 capsule for the Shastra of the Year's Academy. Today we will speak about one of the most significant personalities of the 20th century who just passed away. In fact, there were two important deaths, one of Q and Elizabeth and the second of Mr. Gorbachev, Mikhail Gorbachev. Both lived to a ripe old age between the age of 96 and Mikhail Gorbachev died at the age of 91. So both of them dominated the 20th century, like no other person has. And their departure marks the end of Anirai in the UK and also one in the end of Anirai in the Soviet Union and in the geopolitics of the world. So Mr. Gorbachev is certainly the most outstanding figure of the 20th century because the changes that he brought about were so fundamental and imaginable and thinkable at one time. If the things had moved the way he wanted, he would have been held as a leader who changed the world for the better because his ambition was to reform communism and to strengthen the Soviet Union and to liberate the people of the Soviet Union. That was his objective and that's what he tried for. But unfortunately his efforts were not welcomed by the people of the Soviet Union because they were so accustomed to the communist system and the changes that he tried to bring about were not acceptable to the majority of the people. Not that what he anticipated to do or what he expected to do would have been worse for the Soviet Union. It would have been better definitely and his intention was only to accelerate the changes in the Soviet Union to make it more liberal and make communism have a human face. But he was too much ahead of his times and therefore what he did did not work out the way he wanted and it resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Though the Cold War ended, it ended in favor of capitalism because the collapse of communism at that time was considered to be the success of capitalism. But we know that there were several forces that play at that particular time and things would have changed in any case even if Mr Gorbachev was not there. But his efforts to liberalize communism and to strengthen the Soviet Union failed and therefore he is now known as a tragic figure, not as a successful politician or a successful statesman. So the situation in the Soviet Union was quite bad even at the time of the end of the Brezhnev era. I was in Moscow in 1978 when I saw President Brezhnev in the Kremlin and it was quite visible that he was not there at all. He was too old to deal with the issues in front of him but he was continuing somehow and he was not even legible in his conversations and one felt that the time had come for a change. But it took six years after that to have a change in the Soviet leadership. There were other leaders, Andhropo was there and Chernyenko was there and these people had very short terms as president. But at that time Gorbachev was already a leader of Noot and he could have really taken over but it didn't happen till 1985 because the leadership, the existing leadership resisted any change. At the age of 54 Gorbachev was considered to be too young to take over. So but he rose gradually and slowly in the communist system. The lesson that one has to learn from reformers is when you reform something, if you change the fundamentals of the system that brought you there, then there is a danger of that change consuming the person who wanted to change. He has been compared to a person who sits on the top of a tree and cuts the branches on which he is sitting. He got onto the top of the tree because the tree is there and he is the product of the system. But if he cuts down the same tree with him sitting on it, obviously everybody knows that will be a disaster. That is really what happened. Reform should be slow and very steady and the framework of the old system should somehow be maintained and that's what exactly that Gorbachev tried to do. The system was horrible. I lived in the Soviet Union between 1974 and 77. We are used to a system of shortages and people running around looking for products and fancy for foreign goods and shortages and standing in line. So many difficulties were there. But then the impression in the world was the Soviet Union was very powerful, second most powerful country in the world and therefore the difficulties at that time were temporary and the Soviet Union will emerge as a big powerful nation in the world, that was the expectation. But the situation became worse and worse as the days passed by and poverty, shortage of food and confusion, chaotic situations in the factories, manufacturing was failing, the western civilization, the western world tried to weaken the Soviet Union further by taking measures that would not help the Soviet Union. The economy collapsed and the political system was in danger. All this was there when Mr Gorbachev took over as the general secretary of the party and then he became president only much later in 1919. But during this period all his effort was to somehow save the Soviet Union from itself as it were. So and the first thing he did was to introduce what he called Glasnost, that is openness and also perestroika which is restructuring. So these were the fundamental concepts that he tried to bring into the system, both contrary to fundamental belief of the communist system and the communist state because openness, Glasnost is openness. Openness is not part of the system, everything very secretive, what happens in the Politburo, what happens to you and the changes in the leadership were all very secret. People had to determine the importance of the people in power by looking at the photographs to see who is standing next to him, the rumors of people taking over, people losing power and it was all a big, shall we say chaotic kind of atmosphere. But at the same time because of its impression of its strength and the military might, it sustained itself over a period of time. But this was not going to happen, this had to change, there was no question about it. So what Mr. Gorbachev did was to basically become a catalyst for changes, not in the direction in which he wanted it to go because the system was already rotten in the sense of there was corruption, there was alcoholism and the system had become kind of hollow and brittle when it took over. So in a sense, one can say that perhaps Gorbachev did the right thing by bringing about things. On the other hand, he could have probably continued the same system and survived and Soviet Union may also have survived at that time. So that's the argument has to be laid out. But what he thought at that time was change was necessary. He's not supposed to have said, if not now, when are we going to change? And then he said, if it is not me, who? So he decided to take the bull by the horns and started dealing with the system. And he was very different from the classical political leaders of the Soviet Union. He was well educated. He had an educated wife who played a role in the policy making. And so he thought that he would be able to reform socialism through a very decisive and vigorous action program. And so what he wanted, even though he when he talked about closeness then perestroika means restructuring. So restructuring a society through openness was the challenge that he took over. So instead of becoming a part of the European world, he decided that he will compromise, not compromise, but certainly deal with the West on equal terms and try to bring about some concession. And he brought in some thought in the relationship with China. And with the West also he was more friendly. He had agreements relating to unnecessary buildup of arms, because arms limitation was an important objective for him because both the United States and the Soviet Union were amassing arms wealth and capacity to destroy the world several times over. So he decided to cut down the expenditure on arms by negotiating arms limitation. Because after all, why do we need so many arms and ammunition and missiles and so on? It could be reduced. He did that. He withdrew troops from Afghanistan very early, not because entirely, but he thought that that would be important. And so the Soviet Union had already bogged down in Afghanistan since 1979. So troops withdrawal, more improved relations with China, their negotiations with the Western power and reduction of nuclear weapons, then also liberalizing the relationship with East European countries. So nobody believed that at that time that the Warsaw Pact could collapse and Soviet Union will withdraw troops from all these countries which are members of the Warsaw Pact. But he was more of a dreamer and an idealist. At the same time, he was a realist. So he dreamt of a new Soviet Union and he had an idealistic approach to that and he thought he would make changes slowly and reach the goal of giving communism a human face. But he was also a realist and that is why he outreached to the West because of a compulsion and he wanted peace in the West. So many stereotypes about Soviet Union changed in 1985 and then he moved on to a comprehensive restructuring and that is what really did not suit the ordinary people. They had got used to a system which met the essential needs of the people for a long time and though it was deteriorating, they thought they could save it. So it was difficult for the ordinary people to accept the restructuring that he introduced and then he changed people at the high levels of the decision-making process and opening up the society and from 1986 to 1987, that is the initial years of his power, there was a kind of optimism that things are going to move for the better. But it did not pan out the way he had expected it because people were cynical and the bureaucracy was hostile and the quality of life had deteriorated. So in a sense, the old system got dismantled but a new system could not be established. So he decided to assume the power of the president to make it more dynamic and he assumed more powers as the president of the Soviet Union. But the whole system was not accustomed to the kind of socialism that he introduced and therefore the bureaucracy was not able to sustain and they had no experience of managing a market economy. So a sudden liberalisation of the tight economic control became very difficult to maintain and so there was a complete collapse of the system and of course in 1991 there was an attempt to a military coup and finally in 1991 December he had to leave and he had to resign and Elsin took over. So the Soviet Union had broken up already and various forces were raised and the West was jubilant that they had destroyed the Soviet Union and therefore they did not do anything to support the system. The West had in fact taken a more realistic position and supported the system in the way that they wanted. Perhaps it would have been different but the West saw this an opportunity to destroy the Soviet Union and to remove a second superpower and therefore there was a despondency and despair and everyone tried to do various things and Elsin who took over his idea was to completely surrender to the United States and he was not a balanced person but he did try to bring back the Soviet system in some ways but of course it was too late and even though the opportunity in a sense was supportive of Putin who emerged after Elsin as the leader of the Soviet Union he was also quite new but he did not appreciate much of what Gorbachev did and that is why when he passed away that did not even give him a state funeral though it was he was given a place among the distinguished leaders of the Soviet Union but it was more a private ceremony even though some leaders like the former president Mitvedev and Hungarian Prime Minister attended so the most consequential figure of the 20th century who brought the Cold War to an end and unleashed a system which he could not control and he gave freedom to East Europe there was a risk of nuclear weapons being used he allowed the Berlin Wall to fall the unification of Germany without bloodshed so it was a sudden dramatic change and it took about 20 years for Russia to come to terms with the reality and now Putin has emerged as a strong leader and by then the Soviet Union's orientation changed and not as a European power but not more as a power extending to the east and that is brought about the changes and then the war Ukraine has started another process which we do not know what the consequence of that would be but certainly Putin's vision is very different from Gorbachev's vision and he was very critical of all the communist leaders who had ruined the old Russia and the Soviet Union was given the nationality of all the states and they were given freedom to secede if necessary so the whole system was loosened so much that it could not remain as a unitary body so efforts were made to make a common wealth of nations etc but nothing happened and now we have all these 15 republics and Russia assuming the permanent membership of the Social Security Council and slowly emerging as a powerful nation and now challenging the west so Yeltsin speeded up the breakup and then Perestroika failed because of the new system was not acceptable and the federalism failed and liberated the people and the whole system collapsed so that is the reason why today Gorbachev is a tragic hero he could have been different but then it was circumstances people say that the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway Germany would have been reunified etc but the arrival of Gorbachev and his policies speeded up the whole process some people even suspect that he was colluding with the western countries to destroy the Soviet Union because that is not acceptable he was too much of a nationalist and a patriot from all his actions it is quite visible that he was not colluding with anybody he was pursuing his own instincts and he felt he had to come to the rescue of the state but the opposite happened and therefore he is vilified not only in the Soviet Union but also elsewhere as someone who ruined the system but his contribution will last and whatever changes that take place in Russia in the future and many of the ideas that he put forward may come out and therefore those ideas are still there even though he's gone many of the thoughts that he brought out for the betterment of the Soviet Union may still be in play and of course it depends on how the place out the Ukraine war is probably the real test as to what Russia's future will be but amidst all this is the danger of use of nuclear weapons which might destroy everything and lead to another world war so there also Gorbachev's contribution will not be small so extremely controversial figure successful to a certain extent but will be known for more for the for his failures than for his successes so that is the summary of Gorbachev's life and contribution it could have been different if he had not pursued complete reform of the society system which brought him to power so when a system brings him into power if you have to continue to be in power you have to also support the system and then gradually bring about changes but he was impatient and the time was right for a revolution right for a revolution and he tried for it and failed so that is the story of Gorbachev who is cosmoned for what he tried to do but criticized for what he failed to do thank you well these are all theories you can support any one of them and I mentioned many of them already but there are no clear answers to all this now you have to just analyze what has happened and find these reasons for it I don't know why he wanted this so USSR to become weak but I don't think was his effort his effort was to make it strong so a leader cannot balance ethical and moral good with also a perception of strength that is true but in my view the fundamental flaw in his approach was his effort to make a complete change with him as continuing as the leader and therefore the system collapsed and with him he collapsed also all other theories that we can examine but this is probably the simplest way to explain his his plight and his final exit from the world this idea of weakness that he sought that I don't really understand what he see what happened was that his objective was to strengthen this ability that's no question about it but the weaknesses arose because of the lack of enthusiasm of the people for the system and they thought they could not survive if the whole thing was you know system was changed and therefore and the system was not capable of handling the new situation there was no experience and the west was on their on their throats as it were and so where was the acceptance possible so all the forces which had remained underground because of the very rigid system was unleashed he unleashed those forces themselves but then he would not that he could not direct them in the way in which he wanted to do that and the reason basically the internal situation and plus the external situation the west decided to exploit it completely and destroy the Soviet Union which they did but they are now seeing that you know it's emerging again Russia is emerging in separate connection and posting a challenge what would have happened if the Soviet system and Soviet Union continued would the challenge have been greater for the west maybe yes and that is the reason why they didn't want the system to survive and so it suited them and there's no other no other answer to it now it is history and it has to be studied so many new aspects will come out and more insights will be there several studies already I read quite a few of them in the last few days which give several several theories but what I said was my own reading of the situation and that does not mean that theories are not valid right but he did support the invasion of the annexation of Crimea by Putin you know that he had some support for it so again as you said whether it was just to keep it going or the divorce he sits here about it we don't know and the biggest irony is the Nobel Prize see the Nobel Prize was given to him for weakening the Soviet Union so because it was not considered to be a compliment for what he tried to do but the prize was for losing it and that's also an irony of the whole system well I was witness to some of the reaction of the Prime Minister Mr. P. V. Marisim Arhava that as you can imagine it was a it was a big shock because even though all this were happening somehow I could see in Mr. Marisim Arhava hope that this will be reversed so this time there was some report from Moscow saying that there is a rebellion here or a rebellion there he was visibly hopeful but the merit in it was that he very quickly adjusted himself to change thanks to Dr. Manmohan Singh and the policy that they brought in of of liberalizing the economy and globalizing the economy and then changing the politics you know getting close to the United States recognizing Israel dealing with them so he very quickly moved to change things. Gorbachev was friendly to India he was particularly friendly to Raji Gandhi and they shared this hope of disarmament India had no nuclear weapons but still India wanted elimination of nuclear weapons and in that to have a support of somebody who has nuclear weapons was very important so his disarmament initiatives were supported by Gorbachev and Gorbachev apparently had a warm feelings for India but that did not come out because he was basically engrossed in other things but his period was not bad for India or Russia relations and later it was of course followed up by Putin and others and so it is a new system but at the same time still it is a legacy relationship and that is why even the present situation people see us as being supportive of Russia so the forthcoming meeting of the CEO you will see how these leaders interact because it's a new situation completely new situation and it will be very important to understand how they are seeing the new world they are interacting with each other but my fear is that there will be a division because I don't see in a CEO a consensus emerging on the Russia China Russia Ukraine war for example or for any other matter other than the pandemic or some supply chain reforms etc so I don't see a political compromise or a consensus emerging either in the SEO meeting or later the G20 meeting because the issues are so complex yes I'm sure all of you must have read Suhasini Hyder's article in the Hindu it was she has found a new word not just multi-alignment but all aligned so I don't know how serious she is but in a true in a way it is true the way India is very swiftly moving around the world neglecting nobody talking to everybody nobody seems to be inimical to us and you know very quick footed action particularly by the external affairs minister but what would all lead to something that we cannot predict whatever meetings we have seen in the past after the war started there have been divisions in these groups so all these divisions likely to be the sort of course the disengagement on the Ladakh at least one sector has created a better atmosphere but for the remaining areas apparently the Chinese are taking a very rigid position so whether this was tactical on the part of both the countries to improve the atmosphere we don't know but the challenges there will be many I've been saying that this is the time for bilateral relations because multilaterally we may not be able to achieve much and what is the new world emerging as maybe just democratic countries vis-a-vis autocratic countries that may be the lineup and not any other lineup like north south and so on so for that to emerge there have to be bilateral relationships so the challenges are many and these will emerge only as we move on but as of now we are doing very well in the sense that we are managing it like a magician or somebody who is you know playing with several things at the same time and managing to keep the ball up there while we are juggling with it and that is the feeling one gets and that gives you options all right thank you very much