Remarks by EAM, Dr. S. Jaishankar at the Jasjit Singh Memorial Lecture at CAPS

India's Grand Strategy in an Uncertain Multipolar World Amidst Shifting Balance of Power and Rising Nationalism

Air Vice Marshal Anil Golani,

Dr. Sanjaya Baru, Chiefs, Former Chiefs, Former Bosses,

Air Cmdre Jasjit Singh's family,

Distinguished guests,

I am very glad to join you all today and deliver the Jasjit Singh Memorial Lecture at this FNSS's CAPS event. This is naturally an occasion to discuss issues with which Air Cmdre Jasjit Singh was closely associated with in his lifetime. But before doing so, I request you to indulge me in some personal memories of someone who we considered a part of our family.

2. For me, Jasjit was initially a colleague and a friend of my father. The considerable overlap in our areas of interest and profession were naturally the subjects of our conversation. But our relationship became much closer in 1986 when he came to the United States, where I was then posted, as part of our effort to block the sale of AWACS aircraft to Pakistan. We travelled the length and breadth of the United States together- from the Pentagon, State Department and the Congress in Washington DC, to the Air War College in Montgomery, the Naval one in Newport and ended up actually at the PACOM headquarters in Hawaii. It was a real experience watching Jasjit nuance his arguments to the audience and make his points with moderation and credibility. To people in the Congress and the bureaucracy, he gave tactful tutorials. To his fellow military officers in the United States, he spoke a language they understood. And believe me, for someone like me in the profession of diplomacy, these were very important learnings. Along the way, I got a taste of his sardonic humour, his insights into other military cultures, especially he has fascinating stories about Iraq and his considerable knowledge of Afghanistan. And you must bear in mind, at that time, we are talking of the 80's, so the Afghan Jihad, the war was on against the USSR. Time moved on, so did we, and for the next three decades, Jasjit and I, spoke often, we met occasionally when I was here, but we interacted closely one way or the other. My last memories of him, was when I was Ambassador in China. And I must say, that more than many others then, he understood the challenge we confronted.

3. Many of you know Jasjit as a senior service colleague, as a strategic thinker and as an opinion shaper. He belonged, as Dr. Baru just reminded us, he belonged to that generation which actually took national security debates out of bureaucratic closets and squarely into public space. Equally important, he was a pioneer in bridging the uniformed and civilian domains on this subject. Like all of you, I too value these two contributions immensely because they are part of our systematic evolution as a major power. Indeed, it is endeavours such as his that have contributed to the emergence of a more holistic view of national security, just as they have spurred a review of our defence practices and assumptions.

4. When I look back at Jasjit's writings, and occasionally I pull out books from my bookshelf, what make them stand out, then and even now, is actually the experience and judiciousness which was reflected in his articulation. He understood that for decision makers, different sometimes very, even contradictory equities needed to be taken into account. There are second and third order consequences of many decisions. The thought processes and responses of others have to be anticipated and factored in. Understanding our own capabilities and appreciating the larger context is equally necessary. Most important, grandstanding should be avoided to enable serious discussion. Many of these considerations permeated Jasjit's approach, be it to our nuclear strategy, to defence challenges or to national security calculations. He could be sharp but he was never polemical. That was a key reason why the policy world also took his advice and his writings so seriously.

5. The period when Jasjit actively contributed to the national security discourse was actually one of extraordinary change both for our country and for the world. Let us think back on those three decades: the Cold War ended, the USSR disintegrated, a thaw began in our relations with the United States, Pakistan actually revived due to the Afghan war and China rapidly modernized and grew its Comprehensive National Power. These were the very years when in India, we had our 1991 economic crisis, began an era of coalition governments, debated the exercise of our nuclear option, stood up to pressures on Jammu & Kashmir and sought a modus vivendi with both China and Pakistan. Many of these trends intensified with the passage of time, some produced outcomes while others remain open issues even today. The nuclear test and the subsequent diplomacy…and I am glad Sanjaya referred to the subsequent diplomacy because people often underestimate that part of how we managed the world after our test, these are example of the former. The picture in respect of both Pakistan and China has also considerably changed. The incipient openings of the 1990s became real opportunities in regard to the United States. The politics of our neighborhood also started reflecting these larger global trends. In all this, my takeaway from the many interactions with Jasjit was the manner in which he always put India's interests at the center of his thinking. He sought to get the best for us from a dynamic and fast changing world, even if it meant departing radically from the past. At the same time, his prescriptions were always sober, always grounded and always practical.

6. So today, we could ask ourselves, how would Jasjit have dealt with the world that we confront currently? I believe, as a soldier, he was an inherently competitive person and would have approached it with those instincts. In a sense, the topic for this lecture itself… and by the way I didn't pick it, somebody else did and they really loaded it on, but the topic for this lecture itself provides an answer. First, he would have definitely applied himself to fashioning a grand strategy. And that is because one is needed for India to emerge as a leading power in the coming decade and develop a global footprint beyond that. Second, he would have dissected the uncertainties of our times, of which Covid, conflict and climate change are significant examples. Obviously, that would have called for appropriate solutions in various domains, capturing issues like pandemic cooperation, connectivity initiatives or economic resilience. He would have certainly advocated for a multi-polar world, not only because it is increasingly a fact of life, but since it is a natural expression of global diversity. An outcome of rebalancing and globalization, it is driving the very nature of the global order, creating a new set of more consequential powers, and enhancing the regionalization of international politics. Of course, Jasjit would have noted rising nationalism as a global trend, a phenomenon by the way that has multiple causes. Wherever we may stand on that issue, its reality cannot be denied. But in addition to all this, I do feel that he would have given the consequences of technology advancement on world politics its full due. It was a subject close to his heart but its revolutionary implications on the balance of power would probably have fascinated him. At the same time, his strong sense of history would have enabled him to take a long view of all these developments.

7. With that in mind, let us contemplate the world around us currently. The foundation for any strategizing is obviously to understand the landscape. It is only when there is a proper appreciation of its contradictions and possibilities that any nation can plan its growth and advancement. The first feature in that regard is, we hyave already spoken about it, the emergence of multi-polarity. Multi-polarity is still in its early stages, it is unevenly developed and its imperfectly evolved. Grasping its intricacies is therefore itself an enormous challenge. At times, we could over estimate it; on other occasions, it could actually disappoint. Part of the problem is that depending on the metric used, a different set of prominent players emerge in calculations. Military multi-polarity for example, is currently very different from the economic one, or indeed from those of technology, energy, resources or other currencies of power. Infact an overlapping Venn diagram would naturally reduce the number of consequential powers. But as we are seeing from current events, having strong sectoral strengths can itself be very impactful.

8. Another dimension which is also gaining ground arises from the regionalization of power distribution. With the end of the Cold War and the dissipation of that brief period of unipolarity, the world is dealing with the weakening of an overarching architecture. No nation, indeed no alliance, has the ability anymore to impose its will across the world. Not just that, all of them are so chary of commitments that very often, they willingly leave players in any region to sort out a particular problem. As a result, middle powers - who in any case are growing in weight and growing in numbers - now have greater space to pursue their interests. Ideally, this should be accompanied by taking on greater responsibilities. That unfortunately does not happen in every case.

9. Speaking about metrics of power, the ability to disrupt is itself today a very impactful strategic tool in a globalized era. Because the world is so connected, supply chains are so extended, connectivity is still so limited and time is money, there are opportunities waiting to be exploited by those who have adequate capabilities and high risk appetite. We can all see what is happening in the Red Sea. The efficiencies of our times have created accompanying vulnerabilities, whose exploitation is no longer a function of just orthodox power.

10. Having said that, there is also the reality of aggregating many of these trends. Combinations of nations coming together on a specific agenda, sometimes even limited in time and space, are a growing feature of contemporary international relations. Many of them can be benign, they can even be irrelevant to the exercise of power. And India by the way, has joined or initiated almost 40 such groupings in the last decade. But, from time to time, there could be endeavours that have a larger implication for a theater, or for a region, in terms of its stability, security, progress and prosperity. The Quad and the Indo-Pacific come to mind in this context, since they address deficits in ensuring global good. A very different example, are the understandings among certain nations that influence capabilities, including in the midst of conflict. What is common is that in the era of multi-polarity, all nations benefit from converging partners. The lesson here is to get beyond the old mold of alliance thinking, something that analysts of that culture find extremely hard to do.

11. While on that subject, a debate on the merits and costs of alliances are also very much a feature of our times. Here too, we have conflicting trends, some emanating from geopolitics, others reflecting domestic divisions. Those who have spent the last eight decades comfortable in alliance structures are today very worried nations. Others are not indifferent, but are probably nimble enough to seek creative solutions to ensure security and stability. It is hard to predict where this will go, mainly because the nature of challenges themselves vary from region to region. Much as they would deny, most nations are relatively detached on matters that do not immediately impact them. A paradox of our times is that the interdependence of globalization co-exists with the self-centeredness of prosperity. Who will step forward to what degree on which issue is getting harder to gauge.

12. If all this was not enough, let us also recognize that the very nature of power has changed. Application of force is less necessary now to exert influence, infact it is often counter-productive. Instead, we have seen the increasing leveraging of economic factors and of technology in world affairs. Sanctions are an extreme example. A more frequent one is to use market shares of everything from exports and imports, resources and services, debt and technology, for political purposes. In fact, the very nature of globalization itself is today a national security concern for many of us. That is why we need reliable and resilient supply chains, trusted and transparent digital partners, a diversification of production centres, greater connectivity options - infact, I would say, a serious effort at fairer and more secure re-globalization. Only then can we de-risk not just the global economy, but international affairs itself.

13. The role of rising nationalism in shaping world affairs must also be recognized. In those parts of the world where the old globalization mantra still prevails, nationalism is a bad word. But the truth is that they do reflect the frustrations in many developed societies, where the quality of life has been eroded by bad geo-political and geo-economic choices. In the developing world however, the picture is understandably very different. It was nationalism, after all, that triggered independence, growth, rebalancing and led to multi-polarity. In many societies, as these trends matured, more authentic representation took root. They naturally would like to extend rebalancing to its cultural facets as well. Like it or not, the world will be significantly more nationalistic in the foreseeable future. And that means greater individualism, a stronger sense of caution on external commitments, and a global architecture that will be considerably less disciplined. 14. In this context, it is imperative that India clinically evaluate global happenings and calculate its benefits. Often, what is good for us as national interest is also good for the world. That arises partly from the tight connection that we have nurtured with the Global South and the confidence that they repose in us. There are multiple divides and frictions in the world now, many of them overlapping. The fundamental one is between those powers competing for the top of the global hierarchy. In some cases, our interests are directly affected and we should not be timid about making choices that benefit us. There would be occasions when we may not wish to be drawn in on terms that are set by others. By and large, the optimal approach would be to make our judgement and then seek common ground with similar players. From time to time, situations could arise where we may also have to just play our own hand. A multi-vector foreign policy with national security and CNP growth at its core is obviously the answer for India in these circumstances. The fact is that the fifth largest economy in the world, likely to be the third soon, with the kind of external interests that we have developed, and will continue to grow, we cannot shirk responsibilities. Infact, it is very much in our interest that this uncertain world is stabilized to the extent possible by rules, by regimes and by law. And equally important, we have a say in fashioning them.

15. If Air Cmdre Jasjit was here to strategize with us, my guess is that he would say:

(i) Build core strengths and deep capabilities ASAP. Especially for a world of chips, drones, space and underwater. Rashtra Suraksha is AtmaNirbharta.

(ii) Focus on technology and related HR. Prepare for the era of AI that we have entered. Create the institutional capacities and practices for it.

(iii) Mitigate external exposure to leveraging by building multiple options.

(iv) Find convergent partners and advance specific agendas. No matter if they sometimes are at odds; diplomacy will find a way. Trust us.

(v) Leapfrog on capabilities, out-think on tactics and don't be gamed.

(vi) Fix the bane of all systems i.e., siloed thinking. Integration, jointness and holistic approaches are not just military challenges but systemic ones as well.

16. So let me conclude by saying this: the last decade has been very different in so many dimensions. The global landscape has changed and will continue to do so. India's primary concerns and challenges also have, reflecting that transformation. We are looking at new forms of competition that take advantage of high inter-penetration and inter-dependence. The task before us is to effectively address challenges and confidently exploit opportunities. We have more resources now, but also have higher stakes. There is no question that the world is more volatile and it is more complicated. But, I have little doubt that Air Cmdre Jasjit Singh would have exhorted us to plan well to rise in an uncertain world.

I thank you all for your attention.

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.