 Hello everyone. Welcome to another international relations capsule for the Shankar IAS Academy. I'm speaking once again from New York on a bright May morning and the time is 8 a.m. I thought it would be appropriate to speak today about India-US relations as I am speaking with various people in the United States to see how they look at the relationship at this time. It appears to me that there is a reevaluation of India's utility for the United States in some of the recent writings by commentators who have been friendly to India. The situation is tense in the United States because of the problems in the economy, fear of inflation and also the war looming large without any change in the situation. So the United States, it appears, has started looking at its friends, neighbors to see how much these countries will be useful to the United States in case of a conflict with China. Of course, a conflict with China is possible and likely in different contexts, particularly if Taiwan is attacked by the Chinese. But so far it has been theoretical, but now it appears that in the American calculations, they are thinking of a confrontation and looking for friends who might help them at the time of a crisis with China if it happens. The significant article appeared in the Foreign Affairs magazine by Ashley Tellis, who is a distinguished scholar of Indian origin, but always been friendly with India and who had been stressing the mutuality of the relationship between the two countries. But with a shocking title, he has written this article in the Foreign Affairs magazine with America's bad bet on India and subheading New Delhi-owned side with Washington against Beijing. Is this a new discovery? Is it something they have not realized in the past? Were they expecting India to fight for the United States if there is a conflict with China? These are the questions. But to understand the questions, we need to look at the development of India-U.S. relations itself, like ourselves in the past. India-U.S. relations were not built in a day. It is not that when India became independent and became a Democratic Republic, the United States embraced it, far from it. Since India decided on a non-aligned foreign policy, the United States declared that if you are not with us, you are against us. And two factors at that time were causing concern to the United States. One was the championship of China that India has been promoting in the United Nations to bring China, Republic of China, People's Republic of China back into the United Nations as Taiwan was occupying the permanent seat in the Security Council. India was very enthusiastic about it and it championed China's People's Republic of China, the Communist China replacing Taiwan on the Security Council. This did not please them, and that was one concern. The second concern was the increasing cooperation between India and the Soviet Union. For these two reasons, though India and the United States had many complementarities, I think as democracies with basic fundamental freedoms, etc., common with values. So we should have been a natural ally of the United States, but that did not happen. And during the Cold War, the United States tended to treat India as a damn follower of the Soviet Union. So this did not result in any major improvement in the relations between the two countries, even though the usual exchanges, there were instances of India-U.S. cooperation like the Attempt for Peace Program under which we got some expertise on nuclear technology for peaceful purposes from the United States. The PL-480 program by which wheat was shipped to India, because we were insufficient in food grains. In 1962, when Chinese aggression took place, the United States was willing to ship arms to India to meet the threat. And if the Chinese had not withdrawn unconditionally, the U.S. would have gotten involved in some way or the other. But in spite of all this, there was a natural suspicion. And when the Cold War ended, it was India which took the initiative to build bridges with the United States. Because when the unipolar world emerged, the United States being the only major power in the world, like many other countries, India also decided to cultivate the United States. And several things that we did soon after the end of the Cold War like the liberalization of the Indian economy. It attracted the United States to India. We established an embassy in Tel Aviv in Israel, which was a major step to come closer to the United States. And various other things on our policy on the Indian Ocean, we made it more liberal. We started having cooperation in military matters. And so the relationship improved after the end of the Cold War. But at every step, it was conditional. It was not that India was embraced by the United States as a democratic country. But by choice, like after due examination, India and the United States got together in very many ways. And the last two decades, this has improved considerably into a strategic partnership. In this, there are several aspects to India-U.S. collections apart from the commercial and economic activities. Politically also, India became closer to the United States because of its concerns in the Indo-Pacific. And the United States itself took measures to bring India closer to it as a kind of counter to China, but not specifically. But in India's interest, their interest coincided or fear for a Chinese expansionism. And then it moved to the Quad. Even before the Quad, during Prime Minister Narasimha Rao's visit in 1994 to the United States, several agreements were reached. And also we played down the issue of the NPT, because we did not sign the NPT, but our rhetoric was slowed down. We had a fairly good relationship. And this has continued. And today we can say that India is a defense partner of the United States. And we have many interests. The nuclear deal, which was signed in 2008, opened a new era of cooperation in nuclear areas. And therefore, there is a certain mutuality in India-U.S. relations and also there is consensus among the political parties in the United States in favor of better relations with India. During the crisis in Ladakh, the President of the United States, President Donald Trump openly supported India. Not that it was going to send troops or anything, but to express political support to India and also supply various weapons, etc., which were necessary for us to strengthen our defense. We do not expect the United States to intervene in a conflict with China if it arises. But we believe that the United States will have a friendly posture. So it is in this situation that the Ukraine war broke out. And India's position on it, with who it was naturally because of our long relationship with the Soviet Union and now Russia, United States found India in a minority of countries, which did not confront Russia on this issue, did not condemn it, but sought to end the war through peaceful means and negotiations. This did not suit the American perception. And therefore, they started, particularly the European Union and NATO countries, etc., started criticizing India for its position rather severely. But we start to that position that we want peace, but we are not going to condemn Russia or any other country for that matter. And similar reactions have come from very few countries, but generally the international community lined up against Russia. So this is probably the reason why there seems to be some kind of a re-examination of India's utility. So the main, this is of course a private article written by a scholar. There's nothing to do with government policy. But in the United States, such writings do influence government policy and sometimes they may even reflect the government policy on these matters. So the main point that he has made is that Washington's current expectations of India are misplaced. This is rather revealing because we had never believed that the United States was depending on India to counter China. Basically, because we have a long border, United States does not have a border with China. And therefore, and we have a volatile border where there have been problems over the years in spite of our best efforts. And China has come in and gone out across the line of actual control and created difficulties for India. And various ways we are trying to resist it. But to believe that India's relationship with the United States would entail an Indian intervention in a conflict with the United States is something that we had not realized. So he says that India's significant weaknesses compared with China, the imbalance in security and its inescapable proximity to it, the common border, guarantee that New Delhi will never enroll itself in any confrontation with Beijing that does not directly threaten its own security. This should be common sense because India cannot identify itself with the Western Bloc and create intervention from there into our subcontinent into our borders. And therefore, we look at our relationship with the United States in the spirit of the common aspirations of the two countries to have a peaceful world. And the new world which emerges from the current situation will be democratic. And therefore, India's good relationship with the United States is important. But here, the fundamental problem according to Mr. Thales is that United States and India have divergent ambitions for the security partnership. Of course, we want to have good relations with all countries. We have problems with China and Pakistan and we would like to measure or shape our relationship to take care of peace in the region. And all our boost bolstering our economic situation and the military capabilities, it is to create a deterrent against China, not to threaten China with others or alone. So, we are balancing China independently, though we value the United States support in this respect on various occasions. So, the Biden administration's proceeded to expand its investment in India after Trump. So, he is asking that the policies on a realistic assessment of Indian strategy and not any delusions of New Delhi becoming a comrade in arms during some future crisis with Beijing. So, he goes on and on arguing various points. But the basic point that he is making is that we should not trust India to be a partner in a possible conflict. And this is a new conditionality or a new tendency to make this relationship transactional. But the thing to remember is that it has been transactional. India-U.S. relations developed because of identification of mutual interests. And it is on that basis that we see it. But what the United States thinkers and intellectuals are doing in this context is to question the democratic situation in India. They believe that there has been an erosion of democracy in India. And we know that some institutions in the United States have said that India is only 50% democracy because of the policies of the present government. They do not seem to appreciate the kind of development that has taken place. And the general peace that has prevailed without any communal conflicts, etc. But they believe that there is an erosion of democratic values in India. And that comes again and again in the western world. And this particular position that they are taking, that our investments in United States investments in India will not translate into specific benefits for it is something which would cause suspicion about India's activities together with the United States. It is being pointed out that India and United States have come close in defense ties. And we all know that part of the reason for it is the massive imports of weapons from the United States. In fact, when President Trump took over, he placed a major order for weapons which pleased him and facilitated a good visit for Prime Minister Modi to Washington. So it is not out of any sentiment or any kind of expectation that India would pay back in kind that this relationship was built up. We supported the Quad, though we do not accept it as a military alliance. But as a dialogue, we have accepted it. We have cooperated with the Quad in various ways. But we have stopped short of treating it as a military alliance. And this is natural because India's foreign policy has always been based on what was non-alignment in the past and now what is called strategic autonomy. This means that we judge issues on the basis of merits and make judgments on the basis of our own wisdom and our own understanding of our requirements. So it is surprising that the United States intellectuals or strategists are now thinking in terms of India's relationship with the United States through the prism of US-China relations. They do not seem to recognize that India's good relationship with the United States is good for it in so many ways. It is that relationship which gives them a global reach. India is now the most popular country in the world. They are making progress. They are benefiting from trade with India. And all these factors should be taken into consideration and not an arithmetic kind of calculation as to whether India would support the United States in a conflict. So our policies are designed on the basis of our own interests as we see them and it is mutuality that brings India and the United States together. So our perspective seems to differ from the perspective which is being suggested by someone who has been a friend of India in the past. Of course, there is nothing has happened in terms of policy. The government is not saying any of these things. But we have to take note of it that India-US relations, the Americans seem to think that there is a defense dimension to it. Our cooperation is to build a deterrent. When India has been in difficulties with Pakistan or any other country, United States has not really come in full support of it and they have been watching. But India's relationship with China and its resistance to China should also be a strengthening factor for the United States security in the world. So rather than focusing on a question as to whether India would support United States in the event of a conflict in China, they should be seeing a relationship in terms of the support that India gives to the United States in containing China to such an extent, getting ability to counter its economic intrusion into India and also to create some balancing. It is true that China and India are not balanced in their military capabilities. So a war is not what we are thinking about and the Russia-China relationship has also probably caused some concern in the United States. So in the new world that is emerging, we look in terms of a multipolar world with various countries exerting a peaceful influence on the world. While the United States, because of the circumstances of the war and the continuing threat from China, seems to be looking at their relationships from the prism of its utility for the United States in future. President Biden has been more reticent about India-China relations because he himself has not developed a particular position with China. Before he came to that, he got entangled in the Ukraine war and therefore there has not been a very, what shall we say, definite policy on China which has been announced. But he has been friendly to India. He, during the vaccine situation, he was very grateful for what India did and also for the support that the United States got from the health workers, the warriors against COVID in the United States. Many Indians sacrificed their lives for that country. And also the intellectual benefit that India gets, the United States get from the Indian diaspora. The technological development of the United States itself has been partly because of the Indian technocrats who migrated to the United States. So such a comprehensive relationship should not be seen in the context of a possible conflict. So let's hope that a possible conflict will not happen. But when there is war, you never know how things go because it is said that everything is fair in love and war. So the dynamics of war are different. But to think in terms of saying that the investment that United States has made in India is misplaced is a rather unfortunate conclusion. I'm sure this will be discussed further in the future and there will be a more realistic assessment of India-U.S. relations. One other commentary which appeared slightly in a different context is from Farid Zakaria, another Indian origin intellectual whose views are highly respected. He recently came to India and has been writing since then on what he saw in India. Generally positive, what he says is that Indian economy is surging thanks to three revolutions. Because the beginning itself is very interesting. Visiting India this week, I was struck by how different the mood there is compared with much of the world. While people in the United States and Europe are worried about inflation and possible recession, Indians are excited about the future. India now is the most populous country on the planet and is projected to be the fastest growing large economy as well at 5.9% this year. As Prime Minister Narendra Modi said recently, India's time has arrived. So it's very positive, objective and he outlines the kind of things. There are three things that made a big difference in India. One is the Aadhar card, which has enabled the great biggest big population of India is able to manage their things better. Then the Geo telecommunications somebody which has made telecommunications particularly mobile technology accessible to people. And the third is the development of infrastructure. So the first two are also supported by the government. But that's government activity. He speaks only in terms of the infrastructure. There are many other revolutions taken place in India. These three things he has identified and they are true. These things have really changed India in very many ways. But he makes two negative points. One is that he says that this enthusiasm and excitement in India is not new. He says this seems to be a repeat of what happened in 2006-2007 when India was rising or even before that. There was an impression that India was rising and we had a very high growth rate and he claims that an Indian minister told him that India would overtake China in a short time. And he says that these impressions where they turned out to be not based on reality and India was lacking in progress during this period and it is now that it has resurrected again. So he does not believe that the enthusiasm and excitement he saw in India may be permanent or may be difficulties etc. That is one point he makes. So while he is excited about India, what he is going to do at the same time because of the past experience he thinks that things may go wrong at any particular time. And as far as the criticism is concerned, Farid Zakaria talks about two needs for India at this moment. That is inclusivity. That is the same criticism that other people have been making about India. One is non-inclusivity of women in development. This is partly true because we still have not integrated women in all activities of the country. There are still discrimination and inequality for women. And the second concern that he expresses is non-inclusivity of minorities. He sings the same song about India, the discriminatory about communities not being secular and several instances of legislation are being pointed out. So subject to these two, he believes that India is definitely moving forward and he gives the credit to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Well I decided to bring these two major commentaries to your attention because in any analysis of the India-US relationship we have to take these into account. So the first point I am making is that India has relations where we are not natural allies. We should have been, but we were not. And India has relations that have progressed and developed this day because the transactional way in which both of us re-extended our friendship to the United States. Because of our own interests, US responded to them because of their own interests and we have never been thinking in terms of a military relationship or alliance. And that they have to accept India's context. Our strategic autonomy is very relevant for India and very important. It's also necessary for our security because we do not want anyone else to interfere in the situation in India or on the India-China border. We do seek military support and we buy rather than receive gifts in terms of getting our capability. Even our nuclear capability as a deterrent to China is helpful to the United States. And therefore India should not be judged on the basis of an assessment as to whether India would side with the United States and conflict with China. Thank you very much.