India’s relationship with China

India ought to have interaction with China with mutual respect, sensitivity, and curiosity, and the strategy ought to be grounded on realism and never on the romanticism of the Nehruvian period, mentioned Jaishankar, touching upon the distinction in opinion between India’s first Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhai Patel after which Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on the difficulty.

“I argue for dealing with China from a basis of realism — that strain of realism, which I feel — strains all the way from Sardar Patel to Narendra Modi,” mentioned Jaishankar. “I would say that the Modi Government has been very much more and in conformity with a strain of realism, which originated from Sardar Patel.”

“Even when it came, for example to the UN Security Council seat, it’s not my case that we should have necessarily taken the seat, it’s a different debate, but to say that we should first let China — China’s interest should come first, it’s a very peculiar statement to make,” he mentioned.

“It takes two hands to clap. I pose the issue in this manner if you look at the last 75+ years of our foreign policy, they have a strain of realism about China and have a strain of idealism, romanticism, non-realism. It begins right from day one, there is a sharp difference of opinion — how to respond to China between Nehru and Sardar Patel,” mentioned the international minister.

On international media’s reportage of India

Criticising international media’s criticism of India’s stances on a number of points, together with the continued relationship with Russia, Jaishankar mentioned that they’re “trying to push a certain line because they have a certain interest.”

“I am not saying we are perfect. I am not saying we don’t have room for improvement… But look at their motive and agenda. They are not agenda-less, they are not motiveless,” he mentioned, including that their reporting shouldn’t be taken at face worth. “If anything, I could be passing judgements on a whole lot of other democracies,” he mentioned.

Jaishankar’s latest go to to Moscow, the place he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin had been condemned by Western media which is essential of Putin’s insurance policies, significantly following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Putin’s assembly with a international minister as a substitute of the top of state was termed “unusual” by coverage consultants and video clips of the 2 leaders’s camaraderie had gone viral on social media.

On being requested how he perceives receiving flak from Western media, the EAM advised ANI, “If people can’t read me, that means my mind games are working.”

“I see no reason we should take anything other than at face value because we have always maintained that the Russia relationship is a very important one… I said in public even before my meeting with President Putin that we value this relationship. It is a relationship that served India well,” he mentioned.

Jaishankar added that Indian curiosity comes first. “I am looking at it from an Indian perspective… A country which has maximum friends and minimum adversaries is obviously one with smart diplomacy. Why would a country restrict its friends?… Why would it choose to unless the interest compelled it to do that? I am focusing on how to expand my relationships… It is the mind games that others play that as a democracy you should do this and that. Please look in the mirror and tell me how you were behaving as a democracy… Every country has its values and interests and it finds its balance…” he added.

On Indo-Pak ties

Jaishankar mentioned that India has stopped participating with Pakistan’s “core policy” of utilizing “cross-border terrorism to bring India to the table”.

“It’s not a case that we won’t deal with a neighbour. After all, at the end of the day, a neighbour is a neighbour, but it is that we will not deal on the basis of terms that they set where the practice of terrorism is deemed as legitimate and effective in order to bring you to the table,” he mentioned.

The Canada battle

Speaking on the latest chill in India-Canada ties over the Khalistan challenge, the External Affairs Minister mentioned that Canadian politics has been giving a whole lot of area to Khalistani forces, which is in neither India’s nor Canada’s curiosity.

“The issue at heart is the fact that in Canadian politics, these Khalistani forces have been given a lot of space and have been allowed to indulge in activities which I think are damaging to the relationship, clearly not in India’s interest, and not in Canada’s interest either. But unfortunately, that is the state of their politics,” he mentioned.

India’s ties with Canada had turned frosty just lately after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused the Indian authorities of getting a hand within the killing of Khalistani separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey. India had vehemently denied the claims, terming them “absurd and motivated” and had mentioned that Canada had offered “no specific information” to help the allegations.

Why ‘Bharat?’

Since the time period ‘Bharat’ was used within the official G20 dinner invitation, the time period has been a supply of a lot debate, with speculations of an official change within the identify of the nation from India to Bharat.

Speaking on the difficulty, Jaishankar mentioned that it isn’t “a narrow political debate or a historical cultural debate,” however a mindset.

“In many ways, people use that debate for their own narrow purposes. The fact is the term ‘Bharat’ has not just a cultural civilizational connotation, but also a certain confidence and identity and how you perceive yourself and what are the terms you are offering to the world,” he mentioned.

“If we are actually preparing seriously for the ‘Amrit Kaal’ in the next 25 years and if we are talking of a Viksit Bharat or developed Bharat, that can only happen if you are an ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’…” he added.