 Hello, everyone. Welcome to another capsule on international relations for the Shankar IAS Academy. Today, we talk about Shinzo Abe, the most influential, longest-serving Prime Minister of Japan who was sadly assassinated a few days ago. The whole world was shocked by this incident, particularly because killings, particularly political killings are very rare in Japan. The last time a politician was killed was in 1936. So this is very different from the story in many other countries. And generally the impression is that Japan is a very peaceful nation and it is very hard to get guns in that country. And therefore, such an incident made Mr. Abe a tragic hero, a tragic figure in Japanese history. Otherwise, he had made a very important contribution to Japan, the post-World War Japan, in very many ways. And he was generally accepted not only by his party, which is the LDP, but also the rest of the country. But his reforms were such that one or the other of his reforms may have made some people uneasy about the path that Japan was taking. So it should be one of those fringe elements. A person who might belong to some group, which has some sensitivity with some of the things that he did, may have been the assassin in this case. So far, there is no evidence as to whether he acted in a group or acted on behalf of somebody else. There has been no coherent statements from him as to what the reason was. And what we know is only that he belonged to the Japanese Navy. He worked in the Japanese Navy for some time. And the gun that he used was a homemade gun, which he probably made it himself. And so that mystifies it more because one does not know whether he acted alone or in a group. So whatever it is, a very influential figure has been assassinated even though he left the Prime Minister's office because of some health reasons. He remained very active. And he was, in fact, he remained in politics and he was successors. There had been two, one successors for a short while and now another Prime Minister. But both of them were kind of seeking advice from him. So he was still very active and influential. And in fact, he was in a city called Nara, where he was campaigning for one of his candidates for the elections to the upper house, which took place a day after the assassination. And that candidate won with a big majority. So his legacy is very much there. And that is why it cannot be a great movement against him because not a political movement. This may have been an aberration. In fact, there are some cases in Japan that is a streak in Japanese character. I have lived there, that's what I'm saying. That they are very pleasant and very nice and very courteous people. But sometimes some minor irritation or minor sense of insecurity or a sense of pride or any kind of thing that sometimes can make them do very serious things. Because for example, there are too many suicides, kind of ceremonial suicides in Japanese society. If you feel hurt by somebody or if you feel that what you are saying, people don't listen to. And they can be very, very sensitive. And normally what they do is what is called committing a harakiri, that is tearing your stomach and dying. And this is unusual, not unusual in Japan. So you cannot predict how this can happen, but this has happened in several cases. So it's quite possible that among the reforms that Mr. Abe brought about, there was something which was sensitive to this particular person or a group of people. So it is not a political incident in the sense that a movement against him is still very highly respected in the society. And the people believe that his contribution was lasting. And they also hope that his policies will be pursued. And the LDP, he was the leader when he passed away. So even when a new LDP leader comes, his legacy will remain, that is for certain. So what are the elements of his reform that we have to look at? First and foremost, he felt that Japan was judged falsely by implying that Japan was guilty of war crimes within the Second World War. So if anything, war crimes were committed against Japan because they used nuclear weapons against Japan, that is how the war ended. But even after that, there have been several accusations by the winners of the war that there were war crimes. And there was some kind of stigma attached to some of the soldiers who were actually respected by the country, but suspected to have committed war crimes outside. So this impression, he was very keen to remove. And when he became Prime Minister, he went first to the Asukuni Shrine, which is in the heart of Tokyo, which is a memorial for people who died in the Second World War. And there are some people who have been buried there, also have been accused and also punished for war crimes. And therefore, Japanese Prime Ministers have been keeping away from this memorial because of this stigma attached to the war crimes. But he was very bold and he went to that shrine and prayed for them and showed that he is proud of the record of the Second World War. And he wanted to move away from that stigma. And therefore, he wanted to bring about a kind of nationalistic element into the Japanese life. And that probably something with some people who are attached to the old system may have felt that what he was doing was too ultra-national. In fact, the New York Times called him an ultra-national Prime Minister because he was very proud of the legacy of Japan. And he felt that Japan was badly treated after the Second World War. And even when the United Nations was formed, it is the will of the victors of the war, you know, you as UK, Russia, China, etc., rather than those who lost the war. The permanent membership was only given to them. And there is a reference to enemy countries in the UN Charter, which refers to Japan, Italy, etc., Germany. So even in the formation of the United Nations, the dispensation was fairly antagonistic to Japan. So he worked very hard to remove this. And as part of it, he also resented the idea, the American's had imposed on their constitution, a clause that Japan will never build an army. Only a self-defense force was permitted. So self-defense force meant that there would be soldiers, but they are confined to Japan. They were not allowed to participate in anything outside the country. And they were not supposed to have too many weapons, etc., etc. He tried to change the constitution. And in fact, the parliament passed some of that changes about Japan becoming a militaristic country, or even a strong military power. But that he could not carry through, even though they were approved, they were postponed. But within the provisions of the self-defense force, what he did was to strengthen the armed forces, I mean, AV and Air Force, and that has become powerful. And so some people who were shy about this, and some people who resisted to change the constitution may have resented the fact that he has built a very powerful army. In fact, they are not supposed to export any military goods to other countries also. But then he did export to India, some boats and ships, etc., which are used in the Navy. But not really, then it cannot be called weapons. So like that, his cooperation in military field with the United States was very strong. In addition to that, he built relationships with other countries, and very recently with India also military and nuclear cooperation. And talking about nuclear cooperation, that was another sensitive matter in Japanese society because the weapons were used, the only country which is a victim of nuclear weapons. There is a great amount of allergy towards nuclear power and nuclear weapons in Japan, because people are still dying out of their attacks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But Japan developed a nuclear power program, which could be changed into a nuclear weapons program anytime. But they resisted that, they did not do that. And Japan was very critical of India in the earlier years, because we did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And when we tasted in 1974 and in 1998, Japan was the most critical of India. Every occasion, they would press, even though we had good relationship, they pressed for us to sign the NPT, and they were very rigid about it. This also was relaxed during Mr. Abe's time, because even after the accident in Fukushima, at a reactor, he brought back all those reactors, they were all closed for some time. He resumed production of nuclear material for electricity, etc. And also he built up a new relationship with India after the India-US nuclear agreement, what is called the nuclear deal between India and the United States, which was supposed to be applied to other countries also. And Japan was party to that. And therefore, after the things were normalized under the nuclear deal, Japan signed a nuclear agreement with India, which was very traditional. So this aspect also could be considered to be a sensitive matter in some people in Japan. The other one was his economic theory, Ibenomics, as it is called, because he wanted a very powerful Japanese economy. And of course, they were very competitive. It is one of the most developed technological industries in Japan. And therefore, he brought in a number of reforms in the economic area to expand export to many other countries, and a large market. And such things that he did were very beneficial to Japanese society. But some people felt also that this was excessive, and they wanted some kind of restraint on it. So like these, there were several things that was considered sensitive. But certainly, this was not done by a group of people or by a political movement. But it was basically maybe one or two individuals. So but his most important contribution, he, Japan had good relations with China because they are very culturally, they are close to each other. But he was always suspicious of China. And he knew that the competition with China would be big as well as Japan's concern. So he gave particular attention to that. So while becoming remaining very close to the United States, he distanced himself from China and started suspecting China to be doing various things which would be against the interests of Japan, in the so-called Indo-Pacific area. So he was one of the first Japanese prime ministers who focused on the danger from China in the Indo-Pacific area, which is coming on this. So in fact, he was the one who proposed the Quad first time, because he felt that the democratic countries in the Asia Pacific, including the United States, it was Asia-Pacific first, now it is called Indo-Pacific. So he brought out the idea that India, Japan, Australia, and the United States should get together to ensure a free and independent Indian-Pacific so that the Chinese influence can be reduced and the Chinese threat could be reduced. So this irritated the Chinese very much and they will never forgive him for that. And therefore, India, Japan, China relations deteriorated. So there could be people who are fond of China in Japan who might also have been offended by the very serious containment plan that he made against China. But all these reforms were good for Japan, were good for the world, and to characterize it as extremist or nationalist was not there. So that is why his heritage, his legacy will remain. He will continue to, in spirit, guide the LDP for many years to come. And the two Prime Ministers who came after him are all his associates, and the LDP, his influence will continue. And the economic development that he brought about, the nuclear energy that he strengthened, the Quad, which has now become a very significant grouping in the Indian Ocean, which of course the Chinese considered to be an Asian and NATO, etc. So these will remain major legacies of Mr. Ade. And the most important thing from our perspective is the fact that he built a very good relationship with India. His grandfather, Prime Minister Kishi, was the first Japanese Prime Minister to visit India, and his father was a foreign minister of Japan. And he also had good relations, even though at that time there was no substantial relationship between India and Japan, because Japan did not have any independent foreign policy. They were following the American foreign policy, which means they were part of the American side in the Cold War. And they were very suspicious of the Soviet Union, and therefore suspicious of India too. But this changed under Mr. Ade's Prime Minister's ship, because he said at one time that he would like his relationship with India stronger than its relationship with the United States. But he's saying a lot. It is not just one other country, but as strong as its relationship with Japan, with the US, which surprised everyone, because Japan's relationship with the US is very strong, and long-lasting, very deep cooperation, the nuclear umbrella, all these things had made Japan-US relations very significant. But for him to aspire that there's a relationship with Japan's relationship with India be as strong as with the United States, or even more was something very, very new and very significant. And in this, our Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi, had played a role, because even as Chief Minister Gujarat, he visited Japan and met Mr. Ade, and he made a deep impression on Mr. Ade. And when Mr. Modi became Prime Minister, he visited Japan, and he visited Japan two or three times. And Mr. Abe also came, he came as a first time in Japanese Prime Minister, came as a Chief Guest at the Republic Day. He was awarded a Patmavi Bhushan, a National Award was given to him. For all this, the very strong relationship that he built with India. And this was of course an irritant for China, but the success of the Quad, I think it'll be, he'll be remembered as the one who was the architect of the Quad, which has, which is sought to ensure free passage and independent and free ocean in the Indo-Pacific. It is in other words, opposing any kind of domination of the Indian Ocean by the Chinese. So these are all the various aspects of his life. And he, in the recent years, he was the most influential Prime Minister. And his legacy is sure to that. But as I said earlier, if you're looking for the reason for this assassination, we have to look for these fringe elements who are dissatisfied with one or the other. It has not been identified. It could be his nationalistic approach. It could be his relationship with the United States. It could be his opposition to China. It could be his friendship to India, the nuclear policy, many other things or Ibenomics as they were called. But there is no doubt that his contribution to Japan has been very, very significant. And he was the most influential leader of recent times and the most imaginative. And he had a vision of the future for Japan in the Indo-Pacific area. And India became a very major factor. And because of Mr. Modi's friendship, he also was very involved in the kind of economic development of India, particularly the fast trains, which he has agreed to cooperate with India in building. And all these things, I think India-Japan relations, he raised to a high level. And he was genuinely interested in India-Japan relations. As I said, he wanted it to be as good as relations with the United States. So in all these areas, he has made a big contribution. But unfortunately, he was assassinated because of someone who found this not good for Japan. So that's an aberration. And of course, people say that the security was not really tight. Japan generally, unlike the United States or India, are a little bit relaxed about the security of their leaders because they believe that these leaders have been elected by the people. So why should they be afraid of the people? But it is not the people who come in these times. It may be one odd guy or person may have a grievance and they may do it if the security is not tight. And as a former Prime Minister, I suppose the security was even lighter than for the Prime Ministers because by the time the security covered him, a shot had already hit him. Apparently the first shot he missed. So the security was very tight, they could have saved him. But anyway, that is another lesson that they have learned that they have to now secure their leaders more. And even former Prime Ministers and former leaders who have made a big contribution to the country should be secured even more. That's a lesson that they have learned. But on the whole, he will have a permanent place in the history of Japan. He will be remembered in India as the best friend that we had in Japan. And also the projects, etc., he has approved for India will also remain monuments for Abe Sahn as he is called. So he will be remembered with gratitude in India and also in his own country. So the Sahn that he became a tragic hero, but his contribution has been strong and his legacy will continue for a long time. So those who are taking the civil service examination, you must expect a question on Mr. Abe in some form because it is something which has caught the imagination of other people. So what was his nuclear policy? What was, why was he accused of being a nationalist? Why was he suspicious of China? How did he become so friendly with India? All these aspects are important for you from the point of view of the examination. No, that is because of his general attitude towards Korea against the backdrop of the Second World War. And of course, he was much more against North Korea. But the Koreans generally did not trust him. And that is not a very, very clear thing, but it seems to be a leftover impact of the Second World War, not likely. As I said, since his policies will continue and the Quad has become a well established alliance, though we do not consider it a military alliance. But it is a security instrument as far as these four countries are concerned. And as China tries to exert more and more pressure on Taiwan, or South China Sea, or any other issue, the Quad will become more and more relevant. And therefore, his demise by itself will not affect the Quad. Then what's going to happen to the relationship between China and Japan after this incident? Nothing much. I don't say successor will be softer towards China. The policy will be the same. And Japan's interests lie with India, United States and Australia, because we are their neighbors. We have had many joint exercises, two countries together, three countries together like that. And so it has been established that this is an military dimension. And that is respected. And I don't think any Japanese prime minister will make any change in that. And China with now that China is also aligned to Russia, so the possibility of a Quad becoming less important is not likely. And the relation between China and Japan may also not change because of its assassination. Then Japan-Russia relationship, as you know, they have a territorial dispute. There is some territory which is occupied by Russia, Japan, much progress has been made. In any case, right through the Cold War, they were on the side of the Americans, and so they did not have a good relationship with Russia. And now with Russia and China being two, being very close, so Japan-Russia relations will be probably normal, but not much more than that. They have no knowledge. I was only speculating that there could be this reason. It could be a madman, or it could be somebody who had this kind of sense of grievance. That's because it's very unusual for people to be shot dead, particularly political leaders. As I said, since 1936, no political leader has been assassinated, and you cannot buy guns easily. So this man must have done, he made this gun himself, it looks. And so he probably have been motivated by something which nobody seems to know, and even the United States intelligence has not yet discovered anything for the world. Simply saying that this man is very incoherent. He doesn't say why he did that. There are some organizations who are identified already of that kind of bent of mind. There's a name for it, I don't remember. So these are scattered groups of people who are generally disgruntled about everything. So such groups are there. I'm sure they must be looking into their function. So there are these groups, so that might have been part of this. But again, there is no clear evidence or not even clear reporting. Well, that's very interesting matter because soon after Japan was bombed and the war was lost. And the next general elections in the United States, Japan played a big role and they actually supported the general who was fighting against Japan, who was also contesting the elections. So it's very mysterious that Japan's relations with the US did not affected by the legacy of the war. And of course, Japan was able to rebuild itself because of the United States because it was completely ruined. And the US rebuilt it. In fact, they used to say the best thing that happened to a country is that you lose to the United States because they will come and rebuild it for you. So that is why that good relationship. And of course, the thinking, democratic thinking, western attitudes, that also was an important factor in Japan having good relationship with the United States. Yes, it depends on how much the Quad countries are going to embrace the Belt and Road Initiative. These three countries have not. Many of them have joined the Belt and Road Initiative, though India has not joined it. But neither Australia or Japan is deeply involved in that. So it has nothing to do with the Quad. That will go its own way now after the disaster in Sri Lanka. The credibility of the Belt and Road Initiative has already suffered a blow. So many countries are now withdrawing from the Belt and Road Initiative. So I don't think it will have an impact on any part of the country. Because after the Second World War, the relationship between the two countries transformed so much. And in the rebuilding of Japan, they played a big role. And then they became part of the Western Alliance. And the only difference of opinion they used to have occasionally was economic differences. Like Japanese cars were very popular in the United States. And at one point, they felt that Japan was in fact, you know, destroying the automobile industry in the United States. I remember such reports when I was in the US. But other than that, there have not been any differences. In fact, the Japanese foreign policy was US foreign policy. And that is why India did not figure importantly in that policy. So this change in the relationship is very significant. And it became part of the Western Alliance in spite of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Well, several things we can think of. What I mentioned are about four things. One about his nationalism, how it affected his policies. And that may come in any kind of form, as statements in the Prelims Examination. Then his nuclear policy, then Abenomics, and Quad. So these are the main positions. So questions like who was responsible for Quad and whether his demise has caused an indifference to it. And then of course, the main examination you can always have questions about the impact of his foreign policy on Japan and the world. That could be a very serious topic. Even in your essay paper, we get a question on Japan and its lasting influence because of Mr. Abe. Well, reaction of Mr. Abe regarding Russia Ukraine, she was very clear. He was with NATO, with the United States and very strongly opposed to Russia. There was no question about it. Well, it is not just a hearing. It's a matter of fact because the girls are Muslims and they are treated as terrorists and they are oppressed and suppressed. And the girls are active outside the country. And they have lots of friends in the United States and other countries. And one of the main questions that the United States raises with China every time is the real question as a very serious human rights issue. Because the Chinese have been denying this, but there is very clear evidence that they have been in that area where the girls live. They have treated the three of them, placed badly. People have been humiliated. People have been badly treated. It's all well known. And the weird moment is quite active in publicizing this. So it's not just a matter of hearing, but there is a serious issue of genocide and human rights violations in the real country. Well, there are people who believe in that. But Japan has a very different image at this time. And therefore it is not likely to be pursued. So even after he visited the Yasukini shrine, which many people thought was offensive, there was no action was taken against them. People accepted it. So this whole idea of war crimes, you know that it was the Indian judge, Judge Pal. He was the one who wrote a dissenting judgment on war crimes. And he is highly respected in Japan. And one of the reasons for his close relationship with India was the dissenting note by the Indian judge that the Japanese were not law criminals. So things have changed. Even the reference to enemy country in the UN Charter, nobody takes it seriously. It is just, shall we say, a kind of outdated idea. Japan now is the second largest contributor to the United Nations and also supports so many developing countries around the world. So Japan will never face any such accusations, yes, in such action from any organization, not in the least from the United Nations. There were two or three amendments which he pushed through to enable Japan to have a former defense force, for example. And also all these constraints put on the development of a modern army, navy and air force in Japan. These were passed, but the criticism was so severe that it had to be postponed. Now, but within the, for example, if you cannot sell guns or bombs to other countries, you can sell other goods which are used for the army, which is done. And he has developed nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. And all these could be considered against the Constitution. But the Constitution has been interpreted flexibly in this and it's quite possible that this Article 9 would be abolished sooner or later. Because when Japan is wanting to be a permanent member of the Security Council, we cannot come there with all these handicaps. Yes, it is a treaty which has been signed. It is for cooperation in peaceful practices. But we can buy material because earlier, since we have not signed the NPT, the Nuclear Suppliers Group of which Japan was a member could not have supplied anything to us. This was after our first experiment in 1974. In fact, the Nuclear Suppliers Group was set up in order to prevent India getting any nuclear capability. So once that was signed, and it was agreed that India, even though it has not signed the NPT, it is against non-proliferation and it is against any kind of nuclear weapons. And it was willing to give up its own nuclear weapons if the others gave up. So these all gave Japan a good reason for to sign that agreement. And presumably it is working well. Well, obviously, if you take the two cultures, there are many things that we can learn from each other. The most interesting part that I have seen in Japan is the discipline that we do not have. And that discipline has given them a hierarchical structure in the society. Because we also respect elders, we take care of them, etc., but not in the western world. Western world, you have a Mother's Day or a Father's Day or a Christmas Day when you think about your parents or others. But here, the essence of Japanese religion is worship of your predecessors, of people, of human beings who have lived in the past. So they do in fact worship predecessors. And that system continues even today. And something that has helped their industry is the fact that the companies, when you join a company, you become a part of the Mitsubishi or any other Sony or whatever company he joins, you join, you carry on growing inside that company. People don't leave, there is no higher and fire system. And it will be surprising, I have seen that a young man gets married, is working in a factory. The one who presides over the marriage is not his father, but the head of the factory. And all the expenses are also met by the factory. So that kind of relationship and the hierarchy, if a person is just one step or two steps above you, he is treated with great respect. Not only I like our system, we feel that it is his good luck that he is senior to you by mad luck, I am not an junior to him. And therefore, you do not give them the kind of respect that they get in Japan. And that enables them to work effectively. In the economic field and discipline plus the hierarchical structure, which they respect. From India, I suppose they can learn more about being very informal, expressive of your affection, be more relaxed in the society. Because these are probably things they would like to learn from us. But when you compare the success of those two societies, I suppose they must be more proud of their own societies rather than ours. But they do respect the freedoms in India and the relaxed relationship between families. I lived in a compound of a big Japanese family and they could see the kind of way they interact with each other. And that's very surprising, we don't have that system here and everybody is disciplined. The children are very, very disciplined. So you don't see any kind of conflict within the family. That's something very significant. And this is nothing to do with Japan. This is a new phenomenon that we are facing as to how you control Facebook and Twitter from stigmatizing people in the country or acting against the interests of the country or making other people guilty of various things. And then they hold up the, they do these things consciously, they take people out of Twitter handles like they did for President Trump. And these are all very hard decisions that they take. And within India also, even their offices, sometimes they are withdrawn rather than they are taking steps to resolve India's sovereignty question. But we have managed it quite well. We have not allowed our sovereignty to be threatened by this. But there have been some, some, what shall we say, conflict of interest between Indian government and Twitter and Facebook. But there is a compromise. There is a, both, everyone uses it and nobody wants to forget Facebook and Twitter. I think I'm the largest subscribers in India and that benefits a lot of people in India and it's a lot of business. And so we would not take a very serious action against them. We have developed a relationship of a give and take with these companies. Now of course, Twitter we do not know. If it is not purchased, then there will be a case and I don't know where it will go. And that's a matter to be seen also. But we have a working relationship with these big technology giants. For a healthcare system, ours is not, I would not call it less efficient than Japanese. The Japanese system is basically American system. But they have several traditional medicines also in the Japanese system. And there are some health practices which are extremely good because they eat sea beets. It's supposed to be very good for them. They eat fish rather than meat. They don't eat meat. Kobe beef, you must have all heard about. The best beef in the world is supposed to be in Japan. But they eat more seafood and that is healthy. You don't find obese Japanese. I've never seen one. Of course, the sumo wrestlers are fattened deliberately. They must have seen those beef. But they are very different. But in the ordinary Japanese, even including the sumo wrestlers' wives are very slim and tender. So there's a healthcare system, western medical systems as good as in the United States. But nothing exceptional. But their healthcare system in a more traditional manner and their food habits, I think we have a lot to learn from them. That is a global phenomenon. I don't think they're in a recession. But we do not know, depending on how long the war in Ukraine remains, there will be very serious economic problems around the world. And Japan also cannot escape from that. So at the moment, I don't know the figures etc. But at the moment, the economic indicators in Japan are not disturbing. And they are not directly tied with this business with Russia, about oil and coal and so on. So I don't know whether this war would affect them very seriously. But if there is any current setbacks in the Japanese economy, it will be basically because it is a global phenomenon. No, I don't think they will go to a militaristic record anymore. And that they will be allowed also. But what Mr Abe was trying to do was simply to make it a normal country. Why should Japan be having conditions which other countries do not have? So they should have a proper military, they should have proper weapons, they should have the capability to fight if anybody fights against them. So they're not talking about the militaristic kind of things which were known at the time of the Second World War. Japanese were considered very cruel in spite of their being very polite and friendly. It was a contradiction. And that is why the Americans insisted that the constitution should have such provision. Even with that, there have been violence of various kinds against the reforms. So I don't think there would be a big swing. This constitution may be amended, but that would not make Japan militaristic. It may make Japan military more strong. Thank you very much.