Transcription
It's also a reality that the kind of dominance that the United States had in the 1950s, 60s, or in the 1990s, 2000, it doesn't have. It cannot be that one democracy has a right to comment on another, and that's part about promoting democracy globally. But when others do that, then it becomes foreign interference. Look, you have every right to comment, but I have every right to comment on your comment, so don't feel bad when I do.
Perhaps even in a multivaritor, multi-polar world, there is still room to recognize that the US plays a very special role in that world. And, uh, as a practical matter, one could point to the presence of the UN, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank here. One can point to the role that Washington still plays, for example, in patrolling international sea lanes. One can point to the role. You don't have to convince me. I'm not into I'm not into declinism. I'm I'm getting set up to to ask you the following question. You know the tech industry in California. So with what aspects of that kind of US leadership is India comfortable, and with what aspects of that is India perhaps concerned or or might question it?
Um, look, uh, there is no question that the United States still has a very unique position in the world order. For reasons of polymics or mind games or posturing, people may suggest otherwise, but even the people who suggest otherwise, uh, know the truth. At the same time, it's also a reality that the kind of dominance that the United States had in the 1950s, 60s, or in the 1990s, 2000, it doesn't have. So, uh, so it's a kind of half empty, half full, uh, situation.
Now, for us, uh, uh, you know, which part works for us? Much of it does, you know, uh, I give you the example of Quad. I, you know, if you if you look today on technology issues or maritime safety, security or supply chain issues or, uh, or, uh, even the manner in which international institutions should be, I mean, there would be a lot which would be common with the United States. Obviously, there would be some because, look, uh, we are a developing country. Our political history is different. Our actual interests in some cases, our trade interests or climate climate action interests may be different. So, there would be areas of differences. But if you ask me saying net net, where you where do you come out? I think we come out very overwhelmingly on the side of a strong relationship. Which is why, actually, the story, uh, if if one looks at Indian foreign policy for the last say two to three decades, it's it's really been a story of steady growth of India-US relationship because I think successive administrations on both sides, uh, you know, going back, I would say maybe to late Clinton, Clinton watch, uh, I would sort of pick that as the inflection, uh, point. I think since then it's been steadily on the up.
So picking up on that, the US and India are among the world's leading countries with democratic forms of government. And, uh, here in the US, uh, our democracy, which includes much debate about many issues, sometimes features political leaders in the US making comments about democracy in India. And, uh, that has sometimes provoked a crisp response from the external affairs ministry, perhaps, uh, pointing out that there are, uh, members of the Indian diaspora in the US that might have concerns or complaints about racism or about gun violence. Uh, I wonder how you think about that dynamic and what potential possibilities you might see for constructive dialogue between the US and India on these issues.
You know, there's, uh, one, the reality, and two, the handling of the reality. Uh, what's the reality? The reality is the world is very globalized, uh, and, uh, uh, as a result, the politics, uh, of any country doesn't necessarily stay within the national boundaries of the country. Now, the United States, of course, makes a special effort to ensure it doesn't. You know, that's that's part of how you've conducted your foreign policy over many years. Now, uh, as, uh, in a in a globalized era where there are also globaliz, you know, global agendas, there are players who like to shape not only the politics of their own country or their own region, but try and do it globally. And, you know, social media, economic forces, financial flows, all these give you opportunities to do that. How do you shape the narrative? So, so you have a whole industry here. Okay. Uh, so, so you write up reports about people, you rank people, you spotlight, uh, countries. That's that's the game.
Now, uh, as I said, that's a reality. So, what happens with that reality is it's part of the overall competition. A competition among countries and competition among political forces. And when it is a competition, you expect others to do what they will, and it's your right to do what you will, and that's playing out in a way. But if you look at a state-to-state, government-to-government level, uh, we think it's important that democracies are mutually respectful. It cannot be that one democracy has a right to comment on another, and that's part about promoting democracy globally. But when others do that, then it becomes foreign interference. You know, foreign interference is foreign interference irrespective of who does it and where it is done. So, uh, it's a, it's a, it's a testy area. And my personal view, which I have shared with many counterparts, is look, you have every right to comment, but I have every right to comment on your comment, so don't feel bad when I do.
Understood. And of course, building on your point, the the complexity of how countries get interconnected reflects in part the diasporas that exist and the fact that the US is an immigrant country. So there are many, many people of South Asian origin here, and they have different perspectives. I guess that also highlights, um, another dimension, perhaps of India's role in the world that I wanted you to comment on a little, which is how, um, India and the Indian government sees its relationships with diasporas not only in the US but around the world.
You know, um, we have, uh, roughly, uh, about, uh, something like 18, 19 million Indian nationals who live abroad. Uh, these are people with Indian passports, and probably about 14, 15 million people of Indian origin who, uh, would have had an Indian passport or would have hailed from India at some point of time because this goes back to the last century when people didn't have passports. Now, uh, when a country has this 30 million plus constituency out there, it needs to have some kind of thinking, you know, how do you relate to such a large number of people? Because these numbers are only going to grow, you know, uh, when, when, uh, I mean, you, you referred in your initial remarks to technology. I mean, uh, I feel today, uh, looking at the current era, if India has something to bring to the table, because, you know, there are, there are two ways by which you, you make space for yourself in international, in the global order. One is to rise quantitatively, uh, which is the GDP growth, etc. But one is also to make yourself important or relevant or indispensable to the global order. You know, people do that by having a resource or having a technology or taking responsibilities. I think there, what India can do is definitely bring the people factor, the talent factor into play. And you can do that because of technology. That today's era of technology is going to require trained people, trained talent on a scale for which there are very few suppliers in the world, and we are one. Uh, so when I contemplate a global workplace, when I look at greater mobility of people, and for me today, mobility is probably the most frequent conversations I have with my counterparts. I mean, I met 60 odd ministers in the UN, at least 25, 30 of them would have brought up, you know, mobility of of, uh, people. So we have to have a policy for the global workplace. We have to have a policy for what happens when you have these communities outside. How do you maintain their their, uh, connection, uh, with, with the mother country?