Read the full transcript of India’s External Affairs Minister, Dr. S. Jaishankar’s fireside chat titled ‘Diplomacy in a Multipolar World: The India Way’ at WLF 2025, with Pranab Dhal Samanta, Executive Editor, The Economic Times.
Opening Remarks on Global Complexities
INTERVIEWER: Good morning, Dr. Jaishankar. Always a pleasure to have you. Our guest here needs no introduction, so I’m not going to waste much time. Troubled days, tough playing conditions.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: So is that a question or an observation?
INTERVIEWER: A question.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Well, things are a little complicated because I think there are a lot of changes on a lot of accounts, some very important ones. And it isn’t specific to us. I think that’s the state of the world. If you go anywhere in the world and ask probably any foreign minister, they probably give you the same answer.
Reflecting on 25 Years of India-US Relations
INTERVIEWER: It’s true. But we all have been so focused on the US conversation, sort of taken over everything else and a lot of the mind space. Now we all are fondly remembering those days when the reset happened. We are talking about at least two and a half decades of work. You were at the start. How do you feel today?
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Well, look, I always maintained that what has been happening for the last 25 years – I mean, I would even in my writings or other occasions, I really sort of identified probably Clinton’s visit as the major inflection point. Then the nuclear deal as the next one. Then probably PM Modi’s visit in 2014 as the next one. So we’ve had developments.
I would say the overall trend has always been net positive. It’s not like we have not had issues with the US. We’ve had. I mean, I remember for example, a lot of pressures we got on Pakistan during the George Bush time at the very time when nuclear deal was also being negotiated. So there have been issues. There were issues even with China during Obama’s time, there was this whole idea of a G2.
So what happens with the passage of time? Everything looks smooth and nice and you think this was preordained and it was going to happen. The reality is it’s always relations, particularly with big countries who have multiple stakes and we ourselves today are a big country also with multiple relations. They are bound to have areas where you work together and areas where you argue with each other. That’s the nature of it.
I think the key would be to say, okay, at the end of it all, overall, are you ahead? And that’s been largely the trend. So, yes, right now, I think there are issues. It’s pretty open, but I would not say, therefore, other parts of the relationship where the convergences are strong and things are moving – that’s not there. That is very much there.
Trump’s Unprecedented Public Diplomacy
INTERVIEWER: But you’ve not had a US President come down so hard on India publicly and also his key advisers, and then slapping you with tariffs and now national security tariffs at the same time, when we have a strategic relationship. I mean, we need to explain this or understand this for the audience also.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Well, we’ve not had a US President who’s conducted foreign policy as publicly as the current one. That itself is a departure that’s not limited to India. In fact, for that matter, who has not conducted domestic policies as publicly as this one, too.
So I think we got to understand, before I come to India-US, that President Trump’s way of dealing with the world, even dealing with his own country, is a very major departure from the traditional, orthodox manner of doing so.
I’m just giving you some examples. The application of tariff in this manner, even for trade, is novel. The application of tariffs on non-trade issues is even more so. The fact that a lot of this is said in public, often the first pronouncement is in public, is even more unusual.
So this is a situation which the entire world is facing now. Where we are concerned, I think we have at this moment three issues. First of all, trade. And I think in my mind that’s really the major issue in terms of the negotiations which are underway. Negotiations are still going on. But the bottom line is we have some red lines.
Defending India’s Red Lines
INTERVIEWER: Negotiations are still going on because we heard the team is not coming.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: No, look, I mean, negotiations are still going on in the sense that nobody said the negotiations are off. People do talk to each other. It’s not like there’s a complete break there.
So look, there is a – what happens is we have red lines in the negotiations. We have to be clear as to red lines by definition are lines to be maintained and defended. Keeping that in mind, see what we get.
And frankly, where we are concerned, the red lines are primarily the interests of our farmers and to some extent, of our small producers. So when people pronounce that we have succeeded or failed or where are you, the bottom line is – my counter question is we as a government are committed to defend the interests of our farmers and our small producers. We are very determined on that. That’s not something which we can compromise on.
So anybody who thinks that, who criticizes what we are doing, my counter question is, are you therefore willing to compromise on those interests? Because I’m not.
The Oil Issue: Exposing Double Standards
The second issue is being presented as an oil issue. But why I say it’s being presented is because the same arguments which have been used to target India have not been used to, have not been applied to the largest oil importer, which is China, has not been applied to the largest LNG importer, which is the European Union.
And when people say we are funding the war or putting money in the coffers of Putin, India-European Union trade is bigger than India-Russia trade.
So is American money, not European money, not putting money into Putin’s coffers?
INTERVIEWER: More from Europe than from us.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: The overall India-Russia, EU trade with Russia is bigger than Russia-India trade. So my point is, look, if the argument is energy, there are bigger buyers. If the argument is who’s trading more, there are bigger traders. If the argument is, by the way, percentage of increase – okay, now, yes, some countries haven’t increased the percentage because they’ve gone and bought oil from Iran, to which also the Americans have objections.
So my point, look, there is a certain inconsistency here. And if you look even at exports, I mean, India’s exports to Russia have grown, but not that much. I can think of some other countries whose exports have grown dramatically after 2022. And if our exports have suddenly surged, what that means?
INTERVIEWER: You won’t name those countries.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: I think go look at the trade statistics. It’s pretty obvious.
Strategic Autonomy and National Consensus
So here’s my point. At the end of it all, I think there is an issue of decisions which we make in our national interest. That’s our right. In my business, we would say that’s what strategic autonomy is about.
And the third issue pertains to our own region, which is the issue of mediation. Since the 1970s, for more than 50 years now, there’s a national consensus in this country that we do not accept mediation in our relations with Pakistan.
So here’s my point. When it comes to the trade, the interests of farmers, when it comes to our strategic autonomy, when it comes to opposition to mediation, this government is very clear. Our positions are there.
If anybody disagrees with us, please tell the people of India that you are not prepared to defend the interests of farmers. Please tell the people of India you don’t value strategic autonomy. We do. We will do whatever we have to do to maintain it.
Responding to Profiteering Allegations
INTERVIEWER: There are allegations which come from the other side of not just purchase of oil, but profiting from oil. How do you respond to those accusations?
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Look, it’s funny to have people who work for a pro-business American administration accusing other people of doing business. That’s really curious.
But here’s the point. If you have a problem buying oil from India oil or refined products, don’t buy it. Nobody forced you to buy it. But Europe buys, America buys. So you don’t like it, don’t buy it.
The Biden Administration’s Understanding
INTERVIEWER: That’s a good point. But at the same time, you’ve come out in public and now things are that with the previous Biden administration, there was an understanding of sorts.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: On the oil issue, it wasn’t understanding. There were a series of very explicit conversations, very explicit conversations saying, “Look, we have no issues with your buying.”
Look, how did that whole price cap idea come if the Europeans and the Americans – I mean, you can’t say, “I object to your buying oil,” but I have a price cap. The idea of a price cap is you accept that people buy that oil. So the fact that you devised the price cap meant that you accept that there’s an oil trade going on with Russia, otherwise you won’t need a price cap.
INTERVIEWER: But you’ve been – I mean, there was a – that India’s role in keeping the price stable. I was trying to…
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Absolutely.
INTERVIEWER: There were clear conversations on that?
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: In 2022, there was deep nervousness because oil prices went up. There was great nervousness, international nervousness about the price of oil. And there were a set of conversations with different people in the American administration at that time that if India wanted to buy Russian oil, that’s fine by us because it will stabilize the price of oil.
And by the way, after January, there were no conversations with the current administration saying, “Don’t do that.”
Trade Conversations and National Security Tariffs
INTERVIEWER: And this never came up in any of the trade conversations. Never. Anybody ever asked you?
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: No, I wasn’t doing the trade. But no, it’s not. Look, our trade conversation pertains to our bilateral trade. Our trade conversations did not go into this.
INTERVIEWER: But they are linking it, so they should have. Obviously.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Yeah. But as I said, that was not the case. There were no discussions on this issue before their position was made public.
INTERVIEWER: They used the term “national security tariff.” We had Shashi Tharoor yesterday who called it sanctions. How do you look at national security tariff as just the way it has been framed and sort of pushing India.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: I’m not going to get into definitional debates. My point is a very clear point which is that we are buying oil to stabilize the oil markets. Yes, it is in our national interest. We have never pretended otherwise. But we also say it is in global interest.
And you call it what you will. I don’t think that is the relevant part. I think the relevant point is that levying tariffs on a country for doing what it has been doing openly and which other countries continue to do in larger volumes than us is in our view unfair and unjustified. Beyond that point, whether you call it this or that, I don’t think makes a difference.
The Road Ahead with Major Powers
INTERVIEWER: How do you see the road ahead?
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Well, I see the road ahead. As you know, we are two big countries. We need to have conversations. We are, as I said, the lines are not cut. People are talking to each other and we will see where that goes.
INTERVIEWER: We hear that an ambassador has been appointed.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Yeah, I read about it too.
INTERVIEWER: No views yet on that.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Look, I am a foreign minister. I don’t comment on ambassadorial appointments of other countries that don’t public.
First Foreign Minister to Visit Russia Post-Alaska
INTERVIEWER: But you are also, if you correct me if I’m wrong, sir, you were the first person to go into Kremlin after Alaska, not the, as.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: The first Foreign Minister. Yes, Foreign Minister to visit Russia and I guess so.
INTERVIEWER: And met Putin.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: I guess so.
INTERVIEWER: What is the sense you got of that conversation? Everybody’s linking us to that conversation as well.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Well, there were two parts to it. I mean one part of it was our own relations. And we have a practice of annual summits with the Russians. We are planning one at the end of the year. So a lot of it was devoted to what would happen there. It’s an annual exercise. That’s how the relationship grows.
And I am the account keeper for the non-military side of it. So the way it is divided is Defence Minister manages the military side, I do the rest. So a lot of it was devoted to what would happen, what’s happening in our relationship, where are we going, what will we do, things like that.
And there were some good developments. I think our trade has grown a bit. We would like to grow it further. There’s been some mobility of people. We would like to see that increase. We want more market access in Russia, things like that.
The other part of it, of course, was the global picture and particularly post, since President Putin had come out of Alaska. So he spoke to me about his views on what was happening.
India’s Position on Global Conflicts
INTERVIEWER: And so could you give us a window or an understanding of how that conversation has gone and how it, what’s looking in the ground since you’re coming from there?
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Well, obviously I’m constrained in many respects in doing that, but I mean, overall, look where we stand. We’ve been very clear from the very start that we would like to see an early end to the conflict. We’ve also taken the view that in any conflict, it’s for the parties concerned to sort it out.
Now in this particular case, because the parties concerned are also comfortable and the Americans took the initiative. We’ve been supportive of the efforts because we are supportive of any efforts which would bring about that change.
Now, it is a very complex situation there because there are military complexities, there are political complexities. There’s a whole history there. It involves NATO, European Union. So there are a lot of moving parts there. So it’s not as simple as sometimes it appears in the media. But overall, as I said, our good wishes are there for an early end to the conflict on terms which obviously the two sides have to.
INTERVIEWER: Say, Mark, the Alaska round is good progress so far, as you know.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Well, certainly I think it would be a fair assessment and you don’t need a meeting with President Putin to say that. I think it was visible that in Alaska a lot of things were talked about and some things were agreed about. So to that extent, yes, it was progress.
India-China Relations: Multiple Timelines and Complex Issues
INTERVIEWER: We are fresh out of Operation Sindoor and we saw the conflict. I mean, the way it played out and the way the Pakistanis fought with the help of Chinese, not just equipment, but as our military officials have also gone on record of live cooperation between China and Pakistan. At the same time you’ve had conversations with relate to India China relationship and there has been improvement on the northern borders and your disengagement process has also moved at a decent pace, which has led to certain positive outcomes. On the bilateral front, we now see a lot of easing up of economic restrictions which the Chinese had made. Now, how do we read it? Because there are some quarters which say there’s a reset or is it just normalization? How does industry also here understand it? Because China is an important economic Partner.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: You know, the nature of your business media, in a way, is to correlate what happens with something which happened immediately before or in the same time frame. It’s natural, understandable. The nature of my business is really to pursue relationships, accounts, problems over a much more extended timeline. I think that’s important to understand, especially in this particular case.
Now take China. What is actually on the agenda with China? We have problems, problems which go back to the 1950s, which is, for example, the boundary question. So because other things happen that has not gone away. In fact, that is very much still at the center stage. And it is in fact the maintenance of the peace and tranquility in the border areas that is a prerequisite for development of the territory.
So you have, I would say a 50s, 60, 70s, almost. I would say 60 years, 70 years, 80 years now of that problem. Then we have an issue which started in the early 2000s after China entered the WTO, which is the beginning of a trade deficit. And it rapidly became a concern. It didn’t become a concern in 2025 or 24 or after 2014. I was ambassador in China from 2009-13, and I can tell you trade, the growing trade deficit was an increasing concern for us.
So you have a historical problem. Then you have a problem which started maybe about 20, 25 years ago. Then we had some issues which came out of COVID say for example, the stoppage of air flights, direct air flights, was an outcome of the COVID period. Even the halt to the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, which is now resumed, also happened because of COVID.
Then we had the Galwan clash and that very difficult period after that. And then there were steps. Oh, by the way, even during COVID for example, some of the precautions which you took generally with regard to investments, please remember, was actually immediate post Covid. They were in response to the economic uncertainties of the COVID press. Note, please not. I think even some of the investment issues which took place then, because I think there was worry after Covid about takeover of companies when the valuations were dropping.
So then you had the Galwan clash and that period, and then there were a set of issues which came out of it. So when. And then I must add to you, there are some issues which are of very recent audition. For example, the magnets for the auto industry. That is an outcome of a Chinese export control policy which is a few months old.
So it’s not like there is one problem or one cluster of Problems with a certain timeline. It is something, different problems have different histories, you could say, and where at different levels of processing.
Now look at the solution side. Again, you brought up Sindoor. You brought, you refer to the fact that now, given what is happening in the current state in the world, I would actually point out to the fact that much of what is happening now or what was agreed to when Minister Wang Yi was here was actually decided last October when President Xi and Prime Minister met in Kazan. Some of it was followed up in November last year when Wang Yi and I met in Brazil.
So look, it’s not. What I want you to understand is it’s not black and white. It’s not something has happened with America. So therefore immediately something has happened with China. I mean, if you are looking at the kind of things we announced now, air flights was not decided now. I mean, we are just operationalizing something we wanted to work on.
INTERVIEWER: So there are parallel timelines which you.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Can say there are. There are different timelines of different lengths on different problems.
INTERVIEWER: And you’re okay with segmenting it.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: I think it would be a mistaken analysis to try and crunch everything and make it into a integrated response to a very specific situation. That’s what. So there may be, today, yes, of course there is a global landscape. I’m not impervious to it. But I’m telling you that many of the things I would, for example, boundary, this is the 24th or 25th round of talks between the Special Representatives.
Now, what they decided on, boundary has been actually a subject of conversation for multiple rounds, some of them for 15 years. So they are not necessarily new concepts which are decided now because something is happening on some other account. So I want you to understand there is an evolution. There’s a flow of that relationship. There are other relationships. But don’t make this connect so tight and make it a causality. That’s not the reality.
Border Stability and Economic Relations
INTERVIEWER: The idea is there a newfound political comfort with China which can lead to certain predictability on the economic side, particularly on the business side.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Let me put it to you very simply. We have always maintained that if there are, if the border is stable, predictable, free of incidents, then there is a natural improvement in the rest of the relationship. So the border has been stable for some time now. And as the disengagement was completed, naturally there was a. It was logical that there would be an improvement in other areas.
So I don’t want you to overdraw it’s not like there’s some great u-turn and now everything is great. I don’t want you to go the other way around. Also that the relationship is only full of problems and everything in it is negative. I think there is a sort of ground somewhere in between.
We do trade, there are things which are important for us. Again, if you look at the interests of the farmers of the country I think a predictable flow of fertilizers is important. I think when you look at people in the infrastructure field for them getting machinery out of China is important. For our auto industry having uninterrupted flow of magnets is important. I think these are legitimate issues of our industry. We should take it up with China and we should, if there are blockages I think we owe it to the businesses and to the workers of India that we should address those.
Supply Chain Strategy and Diversification
INTERVIEWER: The issue which we’ve been debating over the last two years is dependencies and supply chains. So the advice which has been in the current geopolitical environment it is the unpredictability around supply chains, around building dependencies which then can lead to sudden shocks across industries. What’s the geopolitical mantra for supply chains as we move ahead looking at, even though the frost settles on the India China relationship of new frost comes on the India US as you say these things can be temporary. But looking at supply chains, how do.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: You say Pranab right now what to do about supply chains? You shouldn’t be looking here, you should be looking there.
INTERVIEWER: Okay, I said the geopolitical Mandal but the geopolitical.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: I’ll tell you the answer. I think recent experience has taught us that don’t be excessively dependent on a single supply chain or a single country source. Recent experience has also taught us don’t be dependent on a single market. So it isn’t just from the sourcing to the production. It is also from the production to the market.
Now that doesn’t mean you switch off from somewhere. It means you diversify. It means you hedge. And most important which is the continuous messaging from the government, it means you do more at home. Now we know more at home is hard work. It is complicated. It requires a different kind of effort even from particularly from business. That is why the emphasis on Atmanirbhar Bharat.
So looking at the geopolitics of our current end I would really sort of analyze or prescribe. I’ve got problems at both ends. I got a problem on the sourcing and the supply chain I got a problem post production in the markets. So both are volatile, both hold their own complications. And the best way of dealing with both is to de-risk it by having multiple options, multiple options of supply chains coming into India, multiple options of production going out of India. But most important in India, which has a greater ability to plug as many parts of the supply chain and nobody can do it perfectly. I accept that as possible.
INTERVIEWER: So Atmanirbhar Bharat is locate as much as you can.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Absolutely. And look, again it’s completely understandable that people look at costs. After all, what other metric would a business use other than cost? It’s a no brainer. But today there is a cost to the risk, but it isn’t pure numerical cost. There is a, there is the uncertainty of supplies has a cost, the uncertainty of markets has a cost. I think they need to be factored in.
Strategic Economic Positioning and Global Supply Chains
INTERVIEWER: But if you look at the trend since the last decade, maybe everybody is weaponizing their commercial advantage. Say if it was China, we talked about weaponizing supply chains. Today you see Donald Trump, I would say weaponizing tariffs in one way is a form of weaponizing commerce. Do you think we have lesser options when it comes to that on the table both in terms of projecting and dealing with it?
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Even if you take away that hard term “weaponize” and say how indispensable are you to everybody else? Because you know, you need to be indispensable if you have to weaponize. So you’ve got to be able to consume things or produce things which only you can or you can do in sufficient manner that other people have to make adjustments for you.
I think that in a way is part of the Atmanirbhar that we are trying to encourage which is that the more you are able to produce, the more unique things you are able to produce, the more you get into the global supply chains. The fact that our consumption is because you know, consumption can also be a power. You know, it’s not just production which is a power.
So at the end of the day, our position in the world would be very much a function of how we are able, how unique we are, how important we are, how to that extent indispensable we are to global economics, to the product, to the production, the supply chain, the production, the consumption, the entire eco cycle.
INTERVIEWER: The consumption side, you might have an advantage. I mean we could see as a consumer on oil, we are making difference in terms of prices.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Look, again, it’s not, I mean in some cases like some countries set out, China did it with rare earths. I mean, but that would be more of a standout. Often you take an industry and you become so good at it that then you start becoming a key player in that industry. So that’s really part of how a big economy becomes more critical for global calculations.
INTERVIEWER: And that is a strategic geopolitical requirement also.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Now you would say yes, ideally. I mean, but it’s easy for me to say it. You know, it has to be done by people for it to reach that level.
Pakistan-US Relations and Regional Dynamics
INTERVIEWER: Sure. Coming closer home to Pakistan, were you surprised at the manner in which Pakistan, US have come to, at least the Trump administration have suddenly cozied up and come together? Did it catch you by surprise?
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Look, you know, they have a history with each other and they have a history of overlooking their history. So what happens is, I mean, it’s not the first time we’ve seen things. And the interesting thing is when you look sometimes at the certificates, say somebody in the military will give, you know, it’s the same military which went into Abbottabad and found, you know, who that.
So the issue in a way is when countries are very focused on doing politics of convenience, they keep trying to do this, you know, and some of it can be tactical, some of it can have some other benefits or calculations.
But again, look at the. I obviously respond to the situation or the challenge of the day, but I also do so always keeping in mind the larger structural sort of strengths of the relationship, the confidence that comes from it. So I take it in that spirit. You know, I know finally what I am about. I know what are my strengths. I know what are the importance and the relevance of my relationship. So that’s what guides me.
Operation Sindhur and International Mediation
INTERVIEWER: But just now we are a little distance away from Operation Sindhur. I know mediation is not exactly something which must have happened or our position has been very clear historically on that. But was the United States helpful at all during that period? Look, did they play a constructive role of any sorts?
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: I mean, it is a fact that at that time, phone calls were made. You know, phone calls were made by the US. Phone calls were made by other countries as well. I mean, this is not a secret. I mean, at least in my case, every, almost every phone call I had, definitely every American phone call I had is there on my X account.
So when something like this happens, countries do call up. I mean, after all, don’t I call up? I mean, when Israel, Iran, was happening, I called up. When Russia, Ukraine was happening, I called up. So it’s in today’s international relations because it is an interdependent world and countries feel, okay, something is happening somewhere. I should know. I should. And particularly, I would say those who have a stronger history of international relations will do that.
But, you know, that is one thing. It is something quite different to assert mediation or to assert that an outcome which was negotiated between India and Pakistan was not negotiated between India and Pakistan. It was.
INTERVIEWER: And that was a consequence of military actions, the way it played out.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Oh, absolutely. I mean, look, I’ve done this before, so you don’t want me. I tell people that if on the ninth night we had, you know, president once, vice president once, conveying that, you know, the Pakistanis were going to do a big attack, and then 10th morning, the Pakistanis now ask for talking to DG MO. What happened in the intervening period?
What happened in the intervening period was very bad things to their airfields. I mean, to me, the causality is very clear. The causality is a military happening. You know, ultimately, you know, how does the course of conflict progress? Yes, it can progress through reason, but mostly it progresses through events on the ground.
So something happened militarily on the 10th morning. Now, please look at what happened on 10th morning. And the pictures of the Pakistani airfields tell you what happened on 10th morning.
Crypto Diplomacy and New Channels
INTERVIEWER: But still, the Pakistanis found. Seem to have found new currency in Washington, and it’s probably coming from the crypto route. So is that now a new channel of diplomacy which is working in Washington and that you have to contend with it? Where are we on these? Because, see, a lot of countries are facing this difficulty a lot of allies of us are facing for that.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: You have to get another minister to sit here and answer that. It’s not mine.
INTERVIEWER: But does it become a part of your folder at any place?
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: No. Look, you know, we negotiate or we discuss with other countries what are our policies. I mean, because somebody else has some other instrument in that toolkit doesn’t automatically mean that, therefore I have to acquire it. I have what I have, they have what they have.
INTERVIEWER: But do you think it’s becoming difficult to deal with the Trump administration through its own system? Rather the personal or direct or maybe certain other parallel approaches are at work which are more productive in terms of outcomes?
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Well, I think we started off with the agreement that we are in unusual times, and the methods of diplomacy are very, very different from what they used to be.
INTERVIEWER: So what is. I’ll take it from you, what is the India way?
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: I look, you adapt to the landscape and the nature of the challenge. I mean, so if there is a relationship which has to be addressed in a different manner, if you want results, you figure out how to crack the problem. And that’s what diplomats do.
Quad vs BRICS: Balancing Multiple Partnerships
INTERVIEWER: So a lot of what was happening in the past few years, the Quad was at the center of it, you know, and it’s a very diverse agenda. It opened up many conversations in technology. But today BRICS has taken over. So where is the Quad conversation? And these plurilaterals which you had so craftily put together, what’s the fate?
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Look, I’m not sure I agree with your question. I think the Quad is still the Quad and the BRICS was always the BRICS. I mean when we did the Quad, the BRICS didn’t go away. And as Quad progressed, you know, BRICS also progressed. So you are putting it almost as alternatives. Whereas in fact it is a core belief of Indian foreign policy that countries like us should not be forced to, you know, make binary choices.
INTERVIEWER: So I mean, Quad summit by the end of the year.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: We had a Quad foreign ministers meeting this summer in early July, if my memory serves me right. And you know, after that, I think different parts of the system are talking to each other. So in between the Quad meetings are held. We haven’t made further decisions about, you know, what to do in Quad. So that’s quite natural.
I think in the case of BRICS. BRICS came in the news partly because we had a BRICS summit and partly because it came in the news, because people put it in the news. So I think in the next week you probably see the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in the news because it’s coming together. So it will, you know, the news cycle moves as per the events of that time. But what is not in the news cycle doesn’t stop to exist because it’s not in the news cycle. It still continues.
INTERVIEWER: So you’re still sticking to the timelines agreed in the February visit of the Prime Minister to Washington?
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: On what?
INTERVIEWER: On the timelines which were there by September, October, we’ll do have this and that.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Look, I think at this time, as I said, we are looking at the issues rather than, I mean it’s not a clock driven process. You know, I mean there’s not a chess game where you are moving and you’re also looking at the clock.
Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Regional Security
INTERVIEWER: And what do we expect from the visit? The SCO meet. It’ll, since it’s happening right now, Well.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: I think the SCO has a value in itself because if you look at the membership, it covers a lot of countries which are quite different from other organizations of which we are part. We are very much. We are an important constituent of the Eurasian landmass and the SCO primarily devotes itself to that.
SCO also has a particular. You know, the original mandate of the SCO was to fight separatism and terrorism. And there were what were called three evils at that time. So for us, because that is very much part of the overall threat scenario that we see, I think it’s important that we are there, we make our presence felt, we shape the outcomes and we say where we go.
INTERVIEWER: Do we expect a summit level meeting with the Chinese over there on the sidelines?
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: I think, you know, the program for that would be announced in the committees.
INTERVIEWER: You’ve been very, very defensive than the usual front footedness, but I guess times are such. And thank you for making time for us even in a very difficult situation and as I said, tough playing conditions. Wish you all the best. Mr. Jaishankar, thank you once again for.
DR. S. JAISHANKAR: Thank you.
Related Posts
