with a double outlook on the nature of conflict. so i think there's a distinction to be made. on the one hand, india and russia, the former soviet union have had a very strong, very deep historic relationship. and i think in the region that both countries inhabit, which is the region region, there's no question that indian need strong partners. so there is that reality. however, they specifically, in the context of, i would say 2 things. one is the invasion of ukraine in february. this year and one is a general perception that there is a kind of divergence on definitions of what democracy stands for in the west and in other parts of the world. india is kind of finding it says caught in the middle. it took a very nuance, very, you know, very, a very nuanced position on ukraine. and i don't think it had really any options at

that time in terms of indian realities, regional realities, foreign policy compulsion. i think it did the best it could and i'm talking about in february. well, let's talk about that in more. yeah. this diversion use on conflict and there is no escaping the fact that india has benefited a great deal from destruction in the oil trade in russian. the way we came as a result of that conflict, your country has increased its purchase, as of all from russia, tremendously secure, a large stock of oil and gas at affordable prices. when many countries are struggling with counting inflation, do you think that was a wrong move on the part of indian? you know, i don't know if there's any right and wrong in a specific sense in foreign policy because these decisions are taken. keeping many factors in mind, so from the perspective of wender, india should have made

a stronger alliance with the west, against the russian invasion. it may seem as it may be seen as something that was deliberate and beneficial. on the other hand, as an emerging economy with its own compulsions of employment, and you know, inflation and things like that. the need for reliance on non western partners is an indian reality, and it has been an indian reality that predates the invasion of ukraine. so in this position, the idea of strategic autonomy, the foreign policy basis, or that in the works with right now is basically making the argument that india chooses. its partners and allies are differently. it shows that it's economic relationships differently. so you can even see, for example, that just just now in this last week alone in india has stayed out of the trailer at the, in the pacific economic forum. and on the other hand, it is taking a leadership role at the shanghai corporation organization meeting. the thing

business bank is done. so in this thing, we're partnering with the quad on certain things we're partnering with india difficult balancing that you've been doing for many take it out. can i ask you quickly about the, the so called democratic credentials that are democratic values that supposedly headed towards the west because you know, i would give it to india it's it looks like an authentic democracy. but when we look at the west, the with not only various democratic purchases there in terms of how the governments are being elected. but all those wars launched are voluntarily all the carnage that they have cost. all the insecurity, all degree that they have i just, warmer warner, what i'm struggling to marry about with all this rhetoric about, you know, jim, a project value based order. i just, yeah. that's why it needs that kind of sort of western democratic stuff when

it's a democracy, it just seem to be more jenny, jenny and then some of the western democracies. yeah. so you know, i think that's an interesting question. ok, i know that you've asked me and you could argue in some way that maybe india is facing an identity crisis of its own right from the time of independence, india has had a history of modeling. it says on western liberalism secularism, individual liberties and things like that. what we're seeing is a reaction to you know, a western beast order coming from a part of the world. and i think when you look at that in the point that you mentioned on the face of it, yes, it's a strong democracy. we have elections every 5 years. there's a huge mandate for this government. there's no question about it. what does the government do with its mandate or democracy? i keep saying, and this is a perhaps applicable to russia as well. a democracy is not just about the will of

the majority. it's also about the protection of the minorities. and so that becomes the baseline. it's about the protection of institutions that support individual freedoms, but then i don't want to mention it right before interrupting here. i think many are russians and many chinese and frankly, many of by indian guess have argued that the primary goal of the government is serving the people and the any government should be judged not on the not so much on the quality of the procedures. although that is important, but on the actual results and on the improvement in the lives of the people. and when we look at the actual speakers of people raised from poverty for india, for russia with china, the record is pretty strong. the same cannot be sad about western countries, neither about young age, more about europe. so are they ultimately democratic at the survey that population in this don't make sense?

yes. so i think those are valid criticisms of santa there's no question about the fact that those are valid questions they're valid. chris, is that, i mean, again, take a look at what happened in the week of the invasion of ukraine in february. right. what was the reaction and the commentary from non western countries? how is it ok for the west to have gone into iraq and afghanistan and the middle east, and blah, blah, blah. and you know, so this is a hypocrisy in the word order. and i think that hypocrisy is barren plain for everyone to see. however, saw india. i think the question and the challenges. while there may be a hypocrisy, that sleigh bed, what is it? what are the values that the indian democratic system stands for? and if the indian democratic system firmly believes that, you know, an aggression or war is not the way to solve border conflicts, or that,

you know, minority writes need to be protected everywhere in the world. how do you balance that with, with the realities of the world that you're living? and so why, while while india manages it's strategic autonomy carefully, it does use the idea of western hypocrisy as a, you know, as a legitimizing factor as well. right? so india can argue that the west cannot impose it alliances and it's partnerships on india. india routines. the choice to decide whether it wants to engage with russia, india, regional security, regional economic imperatives are very different. the west is old out of afghanistan. it's not going to come back into that part of the wood indian needs a strong, stable neighborhood. now does that strong, unstable neighborhood also sometimes come at the cost of certain democratic principles? for me? i think that's a really complicated question that are on those. it is nasty list to will argue

that, you know, security is more important than their full. this is ok. so i think it really depends on where on that line you stand. let's talk about what you're referring to, the russian invasion of your brain in rush. it's term there's a special military operation and i think in order to put that in into context, you know, have to go back to the previous round of confrontation. that is the cold war to the signing of the final house. and of course, in 1975, which were based on the promise of sovereign equality and this principle, the spirit of indivisible security. this period that was later abandoned in favor of the american lat. haji on a piece. now i know for a fact, and i think it's impossible to argue that this did not happen. the russians did try to settle their security than major strategic security differences over ukraine with the well, joe biden advisement, put mad. they spoke of the phone

a couple of times, but there was continued military rising ukraine. so that was a security challenge for russia. whether you like it or not. now, was it russia way of settling it is a good one. i don't think anyone would argue that it was a good 1. 11 is never choice. do you think those differences that clearly were pretty big in 2021, 2000. and what did you do you think they could have been subtle? without or do you think the west would have ever recognized russia, legitimate concerns or having an anti russian state on its border with if we're talking about developing a nuclear bomb and possibly even do it in their bomb. right. so, you know, santa hindsight is always 2020 you're asking me if it could have been settled differently. we'll never know the answer to that question, right? that's a strategic word equation strategically. so i think, i think the thing is, in a sense to answer, you know,

that the point that you're raising when india took the positions it did in february and march and april at the united nations on the was stage. the kinds of comments you saw from the indian foreign minister s j shanker who actually made, you know, it was an off the cuff remark, but it got a lot of traction, which is that, you know, european western europe orders or uses more russian energy. and yet, russian oil and one afternoon than india as a whole month. right. so i think in this position takes into account the contradictions that you are talking about, right? because it recognizes the fact that there is no way stern way prime minister and arrows, idea of non alignment along with some other countries. was premised on this reality that countries like india were always going to be put in a situation where they would have to make a choice. so how do you insulate younger countries? how do you insulate poor countries from being overly dependent on one side or the

other and find a way to deal with boat as best as possible? so you can make the argument that today's idea of strategic autonomy that are foreign minister and our prime minister talk about is really an adaptation of non alignment of the sixties and the seventies and the 80s, right. where, when the cold war was raging, india needed to insulated cells from that you talk about, you know, russian realities, these are the ukraine. these are in reality, these are the pakistan as well. and as a result of that, i, now these are the china indian does not really have a choice, but to ensure that it's engagement with russia stays ready. so in that context, i think the idea that you know, the west is trying to push in there to take a very farm stand. i think the west itself has realized that began to push in there to take that stand. and if you notice conversations and dialogue with western

partners and western alliances, o allies for india has also changed and you will find india do that balancing. for example, even i think it was just last week or 2 weeks ago, there was a procedural vote at the united nations back that suggested that, you know, the ukrainian premier zalinski addressed the un by a tele conference or video conference. and on that there was pressure on india to vote against it, but india said, no, it's okay, let him address by teleconference. that's fine. my let, let us last here for a 2nd because we need to take a short break, but we will definitely look more in details in just a few moments. ah ah

. with a, with, with you her with you i'm with, [000:00:00;00] ah,

[000:00:00;00]

with a with, with my invention danny, a senior fellow at the observer research foundation in india. my. and we've been talking about the security concerns with both of pakistan in china, and we are recording this interview right at a time when they have many asian nations, including china, including pakistan, a russia i gather in for the summit of the shanghai operation organization is a pretty big geopolitical outing for many of those leaders, it back 1st in person for and then after the 19 damage. how significant does that in you as it's hugely significant, also don't forget that it isn't going to be an induction of iran in this around of

the seo as well. so look, i mean, the shy cooperation organization has position that said as a regional grouping for your asian countries, central asian countries, in india, china, russia. and it's a very interesting grouping because with many of them there are ongoing conflicts. i remember covering one of the 1st meetings of the seo in 2009 when india and pakistan attended that. that summit, as i special guests of the seo and prime minister and mon saying, and present that he met on the sidelines of that summit in a catherine book. and, you know, there was, there was a scope that could be some, it be used to create a different kind of dialogue process out of the public clay bilaterally conversation within a multilateral framework. so there is no getting away from the fact that this grouping is really important. so i think it also under scores india's strategic

autonomy that we were talking about just a little while ago. because just about a week ago or india hosted a summit in a meeting of the quad in delhi and where they talked about trade and fed economy and the, the 4 pillars of the i p f. now, is making, it's, you know, you talked about self interest and national interest. i think strategic autonomy is about nathan interest. but here is where the hypocrisy comes in that i talked about earlier. in western democracies, you're asian, autocracies, whatever you want to call them, right? every new, you know, every want to go. the mission of focus is to be honest with every, every nation to be sovereign, nation state is acting in self interest today. and i think that is what is posing a challenge to a global rules based order. because, you know,

the question that india asks very often is who's rules on is the global order playing by. and the s c o becomes an option and a forum for a different set of countries of the world. to say that this is a non western grouping, they're all very strong political leaders in their own right in these countries. and they are energy power, houses, economic power houses. they have large populations, you know, and they're saying that is a different part of the world that say, look at a different grouping. and i think that you're kind of interested them acting in their self interest is a challenge. i wonder if that is a somewhat outdated mentality because, you know, when most of them, even if you look at the official goal of the summit, i mean, it sounds somewhat boring, very formal. they're talking about economic cooperation and trade connectivity, but it is taking place at a time when all production chains are being routed. and there are new opportunities, like, for example, for india to stock up on,

let's say russian energy. there are many other opportunities for other countries, but i know there's no answers to that, but i wonder, what's your intuition? do you think these are these dr. for synergy? especially at these difficult economic ties. do you think there's a chance that it will overcome the old howard grievances they all the sort of spoiler tendencies on the point of some of them isn't in their mutual interest to pursue their self interest in their mutually beneficial way. yeah, i mean, i would say yes it is, but it will there be spoilers. i'm sure they will because you know, in is looking at actually also engaging with iran at this as seo and, and resuming the oil trade. the energy trade with it on it was suspended under the trumpet, ministration under threat of western sanctions. on india, the china in their relationship is

a hostile one for both countries will argue that they are acting in the national interest. and yet, there is, you know, an active military aggression on india, eastern borders by china will the s, you'll be able to put pressure on china as a member state to try and mitigate some of this. now, if that happens, when china turn around, say, say, for example, and i'm, i'm being, you know, i'm speaking hypothetically over, he'll say, for example, russia says china needs to work together with india to resolve a border dispute. is china going to turn around and tell russia, well, you walked into ukraine? why didn't you do what you're telling us to do? as far as i know, the tone of conversation and the russians and their chinese is very different. i think that putting a lot of premium on the, on the, on their relationship as a container with which differences. oh, do you think that could be expanded or broadly throughout the meeting when the countries would understand that it's in that medium?

i mean, to keep that i think going rather than subtle. i think that is some, there is something in that that india certainly hope that russia can do. you know, these are the 3 biggest players in that region for both in terms of, you know, land mass in terms of the economy in terms of strategic imperative. so they are the 3 big players. and i definitely think that the indian foreign policy machinery sort of look said ways to get an engagement that would mitigate the china india attention somewhat. can russia play a role in that? i know that there are meetings scheduled on the sidelines of the seo summit. i'm not quite sure when they will take place. we probably know more about that as we go along. but i think also, yeah, it's also interesting to just sort of look at the timing of everything. right. they'll finish with the seo,

the un general assembly is happening around the same time. you know, there's lots of lots of things going on in the world. i suppose i'm, i'm very fast and actually fast. yeah. i know that you've been somewhat skeptical about the dipping cooperation between russia and china, especially as russia distances. and so from there was to put it mildly. but if we actually look at the practicalities of their rational engine partnerships, i think it's by far the most progressive in terms of 2nd circumventing western restrictions because there's already an increased trade in oil and coal is dimension. there are some very novel mechanisms of circumventing insurance pressure . the 2 countries are also talking about not just talking to have already created the mechanism in paying a national currency. so in terms of the practicalities of cooperation, rush in india, florida, had them, let's say russia and china be honest with you. yeah, i mean, also the member that,

you know, when it came to sort of military and defense, for example, the indian government went on out there to ensure that that there would be, you know, the requisite waivers would be, would be procured when it came to say the s 400, for example, the cat weaver was something that was very, very, very much talked about in the foreign policy sell kit in delhi. it was, it was a thing that, you know, in there had to ensure that it would ensue, needed sell from western pressure, especially on defense and energy. this is a huge, has a special capacity to do that because each camp ones india to its side of the russian, that historically has been pretty amenable and amicable too in just sensibilities. and the western can also wants to continue doing business with india, speaking of which assumes the presidency of both dish and high corporation organization and g 20 later this year. what do you think it can bring to this table

to it at this crucial make or break moment than local history? was what he can bring on. and it's an interesting question. so i know that, you know, when, when the conflict 1st adopted in february, there was a lot of conversations around the possibility of prime minister movies rule personally as somebody who knows and has a good working relationship with the, to me to 10 as well as somebody who has an engagement with the west? i mean, you know, the u, as in india, calls themselves natural allies and natural partners so that there was an expectation and there might still be an expectation that in there can play that bridge. i mean, you said it very well right now that you know both sides seem to want india to be an active part. no, i think will then be done without the the worst actually wanting to put an end to this one. because i mean, if you, if you look at russia strategic interest,

russia is bleeding. it doesn't want to spend resources on fighting in your credit needs to come to some sort of amicable security arrangement. you know, to make. yeah. that made us troops below the station, then you great. and it would be more than happy to put an end to this. you know, probably what i mean. those are families across the border. it's not, it's not a foreign country to us, but they are many people, both here in russia and i 1st manual is different in the west adjusting the west is interested in prolonging this for us as long as possible. first to we can russia and 2nd of all, to use the opportunity to sorta reset itself to introduce the kind of draconian or stringent policies that would have been unthinkable a couple of years ago in both in terms of energy saving and in terms of many other social policies, what do you think about that? i mean, you know, i think that's not an analysts say lots of things. the,

for the west, it's important to, for them for the west to kind of ask themselves what the west perceives as a bigger threat. is it russia, these are the ukraine and what that means for western europe, or is it china and the economic threat that china opposes to the entire western order? and i think that's a conversation that's probably taking place in the corridors of london and washington and, and where have you up there is obviously an urgent need globally for some sort of an impasse or an end to the conflict between russia and ukraine. and i think that's what we saw, even the un chief speak to mr. brewton recently. and, and that's from a humanitarian perspective. leave alone, the strategic and the economic and the conflict that's from the perspective of, you know, food supply chains or energy supply chain impacting ordinary people like you and me

. a, so there is an imperative. now, you know, so dying this up with the a, c o and with g 20 and a country like india, which is sort of wanted as a partner by both sides because of the economic potential that india brings to the table. i think india would probably would, you know, want to leverage that in some capacity. again, coming back to the procedural vote at the united nations last week. you saw that as india saying, you know, on things that are not very significant. it's fine to take certain positions and, and on on does. abstention has proven to be the best way forward for india so far because it sends a message that it's not going to take aside beyond a point. and no matter what the pressure is, either from the west, all from russia, india, the deans, that autonomy to ensure that the decision that's taking all the positions,

it's taking a while solving their 1st. and i think when it comes to that, there is no ambiguity in both the prime and it's does mind all the foreign ministers mind that strategic autonomy means that india is responsible player on the was stage but also and shows that its own interest. i thought my rehab to me to bear, but thank you very much for this amazing conversation. not at all. thank you for having me. and thank you for watching hope to hear again next week and will depart . ah, with me

for a a. l look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order to conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence at the point,

obviously is to great trust, rather than fear. a very job with artificial intelligence, real summoning with a robot must protect its own existence with our correspondent, gets caught in ukrainian. shelling of done yet has at least 4 people are reportedly killed the latest attacks by key of a breakdown of democracy. that's the european parliament assessment of hungry. it says the country can no longer be considered