'Look, Do We Need Cards To Play This Game?, Dr Jaishankar REVEALS India's Plan To Counter West

[00:00:00] Dr. Jaishankar: So, pretty much, look, this is today a world of choke points. It is a world of, I mean, if I were to dramatize it a bit, I would say almost hostage. America has turned to a Russian supply because it wants to ensure that its consumers are protected or their interests are safeguarded or their pain points don't increase. Now, this is exactly what we've been, the rest of the world's been going through. They have softened the blow on their own public to a great extent while expecting others to take a hit and others at a much lower level of income. If Washington understood it so well, why didn't we act in 2008 when 26-11 happened? And when we did act, I mean, we didn't act because Washington understood it. We acted because we understood it. Believe me, when you respond, the world will take note of it. When you don't respond, the world will play games. Aditya, what you're saying is the UN guys have double standards and you're wanting me to say yes or no. Well, I will. Yes. [00:01:07] Speaker 2: Good evening and welcome again. The rules of the world are being rewritten. President Trump is upending global trade. China is flexing its economic and military muscle. The war in Ukraine continues, and a crisis in West Asia has put the world's energy lifelines at risk. For India, the stakes could hardly be higher. How do you build a stronger partnership with the United States, manage an increasingly powerful China, maintain your friendship with Russia, and protect your interests in a world where old certainties are now disappearing? And there is no one in this country more deeply involved in making those decisions on the fly in real time than the man we're about to welcome. He served in Washington, Beijing, and Moscow. He spent decades across the negotiating table from some of the sharpest and most powerful leaders in the world. And today, as India's External Affairs Minister, he's helping navigate one of the most complicated periods in modern diplomacy. He recently described India not as a middle power, but a power in the middle. Who then better to help us make sense of a world between orders? Ladies and gentlemen at the NDTV World Summit, can we have a very warm round of applause for Dr. S. Jai Shankar. Minister, welcome to the NDTV World Summit. You were in Mumbai recently meeting Secretary Rubio. Secretary Rubio informs us that the trade deal he believes is close to being completed. Could you give us a sense of the progress we've made from your lens? How close or far are we? And what are the remaining obstacles? [00:03:09] Dr. Jaishankar: Well, look, it's never done till it's done. So I think what you've heard, not just from Secretary Rubio, but from Minister Pierce-Gowell, from others, is from me, that we are moving towards it. But as I said, you know, often the last mile or the penultimate miles do pose their challenges. And I think the teams are working through them. Now, if you're asking me to tell you what exactly those challenges are, I'm sorry, I won't. So that's for the negotiators to sort out. [00:03:53] Speaker 3: Well, Minister Jai Shankar, staying with Mumbai and that important meeting with both U.S. and UAE, you know, your opposition did not have many kind words to say on this, on the social media, particularly Rahul Gandhi. [00:04:05] Dr. Jaishankar: You know, I didn't get that. They don't like Mumbai. I mean, they have something against Mumbai. I think it's a great city. It's our financial capital. It's our Bollywood capital. I mean, it's got so much going for it. I don't know. Maybe, I mean, maybe Mumbai doesn't like them. I have no idea why they have this reservation. [00:04:25] Speaker 3: But they had this terminology that Rahul Gandhi also used, summoning to Mumbai. How do you react to that? [00:04:31] Dr. Jaishankar: Now, listen, if going out of Delhi to meet a foreign leader or a foreign counterpart is summoning, so I can give you a lot of examples. I mean, Mrs. Gandhi went to Shimla to meet Bhutto. Was she summoned? Salman Khurshid went to Jaipur to meet Pakistani. Was he summoned? So I think, look, I mean, we are adults. Let's have an adult conversation. And let's leave, you know. [00:05:05] Speaker 2: Fair enough. Dr. Jaishankar, given the amount of turbulence we've seen from the Trump administration on the issue of tariffs, tariffs on, tariffs off, even if at some point in time in the near future, we do agree on the terms of a trade deal, will India be able to trust the trade deal that we signed, given that this U.S. administration has shown they can change their mind in the morning? [00:05:29] Dr. Jaishankar: See, Rahul, I think you pose the issue in ways which don't reflect anymore the reality of the world. The reality of the world is that it's turbulent, it's volatile, it's constantly changing. What in an earlier era could be taken as a given can no longer be done so. And I think, you know, you have to build your solutions around it. So you can't sort of say, well, do I, you know, can I assume that the behavior would be or the calculation would be what it was earlier? I would say, look around you and see how much really this world has changed. So whatever we do, whatever plans we make, whatever calculations we have, whatever decisions we have, has to factor in the volatility and the turbulence of the world, which is why it takes time. You will, you know, everybody would take precautions, including us, people would hedge, people will make sure not just that you don't put your eggs in one basket, actually you look for multiple baskets and spread that around. So it's like, you know, it's like a kind of a portfolio management in a very, you know, volatile market. I mean, that's the way today international relations is looking. And the sources of volatility are multiple, I must add. I mean, it isn't just limited to the United States. I mean, if you see there are two conflicts, major conflicts going on in the world, when five years ago we would not have even expected one conflict to continue for a long time. Now, what has it done? It has actually compelled us to re-look at our energy sourcing. So just like you would ask this question about can you have predictability on your trade account, you can see the unpredictability on the energy account. We have seen much more, you know, more sanctions. So there's unpredictability on the finance account, on the payments account. Countries have, you know, put restrictions on supply of equipment, supply of resources. So pretty much, look, this is today a world of choke points. It is a world of, I mean, if I were to dramatize it a bit, I would say almost hostage-taking. That countries are using leverages and instruments that they have with much less reticence and even responsibility at times. And that's what we have to prepare for, which is why I think in this very turbulent era, you know, we have to sail through this. We have to navigate through this. We need good judgment. We need steady hands. We need a lot of experience. We will be pulled and pushed. I mean, that's the nature of the landscape and the pressure. And I think that's really what we are looking at. [00:09:03] Speaker 3: You spoke about energy security. And there's been a huge debate about getting oil and energy from Russia. And New Delhi and Moscow, Jugalbandi really increasing further. Now, Washington, we see recently, has used tariffs over the last one and a half years. And instead of, you know, increasing those tariffs recently, has tried to build a diesel agreement with Russia. How do you see that? And how do you see India's diversification when it comes to energy sourcing? [00:09:30] Dr. Jaishankar: Well, look, we have always maintained that the countries making decisions, taking positions, should look at the real economy, at the markets, the energy markets, not add to the distortions and the volatility and the cost and the unpredictability. And if anything, these events have proven us right. That if you see, I mean, you refer to the American decision. America has turned to, you know, Russian supply because it wants to ensure that its consumers are protected or their interests are safeguarded or their pain points don't increase. Now, this is exactly what we've been, the rest of the world has been going through, you know. So, to me, it is, it's just another validation of the fact that, you know, you cannot have, I would say, stoppages, restrictions, boycott, sanctions in a globalized economy of very important parts of that economy. I mean, and then think that it's not going to affect the world. So, we would hope really that the world comes back, you know, this is, again, you know, a lot of the sanctions pressure, it's come from different quarters. I mean, Europe is there, some other Western or Western allied countries have been there, there have been still other countries. So, my bottom line is, if we are building a world international relations around choke points, around sanctions, around, you know, pressure tactics, around boycotts, what are you doing? So, you know, you're introducing distortions into the working of the system, you're creating problems which will affect public of multiple countries. And then, when suddenly your public is affected, then you say, oh, for myself, I'm going to work out a different solution. Now, that's been, to some extent, a complaint regarding Europe as well, that, you know, this is not a new point. There's a debate going on for four and a half, five years now, which is that they have softened the blow on their own public to a great extent, while expecting others to take a hit and others at a much lower level of income. So, the whole point is, we need to break with this whole thinking that you're going to use, you know, leverages and pressure points as a way of, you know, as a SOP almost in diplomacy or in international politics to gain your system. I mean, you can continue to do it. All I'm telling you is, they're going to be great costs. [00:12:35] Speaker 2: You're describing the world as a world where leverages and choke points are determining how countries are acting against one another. China has rare earths. America has artificial intelligence, for one. West Asia has oil and energy. India doesn't really have… Rahul, in a way, it's more than that. [00:12:52] Dr. Jaishankar: See, once you get into a mindset like that, you actually take any normal activity, you know, you will say, I send tourists in a big way. Today, let me stop the tourists. I ship, I control container movement in a big way. I'll let me hang on to that. So, you know, you get into that weaponization mentality, then everything starts to be weaponized. [00:13:19] Speaker 2: And that, unfortunately, is what we have seen this decade. When you look at the cards you have in your hand, you feel you don't have that kind of leverage when you're in India. Because a few years ago, the president of the World Economic Forum at that time spoke of G3, U.S., China, and India. I was listening to you at the Bloomberg Forum recently, the anchor describing India now as a middle power, along with Canada, the U.K., Australia. But I also gave my dissent note, if you remember, of course. In the trajectory that India has been on, in terms of its power as defined in terms of national power, national gross comprehensive power, where do you think, are we now still being able to move forward? In the absence of leverage, are we now stuck? Some would say, at least from a Western lens, that India is becoming less important, is becoming more about G2, the U.S. and China, or India. Clearly not on the same weight category geopolitically. [00:14:11] Dr. Jaishankar: Look, do we need cards to play this game? Yes, we do. Every country does. Should we have more cards? Should we be building the cards? Absolutely. I mean, that's why we need, I mean, at the end of the day, world respects capability. And when you look at some of the things we're doing, I mean, you look at a semiconductor mission, what are we doing? We are trying to develop that semiconductor capability, because we realize that capability is going to be very, very important. Now, so people, you know, there are two ways you can look at it. One is you develop a capability as a defensive measure, so that you have the capability at home, and others cannot use it as a coercive instrument. The second is when you have the capability, the capability can be deployed internationally to give you a stronger card. Now, it's the same capability. So I would say what diplomacy is about or what our, you know, our ability, our negotiating strength is about, ultimately is a function of capability. And the fact is we have to get over, you know, our own politics and have a very clear-eyed assessment. So I mean, from 1960s till 1990s, we had three lost decades, three lost decades where our capability did not develop. I mean, if you look at China, you know, when Rajiv Gandhi went to China, my memory is we were about, the size of the economies were about the same. And there are more people, give or take. So the point is they really pushed up their manufacturing, their capabilities in the 1980s, in a very big way. We lost the 1980s. We lost the 1960s. We lost the 1970s. Now, what are you doing today? We are trying to play catch-up. That's why make in India. That's why these various missions. That's why PLI. That's why semiconductors. That's why infrastructure. Because if you don't have that infrastructure, you're not going to have the efficiency. You're not going to get the investment because the world sees you don't have that efficiency. So if you, you know, foreign policy and the world is not, you know, some kind of board game you play detached from the real economy. Whatever cards I have vis-à-vis the world are the cards which all of you give me. And all of you give me that card by building India's economy. So, to me, if, to the extent we have played a better game, and you hear that, I mean, you had today the President of, Prime Minister of Poland, okay. The Prime Minister of Poland was publicly saying that, you know, for him and his, the fastest growing European country today. He looks at India. He sees the big change and he's an extremely experienced person, Donald Tusk, okay. He's looking at India. He's now looking at a country where capability building is going on, where infrastructure is being built, where he sees that we have a stronger hand. But we've got a long way to go. We've got a long way to go. Partly because, as I said, we've had, you know, lost decades in the past. And we have to have that, you know, there are people, you know, the people who say, you know, we are not capable of manufacturing. You know, we should only be in services. You know, why are we doing these big projects? Why are we spending? I mean, all this is capability. So, if you undermine a nation's morale, if you run down, if you run down our efforts at building capability, you're not, you're not contributing to a stronger India. [00:18:18] Speaker 2: So, the Pakistani military establishment foreign minister has done an amazing job of wooing the current Trump administration. So far, it seemed that Washington had finally understood India's concerns on cross-border terrorism. That no longer seems to be fully the case, at least at the highest office in Washington, even if down the line they say the right things. How much of a concern is that for you? And does that create a question mark at some level in the relationship between Delhi and DC? [00:18:47] Dr. Jaishankar: Look, I, again, I have an issue with the manner in which you pose the question. And I'll tell you what my issue is. You are making it as though it's all about Washington understanding or not understanding. If Washington understood it so well, why didn't we act in 2008 when 26-11 happened? And when we did act, I mean, we didn't act because Washington understood it. We acted because we understood it. I mean, first of all, forget about somebody else getting terrorism right. Get it right yourself. If you don't have the clarity of thought, you don't have the conviction. If you don't have the conviction to fight back against terrorism, don't think somebody else is going to do that job for you. So what is the message? I mean, we are today, I mean, between Sindur, Balakot, Uri. What is the evolution? The evolution is, listen, if terrorism goes on, it will not be business as usual. It is not, you'll take a break and then say, okay, now it's a long time. Let me get back to talking to them again. I mean, I think, I think, I think, I think, to me, 26-11, where I took Secretary Rubio, should serve as a reminder. Should serve as a reminder of the enormity of what is being done to us and the necessity for us to respond. And believe me, when you respond, the world will take note of it. When you don't respond, the world will play games. [00:20:27] Speaker 2: One of the questions being asked in strategic circles now, Minister, is whether the pact between Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan impacts what may happen in the next Pahalgaam or Uri type scenario. We don't know. What do you think? Huh? What do you think? Tell me. Tell me. Tell me. Tell me. [00:20:46] Dr. Jaishankar: Tell me. Tell me. I thought that's a tricky one. Rahul would have an answer. If it's a tricky one, you should have the answer. Well, I think it's one of those where you will say, okay, time will tell because, you know, look right now at all that is going around in the world. I think, finally, countries will be judged by their actions, including us. And, you know, in many cases, there will be positions taken. I think countries will be watching which positions get translated into reality and which. So let's see. [00:21:20] Speaker 3: Well, you spoke about adult conversations. So I have to ask you. Recently, there's been a lot of debate around regime change. So I want to ask you about the protests that are happening. On one hand, we have protests in France across Europe. And there's no intervention on a regular basis happening from the UNHR office. But there are lectures given to India continuously. On the other hand, Marco Rubio has asked this question about protest. UK Trade Minister has asked. And they say we don't want to interfere in the internal affairs of India. Why do you think this mentality exists? [00:21:56] Dr. Jaishankar: So, Aditya, what you're saying is the UN guys have double standards. And you're wanting me to say yes or no? Well. Yes. I think the answer is pretty obvious, isn't it? But how do we change that? Or do you think it will change at all? That's a bigger issue because, you know, then you get into what is UN, you know, what are the positions they take, etc. So, look, let's be straight about it. I'm making this as a, you know, assessment, observation about what is happening in multiple countries, multiple societies. This is not an India comment or not even a, of the Indian subcontinent comment or a French, you know, France comment. We have seen that in many, many cases when you have these moments, there is external encouragement, there is external support. There are a set of people who see in it a tool of influence of advancing their agenda. There's not a secret. I mean, it's not a secret because even the people who do it say we are doing it. It's not like they're hiding it. So, this is also, I mean, when, you know, you started with what kind of world is it, etc. This is not just about state actors and about US and about tariffs. I put it to you that as, you know, the world changed and therefore psychologically, you know, there were a lot of issues which many countries and people had. As new, you know, as borderless politics because their ability to intervene and interfere grew, as technology spread, as world economy became globalized, all these factors of turbulence and volatility have actually continuously increased. And so, it isn't, you know, that you have one country or one administration or one problem which is adding to it. This is an entire landscape which has changed before our very eyes in the last 15 years. We are seeing its cumulative impact today play out internationally. In many countries, we are seeing it play out domestically as well. [00:24:27] Speaker 2: So, we have some extremely high-profile guests here with us at the NDTV World Summit. And I just saw Swami Sarvapriyananda from the Ramakrishna Mission in Manhattan just suggest that he had a question. I am very, very curious to see what the monk wants to ask the minister. Can we have the mic sent across to Swami Sarvapriyananda? Swami Sarvapriyananda was at Antropic trying to talk to Daryu Amadai and his team about code and consciousness, whether LLMs can have, you know, can they start thinking? Do they have a conscience? Do they have a conscience? Let's see. Swamiji. [00:25:02] Speaker 4: Thank you for the opportunity. Minister, it's great to speak to you. I'm one of your online fans. I was just thinking, you're talking about having cards in your hands in diplomacy. I have noticed that in the world of spirituality, India is already the Vishwaguru. I see there is tremendous goodwill for India in the United States in many Western countries in terms of Vedanta, yoga, and many other spiritual traditions, especially since the time of Swami Vivekananda there. One example of what I mean is the International Day of Yoga. It's already a tremendously popular thing across the world, and the Indian government took a very successful initiative. I see it every year, how it improves the image of India and contributes to a great deal of goodwill. Is there something more... For example, I come from New York, it is the city of 9/11, and I always tell them about another 9/11 a hundred years ago, Swami Vivekananda on 9/11, talking about how the world can learn from India's culture of acceptance, not just tolerance. So is there something more like the International Day of Yoga? Could you think of some other initiatives which will capitalize on this already existing enormous goodwill for India, Indian civilization? [00:26:17] Dr. Jaishankar: Thank you. Thank you, Swamiji. And I'm very glad that you opened up this particular avenue for a conversation. Because, you know, what happens, people typically think of politics, hard power, conflict. That's the kind of... Those are the concepts and issues which tend to come up. I think you have a very good point because there are multiple ways of, you know, making friends and influencing people. We've seen International Day of Yoga as an example. But I point to you. Again, let's just look at the last decade. We had an international year of millets. Now, in our own country, what it did was it tremendously raised awareness of millets, which is more nutritious, which is more climate friendly, which, by the way, was our traditional food, which we somewhere, many people forgot about. But, you know, when I go out of India, I've seen the millets message, for example, resonate very strongly in Africa. Because they had a very... They still have a very strong millets culture, but that was overshadowed by, you know, grain and cereals which came from elsewhere. Now, I can give you many, many other examples. Take something like solar energy. I would say the service we have done through creating the International Solar Alliance to propagate solar energy and to make countries aware and make, you know, technology and technical support aware for solar energy has been, again, very widely recognized. I could look at something very different, you know, disasters, you know, climate events are taking place. Now, if you look today at whose, you know, which countries are leading the disaster response and disaster anticipation and, you know, how do you build it into your system? Again, we have created a coalition. So here's my point. You know, it could be something personal like yolk. It could be something nutritional like millet. It could be subject of energy. There is scope today for countries to come together and help each other. If there is a single thing, I will tell you not just in the last decade, really in my lifetime in diplomacy that we have done, which large countries in the world remember, it's what we did during vaccines. You know, even today, we have, you know, put COVID behind us. I go around the world, people bring up COVID, bring up the vaccine, you know, support provision that we give them. So to my mind, doing good, serving your national interest are not alternatives. I think we serve our national interest by contributing to global good. The more we find common issues to mobilize and activate countries and work with them, and we should do it because much of the world, particularly a lot of countries which have dominant places, are moving in the opposite direction. You know, there is a sense the world is becoming more selfish. There is a sense that, you know, countries are turning inwards, that, you know, when you have catastrophic events, that it's hands off. So if the world is not going in a good direction, and we are seen as doing so, I think it's something good for the world, good for India. [00:29:52] Speaker 2: We have General David Petrius here, soldier, scholar, statesman, former director of the CIA. I'm very keen on seeing what intervention you have on India's place in the world right now. And do you, General Petrius, see this Trump second presidency as a temporary phase? Or is this what India and the rest of the world should expect from the U.S. even after 2020? Yes. [00:30:16] Speaker 5: Well, I should note here, I should note before beginning this answer that I used to teach economics. I used to teach economics in an earlier life, and you answer every question like that with two words, it depends. And it very much does depend, without question, obviously. And who is it that what happens in this midterm election, then what happens two years after that? Very, very much so. But if I could, Minister, again, having known you since you were the ambassador in Washington, and Washington still remembers you very fondly, I wonder if I could ask you a little bit about the hard power component of what you are wielding when you're around the world. Tomorrow we'll talk about how the very nature of war is completely transforming in Ukraine. And I'm just curious, knowing that you're obviously not the Minister of National Defense, but still this is part of what you carry with you. Do you feel that India sufficiently recognizes what is going on with the future of war in Ukraine, because I should tell you that virtually every Western country needs to go through an entire institutional change of revolutionary nature. My own country is still just announcing some of the important initiatives that arguably could have been pursued a bit earlier. How do you feel that, again, the Indian Defense Ministry, the military is capturing what's going on and then is beginning this process of true revolutionary institutional change? [00:32:03] Dr. Jaishankar: You know, General, this week, other than the conversation with Poland today, which is next to Ukraine, a few days ago, it was with the UAE, which is at the heart of, I mean, located at the epicenter of another conflict. So, the answer is absolutely, this issue pops up again and again, because what we have seen, I would kind of rewind it, I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with this, probably beginning with Nagorno-Karabakh, where we saw a very innovative use of drones in an organized way, probably for the first time. But we have seen the nature of warfare change with extraordinary rapidity. And one part of it is, of course, a challenge which it poses to professional, you know, to the military and the military planners, to defense industry, and to people in the technology world. But one part of it is also people like us, you know, in the foreign policy, strategic assessment, diplomacy world. Because you ask yourself then, you know, the willingness of countries to take risks has changed. The ability of countries to respond has changed. Outcomes you can see both in the Gulf and in Ukraine have not gone as people expected it to go. Not just the participants, I mean, not even as the world expected it to go in the initial phase. So what it has done, I think, is there is understandably a way of looking at it is to say, okay, what are the changes? How do the militaries reconfigure themselves? I mean, all that is true. That is true. And I know that to some extent is the world you are talking about. But there is also this world, which is what does it do behaviorally to countries today in a very -- I mean, it's really a great paradox of our times. The more globalized we have got, actually, the more competitive we have got. And this tension between competitiveness and globalization, I think, is really the foreign policy paradox which the entire world faces. [00:34:37] Speaker 3: Mr. Jayashankar, you recently were in Ukraine as well, and you met the foreign minister there. And he has gone on record to say that he has received a peace proposal from India. Could you tell us what is India's peace mantra when it comes to Russia and Ukraine? Because Prime Minister twice met Putin as well and said the endless war needs to end. So what is this peace mantra of India? [00:34:58] Dr. Jaishankar: Mr. Jayashankar: Well, you guys seem to want to ask me things which I can't tell you. Mr. Jayashankar: That's our job. Mr. Jayashankar: I guess it's your job. Mr. Jayashankar: But look, in fact, he has spoken about it. I think President Putin also mentioned it in one of his interviews. I saw that Marco Rubio made a reference to it as well. I mean, I can give you a broad sense, which is that, you know, we have always advocated for dialogue and diplomacy since the Ukraine war started. Now, quite honestly, this advice didn't always fall on willing years. Now, I think it's reached a point where clearly, you know, the ramifications, the enormous, you know, damage which this conflict has done to the entire global, you know, global economy, to global, you know, the way the world is currently, that is very visible. So, I mean, in a way, we feel that the world, the voices of, you know, reason probably are much stronger today than they have been before globally. And the challenge is to obviously get the parties concerned to look at the predicament again. And we have the Americans who have been the most active, and to my mind, you know, they are the logical party to undertake anything, you know, definitive between Russia and Ukraine. You know, you need a country which has, you know, big relationships with both, which has the credibility in a way. But we weren't starting up there and drilling down. We were going the other way around, which was picking a problem and seeing if we could work our way up. And the problem we picked was something in which we had a logical interest, not just us, but we did certainly, which was shipping, commercial shipping. Because we saw attacks on commercial shipping, which we believe are completely unacceptable. We saw it in the Gulf, Red Sea. We saw it increasingly in the Black Sea. We've had marinas who lost their lives. So, we started conversations on non-attacks on commercial shipping. And those conversations then broadened into a grain export issue because, you know, the Black Sea grain corridor has collapsed. And then widened a little bit further into energy, you know, non-attack on energy. So, somewhere between shipping, grain exports and energy, there is a matrix out there which, you know, which if something can be put together, will contribute. You know, it will not, it will support something which, you know, the larger peace efforts which are underway. It's not in competition to that. It's very much in support of that. And by the way, the others understand that. I mean, it's something we have discussed with the Americans. The Americans also appreciate that if we progress in what we are doing, it will only, you know, add to what they themselves are trying to do between the two countries. But beyond that, I think it would not be fair of me to talk about it. [00:38:44] Speaker 2: We've spent a lot of time, Dr. Jayashankar, talking about the relationship with the United States. The other big relationship, of course, is China, where you've spoken recently about the potential of making some incremental progress on the boundary dispute. My understanding so far has been that India has always said that try and resolve the entire boundary dispute all at once. Is there a slight change in that position? Where are we at with China, given what happened in Galwan, the ground that we've covered so far, and what you see happen between Delhi and Beijing in the months and years ahead? [00:39:18] Dr. Jaishankar: Okay. Let me -- let me put that in the context. It wasn't that I on my own said, okay, we are having some incremental -- I was asked a very specific question going back to meetings which my colleague, the National Security Advisor, had with his counterpart in their capacity as SSRs. And there was discussion there about whether, you know, you could have, you know, progress on specific sectors. And I said, well, there is thinking going on and whatever was said out there was reflecting that thinking. I mean, obviously, for any settlement to happen, it will have to include the entire boundary. And, I mean, it has never been any -- I don't think there's a change of position in that sense. I mean, any settlement has to be across, but any discussion also, any concrete discussion has to begin somewhere, you know. I mean, there's got to be a starting point. You can't say, I will immediately discuss everything at the same time. But that's not the main message which I wanted to give. The main message which I would reiterate today is that, look, we -- from the 1980s, the -- the -- a very explicit assumption on which our bilateral relationship is predicated was maintaining peace and tranquility on the border areas. How you negotiated it was a different question. But we were both agreed. And we have had multiple agreements which were designed to reinforce the peace and tranquility in the border areas. There were very intricate procedures worked out for what happens when you do patrolling, how much distance do you keep, who does what, how do you signal, et cetera. I mean, I really don't know any other major boundary where this kind of, you know, I would say, mechanism with the detailing exists. Now, this lasted us till 2020. And in 2020, in Galwan -- and not just in Galwan, I mean, because they came -- they breached the peace and tranquility in multiple areas. But you had violence and you had casualties in Galwan. So, the basis on which the relationship was -- had been maintained and, you know, trade was happening, political, civil society exchange was happening. All of that got impacted by what happened. So, we had to sort that out. It took us a long time. And the once peace and tranquility in the border areas is restored, the rest of the relationship then moves towards greater normalcy. Obviously, it will not happen in one day. Now, I think both we and China are agreed that it's in our respective national interest that we have, you know, a basic ability to deal with each other and to maintain a relationship, very hostile, continuous relationship such as we saw after Galwan -- I mean, that was understandable after Galwan -- did not serve our interest. So, with the resumption of peace and tranquility in the border areas, you know, the idea is that the relationship gets back to a more normal track. Now, that doesn't mean other problems get resolved. Are there other issues? Yes, there are. I mean, between big countries, between big neighbors, there will be issues. So, we've got to recognize that and address those issues. [00:43:33] Speaker 2: We have with us at the NDTV World Summit, the Finance Minister of Nepal, Dr. Swannim Vaghle. He's a top international economist in his own right and at this moment leading Nepal's efforts to rebuild on the back of the devastating flash floods. Can we have a mic sent across, Dr. Vaghle, talk a bit about India, Nepal, the subcontinent and coming together to be able to find common cause? The mic to the Finance Minister of Nepal. This is actually quite priceless. Just the opportunity to have a live, impromptu conversation between the Finance Minister of Nepal and India's External Affairs Minister. [00:44:10] Dr. Jaishankar: We've had a conversation. Not live on TV. Not in front of all of you. [00:44:13] Speaker 2: We don't know what happens outside. Yeah, but this is live on TV. [00:44:15] Speaker 6: Thank you, Dr. Jayashankar. Good to see you again. The four examples that we gave were, I think, brilliant. Yoga, millet, solar power, and disaster response. Now, on the fourth one, I can testify, as a minister from Nepal, the extraordinary assistance that we received from India. Not just in the case of the recent climate change-influenced disaster in the Raswa Bhattikosi, but also the 2015 earthquake. In both instances, India was there within the first few hours after the disaster struck. And, you know, Nepal has been very grateful for that. So, I just want to connect that with the larger global discussion. You know, in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War, in the 90s, especially in the trade and economic realm, we saw multilateralism as the first best. So, in the economists' parlance. And all these regional blocks that were coming up, NAFTA, SAFTA, AFTA, all these were, seemed to be a slight distraction. And the eventual goal was to reason, multilateralize regionalism. So, eventually you worked up to the multilateral order, while correcting and giving countries and regional blocks time to move towards that direction. But this multilateralism needs to be undergirded by the big powers. With that fraying in recent years, there's a lot of fragmentation and trade blocks, etc. But even on areas that you touched on, disaster response, nutrition, clean energy, do you see room for formalization at the bilateral level, trilateral level, sub-regional level, more of this proliferation of regional and sub-regional blocks to institutionalize many of these efforts? Now, the four examples that you gave, of course, a few have been institutionalized at the UN, but the others seem to depend on the goodwill of the government of the day. So, do we undergird these by formal institutions? So, in a way, are we going the other side of the pendulum and saying, maybe the way things are going in the world, all the tensions, crises, everybody looking after themselves, that we are now regionalizing multilateralism and you need this multipolar world undergirded by similar kind of governance structure. So, with your four examples, but the larger message for the international order that we are building. [00:46:44] Dr. Jaishankar: Thank you and again, always a pleasure to see you. You know, the formalization was very much part of the political orthodoxy that perhaps all of us grew up with. But what we have seen in the last two decades is, in many cases, countries are not willing to commit themselves formally. It's, you know, you spend so much time and energy negotiating that the purpose somewhere gets forgotten. Then you get into issues of who, you know, who's picking up the tab, how does it work, what will be the rules. And actually, even the formal groupings which exist, if you look around the world, many of them are in trouble. You know, that in fact, you are speaking of formalizing this, the ones already formalized are struggling in many cases. So, I would say if you can formalize it, great, like International Solar Alliance. But there will be many situations and issues and agendas where it makes much better sense to just keep it going. Now, I give you an, you know, an interesting example which a lot of people don't readily recognize. BRICS. Okay. You know, BRICS doesn't have a secretariat. BRICS doesn't have a written charter which everybody signed up to. I mean, that way BRICS is very different from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. So, you know, I would say it depends on the issue, depends on the partners, depends on the levels of commitment. If you ask me for a trend, I would say very much the trend is going towards more ad hoc, more like-minded. In fact, one day I asked my colleagues saying, okay, last decade, just give me a list of how many of these things we have done. I'm just speaking just for India. And I think we were coming close to 50. That there are 50 different, in different spheres, you know, groupings, bilaterals, trilaterals, not bilaterals, trilaterals, quadrilaterals, groupings, like-minded, which we've created. And I think that's really today people want, I would say, a kind of overhead light, more outcome-oriented way of working rather than create something very cumbersome and problematic. [00:49:41] Speaker 2: So, our special guests from the United Arab Emirates are about to arrive in just a moment. So, we have to wrap this session up. I have time only for one final question from Sucharita Kukreti, our lead anchor on NDTV India. Can we have a mic sent across to Sucharita, please? Sucharita? [00:50:00] Speaker 7: Sir, we are so honoured to have you. Thank you so much for being here at the NDTV World Summit. My question is from you from Pakistan. We have seen a special need for Pakistan in the past few years. Terror and talks cannot go together. Aatankwad and Batchit will not be together. Does the government have a better decision for this decision? Or do we have a better decision for this decision? [00:50:25] Dr. Jaishankar: Do you see, the desire was in every time that it was a country that it was a country. But the reality of the reality is that it is a terrorism. So, you can tell me that we ignore the terrorism. Now, ask the question from the country. That's why I always say that I am a leader of the 26.11. The world watched what did we do after 26.11. And the fact that we did nothing, the world drew its lessons. So, your question is, do we want good relations with Pakistan? Of course, we want good relations with Pakistan. We want good relations with all our neighbours. But you are asking me, will I overlook terrorism for that good relations? I will not. I think the government is very clear. And I think the people of India, I will tell you one thing that after 26.11, I think this is not a political point. I was not in politics. But I am sure nobody will disagree with this. National mood on Pakistan changed after 26.11. You know, till then people, you know, there were people who would keep making these arguments. After 26.11, only the government of the day made the argument. Everybody else, I think the country shifted after that. And you can see that change. [00:51:57] Speaker 2: Minister, we are out of time. You spend all your time worrying about what's happening in the world. That was the last question. Respond to it. When you're not working, when you're not worried about what's happening in a global capital, what do you do? There's lots of these fabulous shows on OTT about diplomacy, geopolitics. There's the diplomat. There is Fauda. Have you seen diplomat or Fauda? What do you make of it? Which one comes closest to what really goes on in the Ministry of Islam? [00:52:23] Dr. Jaishankar: I'm watching diplomat. But I want to say one, you know, one thing. Diplomat, no value judgment here, is very quintessentially American. Okay. But even in that, I mean, look, when you make these shows, you make these shows because you want to dramatize it. I mean, you know, if I made a real show about how diplomacy works, people go to sleep. [00:52:52] Speaker 4: Not right now, they won't. [00:52:55] Dr. Jaishankar: Oh, probably. Okay. So, you look at it. I mean, obviously, I look at it with a somewhat critical eye, you know. I relate to some of it. I looked at the ambassador having reflux and told myself, okay, that problem I know. So, the point is, you show, I mean, look, I travel. I read, I do everything which you guys do, I guess. So, but, you know, it's always, it's a bit of a busman's holiday. I mean, when you look at some of these things which is in your line of work, you can't disconnect that line of work. Dr. Jay Shankar, we're out of time. [00:53:43] Speaker 2: Ladies and gentlemen, I think he deserves a very big round of applause. [00:53:45] Speaker 8: The story you just watched did not begin where it was filmed. It began in a room you will never enter. On a map you may never look at twice. With a decision that took minutes to make, and will take years to undo. Headlines end. Consequences travel. A shipping lane narrows, and the price of bread moves on another continent. A vote in one parliament, and an alliance on the far side of the world recalculates. A missile is tested. A currency slips. A border quietly closes. None of it stays where it happened. Distance used to feel like protection. It isn't anymore. The world has fewer edges than it once did, and far more connections. So the event is only the beginning. The harder questions come after. Who decided, and why now? Who gains, who pays, and who was never asked? What was announced, and what was left unsaid? These are the questions that turn information into understanding. Asking them carefully. Following them patiently. Connecting what happens in one place to what it means everywhere else. That is the work. Because behind every summit communique, there is a family deciding whether to stay or leave. Behind every sanctions list, a factory floor. Behind every ceasefire, a street waiting to learn whether it will hold. Decisions are made in capitals. Their cost is counted in homes. The world will not slow down so anyone can catch up. But it can be understood. Every story travels. Follow it further. [00:55:29] Speaker ?: Follow it. Follow it.