Full Text | Salman Khurshid on India's Diplomacy, Palestine and More

Sidharth Bhatia: Okay, moving on. You were a minister in the Congress government. Before that, you were a Minister of State also in the Congress. Both times, Minister of External Affairs. The Congress had built up a long-standing foreign policy pillar, and one of those pillars was supporting Palestine in its quest for self-determination. Do you not think that this government has moved away—far away—from that long-standing position?

Salman Khurshid: Oh, well, I think certainly, certainly, and if you've seen, they have shifted ground considerably since the trouble started in Gaza and in Palestine. They've shifted ground a few times. We have consistently, right at the top of our leadership, all the way to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, taken very clear positions. Mrs. Priyanka Gandhi has taken very clear positions on Gaza. But yes, it would be right to say that the government of the day is far away from the position that we used to take. But then things have happened in between. And to be fair to everyone, Israel has emerged as a greater player than Israel was to begin with in our times. Israel has played a greater role, and India's reliance on Israel for weapons, etc., is something that you need to factor in. But the extent to which we take a position on Palestine—even today—it is disappointing that the government doesn't go as far as that.

Salman Khurshid: But then, you know, things are very complicated. How much are we hearing from other Arab countries, for instance? What is happening in Palestine is absolutely, absolutely pathetic and inhuman. And I don't think that you need to persuade anyone about how bad things are in Gaza. And clearly on that, the positions that we have taken as a Congress party and our leadership have taken could at least have been replicated to some extent by the government. But I see that that hasn't happened. But we may not be the only government in the world that has been a little remiss in this. I think many governments are remiss in this.

Sidharth Bhatia: Let's stick to India for the time being. What I find is that it's not only moving away from our longstanding positions on Palestine; it is also completely moving away in the sense that we have been supportive of them in every way.

Sidharth Bhatia: We did not vote in the UN General Assembly. We abstained. We have not said anything strong about the continuous bombing of Gaza in which kids, children have been bombed, hospitals have been bombed.

Sidharth Bhatia: So it's not a slight shift. It's a major shift, and it's going to be very difficult to pull back from here. So I think disappointed, yes. But don't you think it is also disappointing that we have abandoned principle completely?

Salman Khurshid: Well, I think, you know, this is a lot to do with—I know this is a particularly sad human situation in which the moral element, the ethical element of foreign policy, which India has always had, could have and should have played a much greater role. But pragmatism, self-interest that we keep hearing about in terms of current foreign policy and the post-Cold War world and the definition of foreign policy, as we have been told in recent years, I think there's much to do with that. The entire spectrum of approaches that we make to foreign policy needs a very, very severe look at and certainly a serious revamping and reviewing, which hasn't happened for some time. I mean, it is true about the neighbourhood. It's true about our positions on China. It's true about the manner in which we've dealt with the United States of America. And really, we are looking very, very uncomfortable about our relationship with the United States as well.

Salman Khurshid: So the sadness of the tragedy of Gaza stares us in the face, our foreign policy in the face, but also our inaction and inability to intervene in any effective manner in Europe, for instance, in Ukraine and Russia.  Everywhere, we simply say both are our friends. In the Israel-Iran matter, we say both are our friends, and therefore we don't want this to continue. But is that all India has been reduced to—just parroting phrases about how we don't want this to continue? I think that's a very sad commentary on our foreign policy.

Sidharth Bhatia: Yeah, actually, you've raised some of the issues that I was going to come to. You have been a foreign minister. You have known these issues very closely. You must have made policy, sat in on policy meetings. Moving on, the first mention you made—India speaking to the president of Iran. But Israel bombed Iran first, and we have not been able to even come out with a strong, cogent statement condemning that bombing. And Iran has been a friend of ours for how long? Civilisational.

Salman Khurshid: Well, civilisational friendship. And then the important thing is that Iran has very, very categorically stood by us in very, very important moments when we needed them. They've stood by us. Now, of course, of late, we are told Israel stands by us. Israel stood by us in our concentration and conflict with Pakistan. But Iran has over a long period stood by us. And that is something that we cannot possibly ignore. And I think we have, in reviewing our position and understanding and in formulating our position, seemed to have overlooked that.

Sidharth Bhatia: Nor has Prime Minister Modi publicly countered President Trump, who has several times—I think I've lost count, but it must be at least 15. It keeps going up by notches. And he has said that he got India and Pakistan to stop the conflict. Surely, as head of government, Mr. Modi should come out and say this is completely untrue or whatever he would like to say. But he has just gone into a shell on this.

Salman Khurshid: Yeah, let me just say one thing very clearly here. I think that there is a clear line between who settles. I mean, we have consistently—and this is not being challenged by the present government—maintained that India-Pakistan affairs and conflicts and any differences have to be settled bilaterally. That's what Shimla was about. Irrespective of Pakistan having said that a Shimla agreement is being abrogated, it has to be bilateral, and we maintain that. And so does the present government maintain that this has to be bilateral.

Salman Khurshid: So did it really happen bilaterally, with Mr Trump, President Trump, taking just a clever position to amplify his own importance? Or did he actually play a significant role? Now, I think our party simply said, discuss this matter. Let's get to the bottom of this. Have a special session of Parliament. We discussed this matter. But this is obviously something that we had difficulty discussing outside the country. We couldn't be discussing this outside the country. We had a formal position that the government had briefed us on. And we—let's call it the lowest common denominator that all the MPs, including MPs of the ruling party, had to repeat when we were abroad. But there are dimensions in this that could be discussed. Now, for instance, are we, by simply making phone calls to the Russian President and to the Ukrainian President, or for that matter to the Iranian President, actually participating in a process of reconciliation and ceasefire? Or are we just generally, like everybody else, saying that there should be a ceasefire, but we have no special role?

Salman Khurshid: Now, all this must be understood by the people and can only be understood if the government comes clean and says, well, this is the record. This is the truth. And therefore, make what you want of it. But we will stick by bilateralism because that's a time-tested policy of both the previous governments and the present government. I think that they must come clean on.

Sidharth Bhatia: Why do you think that there is this inhibition? Is there something—I’m giving you two possibilities. One is a possible inhibition to say, let's not take on Trump. He's unpredictable, for example. Or the other possibility is that something like that actually did happen, which is an outrageous possibility. And then we are hesitant to challenge him openly. What could it be?

Salman Khurshid: You know, this is getting more confusing because periodically—not at the level of the Prime Minister, but at the level of the Foreign Minister and at other levels—we have given a point of view that the government says is the correct point of view. And the President is seen to shift a little bit, very marginally. But then he goes back to his stated position. And as I said, or you've just indicated, that 15 or 16 times he's repeated it. Well, he's done something similar with Israel and Iran. And we all know that it's unclear whether there is a ceasefire between Israel and Iran and whether a ceasefire was negotiated by him. As he says, everybody comes to me and they came to me and I said ceasefire, and so there’s a ceasefire. But it didn't seem to work. It didn’t seem to work like magic as far as Israel and Iran is concerned.

Salman Khurshid: We still don't know what the outcome will be. And even in the India-Pakistan matter, after the DGMOs had spoken for several hours, there were violations or so-called violations across the Line of Control. So we just don't know what is the total content of this and what was the expectation and so on. And therefore, we felt it was important that there be an open discussion in Parliament so that everything is laid bare. And we get to know what there is to accept and what there is to reject. And in that, the Prime Minister could also have made it very clear as to where he stands and what his position is. The Prime Minister does not speak. And we can't accept a foreign head of state’s word for it. Then where do we stand? We are really very, very perplexed. So there we are. Now, I don't know whether there obviously is very little chance now of a special session of Parliament. So we'll just have to wait till the monsoon session.

Salman Khurshid: And perhaps in the monsoon session, we'll have a chance to discuss it in Parliament.

Sidharth Bhatia: Well, we know Mr Modi's record in coming out lean in Parliament also. So we really don't know. But as you said, perplexed—and we are perplexed. The people of this country are perplexed. And in the absence of any strong comment in that situation, what Mr Trump keeps on repeating becomes the gospel truth worldwide. This is our position at the moment—that the world thinks that Mr Trump actually got this done.

Salman Khurshid: Yeah, this is troubling. This is very troubling. But, you know, Mr Trump has said a lot more. He said that we will now meet at a neutral place and the US will be involved in negotiations. So, I mean, there is no sign of that. At least fortunately, there's no sign of that. And because if there were any signs of that, that would make it clear whether what our leadership has said is correct or what the government has formally put out is correct. But right now, everything hangs in the air. So nobody really knows. And nobody really knows what will happen and what should happen now that the conflict has been concluded. There is a ceasefire. The ceasefire is holding. But where do we go from here? We haven't been told.

Salman Khurshid: I mean, you can't just say that this was just a four-day affair and for the government to say that the operation is only suspended. It has not been—it is not—the operation is not over. So where does that leave us? I mean, it just leaves us hanging, doesn't it? So there is a lot more that needs to come from the government for people to be reassured that we are past a particular bad period and that the next period is going to be a better one. We still don't know what happened. We still don't know what happened to the people who committed those terrible crimes in Pahalgam. Pictures have changed. The sketches have changed, etc. We have no idea—no idea—about what the enforcement agencies have been able to do.

Salman Khurshid: In the past, one has always heard about, you know, the terrorists having having been encountered somewhere and so on and and being taken care of. But right now, there are just too many questions floating in the air.

Sidharth Bhatia: You know, as a as a foreign affairs minister, which makes you a diplomat, you are being very diplomatic. But the truth of the matter is that as far as this government is concerned, it has come to the conclusion that silence is the best policy. And I know that the Congress has been repeatedly saying, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi wrote an excellent article. Your spokespersons keep saying that basically, we are not in a situation, this country has reached a situation where there is very little information, real information coming from the very top. There's absolutely within or outside the parliament.

Sidharth Bhatia: And that, don't you think as a government is very troubling? Because we haven't really, we are in the dark, being kept in the dark by this government. And don't you think that's extremely troubling in a democracy?

Salman Khurshid: Yes, I do think so. But it's not limited only to these very, very critical matters. It's spread over a large number of things. I think the very, very pattern of information available in a democracy, no matter what it relates to, it may relate to development, it may relate to election procedures, it may relate to strategic matters, it may relate to foreign policy. There are a lot of things, a lot of things that are very unsatisfactory. So, it's basically a fundamental approach to democracy that is a problematic thing today. And I don't know what can be done and how do we achieve greater democratic transparency in our country. These are very, very major problems that I think we face today.

Sidharth Bhatia: You mentioned, Salman, in an earlier answer, when you covered quite a lot, you mentioned that our relations with neighbouring countries are not at their best. Do you think, as a former Minister of External Affairs and a keen observer, has Indian diplomacy lost its way? This is an overall question.

Salman Khurshid: Yeah, I think so. I think we need to get back to the drawing board. Things have changed, understandably. One can't be static in how things were during the NAM movement. Things have changed enormously. But the relevance of the NAM movement is today biting us back, that the idea of post-NAM or NAM in a second avatar is today staring us in the face. When you call what you call a multi-polar international order, is that not NAM 2.0 avatar or is it something else? When you speak of the neighbourhood, I think one important factor about the neighbourhood is what do we see ourselves as, and what do we see the neighbourhood as?

Salman Khurshid: There's never been a perfect reciprocity between the neighbourhood and ourselves, for the simple reason that we are much larger, our economy is much larger, but they are very, very significant and important. And we've realised that today, as the neighbourhood sort of slips away into the hands of China, we've realised that. But I just hope it's not too late. There is much work to be done to ensure and reassure the neighborhood that we stand by them. But to expect the neighborhood to reciprocate and give us what we can give them might be something that we need to think about again. We need the neighborhood in many ways, many ways which are critical for us just as the neighborhood needs us.

Salman Khurshid: But I don't think that it's enough to lecture the neighborhood and tell them, please think of your future. If you want to link your wagon, hitch your wagon to India, you know where you can go. And if you don't, you know where you will get stranded, etc. That sort of conversation with the neighborhood or indeed with anybody in the world, whether it's Africa, Latin America, or any part of Europe, I don't think it works. There is too much lecturing that we have started and too little diplomacy that we are doing. I feel that that's the big problem.

Sidharth Bhatia: And you know, you know what happens when you lecture because you just take a country like Bangladesh. Now I'm not saying that it should be perpetually beholden to us or something, but it is a mature country with a strong economy. And we have gone and made enemies out of them. Similarly, Pakistan, let's leave that aside. Similarly with other countries.

Salman Khurshid: Yeah, yeah. I think that I think there are many people, many people who could have told us what to do with Bangladesh. Bangladesh has a problem. It's not just a one day issue. There is a problem in Bangladesh, but I wish we hadn't just assumed that that problem will go away. The problem had been there throughout. Had we had we anticipated it and done something, perhaps we could have reduced the impact of that problem. But today that problem has grown into a monster. And how do we deal with that monster is a big challenge to us, big question and a big question, big challenge to us. You know, it's very easy to say we want to be a world power, but particularly if you are as large as we are and you have as large an economy as we have simply because of our size and the size of our population. But to take the responsibilities of a world power is not easy. And to be able to fulfill the responsibilities of a world power or even a regional power is a big, big challenge. And I think we might have made a mistake that we assume too much and we don't prepare enough and we don't, we are not willing to give enough. I think that's the big, big, these are big questions about foreign policy for the years to come.
But I hope somebody can sit down and sort these things out.

Sidharth Bhatia: What is the major problem that has become a monster with Bangladesh may I ask?

Salman Khurshid: Well, see, the major problem with Bangladesh is that there was, there was a subterranean subterranean influence of the right wing in Bangladesh that we assumed for a long time wasn't there, that it had disappeared. And that right wing is associated with Pakistan, is associated with the right wing in Pakistan. We just assumed that, you know, they were so happy with us that Pakistan was in history.

Salman Khurshid: But we discovered today that it's not history and it should be. It's bad for Bangladesh, it's bad for us. Having so much investment in terms of lives, in terms of property and money, in terms of emotions that we put into Bangladesh doesn't deserve what we're getting today, doesn't deserve that at all. And strategic, strategic consequences of that is there staring us in the face. So we need to, we need to find long term solutions to deal with China. We don't have. We simply shut our eyes and forget that China is a problem. But China is. There is a dragon or an elephant in the room that we refuse to look at and we need to look at. It can't be that we can't find ways of dealing with China and the ways of dealing with countries is not always getting into a fight with them. The ways of dealing and dealing with the country.
That's what diplomacy is about. That is known for years in the world. Why can't we deal with that? Why can't we create, why can't we create a situation in which we don't see China teaming up with Pakistan, creating a problem on two of our borders, etc.

Salman Khurshid: Big questions. What do we need to do with with Russia? How do we revise that special feeling that we've always had with Russia, etc.? These are major questions of foreign policy and they're just not being addressed. I'm sure that I don't have all the answers, but at least the questions could be raised. We could at least consider questions and see if there are any answers, if anybody can provide good answers.

Sidharth Bhatia: I think you said somewhere that or maybe you didn't, but I had this question that do you think India has a voice in international matters anymore? A role to play, a role to play, not just a voice, a role to play in various situations more than just being a market, more than, as you said, making phone calls. Do you think we have a voice?

Salman Khurshid: Well, you've answered that question, if we have a telephone voice, we don't seem to have a physical voice, but we do have a telephone voice, but anybody can have a telephone voice. This reminds me of a joke someone once told me. They said that they were in Europe someplace and Krishan Rana was screaming and shouting about, look at this, look at this happening wrong, look at that happening wrong. So that's what he said. I called him and I said, Krishan, what's the matter with you? What are you trying to do? And Krishan Rana said, I'm trying to speak to Delhi, I'm trying to give a message to Delhi. So that's what he said. I told him, well, why don't you use the phone? Get up to a phone and you get your voice across to Delhi. So it's the same issue here that if they would only know how to use the voice to get it
and get it across to friends and not friends alike, we would be in a better position.

Salman Khurshid: But I think we are so lost in ourselves and we are so enamored of our own greatness, etc. that we've forgotten the art of diplomacy in many ways. And I think perhaps what we need to do is to get back to the drawing table and begin lessons in diplomacy once again. I mean, I say this with a little care because I know we have some outstanding diplomats, many, many, many who are still serving and many who are retired, but they're all available. They're all available to give this country a good point of view and give this country a good status in the world.

Sidharth Bhatia: No, but but of course, the political leadership has to be there. But are you saying, therefore, that in any situation, whether it's a warlike situation or any other situation, India does not have the clout to enter the conversation and say, here is an idea we have. Here is something we could do. It does not have that clout. Is that what you're saying?

Salman Khurshid: Well, we can't judge whether we have the clout or not, but we really, we've really forgotten, forgotten the methodology. We've forgotten how to put that clout across and have the clout tested. I go back, I go back to having said that lecturing is not enough. Lecturing is not enough. I mean, this in the world, which is bursting, bursting with conflict today, we are giving out messages and and and parroting phrases about this is not the age of war. This is the age of peace. Now, how how hollow that sounds today to say this is not an age of
war, considering that we've just been in a conflict ourselves and that we are dealing with a conflict in our extended neighborhood and indeed in Europe. All the all the roots that lead to India's prosperity are under threat. And yet we are saying that this is an age of peace. It's not an age of war. Well, let's get up and do something about the age of war because there is too much war around. And I think India deserves and India, India requires to get up and be able to to say something and do something that will make a difference.

Sidharth Bhatia: And be heard. And be heard.

Salman Khurshid: Yeah, and be heard and be heard and understood. I think that's important.

Sidharth Bhatia: Finally, if you were called and said, OK, you are full of these ideas. Tell us how we should go back to the drawing board, what we should do. What would you say?

Salman Khurshid: Well, listen, I understand. But this is where domestic politics, this is where domestic politics and
international relations come together. I don't think you can keep the two completely separate. You have to you have to find a bridge between them. And I think there are serious issues about domestic politics and international relations to think that people don't care about what's happening at home and people don't worry about what's happening here. I think it's wrong. People do. People do worry. And we need to put things right at home and then get out and put things right elsewhere.

Salman Khurshid: But we have to be prepared. We have to be prepared to play the role of an elder. We have to be prepared to play the role of somebody who can carry some burden on their shoulders. And we have to be willing to sacrifice. And of course, that's true not only about government, but that's also true about people who support government. We are a democracy. And there's a lot that people of Bengal need to understand about Bangladesh. There's a lot that people of Punjab need to understand about our borders. There's a lot that people in Kashmir need to understand about about our larger neighborhood. Of course, I'm not mentioning Tamil Nadu now because that that seems to have subsided. The trouble that we have in the in the southern edge has subsided largely.

Salman Khurshid: But to what extent is now that are we now beyond the troubles of as far as Sri Lanka is concerned, it's still still difficult, still difficult to tell. So you have to you have to have wide enough shoulders and be prepared to bear a burden. You can't just go into the world expecting that everything will happen the way you want it to happen. Things may not happen the way you want them to happen. And therefore, you have to be prepared to make some sacrifices.

Sidharth Bhatia: But don't you think when you say the domestic situation has to be handled first, don't you think that the social situation in this country beyond the border state is something that the world sees and is troubled by? And we seem to be focusing more on that rather than it's become all about elections become all about appealing to your own internal crowd rather than. So then then this trying to become a Vishwaguru just doesn't work.

Salman Khurshid: Yeah, but you see, I carefully not use that expression because that takes me back to lecturing. That takes me back to Vishwagurus should not be self-appointed. Vishwagurus should be not self-anointed. Vishwagurus must emerge out of genuine feeling that the people of the world have about the goodness of India. I've always had a problem about people who say that Indian foreign policy or foreign policy anywhere has nothing to do with ethics. I believe that Mahatma Gandhi's attitude was different. I believe the first generation of leadership in India, post-independence leadership in India was different. There is a mixture of ethics with pragmatism, but it's not just pragmatism all the way. Ethics must have a role. Ethics must play a role.

Salman Khurshid: And I think that's where India can truly be truly be a guru for the world is to show how ethics can play a role. There is today a pervasive presence of violence in the world. But there's also a great, great lack of ethics and morality in international relations. And therefore, I think that's the gap that needs to be filled. And India could fill that gap.

Sidharth Bhatia: So this is what you'll be telling them if you're called to sit down.

Salman Khurshid: I don't know how much ethics and morality matters to anyone that would call me. They might
think that I'm outdated and I'm Jurassic. But I would still give it a try.

Sidharth Bhatia: Well, I don't think you're Jurassic because what you were thinking about represents some 60 years, 55 to 60 years of strong foreign policy ideas that have been not just imposed, but cultivated and nurtured over the years. India, in its weakest economic moments, had something to offer the world. I suppose you could argue that they were statesmen at that time. But at this moment, as you have also said very clearly, and it's becoming more and more apparent, we are no longer the kind of player we aspire to be. And so I think you diplomatically, but quite clearly, summed it up quite well for us. Thank you very much, Salman.

Sidharth Bhatia: That was Salman Khurshid, former Minister of External Affairs in the Congress government, a keen observer of foreign policy in India and a regular speaker on domestic as well as international issues. Thank you once again. We will be back once again with another guest. Till then, from me, Siddharth Bhatia and the rest of the WireTalks team, goodbye.