India's Foreign Minister on his country's new self-confidence - and the West's loss of control
DIE ZEIT: Mr. Minister, your new book is called Why Bharat Matters. You and your Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, have recently been referring to India as Bharat. Why - and what does this term mean?
Subrahmanyam Jaishankar: Bharat is the name for India in our language. When India was formed in 1947, there was a debate on what we should call ourselves; 'India' or 'Bharat'. For the constitution, the phrase 'India, that is Bharat' was found. Today, 'Bharat' for us means, to be authentic, rooted, confident, self-sufficient, resilient. As I write in my book, this is not just a question of language, but of self- perception. It is an attitude. It is also our approach to foreign policy, how we see the world: We are guided by our own interests instead of submitting to external pressure.
ZEIT: At the Munich Security Conference, you said that the "unipolar moment" is over. This refers to the time in the early 1990s when the USA dominated the international order. You said that the world is now returning to its "natural order". What do you mean by that - and is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Jaishankar: It depends on who you ask.
ZEIT: We are asking you!
Jaishankar: Look, there are about 200 countries in the world. They cover very different geographies, very different cultures. It can't be that the entirety of the world is determined by the institutions and practices of the Euro-Atlantic cultural sphere. And yet that is exactly how it was. This was a consequence of the era of colonialism, when a single, shall we say, geography claimed dominance over the whole world and subjugated other economies, political systems and cultures. Many think this dominance is the "natural world order". But no - it is the product of a historical experience. When I say we are returning to the natural order, I mean that those who were the losers of this development are now slowly returning, having gained their independence. The most important examples are China and India.
ZEIT: Returning to where?
Jaishankar: If you look back to the time before colonialism, you can see that the most important economies and cultural centers were in Asia, and still before that in Latin America and Africa. That is the natural order to which we are returning. If you look at the G20 countries (the 20 largest economies, editor's note) today, for example, you can see that countries like India are once again playing a major role both politically and economically.
ZEIT: In the West, the development towards a world with different centers of power and "middle powers" is often seen as a path to disorder and insecurity.
Jaishankar: Yes, of course, there is a feeling of losing control. But I don't think the West needs to feel insecure. I am not an advocate of the theory of the decline of the West. Europe and the US will remain very strong and there will be many areas where they continue be leaders. But they will have to make compromises - and work much more closely with others to develop an idea of what the future should look like.
ZEIT: The current world order is also based on the common set of values that was developed after the Second World War, on international law, which stipulates the inviolability of borders, for example. The fear is that a multipolar world is more susceptible to wars and that we are already seeing this, for example in the Ukraine war, the Gaza war and in Sudan.
Jaishankar: I wouldn't say that a multipolar world is more prone to wars and conflicts. Did we not have wars in the bipolar world order of the Cold War or the unipolar world order after 1990? The roots of the Middle East conflict go back a long way, to the period after the Second World War, to the year 1948. There were also countless wars that were actively sparked by the powers of the bipolar world order. For us, too, it was truly not a heavenly time of peace! India went to war in 1947/48 and 1965.
ZEIT: You are talking about the war over the India-Pakistan partition in 1947/48 and the second India- Pakistan war in 1965.
Jaishankar: Yes, and in 1971 we were at war with Pakistan again.
ZEIT: At that time, the Pakistani military brutally attacked the Bengali population in eastern Pakistan and hundreds of thousands of people were murdered. India intervened on the side of the Bengali independence movement. The war ended with Pakistan's defeat and the establishment of Bangladesh as an independent state.
Jaishankar: The Bangladesh genocide plays a prominent role in our history, for my generation it is the defining event. But many of these wars were ignored, explained away or even fueled by the dominant powers of the time.
ZEIT: During the Cold War, India was an important part of the non-aligned states that wanted to be independent of the USA and the Soviet Union. Today, some are of the opinion that we are not living in a "multipolar world" at all, but in a Cold War 2.0. What do you think - and how would India position itself?
Jaishankar: I am skeptical about this description. There may be some similarities, but these backward- looking definitions are misleading, they don't capture the differences. I lived as a diplomat in the Soviet Union during the Cold War and also in the United States. I know very well what the Cold War was: a global war between two economic systems and two political systems in which many countries were pressured to join one bloc or the other. Today, the relationship between Russia and the USA is once again very antagonistic, yes. But unlike during the Cold War, most other countries are independent. Most countries today want to have a choice. Smart diplomacy today means offering choices - and demanding choices.
ZEIT: You said in a speech that India today finds itself in a world full of opportunities, but does not base its foreign policy solely on its greatest possible benefit. What then?
Jaishankar: In foreign policy, it is not only costs that play a major role, but also feelings and convictions; we have something like feel-good zones. Such factors determine decisions. It's like when you buy a new smartphone, for example. I can only go by the cheapest price. But it also matters whether I trust that my data will be safe on the device. India is a deeply pluralistic and democratic society. We have a natural inclination towards others who share such values. Post-colonial societies themselves have a certain reluctance to preach values because they have had bad experiences with such preaching during the colonial era. But it is easier to work with societies with which you have values in common. We work together so successfully in the Quad Group from India, the USA, Japan and Australia because we share common views.
ZEIT: You argue a lot about India's history and identity, but India's foreign policy often appears very materialistic from the outside. For example, India has not joined the Western sanctions against Russia and buys large quantities of Russian oil at favorable prices.
Jaishankar: Yes, we are pursuing our interests. But so does every other country. And we define in different ways what is politically clever, what is good policy and what is not. We live in a very diverse world.
ZEIT: North America and Europe rely on alliances - a long-term, very close, treaty-based cooperation between states. In an alliance, you sometimes have to act against your short-term interests because the long-term benefits of alliances are greater. Would India be willing to do that?
Jaishankar: The inclination towards alliances stems from a specific historical situation in a particular region of the world. NATO may have served a part of Europe well. But it is not the answer to the problems of other regions of the world. We are not part of an alliance for historical reasons. You see, our economy and our entire social structure were destroyed during the colonial era. Europe made us its prey. When you have been subjected to such enormous mistreatment and have lost your independence, it gives great emotional value to freedom and self-reliance. It goes against our political DNA to subordinate ourselves to an alliance where the final decisions cannot be made by us ourselves. Moreover, we are the most populous country, we already have the fifth largest economy in the world and in many areas - such as technology - we will play a leading global role in the future. Why should we impose the restrictions of an alliance on ourselves?
ZEIT: In your statements, one repeatedly comes across the term "nationalism", which you use positively. For German ears, this is very disturbing; for historical reasons, nationalism has a negative connotation for us.
Jaishankar: In India, the situation is exactly the opposite. If someone asks me about my ideological orientation, I say: I am a committed nationalist. In India, that means: yes, this man is standing up for our values, he is positioning himself. Anyone who doesn't call themselves a nationalist here has a difficult position. The historical circumstances are completely different here too: By nationalists, we mean freedom fighters who made sacrifices for our independence. We use the term "nation" with great pride. This may sound strange to you, but the people who fought for our independence and against great powers saw themselves as nationalists. It is often not helpful to transfer terms from one region to another.
Munich
February 21, 2024