 Hello, everyone. Welcome to another International Relations Capsule for the Shankar IAS Academy. Today, our topic is the Raisina Dialogue, India's premier conference on geopolitics and geopolitics. The dialogue is a multi-state holder cross-section discussion involving government leaders, local government officials who are joined by thought leaders from the private sector, media, and the academic world. This is the seventh edition. I've been started this in 2015. This is the seventh edition of the Raisina Dialogue. There are many dialogues taking place all around the world as far as India is concerned. This is organized by the Ministry of External Affairs together with ORF, and this has become the premier conference in India. The topic this time was Terra Nova, because it's the same thing as New World. Every time we have to invent new words to express the same idea to make it novel. So this time, the title is Terra Nova, which means nothing other than a new world which we are confronting. And the subtitle is impassioned, impatient, imperilled, all three feelings or images that we have of the new world. Impassioned because we have to deal with it with great energy and passion. We have to be impatient about it. I would have put it the other way. The first thing is imperiled. The future is in danger. The future is in danger. Therefore, we have to be impatient and impassioned and work together. That is the message. It's quite obvious what the issues are. The Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi and the President of the European Commission inaugurated the conference together, even though Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not speak. As for participation, it is 100 sessions and 210 speakers from 99 countries. This is enormous. Nobody could really follow all these things which are taking place in different parts of Delhi. But the Rabindra reports, and we are relying on the reports coming out of the conference to make an assessment of what happened. This is supposed to have six thematic pillars. These are the six main ideas which were discussed in different forums by different speakers, different people, regardless of the rank that are associated down to journalists, all kinds of people, they all participate in the equal manner. This is no precedence for governments or ministers. This is the same pattern as followed in the Davos Summit. Everybody has treated equally and everybody has equal opportunity to express opinions. The first item was the end of multilateralism. It's a question mark. Has multilateralism ended or is it still in force? What is the future of the UN? This is one topic. Then the rethinking democracy. There are questions about what exactly is a democracy. Many of the countries which are considered democratic, are they really democratic? Is there a conflict between democracy and authoritarianism as the Ukraine situation is described by several people? Democracy, we have to think. Then the communities, the people who are the first responders to health problems because before the systems of the governments come in, the community, it is the people who are first affected by crises like that. The fifth is the turbulent tides in the Indo-Pacific. It's called the water Caucasus. After communities, then your water Caucasus, that is a reference to the maritime security, the situation in the Indo-Pacific, then the quad will come in it. Then technology warps because technology is not even, some countries have greater technology than the others and they are trying to cope with the technological innovation which comes every day. It has its own challenges. How do you prepare a level playing field for all countries with technologies varying from one another? Finally, achieving green transition, which is of course the essential issue of climate change, that is we need to have a green transition. We have to become conscious of the fact that a green economy we need to have and less of industries which cause greenhouse gas emissions. These were the six broad areas which are allocated to different groups. As I said, 100 sessions, all these were discussed by various people and I'm sure very many good ideas came up and some of them may be implemented, otherwise the discussions will carry on from one Raisina dialogue to the other. You know the word Raisina has come from the fact that our parliament house and Rashtrapati Bhavan, etc, located on a little hill called Raisina Hills. This has become a standard, very prominent dialogue to which people from various countries come. There are several of these in different parts of the world and many people go to all of them, but some people go to some of them and this was Prime Minister's idea, it was floated in 2015 and in the last two years it could not be held because of the pandemic, but again this time it was a phase-to-phase conference. So we noticed that soon after the Korean War started, there has been a lot of diplomatic flooding of activities in India. Virtually every important country sent some representative to the other, some had to state themselves and others came to Delhi more than to any other place. There are not two reasons for it. One, people are a little bit amazed why India took a particular position of neutrality in this particular case when there has been a war against a democratic country. This has aroused the curiosity. People knew about it and plus then they started seeing that India was not cooperating very much in the sanctions against Russia. So these two parts of India's policy were being criticized and questioned everywhere and many of them came to inquire as to what the reasons were for it. We had no evidence to show that they were satisfied because they still keep talking about India having to accept the reality that there is a country that is Russia which is violating all the rules and regulations. So this Raisina dialogue came at the end of this flurry of activities and therefore more and more people, they thought this was one opportunity to go to Delhi and discuss all these issues and therefore the Europeans dominated this. Most many delegates because the European Commission president herself was there as the chief guest plus a large number of European countries were represented. But the interesting institution was there was nobody from China, nobody from Russia. So this became some kind of a European meeting or others of course from African others but many European countries participated because of the crisis in Ukraine that they were concerned about. So what are the things that they were focusing on? They were focusing on the changes which are taking place in the world. It's a reality that geopolitics is changing and it is a reality and how do you deal with it? Even when we do not know exactly in what way it is going but it has to be understood, anticipated and dealt with. Then the globalization. Globalization had suffered a little recently because people started thinking that it is necessary for countries to be self-reliant. Where is globalization going? How about rebalancing because the world is all waiting for something to happen. People are not taking their choices. They are waiting to see what kind of new world order will come and what their position will be in this global order. Then specific issues like COVID-19 which seems to be subsiding but still it is very rampant in China, in some other countries. So COVID-19 remains a reality and how to deal with it is one of the major problems within the parameters of the agenda of the conference. In Afghanistan, there is no solution. Taliban is still very much in power. There does not seem to be any kind of liberalization by the government and they are receiving assistance, humanitarian assistance and they are managing with that but nobody has recognized the regime and so the uncertainty continues. China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan etc. They are supporting the Taliban. So that is another peculiar situation where democracy versus authoritarianism and finally Ukraine. But if you look at all the discussions and the questions raised, most of it came from questions about Ukraine because of India's particular situation. And since the Prime Minister did not speak at the racing and dialogue, the main sports person became the external affairs minister, Mr. Jay Shankar. So everybody agrees that this was a Jay Shankar show as it were because he was formulating ideas, expressing them, sometimes being very tough, sometimes very reasonable and the whole conference seems to have been dominated by this very powerful personality of Mr. Jay Shankar. He was sometimes very agitated and therefore he gave some replies which may not have pleased the interlocutors but he was making the position very clear because for India, Ukraine is a problem, Russia has invaded, we accept that. We do not accept the idea of one country invading other and occupying it and so on. But at the same time, we also recognize that Russia has its concerns and therefore the only answer to this is not war, not intensification, not giving more money to Ukraine but dialogue and a solution via and India has been trying right from the beginning for that. This is the point that he has been making repeatedly but still questions were being asked, what are the justifications? What did Russia tell you? So he was not willing to give these answers. He gave those answers in a general sense that is our concern is peace, tranquility, negotiations, solution and nothing else is possible. And then he pointed out in reply saying that such things have happened in Asia. Look at Afghanistan, what is happening in Afghanistan? Is it acceptable? But how many in Europe or any other countries lifting a little finger to solve the problem in Afghanistan? And how much support are people in Asia and Africa waiting for COVID? So these are some of the issues that he raised are more urgent for us and how to deal with the new situation arising out of this. So he wanted to want in the world to have a more global outlook and how can you resolve all these problems and not merely concentrating on Ukraine. So Ukraine did not elaborate much on our policy. He said that we are critical of what Russia has done. We even condemn the massacre. We are not joining the sanctions because there is an energy crisis coming up, a food crisis coming up and therefore India has to handle the situation in its best interest. And it was pointed out by some that only 41 countries have joined the sanctions which have been imposed by NATO and the United States. So out of the 193 countries, if only 41 have really agreed to join the sanctions, why India alone is being criticized. And he made it very clear that we are buying oil, yes, for Russia, for our energy needs. But as he said, Europe is buying in one afternoon what we bought in a whole month. So a certain amount of hypocrisy of the West be exposed. But the comment was made by Mr. Shamsaran in one of his assessments that it is fair enough for us to put up a very strong position. But knocking them on their nappies as it were, you know, a kind of conflict in dialogue is not helpful because we need Europe more than anybody else in the new orientation. Because if Russia and China are together, United States and Europe are together. And then where else do we go except through the Quad, to Europe, to United States and Europe. So therefore, this kind of agitated approach is not much appreciated in certain circles. But there is great enthusiasm for Mr. Jay Shankar's intellect, his ability to express things if necessary very, very strongly. And in fact, an article appeared just a day ago that he could be, Jay Shankar could be equated with Kissinger. He has that kind of capacity to deal with crisis in the world. And he was even suggested that Jay Shankar should take the lead in trying to put together an international negotiating group to deal with Russia. But of course, this has no possibility as long as the war is raging, there is no ceasefire. I think that contest can be done. But what I'm saying is, in the context of Jay Shankar's performance during Raisina dialogue is being raised to a level of people like Kissinger who can really deal with international issues. But that is by the way. So we were really being questioned very thoroughly on this question. And we were a bit on the defensive because we are not with the international consensus. But at the same time, the fact that all the countries have not imposed sanctions against Russia also indicates that what we are doing may be right because we have to protect our interests, we have to protect the balance. And just as we have concerns about Afghanistan and others, we also have concerns about Ukraine. But our concerns are such that it has to be resolved not by any kind of strengthening of the military or giving more weapons to Ukraine. We need to give them humanitarian assistance and try and resolve it. So the Raisina dialogue provided an opportunity for a large number of people to engage in these discussions. We do not have a full picture. So the themes were quite inclusive. Nothing was excluded. Questions about Afghanistan, questions about COVID-19 were also made. No clear conclusions were reached. Many ideas came up. And since Russia and China were not represented, we could say that the discussion was not entirely complete because they were not there and they did not participate in it. So the question being asked about India was whether India as a democracy will object authoritarianism. So we are clear about that. We will object. But it has to be done in a manner in which our national interests are protected. So it is not a question of time for international norms to be redone. Yes, we know that international norms are being violated, but it's not only in Ukraine that international norms are being violated. And wherever democratic regimes are upset, that must be dealt with. They reminded the West about its culpability in leaving a mess in Asia, which India had to contend with. This may not help India to deal with the challenges of the changes in the global order. And so this has to be sorted out further. And that is probably the reason why the Prime Minister is leaving to Germany and is also visiting France. So maybe there is a linkage here that we do recognize that we cannot really isolate Europe in the context of Asia. We need to have relations with Russia as well as with Europe. So the Prime Minister's visit to Germany is going to be very significant as well as France. And that may be the reason why the Prime Minister is going there because he is aware that some sparks flew in these conversations and those have to be put in their proper context so that things can be sorted out. And Europe is showing some impatience with India's relations with Russia because they all know that there is a legacy factor that is many years India and the Soviet Union and later India and Russia have been cooperating in defense purchases, general trade, various issues. We are close working together with Russia. This cannot be immediately separated and that the people understand. But how we are doing it is going to be a question. But others are also pointing out that our trade with Russia has reduced but dependent on oil supplies from Russia is not gone up very much. The Americans themselves have said that Indians are not likely to buy too much oil during this period and they are doing it in a very balanced manner. So there is a certain amount of understanding developing and this legacy has to be maintained because Russia still supplies a large amount. It is to be 70% maybe it is a little bit less. The only nuclear plant, a foreign nuclear plant is from the Kudankulom and we also have to think in terms of the new relationship between Russia and China. But some people believe that this relationship between China and Russia may not last. Russia may have not done it simply in the context of Ukraine and if the problem is solved maybe Russia-China alliance will not be as strong as it appears to be. And that there is a hope but as of now they are quite close together. And so that is how the situation in Ukraine and the generally global reordering was discussed. As I said no particular conclusions but many ideas have come up which governments and thinkers and strategists will bring out one by one and we have further discussion. There was an interesting debate on multilateralism that was the first topic as I mentioned and the future of the UN. There were several people who have worked in the secretariat, ambassadors who have worked at the UN and NGOs, people who have been assisting the UN with various issues etc. The question has asked whether UN was doing anything in the question of defense. So it was rightly pointed out that UN is not sitting back. Of course UN's first role was to prevent the war. Having not done that we have to stop the war, we have to bring about a ceasefire and we need to have to build peace in the region. This is the priority of the UN. But that has not been possible because a permanent member of the Security Council as a veto is already a part of this and therefore any effort by the United Nations Security Council to solve the problem is unreal that everybody understands. But it was pointed out that it's not true that the UN is not doing anything. The various agencies of the United Nations whether it is Development Program, whether it is UNESCO, whether it is WHO, various specialized agencies are working to bring about some solace, some comfort to the victims of the war. So though the UN is doing the job it is meant to do to stop the war which is not able to do. At the same time a lot of effort is being made by these agencies and once the war comes to a halt all these agencies will be able to go in there and help the people. This was pointed out as a plus point as well as the UN is concerned. Even on COVID situation though UN was not able to work cohesively now it is putting together various ways of vaccination and other things have come. So all these were pointed out but at the same time there was criticism that the UN is not able to perform the functions outlined in the charter because of the veto and so this is raised as to the veto, what kind of reform we will get in the UN, all these there were no answers. There is no agreement on any expansion of the Security Council. There is no agreement on any reform of the other organs of the United Nations. These are all in effects but the general consensus among the people who spoke as well as the people who asked questions was that United Nations is indispensable. It cannot be replaced, maybe reform but it cannot be replaced because it has become very essential. Why? Because this is the only universal organization which everybody is a member. So such an organization has immense value however its deficiency is rare and therefore there was an unambashed defense of the UN by many countries. Some people asked questions, look at the situation 1945 and look at the situation today. Is the UN partly responsible for all the good that has happened? Standards have been set for economic development, standards have been set for human rights, there are various activities humanitarian, atomic energy, all these areas UN is spectacular. So to say that since the UN has not prevented war the UN cannot be ignored and so that was agreed in this context but there was also demand for reform to be making more participatory, make the UN more functional in the light of the current situation in the world. So all these were raised but at the end of it all they said there is no alternative to the United Nations. So we have to work with it when its relevance has to be considered in the context of the many activities of the not just peace and war and that was a consensus that was agreed upon and therefore it did not ask for a very strong push for reform. It was more about accepting as a reality about UN has to be an active player and we'll have a role in the post-war reconciliation and rehabilitation and therefore the UN is part of that effort and that came out quite well and to briefly summarize Raisina dialogue was an important instrument for global leaders to get together and discuss ideas that is unquestioned but because of Ukraine the focus was a little too much on India and India had to be a little bit defensive because we are not defensive we were quite aggressive in dealing that issue but some kind of peace making has to be made by between India and Europe so that these exchanges do not leave an impact on our relationship because Europe is very very important for us and therefore it has to be looked after and perhaps the visit of the Prime Minister to Germany and France will lead to that understanding after which perhaps too many of these questions about Ukraine will not be raised and there will be a better understanding of India's position. There is a speculation that Raisina dialogue may lead to India reviving the non-aligned movement because this is tight flying. People think that India is left in a situation where it has to lead a group of countries of its own and for that the best is the non-aligned world the non-aligned movement which was established in 1962 still going on but without any particular influence so there was some speculation that perhaps one result of the Raisina dialogue may be India moving towards reviving the non-aligned movement because there is a necessity for countries to get together without joining either of the military groups and at the same time there is talk of this not being possible because we are part of the Quad and we are already part of a western grouping and we have an interest in the Indian Ocean and therefore we need to work together with the great powers so much is yet to happen so what happened in the Raisina dialogue is basically a forum where all these issues were discussed and further discussions will follow at the governmental and non-governmental processes and what happened in Raisina dialogue may be beneficial to the world in this current situation of re-globalizing and re-ordering the new global world. Thank you.