they become redundant So they have a choice Either they will accommodate India in some manner Or they will become redundant It's their call As for us, whether we get there or otherwise We will still have an increasing role to play And we are not those who want to overthrow the established order We are saying reform the order We are not saying revolt against the order We are saying reform the order because by any, our view is that by any matrix you put, we should be there and you cannot take decisions for us.

2:53:16So, for example, climate. You cannot take a decision for India when we have 1.6 million people. Economics, you cannot take a decision. Similarly, peace and security because it affects us and large number. So, I think as a goal, it's the right thing to say. It's the right thing to do. whether it will be achieved or not if it doesn't achieve it doesn't stop India's rise if we get it there will be greater stability and we protect our interests in the future and that's why you're doing it tell me one

2:53:49one country who has been looking after India's interest who's a friend of ours just from purely interest point of view over the years they have again and again consistently supported India's interest. So, it's a difficult call to take because each country I can find out one or two places where they looked after their interest. Net-net. Net-net I would think is for various reasons it would be Russia. And who has been the most dangerous and annoying person for us? Leave Pakistan. No, clearly China. Clearly China. is a major challenge for us. Both as our model and their model are competing competitors.

2:54:37As our growth, they do not want anybody else in Asia. They see India as a big civilizational state that can rise and which may impede their domination. So for variety of reasons, China clearly is our longer term issue and we need to handle it with deafness today. we can't take them out directly so therefore it's best to work out our via media down the line there will be challenges and I think we need to just get ready that unlike the US before China sees India's rise as a challenge too and our goal is to ensure that we both have to rise we have no bother about their rising but they cannot impede our rise and that's our big challenge if there's one foreign policy challenge it is to ensure that our growth is not impeded by China.

2:55:35True. And China also sees us as threat. I was reading an article, which is fun to read, that everybody talks about economic challenges, how India's growing population, young population, we have the world has announced China plus one, we have cheap labor, effective labor, bunch of these things which are from a strategic economic point of view, we have an upper hand. and that's why we are keep we'll keep growing right china is one more threat from india which is the power of culture there is no other civilization apart from india which can actually compete with the chinese ancient wisdom or ancient culture or civilization so everything that they want to become they want to make soft power uh you know everything that they want their culture or their food or their things to be part of soft power all around the world, India can challenge that.

2:56:33So that's why they have, apart from economics, they have this one big major fear as well. Because if we end up winning the soft power game, economic power will be much easier to win. China clearly sees us that our rise is not in their interest. This they have concluded. And therefore all the other problems are only subsets of that bigger goal that they have set for. And we acknowledge that we have that challenge. And so for the present we have to be navigating the field. And therefore we will be sometimes very friendly with some other countries. We will work out via media with China. And it's not a contradiction because what we are looking at is our rise.

2:57:15And that's the primary goal. If it is facilitated by all these contradictions it's fine. Tell me one thing which is, what do you think in just last 10 years, one decade, what has been the best decision by India? And what has been the worst?

2:57:41So the best decision is, I clearly feel that financial inclusion is a game changer. Okay. Because it brings into one plate many things. It brings into it financial inclusion. It brings into it economic inclusion. It shows that technology, Indians are not averse to adopting technology. Multiple things. So, I think by far it is the best decision in the last decade. the one which perhaps we should try and the worst let me think for a time

2:58:29and this need not be foreign policy anything

2:58:43Thank you.

2:58:55The worst, I think, is the difficulties we are facing in our own country regarding, and it's a global phenomenon, of polarization on anything. Anything the one party says, the other party is opposed to it. And it's not conducive to growth because you'll get stagnant like the U.S. is now. Anything the Democrats say, the Republicans do. The Republicans come and the Democrats pull it down. So what has happened is that we are not judging issues on their merit. We are taking it saying that, oh, it cannot be passed because the opposition is there or somebody else is opposing. And if you use that, you will find there are several decisions which we have delayed.

2:59:40So, for example, this women, a certain amount of reservation for women. I think we've unduly delayed it. Because in my view, having seen the young people, when India can harness their women, I think we become a superpower. it's clear to me that I see these young women who are so good and so diligent and so working it's just that we are not able to harness them after some time they either flag off or move out etc. If they continue in the labor force it's nothing can stop us if we because the men will do for themselves because this is a tradition the women if we get in to our labor force if we harness their And delaying that For whatever reason Is not something that is in India's Interest But I can understand the reason because You know many times we've tried some things It didn't work like the farm laws It didn't work you take it back So the policy of the government is let's do Step by step And perhaps The situation demands that But it could easily There was no need to have a Diversion in this You could work it out because I think women's empowerment and equality is the way for India's very rapid.

3:01:06It will open up many channels. True. True. What do you think is India's biggest diplomatic strength today? And what is India's biggest diplomatic weakness today? So India's biggest diplomatic strength is access. Access to every country. it comes from variety of reasons one is because India's size but also we have nurtured those relationships at the highest level and at different levels and stability has provided that that you have a consistent head of state etc. So it has given you a strategic asset where you can pick up the phone and talk there is no country where we can even though some criticize saying oh you supported them and you support it but you can see even in the present crisis you are able to engage with all sides.

3:02:01So I think India's biggest strength is that we have access now to key decision makers globally. And that access can be turned into leverage if you do some things correctly you will get some things right something may not be right but access is our biggest strength. Biggest weakness biggest weakness is that given our economic needs, we have become vulnerable in a host of things. And that allows countries to leverage us and it redounds on the government. Somebody will say he's fallen, he's now supporting this and that. If we had less vulnerabilities, we would be in a better situation. So our access today is being used to at least reduce our vulnerabilities.

3:03:06That vulnerabilities have to be addressed and those are at home. So if we address those at home, we will gain internationally. Just the last question, I would actually make it more fill in the blank. Okay, this is fill in the blank. That one specific thing that you see critiques on social media calling out, which you believe is absolutely bullshit about India's policy. That India is subservient too, whichever country. there is no truth in that belief of subservience because explain you think a lot of people are calling out that India is just following orders of US and we are just like let's say a puppet and whenever the US says something we don't say anything and we just follow them blatantly is absolutely bullshit yes why?

3:04:07it's because look at our record I can give you numerous instances where we have told no but in polite terms or told them that it's not possible and we won't do it but we haven't gone out and spoken out loudly about it because we don't think that it's in our interest right now. So this belief that India will always be pro-US, it will be a subaltern of the US This is entirely false. It's a narrative that wants, doesn't want to move us up the ladder. It's a narrative which thinks that we have no agency independently. Sometimes we arrive at the same conclusion through different ways. And it could be in some ways.

3:05:01Yes, in some ways we agree because it's in our interest. and you will see increasingly as we go forward there will be cases where we will not be able to agree with the US because the US is overreaching and when you overreach, even the best of your friends will find it difficult to go with you and then you will see clearly that no, this is not happening so right now you are judging Indian decisions where the difference is a judgment call and that judgment call can be right or wrong but not because you were subservient but because you think it is in your interest but as you go forward if the US continues its sort of overreach you will clearly see that despite our thing that's why we are trying to have leverage with Europe, with Japan etc.

3:05:52so that we have enough balance in our ties and where we can then start saying that no clearly or yes clearly and I think we just need to be patient in this. And foreign policy is not something that happens overnight. Many of the decisions this government took are based on decisions which are from the previous government or the one before that. For example, the nuclear bill. The governments before that, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, etc. have worked on it. Similarly, our nuclear deterrent, it is something several governments have worked on it. So, if I see in the sweep of history, clearly India will rise as a pole.

3:06:38And if it rises as a pole, there will be cases where we say no to everybody. And we just have to live with it. The others will also have to live with it. By then, we'll be too strong for people to say, well, too bad. But that's what we are. We'll be the third pole. Yes, we will be another port. True. It's you know what you're saying that we're not subservient to anyone US government official Mr. Howard Lutnik he said it on some podcast in US where he said in this whole tariff war all India had to do was to make Prime Minister Modi call Trump and everything would have been in some way but India didn't butch.

3:07:21India didn't bow down and PM Modi didn't call. And they let the officials talk and eventually India made sure that they come down to terms which is in interest with India as well. We didn't let them crush us over the time. And that to me is a sign of strength where somebody is on a winning streak thinks that he can get done anything and everything and in that time usually it's very natural for you to believe that you'll be able to make everyone go down and we didn't so that's another sign that their own official is saying that it means it has some substance to it in fact I was a while ago and he said one thing that everybody in the US circle is talking about, he's a key influential person so he would say that everybody's talking about that India is a mountain.

3:08:21Everybody thought it's like a sand mountain, we'll crush it and walk over. But India today is a mountain which is not of a sand. So you have to make your way around it if you want to work. You can't just crush it and walk all over it. So you need to understand that India has strength in itself a lot. No, he's right. Because I think, you know, civilizationally, it is against our nature to be a follower. I mean, I remember forget about I think I remember myself that anybody somebody pushes me I will say no even if it's incorrect I may say later on yes but it's I think we are as a people maybe because it was colonization or whatever it's in our culture that we are not going to be camp followers this camp follower business is not for us true and sure we are not leaders right now but we have the potential and that's why we are aiming okay see we may reach in another 25 years, 20 years, 20 years.

3:09:18That's all right. But we will reach. And whether they like it or not, they will just have to adjust to. Like people say, whether you like it or not, after some time, a lot of Hindi, Urdu, all these Bengali words will come in English. And the way the Indians speak English will be what English is. That's it. Because just the numbers are just going to be so staggering. So, I am confident that these ups and downs will grow. You are confident the way world is thinking that we will grow, we will grow at that pace? I can't be certain. But it will not dramatically alter the trajectory. It can go sometimes more.

3:09:59There will be. Sometimes there will be. This is bound to happen. But I don't see a change in the trajectory. And that's the thing that we are. We should go on this trajectory for several more years. Then it becomes automatic. You see, we have been on this trajectory now. And we need to go for another 10-15 years, then autopilot. We don't need to worry about it. Everything is, even if you do too many mistakes, it's all absorbed in this. Like America does mistakes every 10 years. It just adjusts and then goes off. True. I just love the fact, genuinely, whether it's government or citizens, from the low level to the top level, India has become a conversation at least on every table.

3:10:38This is also true. This was not there before. Not at all. Earlier it was not there. there were only five big boys and they thought it's their club now the big boys think that there's another big boy building that they clearly think they will not say openly etc but they will accommodate everybody knows it now India is part of every conversation I think it's a good start when I was looking about you and I remembered there was a Swedish rapper PewDiePie Pew PewDiePie PewDiePie so this is 2016 2017 I think when I was in America at that time there was a big debate that will T-Series overtake PewDiePie or not.

3:11:18And there was like a song thing. I also supported T-Series. Indian. Because the number of views is something to add, etc. So that's what I was seeing. That if people like you get 25 million viewers, the world will see 25 million is saying something. And just the sheer weight. It's like China. Today you may not like China But you cannot ignore it That's it So just the sheer weight Of our presence Will do it And I don't know When it will come But the trajectory If we don't If we don't Really spoil ourselves Somewhere in the middle And I don't see It happening It's so It may happen You may win by 3 wickets You may win by 9 wickets A win is a win Like they say A rising tide Lifts all boats Yeah And so Small boats Big boats All of us I have seen myself in my career how people used to treat us before and how people treated us in my last few years it's totally different I mean visibly I can say there was nothing when we were first 80s, late 80s, early 90s oh do you bother our India they would say we know what you will say because they know we will criticize you out and all thank you so much Thank you very much for taking all the time and for adjusting.

3:12:44No, it was a pleasure to host you. It was amazing. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for doing everything that you have done. No, no. This is very kind of you. And all the best to you. It's nice to see young rising talents do very well. And I just wanted to thank you for everything you are doing. And so please keep doing whatever you're doing. All the best to you. Thank you. Hi. Pleasure meeting you, sir. Pleasure meeting you. young people like you have to thrive so the bar is high you are an aspirational young India I am tired and retired one of the reasons why we are able to aspire big you are one of them thank you so much for watching this episode till the end now you have to do 3 things 1.

3:13:29subscribe to this channel right now the more you subscribe the better the guests we will be able to get for you 2. please comment and let us know what did we do wrong and what did we do right. Because the more you give us feedback, the better we will be able to make episodes for you. And number three, please share this episode with at least one person because one conversation can change someone's entire life. I'll see you next time. Until then, keep figuring out.

3:14:07Thank you.