 Mr. Narendra Modi took over as the Prime Minister of India 11 days short of 50 years after the passing away of late Prime Minister Jabha Har Lal Nehru on 27th May 1964. So it has a certain symbolic meaning. Before I go into the question that you have posed, let me say that as is correct for Prime Ministers, he had a presentation and an interaction with one of India's most reputed authors, thinkers, strategic thinkers and that interaction if it is on record would have been nearly 2 hours in which this professor based in Delhi gave him a complete comprehensive all round picture of global, regional and India national security issues, challenges, opportunities, vis-a-vis resource base and what ought to be done or what he recommended to the incoming Prime Minister, that is military, strategy, planning, modernization of the armed forces, restructuring of the armed forces with reference also to the state of morale and the state of combat readiness which is related to morale and well-being of the soldier, Shaila in Yemen. And this was a briefing which in my view I have heard some excerpts of it was a briefing and interaction presentation which should have given the incoming Prime Minister or rather the Prime Minister of India a very good picture of what is, what are the problems, what are the challenges and what he might consider in the course. It was not really concentrated in the area of nuclear matters or nuclear posture but away from that. Now as you know a new team took over which was his choice, advisors and aides and they began functioning in a very different way that what might have been suggested to him by the person I referred to. That is because they had their own agenda, they had their own understanding of or rather own worldview which in my view of course was not related to reality but to dreams, to aspirations and they also had a mission of making India a great power with a nationalist focus. Now it is very simple. They took a path but nationalism or rather sovereignty of the nation or sovereignty of India is actually what gives us the focus on nationalism. You cannot have nationalism unless you look at how sovereign India was at that moment, how all your decision, all your planning, all your program, all that you did here in after would actually erode sovereignty, not restore it, not strengthen it. Nevertheless we arrived into 2014, your question might suggest as if there was a new beginning, a departure from the old policy of the last 20 years, minimum 22 years and something new was on the anvil but it was not so. It was not a sudden departure from what had been built up what I call 1991 which is the kind of political and economic surrender forced on this country and accepted by the then government of conditionalities of the World Bank and IMF which is a very well known process of surrender of sovereignty with respect to decision making independent path of development or autonomous path of development but strangely coincidentally this was also happening so far as Russia was Soviet Union and its successor state Russia which happened in a kind of a stealth coup against the then Soviet Union. Most people call it collapse, it was not a collapse at all, it was a political surrender by the people, by Gorbachev and by Yeltsin. A similar process it might surprise you was also taking place in China but I said a similar process. The Chicago school and its ideas on how to run a political economy were predominant according to some authors and some reports in Beijing also but China it must be said today credit restored its sovereignty and I would say that it is one of the two fully sovereign nations though it has got intimate relations with the capitalist world. A similar process took place after 10 years in successor state Russia and President Putin in particular must be given a credit for restoring his sovereignty of Russia and the Russian people. He has gone on record both at Munich in 2007 and now to say that most of the countries of the world or many of the countries of the world have lost their sovereignty in one degree or the other and not Russia, Russia impacted the foremost sovereign state so far the world is concerned. So there is a background and this background the most happening thing happened, most happening thing happened in 2005. There were many other steps of proceeding that, agreement on agriculture, reduction of tariffs or loading of tariffs that was separate but I would say that the matrix of the 2005 Indo-U.S. defense framework agreement was really the turning point so far as defense, maritime policy and all other matters related to national security at that time because in this one document with the then defense minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee signed in Washington D.C. is everything because it is a matrix that is from within it has very large implications on all that followed and is continuing. So what happened? When I asked the defense minister Mr Mukherjee told parliament and his friends in parliament, the members of parliament that I am simply going for talks and discussions because there has been routine between any two countries particularly they then loaned superpower of the world and taken for granted but he came back with a matrix as I said with the defense framework agreement which had a tremendous effect on the policies as they existed not only in the Nero era but Indira Gandhi era, Rajiv Gandhi era and so on. So what was that? What was it? When either we did not read the text and subtext and causes and sub-causes of the defense framework agreement or that the meaning that was on paper in the document, the plain reading of the document had inbuilt into a matrix as I said which led to then a free for all. It meant the opening of all doors as far as the south block and north block was concerned. Even though there is a historical process, there is an institutional memory of the ministry of external affairs and there must have been at least a few good people who tried to remind the government of the day what this comprised of. What was our cat record? What was our experience? What was our experience of bilateral relations with other nations particularly United States being the most powerful then nation. So there it was. In the interim while Limoa talk about bases in India, facilitating bases, servicing bases, technical bases for technical stops of flights and maintenance etc. were going on Limoa, Bika, Sismoa and they have graduated in Malabar exercises becoming larger, having more participation. Top of interoperability between the US state and the Indian Navy in particular. What was it leading to if you recall? Iran was the hotspot. Everything was centered around some invasions, some attacks, some denuclearization of Iran. So the old concept thanks to the people in the media and thanks to the spin doctors and thanks to the think tanks in Delhi. Carnegie and Brookings are new phenomena. They started playing around with these words and suggesting it is only thanks to the much criticized defense minister Anthony that he realizing the thing was sliding too fast on a very slippery slope that he tried to slow down that process. So he deserves some credit for that even though names are not important names are not very important because UPA 2 and UPA 1 were in fact complicit in the whole program. They thought that the world has changed. They thought the United States as a known superpower. They bought the whole idea of project for the new American century. The hegemony of US world-wide influence. For them nothing happened. Neither 2001 attack and invasion or occupation of Afghanistan where there are only 300-400 kilometers from Delhi. Nothing happened. We have in fact offered them basis, a basis, the three chiefs made a statement that they will offer Pathankot, Avantipur and one more air station for the Americans armed forces to operate against Afghanistan. But thank God that this Americans chose Pakistan rather than India as the logistics of our post. There is a whole history and that's why I am mentioning it. So and then we come to this 2005. Then we come to the 2008 Indo-US civil nuclear agreement. And then we come to all this Malabar exercises. We start talking about US because US bulwark. Everything that emanates from Washington DC with a particular reference to the Pentagon became bulwarks. And we had a new term gifted to the Indian Navy, shall I say, through the government, through the Indian Navy, called next security provider. From when did the Indian Navy become a next security provider? Because it has still got, even though it has made progress and good progress in the line and production of ships. We haven't got enough. We haven't got speed. We haven't got financial resources, technical resources, design resources to become a next security provider in this whole Indian Ocean region. And then followed several other solutions. For example, Asia Pacific to Indo-Pacific. Why? Because we have Indian Ocean which is named after us. So what do you want to know? What do you want to play around with the Pacific now for? Certainly not as a partner for the ultimate containment of China. I'll come back to that. Then South China Sea, we started raising objections not on behalf of any country, but on behalf of ourselves on certain seditions from the same quarters about the South China Sea. While in the meantime, Asia, Asia and Southeast Asia diplomacy with China has been so good and so progressive that almost all countries have got bilateral agreements now with China, including Vietnam. The same, and I quote, under new deep conditions with China, new deepening of relations with China, that is the Vietnam-China communique of last year. So as I said, expeditionary forces. This is a colonial imperialist term. And against Iran, which is our neighbor, which had energy. It's a real energy reserve for India. The Indian, sorry, the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, gas pipeline was cut. And the direct pressure, the direct threats from the US Congress and the US Senate, similar to what is now being bandied around the world, oil imports from Iran. Iran is our own neighbor. In fact, the Indo-Persian period in Indian history stands for all the beautiful, all the amazing cooperation and relations that have existed for thousands of years between Persia, Iran and India with its architecture, with its language itself of the government and the people. So why are we now, why is it now that we are suggesting that Malabar translates into an expeditionary force in waiting, in being of the naval terminology, an expeditionary force joined the US, India, UK, Australia. It's unexplicable because the entire geopolitical changes, the geoeconomic changes, the financial changes which peaked in 2008 with the crisis and its aftermath, the rise of Russia militarily as well as technology as well as industry. And the, if I may say, the very rapid rise of China, particularly after 2010-2012, when on the one hand China was embraced with the United States as far as financial trade and commercial matters which are now industry, and on the other hand, it was rising. And when you say rising, it means China becomes the hour to reckon with. And most of all, it is Washington DC that realizes the strengths of China. In our country, the new team, the new team of advisors and of course the new government, seem either to know and turn themselves blind, turn a blind eye to it, or not to know. You can choose any of those options. But the fact is that all this is in the open. All the figures are in the open, all the indices are in the open. How does New Delhi's vast establishment just ignore that the world is changing, not only changing? I am talking about the period around 2007-2014, the preceding period of the Modi administration. Because it is all out, other than the West are realizing it, they are appreciating it, they are constantly shifting around and we see tectonic changes. I use the word tectonic changes, the movement of tectonic plates, if you like to call it true. And this is ignored. And not why? The question is why? Why? Some people have suggested, well, it's because Delhi establishment, ruling establishment, if you like to call it, whether it was UPA-1, UPA-2, earlier, now, had a pro-West and it's particularly pro-West bias and the prejudice against Asia. In spite of the top of Asian unity, in spite of the historical experience, in spite of India's struggle for freedom, which embodied that basic needs of the people and the basic interests of India will reign supreme so far as foreign policy is concerned. And foreign policy is really a coin, it is two sides of the same coin. Foreign policy, military stroke, maritime policy, maritime policy does not exist in the background. It is the other side of the coin of foreign policy. Foreign policy itself should be and must be at war based on the strengths and weaknesses of the Indian economy, political economy, as well as the aspirations to be developed so that we can look after the basic needs of 1,300 million people. It is not Australia. It is not Austria. It is not Saudi Arabia. India is India. India is a totally different nation. It's a totally different people. It's got totally different requirements. Nobody in India cannot catch the little finger of a giant or a superpower because that little finger will cut off by sheer weight, sheer magnitude. So it's a very strange situation. Others have said that the non-religious Indians about which you have read so many, they'll be given voting rights, they come every year, people go and speak, leaders go and speak to them in special medicine square and so on and so forth. Are they influencing policy? Are they influencing our maritime policy, military policy, strategic policy, foreign policy? Have they become too good exercise, too much leverage? Not only now, even before, but much more particularly now. That's a question mark. I will not unsay if it is for brewers to take a view on that, but another factor is a factor. The fact is that, as I said to sum up what I said in the minutes before, it shows, the whole position now shows the complete ignorance of history, a complete history, ignorance or disregard for colonial and imperial history in Asia, in Africa, everywhere, Latin America, what they did, what they experienced, how much they looted our sources, how Britain became an industrial power in India, all that is history and so did China, so the China oppressed and looted. And sometimes with people from India being in the army, in Shanghai and so forth, that is history. So it's a very strange phenomenon, on the one hand the establishment which has got so many resources, media resources, intelligence agency resources, foreign diplomatic, foreign services sources is going around blindly according to me and really not only blindly but into a blind ally, is going to a good disaster because where we've landed up is a dangerous abyss because of the sheer number of people involved here whose freedom, who progress, who basically are involved. So maritime policy started turning and twisting in a very strange way and I think you refer to bases. Now I again quote Jawaharlal Nehru in his famous statement on India, how India should develop its maritime strength. He said India, a peninsula country, lies in the very lab of the oceans and this plaque and this thing is also engraved at the entrance of the National Defence College in New Delhi. It is known to every foreign service officer because that's a part of his training. It should be known to the administrative services, to the military services, in their cradles, whether at Khadakwasla or whether at Masuri or whether at Hyderabad, all these things are part of their syllabi, training syllabi. They must be versed in what are they going to defend, what are they going to protect, what are they going to administer, what is it that they are going to do so far as international relations are concerned. But it seems to be lost where at least people chose not to bring it to the notice of it is their duty, it is their duty to bring it to the notice of the Prime Minister himself and the cabinet because in particular in the military chiefs are not supposed to be yes sir, yes minister types. They have a position as per the Parliamentary Acts, Navy, Army, Air Force, Acts and Regulations. So they are not supposed to act the days. They are supposed to tell what is possible, what is not possible, what is expedient, what is temporary, what is transient. We make a difference between substantive and transient. But to hold up, parrot this whole line with the buzz words that come from Washington as I said. And to go around talking about what I said they are talking about. To actually physically support the idea of the containment of China, which is not possible. And the Americans know it. It was also a policy which was used against the Soviet Union. Crafted by George Kenan, the US ambassador to Moscow for 20 years. But he was a knowledgeable person. So this containment of China is really the bandwagon. The Indo-Pacific thing. Indo-Pacific thing after, it's visible to all that Obama, President Obama, pivot to Asia and tatterless and shambles. The TPP is, the US has withdrawn from the TPP. So how is it that India, which itself was promised to ask is to strengthen the country. In fact, at least 7.5 is subscribing. Maybe modified in the last few months to pivot to Asia. Before that the US, security, architecture for Asia. After that what you said. It is not possible. It is not possible to understand. Because you are, God has given you, destiny has given you. India a unique position. It is a peninsular country. It has Andaman and Nikumar Islands, which actually the British imperial policy was to not transfer them to India in 1947. Indira Point, which is called Nikumar in 90 miles from the western entrance of Malacca Strait. 90 miles, it's there. It is standing there, geographically it's standing there. So, and you got luxury, below that, Mulder. But luxury, it has the 6 and 8 degree north channel, which is the concentration of the sea line of communication, especially for oil tankers and energy traffic, LPG and so on and so forth. So you got these things. You got looking out for bases in seychelles or in Mulder. In Malacca we have got traditional historical relations, which are very strong. That's there. We've been there for years and we have very good relations. They're all round with Malacca. With East Africa we have reasonable relations. With South Africa we've got good relations. With the Gulf of Aden, traditionally it's been the gateway to the east. It's a choke point where traffic concentrates after the Swiss canals, South Africa. And you've got the Persian Gulf. A friendly Persian Gulf, whether Iran or the Gulf states, or Iraq, etc., Syria. Is a sine qua non of the concept of strategic frontiers, which is integral to both the foreign policy people that the MEA and to the defence establishment and especially to the navy. This is not a new concept. We have to make these strategic frontiers both in the west, south, east, more robust, more stable, closer to us, economic trade, even military, if you want to call it. Pre-interaction, normal interaction between the navy, which they've been doing. In fact there was an Indian Ocean Literal States Conference in 2008 in there. They convened largely at the initiative of the navy. So happy for Butters, for he is ten years you forget, or shall we say six years you forget. What you have discussed, what you have passed, that is the real strength of the country. Its geographical position, its maritime tradition, its indigenous navy, building and design and building base, including a nuclear second strike component. These are the strengths. We don't have to look around. We are not a small country. We are not Australia, which is underpopulated. We are not Saudi Arabia. One of the great experts, regarded as great experts in India, K. Sugam Neman, whose son was also a Gashankar, the foreign secretary, said, the Saudis build a security relationship with the US, when they acquire and buy arms, billions of dollars. The second, third largest importer of arms in the world. And why should we not build it? He said it in writing in a document which he submitted to the Vajpayee government of strategic path ahead, 2020, 2002. Now, it didn't make sense. It's already not making sense. Because I think, from the recent moves within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whether it's to Moscow and Sochi, frequent meetings with President Putin and make up kind of relations with China, post-Daklam, we seem to have realized that we have a reapplication or a review of the situation, that these things from far away shores is not what is required to strengthen the security, not what is required to be a part of the maritime policy. It is not required to be the cannon fodder as we were in the 19th century. I told you about Shanghai, I told you about so many countries, Middle East, thereafter, everywhere, it's a well-known story. But take me quietly, by data, strengthen our science and technology base, strengthen our industrial base, strengthen our economic development, strengthen our people, nutrition, so on and so forth. The unity of India. The unity of India is necessarily the cornerstone or the foundation of Asian unity. Asia unity cannot be without Indian unity. Indian unity is fundamental. When you say unity, it doesn't mean the unity of the Finance Commission, State Finance Commission. It means the unity of all the people, and I repeat, all the people of India who are Indians in every sense of the term for thousands of years, for hundreds of years, thousands of years. They don't matter whether they belong, that's what the Constitution says, underlying that everyone is equal citizen with equal justice, with equal rights, with equal duties. So we have this question of the unity of India, foremost too, as the foundation for any defence policy, as the foundation for any maritime policy. Normally you would say, sailors and navies and ships and submarines don't mix around with the people, they do. They do more than one day like this. Across is the naval dockyard, 200-year route. There are great ships from US Navy, British Navy, everyone. The greatest ships of the world were built here by the Wadiah shipwriters. So the people are united, the people are united. They form the military, they give the money for the defence budget. The defence budget and navy army effort, well done falls from the sky. It is not dependent on the patronage of this group or that group, it may have certain influence, but it comes from the will of the people to sustain their armed forces, it is their armed forces. It is not the armed forces when you are here. I do want to touch upon the subject which is actually related to these questions that you ask, the ethos, the direction of the questions that you ask. Because without this narrative or what I say will not be complete. See, a lot of lip service is paid to developing human resources as a capital resource in the country and especially in the armed forces. The amount invested in training, the amount invested in constant US training and for the combat readiness, combat readiness of the armed forces is absolutely essential and a lot of it. But lately we see, unfortunately, that people who have no background, no training, no experience, no qualifications, of course common sense is above everything, don't need qualifications as such, don't have to be a VMA or an engineer, but have literally nothing in their background to suggest that either that they can interfere with the chain of command of the armed forces or that they can give orders and instructions to the armed forces, without understanding the basic ethos, the basic factors influencing morale and therefore the combat readiness because morale is too materialist, three is too one as an opening factor. How do they come and start giving instruction into training? From VINCE, from VINCE has this whole idea of national security advisor, I am not naming anybody because there is no need for names, the whole concept where they come from, okay the US president and the chief of staff, he has a national security council, he has a national security advisor, they have their own democracy, we have our own democracy, here parliament is in control, the cabinet form of government is responsible to the parliament and its select committee for the ultimate accountability in our form of government. The national security advisor is neither sanctioned by the constitution nor by the parliament, it has really no place, it has an advisory role, of course it has a secretary in the council, sometimes very capable people are there, but the point is that the national security advisor as an institution, as a sub-institution of the PMO cannot exercise command or suggestions of command or feelings of things which are connected to the chain of kanai or the army, navy, air force, so there is a basic problem that we are creating for ourselves, or we have created in the last 20 years, 20 years since the Vajpayee government had a national security advisor, no need for me to comment on a national security advisor, I am talking in terms of the relationships in the defence community. The second is that I do want to recall 1971 and the Bangladesh operations, because there have been invidious comments to say that the surgical strike carried out a few months ago is something comparable to Bangladesh, nothing compared to Bangladesh, it was if I may suggest a peaking of the professional capability of the Indian armed force, the peaking and excellent example of civil military operations, excellent, more than that, more than all these things, it is an outstanding world example of a war of movement, a war of independent strategic thought. I have tried to suggest that we have gone into a dependency syndrome, because if you allow others, no matter near or far, to influence, to control, to advise on your strategic thinking of what is possible, what should be done, what should not be done by this country, and then start depending on individual systems, which are really not strategic systems, also pay billions of dollars to them, billions of dollars, and think that you are somehow strengthening yourselves, it doesn't make sense to a person like me, it doesn't make sense to a lot of people, because the moment you allow others to think for you, it's gone, it's over, it's over. But there is a psychology of dependence, a psyche of dependence, an atmosphere of dependence, an environment of dependency, starting from the capital of India today, I will say just some regret and some knowledge. So first of all, foremost above everything, if you talk about maritime policy, yes, Indian policy, not suggested maritime policy, not because you've given up, you're not thinking, you're not like even, I mean all the senior military commanders are in my view somewhat to introspect, they're required to introspect and now say, where do we go, do you stop here, no more. Whatever we may have said and done is over, now we need to recollect, connect to the Indian people, connect to the basic political economy of this country, basic legitimate aspirations of self-reliance and defence of this vast subcontinent in vast India. Relative to others, they have no business to, nobody has a business to intervene or interfere or aggress or do doclams or any other thing which you wish to remember, the Kashmir, nobody, no foreign press have any place in Kashmir, Kashmir is our business, Kashmir is our people, Kashmir is our brothers and sisters and this question of Article 370, autonomy is completely bogus, it doesn't be like, even the United States has got states, they have the freedom of sensation, they have their own, they have their own law, they have their own supreme court, soldiers of the Soviet Union, soldiers of Russia, soldiers of China, every large country has to have a, and we have it in India, we have it in Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu problems, give or ask, we have the Nagaland, we have it in the northeast, we have it everywhere. So why are we sending our Kashmir to a dangerously, to a dangerous point, it's not related to maritime policy and yet it is, because are you saying that you are defending the oceans and the seas and the exclusive economic loans and that is Kashmir is somehow separate, Kashmir is an integral part of India. What happens is Kashmir is, there is a famous person who I respect said recently, if we can't save or be safe, if we can't ensure safety in Kashmir then how do we ensure safety in India? It is not a philosophical issue, it's a political issue and we cannot, because the whole of India, Kashmir's secularism was based on the, was predicated on the India being a secular country. I may have gone beyond your question, but they need, they need to be the country, because I mean there is no such thing in maritime, the admins can't say that we determine in maritime policy, the foreign service can't say we determine policy. No, we have gone through what determines a country's maritime policy. It's geopolitical position, it's penance to the character, all the factors that go, there's resources on the sea, it's trade, foreign trade, it's economic tense and weakness. They determine, the Navy needs one instrument of state policy. Let me be very clear, somebody tries to say that there is a priori right of some admiral or the other of some people in South block to determine maritime policy, they are mistaken. The least I can, the most polite thing I can say that they are genuinely mistaken and they need to rethink. So, in conclusion, I would just like to say one thing, that we may just be at the classy moment, 1757. We just passed 2017. Are we at the classy moment? Are the interplay of forces both internal and extended driving us to a classy moment, a dangerous moment? A dangerous moment is the central point of our discussion of our interaction this morning is sovereign. Sovereign, that is the national question. Nationalism is a part, you don't change nationalism, I'm a nationalist, I like the flag, I do this, I do that. Sovereign, political sovereignty, economic sovereignty so far is the allocation of resources and utilization of resources. The manner in which we develop, is it some privatised economy? Is it the economy of inequality or extreme inequality like the United States, India, where 0.1% of people have all these resources, 80% of those resources and 80%, 90% of people have nothing to look for, whether in education, health, housing, anything. All the rest is concentrated and then becoming more and more concentrated. Then what should you defend? What is the military supposed to defend? Is the military supposed to defend the 0.1%? Is it supposed to defend the 1%? It depends the whole of India. Whole of India, not natural borders and natural frontiers, whether at sea or oceans or whether on land or whether in the air. Or is it a matter which is of vital, key concern to all the people of India. Thank you so much.