Transcript: Ex-Diplomat Talmiz Ahmad on ANI Podcast with Smita Prakash (EP-370)

It is the Americans who have created this scenario of a possible new Cold War where either you are with us or against us. The background is very clear.

After the Cold War was over, you had a unipolar world order, and the United States was the hegemon. But much has happened since then. The United States has lost credibility due to its misadventures in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. They are no longer that credible power that they used to be when they were asserting hegemony.

In the meantime, other players have entered the global scenario. You have China, which is challenging the Americans in various areas, particularly with regard to economy, technology, and logistical connectivity. And you have various other countries, roughly referred to as middle powers, which are important in their region and are asserting a role for themselves in that regard.

So this is why we call it a multipolar world order, where a large number of countries, usually middle powers, are seeking to assert their point of view and their role in world affairs. And the days of hegemony are done.

Now, this scenario is not a new Cold War. It is basically the rise of a multipolar order. Within the multipolar order, countries assert strategic autonomy. I know that very often when you use a term, it becomes a little boring, it becomes irritating.

Earlier, we used to use the term “non-aligned movement.” That term meant more or less the same thing, but it had resonance at that time. Because you had the East and the West, the Western alliance and the Eastern alliance—Soviet Union and the United States—so you were non-aligned. You were not part of one or the other.

Once the Cold War was over, it made no sense to be using this term “non-aligned.” So scholars started using the term “strategic autonomy.” When Dr. Jaishankar became the minister, he started saying, “Look, let’s go beyond strategic autonomy and come up with some other words.” So he started talking about plurilateralism, minilateralism, etc., rather than say strategic autonomy, which means I’m independent and I will take decisions on my own.

We are setting up, in a positive construct, relationships with certain countries which are informal, which are subject-oriented, and they are based on informal consultations. And we take positions which serve our interest. Minilaterals, plurilaterals—you can use any terminology you wish.

Why I use strategic autonomy? Because strategic autonomy says precisely what I wish to imply. And that is: I am an independent state. I want to take decisions on my own. I will not be influenced by decisions of other countries. I will take decisions in my national interest.

That’s not what I’m asserting. Overwhelmingly, the international community is doing precisely that. There are countries that are aligned with the Americans—Japan, Korea, Australia, and the European Union. Even there, they have differences, but those are differences within the family.

But what the Americans have been saying—now, you don’t know too much about Donald Trump, but I’ll say the Americans in general—what they have been saying is that going close to Russia or to China challenges them and that so-called liberal world order.

The countries don’t believe that. We are not challenging anybody. The days of hegemony are gone. You have to accept that as a reality and get on with it.

American Criticism and the Charge of “War Criminal”

SMITA PRAKASH: But it’s really upsetting the Americans. They’re going on social media continuously, all of this week, past week, talking about how India is funding the Russian war. And now it’s come out in the open. You have a war criminal—they term President Putin as a war criminal who cannot go to any country. So he’s here in India, and India is laying out the red carpet for a war criminal. This is the kind of statement that is coming out.

TALMIZ AHMAD: See, the United States top leadership exemplifies chaos, anarchy, and unpredictability. It has shifted very sharply to the right wing and is today pandering to the lowest common denominator, which means the lowest common intellectual capacity. This kind of nonsense is typical.

In a populist order, people who have very little knowledge of the complexities of world affairs keep on screaming from the rooftop about something or the other. Let us be a little objective here.

Large sections of the European Union are engaged with Russia. Many of them are buying Russian energy. The Americans are interacting with the Russians and the Chinese and have very substantial trade relations, thank you very much. Putin has reminded us that nuclear fuel is being purchased by the Americans from Russia. Rare earths are being purchased by different countries all the time.

How dare they presume to tell India or any other country what we should do or what we should not do? We don’t tell anyone else. When did we last prescribe to someone else, to Europe especially? We’ve never told them.

And yet you find that in these countries, there is near-total absence of the intellect. And I bemoan that, because foreign affairs is serious business. It is not meant for loose talk, not meant for jingoism, etc. It is something that you must take into account—that there is a world order, that it is under challenge. There is a churn in the world order, and we are all part of it.

We are all taking positions to safeguard our interest. In that sense, we are not different from anyone else, but we don’t need to point fingers at anyone else. And you know the old adage: you point a finger at somebody else, three fingers are pointing at you.

So I would say that we should not take this kind of social media utterances too seriously. The United States is in a mess. I’m going to say this very clearly and frankly to you. The United States is not the country we knew. It is a country devoid of principles, devoid of a moral compass. It is anarchic.

You have a leader who is totally self-absorbed and self-consumed, and thus very often his antics are a source of comedy and laughter, when the head of the strongest country in the world should be a source of gravitas, of intellectual capacity, a source of moderation and good sense. On the other hand, you have such daily embarrassments from the White House.

So I would say that we need to keep our self-confidence in place. We are passing through a complex time. You have a period where the White House is collapsing in front of your eyes. I think this is a bad period for the Americans and a bad period for world order. But we have to go forward.

West Asia’s Response and Regional Dynamics

SMITA PRAKASH: So how is West Asia seeing this? How are they negotiating? Because they also live in an area where there is constant strife. We are living in a region also where there is strife. We’re just going through Operation Sindur. How is, for example, Oman dealing with it? How is the UAE dealing? How is Saudi Arabia? Because you’ve done postings there, you know that region very well, you’ve lived there. So could you tell me how they are doing? Can India learn something from them?

TALMIZ AHMAD: When I said the world is in churn, I would suggest that almost every part of the world is in some churn or the other. For example, Africa is going through extraordinary strife in Libya and in Sudan. Latin America is very—some of their state order is fragile, and the Americans are not helping with the daily bombings and killings of ordinary people called drug smugglers. But actually, we don’t know what’s going on.

SMITA PRAKASH: We don’t know what’s going to happen in Venezuela next week.

# West Asia’s Fragility and the Collapse of Western Security Guarantees

TALMIZ AHMAD: Yes, so many parts of the world are insecure. So not only is there uncertainty about world order at the apex level, even at regional level, you find a sense of disorder, a sense of insecurity, sharpening competitions, etc. So there are competitions, there are confrontations and conflicts. These are the three Cs as you go up the chain.

West Asia is extremely fragile. It is extremely—the outlook is extremely uncertain. They have gone through a searing experience in terms of the mass murder carried out by Israel in Gaza. 70,000 people killed right in front of our eyes, overwhelmingly women and children serving no strategic purpose.

That we can see basically an attempt by the Israelis to extinguish the Palestinian resistance physically, just as Hitler wanted to extinguish the Jewish question by extinguishing the Jews. Exactly in the same way. Mass murder is carried out, genocide is carried out.

And my simple point would be this: genocide doesn’t help because in the case of the Jews themselves, there were 6 million of them were killed in six years. And yet within three years of the end of the Second World War, they had their state in 1948. So what did it serve?

So I would say this, where the West Asians are concerned, they are extremely insecure. They are in—see, none of them ever—they were when they were constructed by the retreating British Raj over there. Also, none of the states that emerged could be called internally secure. They were meant to depend for their security on the Western powers. And it is true of Pakistan, of Israel and all the Gulf countries and large parts of West Asia as such.

The Triple Threat: Israel’s Aggression and America’s Credibility Crisis

What is troubling them are the following. Not only do you have an extremely aggressive Israel, which has made it very clear by attacking Doha that no target in West Asia is outside their scope. So even the Gulf monarchies have been told, regardless of the fact that you are close to the Americans and otherwise you pursue moderate policies, even you can be attacked by us. Iran obviously has already been attacked.

The Americans are not seen as credible security guarantors. So you have a churn in world order, a competition at the apex level between China and the United States and also between the Russians and the Western Alliance. You also have Israel cleaning up West Asia of anyone who threatens the Western Alliance.

Please recall Israel’s actions in West Asia are part of the larger effort being made by the Western alliance to clean out all those who oppose the hegemony. So in the case of Europe, it is the Ukraine war. In the case of West Asia, it is the Gaza war. And in the case of China, not yet a military conflict, but competition in regard to economic issues, technological issues, logistical connectivity matter.

This is still the west asserting that they will not allow their hegemony to be compromised. These are the three aspects.

Now the countries in West Asia don’t know which way to go, particularly because in Donald Trump you have an unreliable and unpredictable leader. So what they are doing is the short term arrangement—reaching out to Donald Trump, basically pandering to his ego, making him feel good, you know, giving him the luxury, the pomp, the luxury and basically making an airplane and gifts.

Yeah, he’s a very corrupt individual, we know that. And therefore they are pandering to that but it is very clear that they do not see the United States as a credible security partner.

SMITA PRAKASH: That’s a very crucial point. If that is the case, then countries like Japan, Taiwan, they’ll all be looking, right. If America is not a security provider to West Asia, how are they going to be? How is it going to be a security provider to East Asia?

The Post-American World Order Takes Shape

TALMIZ AHMAD: Absolutely right to raise this issue. And if I was sitting in Tokyo or Seoul, I would be concerned. You see what you are seeing. The whole order that is so west led—the world order had certain attributes and certain givens that were taken for granted.

And you can say the Europeans never developed a defense budget because the Americans were looking after that. The Japanese had self defense forces. Korea of course built up its forces, but they were directed at North Korea, no one else. Taiwan was sitting complacently pretending to be independent. It’s not an independent country. It’s very obviously a province of China and the international community, including the Americans, accept that.

Now in this scenario, obviously there is grave uncertainty. Therefore what is happening is many countries are now boosting their defense budgets. They are preparing for a post US arrangement or scenario in world affairs. Japan is also building up its own defense budget and defense capability. Korea already is very substantial. Australia is also looking at opportunities where it can become a more credible player.

So all countries are preparing for a post US Order. What the Gulf countries are doing is—but they don’t—they buy American equipment with no intention of really using it. Buying American equipment basically enables them to bribe the American industry and make it their strategic partner so that they are able to make the American President feel good.

He is getting, you know how Donald Trump says “job, job, job, billions, dollars, billion.” They are even talking trillion dollars. None of that money exists. But for the moment they please the American president.

The Rise of Right-Wing Populism in Democracies

In the case of Japan, you have—see there is another aspect which we must look at more and more. The old traditional democracies are shifting towards populism and that too right wing populism. So you find it is true of Europe now, right? And in the United States it’s already in place, hard right wing populism.

Many countries of Europe are coming up—democratic countries, you know, democratic governments are concerned very deeply about the challenge from the far right. So they are adopting some of the agenda of the far right in that regard.

It is in this context that you not only have a political and defense and security related churn, you have domestic issues in almost every country that is a democracy. So you have that as a source of grave uncertainty. And many countries are now pandering to this.

For example, issues relating to immigration, race, faith—what happened to that liberal order? We never saw any evidence of it, just disappeared in front of our eyes. And you have the rise of xenophobia and jingoism.

So it is in this background that Japan has become a very aggressive role player. The lady, the new Prime Minister is pandering, I think to a certain extent to her—

SMITA PRAKASH: Like when we were talking about, you know, America not being the security provider anymore. And then the new national security doctrine is out just a couple of hours ago. So I’m not going to discuss that because I haven’t read the entire document, I’ve only read excerpts of it.

But it is that America is no longer going to go into theaters of war, which is not in their realm. It’s a relook. They don’t see China anymore as their, you know, as a prime aggressor against their way of life. There’s a complete shift that is there in their security doctrine.

The world is also watching. If the security doctrine of America changes so radically, they have also got to change theirs, right? But for countries of the ASEAN region, they can’t make that choice now to say, “Oh, okay, so America is not our security provider. Let’s look towards China.” Can’t do that. Even though China is the only security provider other than America right now at this stage.

So how does West Asia look at it? How does East Asia look at it? How should India look at it?

TALMIZ AHMAD: I will clarify to you step by step.

SMITA PRAKASH: Right, sir.

America: No Longer a Credible Security Provider

TALMIZ AHMAD: Firstly, the perception that the United States is not a credible security provider in any area of the world is now accepted. It’s now an accepted view. I’m asking you as a lay person and me as a layperson, would you ever depend on the Americans for anything that was important to you?

Given the state of affairs in the United States, a completely chaotic administration that changes its mind from time to time, place to place, its priorities completely skewed, it is a source of instability.

The rest of the world has not yet prepared itself for its own security. Therefore, while the earlier arrangements and alignments are unraveling, new arrangements and alignments have not come up. We are in that churn. We are in that churn. Therefore, the world is insecure.

Now what the countries have to do is to function at three levels: the short term, the medium term and the long term.

In the short term, more or less, people take a band aid approach, a quick fix solution—buy a few, some equipment here, some equipment there. So that in case you have an immediate security threat, you are protected.

But you have to think in terms of the medium term. In the medium term, very slowly more and more fresh relationships are being considered in the security arena. India is looking at Gulf countries in that regard. ASEAN is looking at various countries itself.

You know, many of—see ASEAN itself, let me clarify, is not the solid, united, resilient entity it used to be because it has differences. I mean 10 countries can’t always be agreeing.

SMITA PRAKASH: The world, that is their—that their—

TALMIZ AHMAD: Diversity is what—now you have serious issue. Myanmar is a major issue. The problem with regard to China, regard to China and its claims in the South China Sea, all of these are so—

Building New Security Arrangements: Short, Medium and Long Term

So the medium term will call for certain arrangements which you will start from now, not necessarily show your hand, but you build towards the future. I would say the engagement with Russia and the engagements with China that we have started are part of this arrangement over a longer term, the flexible approach. The flexible approach over a longer term.

And then you will have—I don’t want to go far into the future because I don’t know tomorrow and day after. So I’m not going to go there. But I’m going to talk about the short term. I can talk about the short term and speculate about the midterm.

Say midterm about five years, short term one year plus, mid term five years, 10 years is long term. I don’t want to go to long term.

So what is happening is the countries all over the world, every country is today applying its mind to see how they can put in place new arrangements domestically and regionally to protect their medium term interest. This means a diversion from the budget into certain areas you might not have thought of before, particularly in the case of India, defense capability.

After all, one message that Operation Sindur has given us and that is that technology, defense technology is burgeoning and becoming more complex and more lethal and we have to worry about it. So all of these ASEAN countries are looking at that.

SMITA PRAKASH: So when we do emergency purchases, it doesn’t need to be aligned with which way we tilt or which way we—just do it. It’s completely—

TALMIZ AHMAD: You see what happens is every country—

SMITA PRAKASH: We buy from Europe, we buy from Israel, we buy from—

The Technology Revolution in Modern Warfare

TALMIZ AHMAD: That is for the immediate or short term. You see what happens. All countries are now looking at significantly upgrading their capabilities. This is because of technology. This is expensive business. This is really—firstly war has changed. Technology is a major role player. Drones are major role players in this. You don’t have those old mass tanks going into massive battle array. Those theaters are gone.

SMITA PRAKASH: We woke up to that with the pager—

TALMIZ AHMAD: All of this or technology. Secondly, therefore we—the world over is looking at how we can prepare ourselves short term, protect yourself so that in case there is something stupid happening. But really speaking the mind is focused on the midterm capabilities at home, which is expensive business.

If I was sitting in India, such a large country, we have challenges which are both terrestrial as well as maritime. And of course both need the air force. So you have very expensive proposition, right?

And the second is alignments—building up alignment. Now what has happened with India is India has alignments but not alliances. We don’t go for alliances. From 1947 till today, alliances is where you are part of a compact and you are a defense or some other compact.

SMITA PRAKASH: Firm, firm, BRICS, Quad.

Strategic Thinking and Regional Alignments

TALMIZ AHMAD: These are alliances, these are alignments. Alignment, alignments. Because there is no compulsion to accept a concern. ASEAN is an alliance, but it’s an economic alliance. But alignments is what we do. India will need. See all. When you have new challenges of the kind you never faced before, you also need to think new thoughts.

India has up to now always looked at relationships that are bilateral and transactional in the Gulf, in Southeast Asia, Central Asia. We don’t look at regions in a collective sense. That to my mind is outdated. The way China, when China came to the Gulf. India has been in the Gulf for millennia. China came to the Gulf like in 15, 20 years ago. And China has been looking at the region as a whole.

So you have dialogue platforms. China and the Gulf, China and the Arab League. Besides bilateral transactions and bilateral relation, India doesn’t. So you cannot be a strategic role player. See, you have relations with Saudi Arabia, you have relations with the UAE, you have relations with Israel, relations with Iran, but each of them is bilateral.

Therefore India has shied away from playing any security related role in any region, despite the fact that these regions are crucial for our national interest. But we mortgage this responsibility to other players. Like China is a major player in West Asia. That place is rightfully ours. We should be there. But we have shied away from that.

I would therefore suggest that over the medium term and possibly crawling into the long term, we have to rethink our strategic approach. You cannot continue the old way of bilateral and transactional countries want. If you want security in an alignment or an alliance, they also want the same security from you.

SMITA PRAKASH: But I think, correct me if I’m wrong, what was holding us back is the region’s attitude towards India when it came to Kashmir and Pakistan. And that’s the reason why we could have individual relationships but not as a collective.

TALMIZ AHMAD: No, it has nothing to do with Kashmir. Most let me say something which the obsession with Kashmir and the Kashmir issue is the concern of two countries in the world, India and Pakistan. No other country in the world has either understood the issue or wants to get involved with the issue.

SMITA PRAKASH: But the OIC would always give out these statements.

TALMIZ AHMAD: OIC is not a strategic compact. OIC was set up by Saudi Arabia to get this symbolic support of the Muslim country. They are not united.

SMITA PRAKASH: So which is a strategic regional alliance?

TALMIZ AHMAD: In West Asia then in West Asia there has never been and is not.

SMITA PRAKASH: How do we engage with GCC? With the GCC?

India’s Engagement with the GCC and Red Sea Security

TALMIZ AHMAD: GCC we have started dialogue in October 2024 we started dialogue with the GCC and we built an action plan. For four years we have been doing exercises with them. Not with the GCC, with individual countries. UAE, we did it with Saudi Arabia, we’re looking. But the kind of strategic mindset I’m going to emphasize this.

You see this why we heard this word so often. We have 40 strategic partnership agreements from Rwanda to the United States. So there is no value attached. Other countries attach value to strategic partnership. We use it loosely. But I won’t say to you, say for example, a very simple example, the Red Sea.

Red Sea is insecure, very vulnerable. Both sides of the coast. $200 billion of our goods passed through the Red Sea imports and exports.

SMITA PRAKASH: We can be a security provider.

TALMIZ AHMAD: We should be a security provider. But you can’t be on your own. You must have alignments and build alliances. Say for example, if I am sitting in Delhi, I would consult with Riyadh, consult with Cairo to see if we can work together in a space that is crucial for all three of us. And we have, we bring coat of strength to the table. This is the kind of out of the box thinking.

SMITA PRAKASH: And we have the expertise to do that.

TALMIZ AHMAD: We have the expertise, yet we don’t do anything. This is the point I’m making that when I call out of box, out of the box thinking, think new thoughts.

SMITA PRAKASH: Are we less ambitious than we ought to be?

TALMIZ AHMAD: See the thing is. It’s a difficult question to answer because we have rhetoric. We have, we are the world’s number one in terms of rhetoric and self delusion and the most possibly at the rock bottom in terms of actually achieving something significant. And I’ll tell you why.

The God in our country is not Lord Shiva or Lord Ganpati. It is Lord Mediocrity. We worship Mediocrity, anyone? Like I said to you, think out of the box. The minute someone says think out of the box, violence will start prevailing.

Now, I gave you a simple exam, just a throwaway line. Think in terms of Red Sea. These are crucial. This is what I call strategic thinking. Lean back. Not for tomorrow, but for the day after. Medium term. What all would suppose somebody asked me that. Look, you know, West Asia and all. It’s an insecure region.

The Changing Security Landscape: From Pakistan to the Mediterranean

And India knows, firstly, these are all India. I want to make one more point to you. This churn that I have been talking about in world affairs has left large parts of the world quite changed. And we must recognize, for example, we used to say West Asia. You and I know West Asia. If we used to think Gulf, West Asia, North Africa, right? It’s gone.

Today the Gulf is an integrated security landscape from Pakistan to the Mediterranean and from the Mediterranean to Morocco. It’s an integrated landscape. Another view, consider the scenario is to look at the Gulf security once in a while. We looked at the Red Sea and we never spoke of the Horn of Africa.

I am suggesting to you that from Turkey to Somalia, it is an integrated security landscape. All the countries, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, for the security, all of them are there. Every major player in world affairs is in Djibouti. For example, six countries have bases in Djibouti, including China, United States, UK, France, Japan, Italy, what have you, France, they have bases in Djibouti at the mouth of the Red Sea, right?

So I would say that this is one integrated landscape or both of these, which I’m telling you, are extremely fragile in terms of security. Now, I would ask you a very simple question. India’s crucial interests are involved in the two landscapes. The east west landscape from Pakistan to the Mediterranean and beyond, and the north south landscape from Turkey to Somalia. Have you ever heard India doing anything in either of these landscapes?

SMITA PRAKASH: These are crucial.

TALMIZ AHMAD: This is what I call out of the box thinking that you have to think through. If it is not just government, all of us have to think through. But where did you hear the paper? Which papers have been written? Who is advising the government? Is anyone even interested in any of these issues? And who is bringing, for example, I’m going to say a personal thing to you.

I have been looking at the Horn of Africa for some time. My eyes were opened when that ship Evergreen with the Indian captain ran aground in the Suez and the Suez was closed for six days. Cost the international economy about two or $3 billion, $6 billion, something like that. My eyes were opened and from that day they have never shut.

I am constantly looking at the Horn of Africa and I have decided now to go to this region. I don’t want to read Western writing. It’s all over the place. You go to the Internet, you will get 5,000 articles and books. I am visiting next month, Egypt and Ethiopia. And if I get the visa, Djibouti actually see with my own eyes this landscape, the issue talk to local people, not just authorities, government officers. I don’t want any of those ordinary people as well as scholars.

What is happening here and what are the sources of insecurity for you? All of this will give me some idea about what I can write. I’m writing a monogram.

Saudi Arabia-Pakistan Defense Agreement: What Does It Mean?

SMITA PRAKASH: So you were in Saudi Arabia, you were ambassador there. I just want to ask you about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan defense agreement. What? There’s a whole lot of conversation regarding that, that if Operation Sindur happens and now that Saudi Arabia is a guaranteer of security to Pakistan. What now? Because in Pakistan, all the YouTube conversations that one sees, they all say that Hindustan hamper, Hamla karega to Saudi Arabia.

TALMIZ AHMAD: Saudi Arabia. Karega, you tell me. With respect. With respect. Let us not get carried away. Saudi Arabia has a very different relationship with Pakistan from the one it has with us. As part of the Cold War alliance, Pakistan was with the Saudis and the United States. This was the triangular relationship. They had similar military equipment.

Since Saudi Arabia is such a large country, Pakistani armed forces were actually located there in the early days, from 1968 to 1988. For 20 years, 25,000 soldiers were kept there. Pakistan is the go to country. Whenever Saudi Arabia feels insecure, it has happened. For example, in 1988 Pakistani troops left the country. But they came in 1991 when the Gulf War began. Because there was a concern in Riyadh that Iraqi troops might come. Then they left.

Once that was over, then you had another crisis in the region with the Houthis. In 2010, the Houthis came across the border and killed large number of Saudi soldiers. So the Pakistanis were called initially at battalion strength and now, and then perhaps brigade and maybe now a division. We don’t know they are at the Yemen border.

Pakistan’s doctrine includes protection of Saudi Arabia’s holy sites. It does not allow for participation in Saudi Arabia’s aggressive posture. So Pakistani were not utilized for Yemen. Now when Pakistan Saudi Arabia. After the attack on Doha, Saudi Arabia felt insecure, it turned to Pakistan.

Now the agreement has not been publicized. We do not know what are the terms and conditions involved. We do not know what is the role of the Pakistani troops. We do not know how, who will fund what, what and where, how many will be deployed, where will they be located, etc. None of that is known. My own feeling is it is part of an old relationship completely different from the ties the kingdom as with India, where the Pakistanis are available in case Saudi Arabia is attacked.

SMITA PRAKASH: But now it’s the other way around. Is Saudi Arabia going to be available there?

TALMIZ AHMAD: I mean, which firstly this suited South Pakistan. Now you must also look at a little bit of the Pakistani background. They have been a pariah country for very long. Then you had Operation Sindur and you had the role of Donald Trump. Certain things happened and Donald Trump was persuaded to be more friendly with the Pakistanis than with the Indian. Is a country with principles and values, what have you. And Pakistan is a completely turn around and do anything for the American.

So their general or Field marshal had lunch with the with Donald Trump. I attach no value. This is not. This is symbolic value. Very important for domestic purpose. Now may I ask one question to all the brethren who are speaking up. What is Saudi Arabia supposed to do for Pakistan against India?

I do not envisage any scenario whatsoever where Pakistani where Saudi troops will cross the Gulf into Pakistan and stand shoulder to shoulder. This is an agreement for Pakistan to provide security sense of security to the Saudis.

The Nuclear Question: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel

Now the crucial question that we should be asking is not the one whether Saudi troops will go. Saudi troops are of no credible value. The nuclear issue, the considered view, and I am part of that is that no actual transfer of nuclear weapons will actually take place from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia. Why? Because then Pakistan becomes a target.

After all, Saudi Israel knows about the Pakistani capability. This was part of the United States amoral policy of allowing its own allies to develop nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT. Three countries developed nuclear weapons at that time under Pakistan, under American tutelage, Pakistan, Israel and apartheid South Africa. When apartheid South Africa changed, they did away with the nuclear weapons and removed the scientists.

Pakistan and Israel have nuclear weapons under American tutelage. Israel will not attack Pakistan because it’s completely, you know, comforted by the thought and by the proclamation that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are directed at India. The minute Israel gets any indication that Saudi Arabia that it is of that nuclear weaponry is available for export, Pakistan will become a target for the Israelis as will become Saudi Arabia. So I don’t believe either of them is going to shift any nuclear weapons.

SMITA PRAKASH: So how is the Middle East looking at India Pakistan conflict now? Post Operation Sindur. I don’t even want to say post because technically we are still ongoing. Supposedly.

TALMIZ AHMAD: The thing is. What the region has always conveyed to us from the highest level, from the King downwards. Just settle this issue. Just settle this issue. It has gone on for far too long. None of us understands what’s at stake. It’s been going on from 1947, but it is a source of insecurity and instability in the region. It has given rise to extremism and violence.

The Mumbai Attack and Gulf Countries’ Awakening

TALMIZ AHMAD: That extremism threatens us. Both of you are dear to us. But more importantly, both of you are children of the same mother. Why can’t you just sit together and resolve this matter?

You see, now you can say what you wish. After Mumbai attack, these Saudis and other Gulf countries have fully understood that Pakistan is the fountainhead of extremist Islam and violent extremist Islam, right? But they know it. Before that there were doubts connected with Kashmir etc. But you know the Mumbai attack had absolutely nothing to do with the Kashmir issue. It had all to do with Jihad.

They know this jihad is even more dangerous for them. Why did India and the Gulf become so close to each other? After Mumbai, when Manmohan Singh went and we had the strategic partnership agreement, it is because of Mumbai, the fear that extremism is today spreading all across the region.

And if India could be attacked so lethally with all its navy and the Coast Guard, what about us? A, we are closer to Karachi. B, we don’t have a Navy or a Coast Guard with the name. And therefore India has become an important partner in counterterrorism.

So I think that is where we should be focused on rather than worrying about the Saudi troops. The Saudi troops have been fighting the poor Houthis for the last 10 years and they have no progress to show worthwhile. So none of that is going to happen.

Saudi Arabia’s Transformation and the Middle East’s Fight Against Extremism

SMITA PRAKASH: This fight against terrorism, this counterterrorism partnerships that India has with many Gulf countries, explain how Saudi Arabia is changing and how the Middle East is changing also with regard to their fight on terrorism issue and anti-jihad measures. Are they adapting to modernism, moving away from those concepts of radical Islam?

TALMIZ AHMAD: No Gulf country ever supported radical Islam, okay?

The idea that we could use Jihad against the communists is a product of United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan sitting together and taking the short term measure of utilizing faith.

You can say if it’s a failure, it is a failure of all the three countries because Jihad, once incited, cannot go back. It cannot go away. It will be with us and as you know, once the Soviet Union withdrew, jihad declared victory, turned on its parents, attacked Saudi Arabia in the 90s, attacked American targets in the 90s, and finally attacked the United States.

Pakistan itself has got numerous jihadi networks within the country, many of them sponsored by the ISI and some of them working against the Pakistani armed forces in the shape of the Taliban.

After the global jihad was done, the countries of the Gulf turned against mobilization of Islam for political purposes. See, they are monarchies, they are authoritarian systems. It’s very easy for them to give up one policy and pursue another. And that is what happened. So they have become very harsh against any sign of mobilization on the basis of Islam.

And therefore now, as you know, over the last 10 years, Saudi Arabia has turned its back on Wahabiya. It has become, it now espouses moderate Islam. They have turned, UAE, Saudi Arabia and many other Gulf countries have turned against the Muslim Brotherhood. And every one of them, every Arab country, has turned against jihad.

So though jihad, you know how it happens now, the second time you had jihad, Americans attack Iraq, empower the Shia, there is a Sunni uprising which takes the shape of jihad and becomes the Islamic State. So these are reactions to certain specific events. It’s not inherent either in the region or the faith that you have this extremist streak.

How come for several hundred years you never had extremism? It is because of American penetration into the political order. This is the background to this.

The Gulf’s Authoritarian Model and Regional Volatility

They are all of them authoritarian. This is the key to understanding that they have no concerns about faith, they have no concerns about liberalism. They run an order that prioritizes the survival of the regime. In order to ensure this, their approach is to provide their people with security and welfare, which includes employment and everything. The wealth they have is passed on. In return, they demand from their people loyalty and obedience, which they get. All control over policy making is with the royal family and with the ruler as such.

Now they have to constantly respond to challenges that emerge in the region because it’s a very volatile region, rather insecure. Too many things happening at the same time. Too many players emerging suddenly, which you don’t expect. The Arab Spring, nobody expected. And yet four rulers were out and another four later in the decade.

You had the problem of the rise of jihad, of Al Qaeda, the rise of the Islamic State. All of these are matters that happen in a specific set of circumstances. And then you have Israel, the perennial issue from 1948, because they will not address the Palestine issue and the aspirations of the Palestinians.

So it’s a very, very fragile and vulnerable region. And the royal family has to constantly manoeuvre within the complex shoals that are within their political order and ensure that they survive.

India’s Strategic Failures: A Critical Assessment

SMITA PRAKASH: So what is the path forward for India? Can India learn from the mistakes and the flexibility now that the Middle East is showing with regard to dealing with extremism, with regard to dealing with this fractious world order?

TALMIZ AHMAD: Now I’m going to speak very clearly to you because that is my view and I would be unfair if I did not speak honestly to you.

I am very deeply disappointed that India has failed to understand and analyze the complex challenges that it faces, both domestic and foreign policy related challenges on the one hand, and how to build up resources to enhance the national interest. I will explain.

Every issue requires a country. Every country requires to have a vision. Today the world order is so complex, the Cold War is done. There’s so much churn, so much competition. I told you the three things: competition, confrontation, conflict, all of it happening simultaneously in different places, impinging on India’s crucial national interest. What should I be doing?

Number one, you must have a long term national vision. Long term, 10 years. To support the realization of that vision, you must have a strategy. What am I supposed to do? I have this vision. I want to be A, B, C, D in 10 years. What should I do? You will say a strategy. You must do this. You must do this. You must have these resources, you must train these people. So you need resources: human, financial, technological resources.

And then to realize the strategy, you need a short term action plan every two years. That’s how you run a business. That’s how you don’t lurch from day to day.

SMITA PRAKASH: Sure.

TALMIZ AHMAD: Why is it that my country lurches from day to day, has no vision, no strategy, no action plan?

35 years ago, an American came here to India. His name was Tanum. He wrote a paper on security decision making in India. And he concluded that India has no security vision. And all decision making, all responses to security challenges are short term, ad hoc, defensive.

And this is what he said. I would say to you that this is true even today. You see, this is a failure. This is a serious failure.

Now you asked me what India should do. I would say that India should have a very substantial understanding over at least the medium term of which way the churn, there is a churn in world order. Where should we be in that churn?

You did some of your actions, got the Chinese upset. They put their troops. You started, you had another challenge in front of you. Every action is a response, not an initiative. All of them so defensive, reactive, ad hoc and short term.

These four characteristics should be now buried. And in its place you must have a self confident nation.

The Danger of Domestic Division

I will add one more point to you. The powers that be tend to focus overwhelmingly on the domain, reordering the domestic scenario, domestic values, domestic views, idea of India etc. This is their ideology. That’s what populist countries do. But none of your initiatives should corrode the unity of the country.

The unity of the country is more precious than anything else. And all of us have lived as united people, not only in the past, pre-independence, but also since independence. Overnight certain sections of the community are called, you are not loyal to the country or you are not this or you are not. You stigmatize people.

How are you going to face the grave challenges that I have mentioned to you if you are divided at home? This is what I had to say to you.

So in regard to where we are, where we should be, long term vision and strategy and action plan. I must also say one more thing. We are constantly fed with delusional rhetoric. Greatest country in the world. Top five, top three. This sloganeering is not helpful.

The Maritime Doctrine Gap

Say for example, I give you the big picture. Let me be very specific. Say maritime doctrine. We moved from Sagar to Mahashagar.

Did Sagar ever become national policy? Prime Minister gave a speech. It is not the Prime Minister’s business to be writing the detail doctrine. It never became a doctrine. Loose remarks were made here and there. Now Mahashagar has been announced in March.

It has to, I have read articles on this, it must become a doctrine. Doctrine means again, what is your area, where you want to operate in terms of your national interest? Sir, PM spoke about Mahashagar at Mauritius. He spoke at the Maldives and he spoke of it in Trinidad and Tobago.

I would argue to you with all respect: look at your resources, look at your core interests and then you organize your capabilities. In the first instance, don’t confuse the long term with the short term and the medium term. Long term you can go all over the world, I don’t care. But my core interest should be first served, no?

Do you have the capability of subserving India’s national interests within the Indian Ocean? So I would say Indian Ocean, Mahashagar should be Indian Ocean geographical limit. What is the mandate for the Indian Navy? What should they be doing?

And if you have decided what they should be doing over the next five years, give them the resources. Now what happens is I spoke to some of my Navy friends. They said these announcements are made. After that, nobody sits down and has a meeting to discuss how do we empower the Navy. Nobody tells the Navy, this is your mandate. And if you don’t tell the Navy the mandate, anything is possible. If there is piracy, you have a problem. If there is some other issue, you have a problem.

And then now this is something very, very embarrassing for any Indian. These daily remarks from our armed forces honchos, the top honchos. We don’t need the chiefs to be talking every day in this jingoistic manner. It is not professional and does not show our country in a proper light. This kind of xenophobia and jingoism, abandon it. Become a seriously self confident nation.

Celebrating India’s Intellectual Capacity

Think. Use the capacity. We are celebrating our great intellectual achievements of 2,500 years ago when our stalwarts wrote the Ramayana, Mahabharata, the Vedas and all of that, Arthashastra. How come you have never mentioned any book after that?

You must celebrate the cerebral capabilities of your people. Give them the freedom to think, give them the freedom to write and speak and you will find brilliant ideas will come out from that.

SMITA PRAKASH: I think brilliant ideas have come out through this conversation too. It’s been wonderful talking with you, Ambassador Talmiz Ahmad. So happy to have you here and discuss issues from West Asia all the way to East Asia and the Americas and Russia too. Thank you so much, Ambassador Talmiz Ahmad for being part of the podcast. It’s been great talking to you. Thank you.

TALMIZ AHMAD: My pleasure, ma’am.

SMITA PRAKASH: Thank you for watching or listening to this edition of the ANI Podcast with Smita Prakash. Do like or subscribe on whichever channel you’ve seen this or heard this. Namaste, Jai Hind.

Related Posts

• Scott Ritter: Full-Scale War as Iran Attacks All U.S. Targets (Transcript)
• Seyed M. Marandi: Israel & U.S. Launch Surprise Attack on Iran (Transcript)
• Joe Rogan Podcast: #2461 w/ Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (Transcript)
• Tucker Carlson Show: w/ Catherine Fitts on Control Grid, Banks’ Role in War (Transcript)
• Megyn Kelly Show: w/ Tucker Carlson on Epstein, Iran, America’s Gender Divide (Transcript)