'Obama does not have much of an option but to make India its leading partner'
Shekhar Gupta: I am in front of South Block and my guest is one of the longest, oldest members of this hallowed building and someone who shaped its mind on India's strategic policy making, India's entire worldview for more than five decades now—Dr K Subrahmanyam. The world is a very different place now... from when you came here in the '50s.
Dr K Subrahmanyam: Yes, very much so. When I came here, within a couple of years, we had Bulganin (Nikolai) and Khrushchev (Nikita) visiting Delhi and that was the time the Indo-Soviet relationship started developing. And that was also the time when the US's relationship with Pakistan intensified.
Shekhar Gupta: As we talk now, in a couple of weeks, Obama's coming. The third US president in a decade, when the previous one took 25 years. So, it's all changed... for the better?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: Very much for the better, no doubt about that!
Shekhar Gupta: So what are Obama's options? Does he have his options closed, no choice?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: No, I think Obama will be developing his options. His challenges today are from two sources—one is from jihadi inspired terrorism and the other challenge is that China has become the second power of the world and is trying to catch up with the US. China is the only major country in the world that has not accepted democracy as its value system. Even Russia has. And therefore, a more powerful China expanding into Asia, South Asia, West Asia and East Asia is posing a challenge to the US and is trying to counter the influence of democratic powers. And how to deal with this challenge is something which should preoccupy Obama.
Shekhar Gupta: And when this comes up, what should Dr Manmohan Singh be telling him?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: I think they have already said that they share these value systems. The main point is, how do these democratic countries, which today form 50 per cent of the global population, counter this value system—of the two challenges of jihadism as well as one-party authoritarianism which denies pluralism. I think the only way of doing this is for them to get into a network of partnerships. Because this is not a military threat and it cannot be dealt with by a military alliance.
Shekhar Gupta: It's also a philosophical and a political threat.
Dr K Subrahmanyam: Yes, and therefore, it is for the other democratic powers to get together and apply their combined efforts creatively to counter these challenges. And there can be a lot of cooperation among them in terms of exchange of intelligence and combined efforts to stop flow of financial resources to jihadi people. These things are quite possible. And the more democratic powers assert themselves, it will have its own impact within China because as it has been pointed out, a country which has reached this level cannot go further in innovation unless it democratises itself. Therefore, the Chinese are worried about it, the rest of the world should increase pressure on the Chinese.
Shekhar Gupta: So, if India and America come together, as you are saying they logically should, this will not be some old fashioned kind of alliance with military implications against another power, it's a philosophical alliance to maybe moderate the conduct of another power?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: Yes, in fact the engagement of China should be intensified. Commerce and trade with China should grow. And the only way of effectively countering China's authoritarianism is to expose the Chinese population to democracy in a more and more intensified manner.
Shekhar Gupta: So, if that is the idea, and I think that idea took root about 15 years ago and got underlined with President Clinton's visit and is now growing, you think Obama coming in place of Bush is a setback?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: No, not at all. In fact, Bush looked at India in terms of classical balance of power and Bush's framework was still a 20th century framework.
Shekhar Gupta: And in a manner, a bit imperialistic?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: In a manner that the US was an exceptional country and the leader of the world. I think Obama understands much more this need for a network of nations, in which all other nations will have to cooperate and that the US cannot any longer exercise its leadership vis-a-vis China unless it has a partner in terms of a knowledge reservoir, because China has got four times the population of the US. And therefore when the Chinese start producing engineers, doctors, technicians...
Shekhar Gupta: Or fighter pilots?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: I'm not so much worried about the military aspects because militarily, the US can still maintain its lead for some time to come. But the US can be number one only if it has its lead technologically and organisationally. And this cannot be done unless the US has a partner, which is equal in population with China, is democratic, pluralistic, shares the same value as the US, with which US already has a population to population relationship. Indians contribute to American growth and American technology and American organisational skills. And therefore, Obama does not have much of an option but to make India its leading partner.
Shekhar Gupta: After having lived through decades of hostility, when life was very simple—America was hostile, Soviet was an ally—how tough was it to bring about a paradigm shift?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: I would say that the shift came about in a very natural manner to the US because most of the things that happened to the US, all in a way are kind of nemesis.
Shekhar Gupta: Why nemesis?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: Well, they went and dealt with Vietnam in a particular way and it blew up on them. They allied with Pakistan to create jihadism.
Shekhar Gupta: The earlier jihad, good jihad, if I may say so.
Dr K Subrahmanyam: And the jihadism has blown up on them. For 30 years, they helped China become the factory of the world and China's advance today is now challenging the US. And therefore, to a considerable extent, the US has turned itself against the mistakes it had perpetrated. And so far as we were concerned, we always admired the US and from the very beginning, Nehru went and addressed the US Congress, in which he pledged that if freedom was in peril and endangered, India will not stay neutral. And therefore, we didn't have any problem in becoming friendly with the US.
Shekhar Gupta: How does our record with the '70s square? Our voting record on Cambodia, Afghanistan, the Prague Spring? It was quite disgraceful.
Dr K Subrahmanyam: I would only apologise or feel defensive about Prague and Hungary. Cambodia, I would still say that we were right. Supporting Pol Pot is one of the greatest disgraces for American democracy. We opposed him. Therefore, we have nothing to apologise for. Similarly, on Afghanistan, it is the Americans and the Pakistanis who have created this jihadism. We virtually stayed out of it.
Shekhar Gupta: But could we have nuanced our earlier Afghanistan policy better? In the '70s and the '80s?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: No, we tried our best. After all, when the Soviets moved into Afghanistan, which was a result of the provocation by the Pakistanis and the Americans, Indira Gandhi sent special envoys to Zia-ul-Haq—Swaran Singh went there, then Narasimha Rao went there. We tried our best to reassure the Pakistanis. But they weren't looking for reassurance. They wanted to become a nuclear weapon power, which is the price the Americans had to pay in order to get Pakistani support. They had to look away from the Chinese arm in that. And once the Pakistanis got nuclear weapons, they didn't want to just drop it on anybody, which is what the western strategists talk about. The Pakistanis got the derivative of nuclear weapons, which was terrorism. And they are using the derivative terrorism not only against US but against the US, UK and Europe.
Shekhar Gupta: Using the backup power of nuclear weapons?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: Deterrent power gets them the shield. And therefore, they are able to use terrorism as an instrument of state policy.
Shekhar Gupta: So to that extent, they were successful?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: Till today, yes, they have gotten away, but I don't know for how long.
Shekhar Gupta: You look far ahead. I'll ask you three questions. First of all, when could you anticipate this turn in India's position in the world —in '70s, '60s, '50s, '90s? When could you anticipate this?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: I would say only by mid-90s.
Shekhar Gupta: And before that, when Mrs Gandhi met Reagan?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: No, that was a balancing act. Reagan was being nice to Mrs Gandhi, and at the same time permitting Pakistan to get nuclear weapons.
Shekhar Gupta: But she did break ice with him?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: There was a time when the Reagan administration was nice to Mrs Gandhi.
Shekhar Gupta: So mid-'90s is when you saw the change coming? That's when they say Dr Subrahmanyam's tone also changed because you led the intellectual drive, isn't it? The third stage of the rocket of Indian foreign policy again came from you.
Dr K Subrahmanyam: All that I would say is that yes, I started writing about it but there were others as well who contributed to it.
Shekhar Gupta: And three Prime Ministers.
Dr K Subrahmanyam: Narasimha Rao, in a sense Rajiv Gandhi, but much more so Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh. Both Vajpayee (Atal Bihari) and Brajesh Mishra also contributed.
Shekhar Gupta: Now my second question, again looking ahead. You say Pakistan has been successful so far. Where do you see Pakistan with this strategy, five years or ten years from now?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: They're playing with a venomous snake. And there is no doubt about it that one of these days, the snake is going to bite them. And the Pakistanis are going to pay a high price, when the various jihadi organisations are going to turn on the Pakistani state and the Pakistani army. One of them has already—the Pakistani Taliban. But it is only a question of time when others also do.
Shekhar Gupta: My third and last question. If you read accounts of Nehru's conversations with Eisenhower, in one of those, Eisenhower is very worried about what the Chinese are doing in Korea...the Chinese have taken prisoners and he's very angry about that. And Nehru makes a very interesting and prescient statement—he tells him not to be neurotic about communism. He says that the seeds of destruction lie within the ideology of communism. But for Nehru to say that in the early '50s was prescient.
Dr K Subrahmanyam: In a sense, Nehru was prescient. Nehru started cultivating the Soviet Union mainly because even in the early '50s, he saw that the Soviet Union and China will not get along with each other and therefore, if we have to have security vis-a-vis China, we had to cultivate the Soviet Union.
Shekhar Gupta: So Nehru was not an ideological fool?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: Nehru was perhaps one of the most pragmatic and realist politicians.
Shekhar Gupta: So, when there is conversation today between Dr Singh and Obama, what tone do you see it taking? Do you see some of the same conversation happening, although Obama is different from Eisenhower and Dr Singh is different from Nehru?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: I don't think Obama has to be convinced that he's facing a Chinese challenge. Of course, he himself has called Pakistan a state afflicted with cancer. And therefore, he doesn't have to be convinced that he's facing these challenges. The point is that they have got to devise ways and means of how to respond to these challenges. That will be the job before them.
Shekhar Gupta: And if you see Bob Woodward's latest book, does it look like he has it in him?
Dr K Subrahmanyam: I am very positive about Obama. I think he's a highly intellectual person and he can think through problems.
Shekhar Gupta: I can see that you're optimistic. And I can see that you're optimistic not just five years ahead but 10 years ahead, so hopefully we'll have more conversations as we go ahead and hopefully everybody will still be getting wisdom from you. And as usual, following you. For 50 years, nobody in this country has been able to stay ahead of you and may it remain like that.
Transcribed by Ayushi Saxena
