NEW DELHI: ‘We have history that we cannot wish away [when it comes to China]. The answer is to develop our border infrastructure and build deep national capabilities. It also means safeguarding our critical infrastructure and core manufacturing areas.’
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar replied to The Sunday Guardian’s questions in this exclusive interview.
Q: It is said that governments change but a country’s foreign policy remains constant. However, there is a widespread perception that in the last 10 years of the Narendra Modi government, India’s foreign policy has undergone a major transformation. In what ways is the Modi government’s foreign policy different from earlier?
EAM: I don’t think that it is right to say that governments change and foreign policy remains constant. What happens is that the people who were in the earlier government make a foreign policy, then try to sell you the argument that this foreign policy will last forever, so don’t mess with our foreign policy. Let me give you some specific examples.
Congress governments had a certain view and approach to China and to Pakistan. They also had a particular view of a country like Israel. They had their own hang-ups about dealing with the United States. I think all of these have changed substantially in the last decade. Today you have a realistic policy on China that contrasts with the Panchsheel and Chindia approaches of the Congress and the Left parties. We also have a robust policy of countering terrorism, rather than putting up with it or turning the other cheek. Today, we do not use vote bank as a foreign policy criterion, because that was the argument on which relations with Israel were not deliberately developed for many, many decades. When it comes to the United States, that kind of left-wing ideology which characterized the Congress then—which is still alive even now—actually had put constraints on our partnership. Let’s be honest about it; for decades we had a left-wing ideological foreign policy of the Congress. I think today, you have a nationalist BJP foreign policy, much more assured, much more centred around our own interests. It’s a Bharat-First policy, unlike what it was before.
Q: India-US relationship is believed to be among the most consequential of this century. What is your view of the direction in which India-US relations are headed?
EAM: The direction has been good in the last ten years because, as I noted, we have set aside those self-imposed restraints on cooperation. As a result, there are many more things we can do. You take any domain now, be it politics, defence, technology, semiconductors, academics, culture; show me a domain, and I will show you progress where the US is concerned. We may have our differences at times; that is only natural as two big countries with different histories. But if you look at the direction in which we are going, it has really been transformational. I also believe that it responds to societal sentiments in India.
Q: Sometimes there is some mixed messaging. There are talks about “thin red lines” and value-based assumptions. Where do you think that comes from?
EAM: The United States has its own view of the world; sometimes, actually it has multiple views depending on which part of the ideological spectrum we are talking about or which particular entity, organization or arm of the government. In certain sections, vote bank politics is also strongly practiced. They tend to think of it as a universal political outlook and advocate it to others. When they comment on India, it is important to counter the misperceptions. If it is being ideologically pushed, it is also necessary to call it out as “politics by other means”. That said, America is a big country; it’s a very differentiated country. All Americans are not the same. Even within an Administration, you can find different points of view. Sometimes you can have an overall direction which is very positive, but within that direction, you could have people who would slow it down, people who would oppose it, people who may do things to complicate it. All this is part of our diplomatic management.
Q: You must have come across an article on “America’s bad bet on India”. Questions are being raised about India’s reliability as an American partner, when there is an urgency about having a plan in place about how to balance things with China. Do you think there are actors who would like things to be problematic between India and the US?
EAM: Well you know, there may be a few talking about a “bad bet” on India. So let me ask: Did the US make a “good bet” on China? Or, for many decades, a “great bet” on Pakistan? We may have our disagreements or divergences with the United States. But we have never directly harmed American interests. Contrast it with those who actually were responsible for killing American soldiers or impacting its economy. It is time people understood that the world functions on convergences. You will agree on some, differ on others. At least in the leadership in the US, I see that understanding. Perhaps, not all domains are equally mature in their understanding of the contemporary world.
Q: How would you describe India-PRC relations as? Are we adversaries? Is there a real threat of a kinetic conflict?
EAM: Let me give you a global answer rather than limited to China. No. I believe that world politics is fundamentally competitive. Everybody competes with everybody. Honestly said, even friends compete with you. They may compete less and in a more civil manner, but everybody competes with everybody.
We have some real issues with China. Some of them may be more recent in their expression, but the core of it goes back to the 1950s. You know that they were initially evasive about the boundary and then made unjustified claims on our territory. Sadly, our diplomatic misreading of China and lack of preparations on the boundary led to the defeat in the 1962 war. Even now, much of what is happening can be traced back to that period. If China is building model villages, new roads or bridges, this is on land that they seized between 1958 and 1962. There is recently discussion about roads they have built in Shaksgam valley. That is a part of Kashmir which was handed over by Pakistan to China in 1963. If Nehru had not allowed a PoK to happen in 1949, this would have never taken place. So we have history that we cannot wish away. The answer is to develop our border infrastructure and build deep national capabilities. It also means safeguarding our critical infrastructure and core manufacturing areas. Here too, the neglect of manufacturing till 2014 poses a challenge that we have been trying to overcome in the last 10 years. Modi Sarkar has made much progress but there is still a lot to do.
Q: A related question is on the Quad. Is there a perception that the Quad is losing its relevance at a time when there are others like the AUKUS, etc that are becoming more important? Do you think that the Quad will be the lynchpin in the Indo-Pacific and it will work with the ASEAN?
EAM: Look, this is a world where different combinations of countries would co-exist. It is in the nature of contemporary politics. To me, Quad is unique, and I believe it is something which is there to stay.
Because if you look at the Indo-Pacific, look at the locations of the four Quad countries—they are kind of in four different corners of the Indo-Pacific. Look at their capabilities, look at the fact at what really ties them together, and look at how much the agenda of the Quad has evolved.
Quad restarted in 2017, after the first attempt collapsed in 2007. It started when I was the Foreign Secretary. In 2019, it got upgraded to the level of the Foreign Minister…I happened to be the Foreign Minister. In 2021, it reached the level of the Prime Minister.
If something goes from Foreign Secretary to Foreign Minister to Prime Minister, and if it moves from two or three to 25 baskets, then it is going up, not going down. I believe that there is growing appreciation and understanding across the Indo-Pacific and even beyond about the value of the Quad. There may be a few with a Cold War mind set who may think otherwise. This is now part of the global landscape.
Q: What sort of an impact India’s independent stand on the Russia-Ukraine war, has had on India’s relations with the West?
EAM: I think it was important for us to explain why we took the position that we did. My sense is, that explanation, broadly speaking, sat better with governments than it did necessarily with the media and the political space, because on this issue media is very charged up in the Western world. I think governments are much more realistic and practical.
I would also say that there was better understanding in the US than in Europe. The reason is that America is truly global with an appreciation of the interests of others. Europe is more self-focused and geographically proximate to the problem.
Q: How do you respond to those who describe multilateralism as fence-sitting?
EAM: Multilateralism is not fence-sitting. Multilateralism is the willingness to work with other countries, in places like UN, etc. I would say it is more an attempt to find common ground. If some of us say okay, let’s evolve a joint position, obviously what will come out will be not fully reflecting any of us, but would be somewhere in between. I don’t think that is fence-sitting. I think that is a way of expanding common ground and making other countries buy into what is sort of a sensible lowest common denominator for countries to work on.
Q: At a time when China says it is the leader of the Global South, and given the deep pockets it has, what can India do to project itself as the voice of the Global South?
EAM: The Global South is a sentiment. It is a self-perception, an identity in a way. What’s it about? It’s actually is countries who were colonized and who are free now. It is countries who are still developing, so they are largely low-income countries. And because they have a history and they have an economic situation, a lot of their interest derives from it. Now, who can express it would depend on where you fit in, in terms of your history and economic position. I leave you to judge the merits of that. I think where we have done well is probably most of all during Covid. The fact is, our vaccines worked. The fact is that we gave vaccines and medicines to Global South countries who would otherwise have not got their vaccines for years, had we not given it.
I think another thing which helped is the Ukraine issue, because we spoke out clearly. I have travelled around the world, lot of Global South countries told us that “what you said, you spoke for us too, we may not have been in a position to say it”. So if you look in terms of our articulation, of our positioning, of our economic situation, of our history…I think there is something very intrinsic and something very unique about our relationship with Global South. I won’t compare India with any other country.
Q: There is a lot of talk about India becoming a global tech hub. How is our foreign policy assisting such a process?
EAM: Today, tech has become more than a business. Tech is very much connected with trust and transparency. People don’t want to share technology with somebody who can use it against them later. If you don’t have political comfort, you are not going to get technological collaborations, certainly not at the more cutting-edge areas.
What foreign policy does is, it provides that comfort, that willingness to work with India.
The example I would give you is the semiconductor mission. We have concluded a number of international agreements, including with US and Taiwan. There is a foundry coming up in Gujarat. There is something coming up in Assam and Hyderabad. All these are happening because today those countries and the companies of those countries trust us. And that happens because of foreign policy.
Q: What’s the message India have to give to the International community about India’s place in the world order, about India’s vision and goals?
EAM: The message to the international community will be that we are a pluralistic society, we are a democratic polity, we are a market economy, we respect the rule of law, and we are a real contributor. We are an upholder of global order, but the order needs to change.
The order must reflect realities, the order must be more contemporary. So, the order has to change, but India will always be a force of stability, it will always be a force of global good.