A Conversation with the former Foreign Secretary Of India, Mr Maharajakrishna Rasgotra

Interviewed by Prem Ansh Sinha (Editor-in-Chief, Ramjas Political Review)

Edited by Piyush Rangra (Associate Editor) & Arnav Sinha (Junior Editor)

An edited transcript of a candid conversation, as taken on August 14th, 2024 at the residence of Shri Maharajakrishna Rasgotra-ji is as follows:

PS (Abbreviation for Prem Ansh Sinha): Mr Rasgotra, in your book A Life in Diplomacy, you mention that figures like KM Panikkar, Pandit Nehru, and VK Krishna Menon had certain expectations for India’s future. Tomorrow, we celebrate the 78th Independence Day. Do you believe those expectations have been fulfilled? Are we on the right track, or would they be disappointed with the current state of the nation? What is your view?

MR (Abbreviation for Maharajakrishna Rasgotra): How old are you?

PS: I am twenty, Sir

MR: You were not born during that period (laughs), so you would not know what India was like in 1947. I am a hundred-year-old now, but at the time of independence, I was around twenty-four. I spent my early childhood in very difficult times. For instance, The Bengal Famine killed two-three million people, and the government at the time showed no concern. Poverty was rampant, education was extremely limited, and there were very few universities. Compare that to today — there are numerous universities, many of them very good. In my view, the country has progressed significantly since 1947, especially in areas like science, space exploration, and innovation. Maybe you are not completely satisfied, and that is good — it motivates you to push the government for betterment. But we have come a long way and should acknowledge that.

PS: If Pandit Nehru were to see India today, do you think he would be pleased?

MR: Anyone familiar with India in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s should be happy with its progress today. Of course, there is still a lot to be done, but that is often a matter of resources. We are not a rich country yet; we do not have the funds to do everything we want. I once asked Pandit Nehru a similar question. I accompanied him to New York for a UN meeting, and before we left, he had attended the inauguration of television in India. I knew him very well and I would talk freely with him. So, I foolishly taunted him, “I have heard the news that you have just inaugurated a television, the Nigerian Prime Minister was speaking at the UN forum the previous day and he told us that they are now using television for mass education. So, have you thought about where Nigeria is and where were we? This comparison has disturbed me.” He (Pandit Nehru) was quiet and pensive for half a minute or so and then said, “Maybe, you are right. But, I have got many things to do and I do not have all the resources that I need. So what I am doing is laying the foundation of every endeavour on which you have to build.” A very honest answer in my opinion. To sum it all up, considering where the foreign occupiers left this country and observing the India of today, I think we have made very solid progress and on this basis, India will grow much faster in the future. It will lead in the fields of science and technology.

PS: Sir, do you not think we are still lagging in scholarship in the fields of humanities and social sciences, where we have not developed any theory post-independence that could level Kautilya’s Arthashastra?

MR: I understand your concern. But compare India to Pakistan or Indonesia today. We started at the same time, and we are far ahead of both.

PS: But when we compare India with China, the story is different.

MR: Yes, we do not have communism. We do not have dictators here. So, the difference is in the process. How many million Chinese did Mao kill? Do you remember the figure? This happened around fifteen years ago, when millions were starved to death in China. So, one way of progressing is to carry everybody and educate them, and the other way is to set aside the people who have risen to a certain level, and kill the rest. We are India. We have a long civilisational history that places value in human life and believes in carrying everybody forward together. I am amazed by how education has spread at all levels in this country and we are being appreciated for the same in the USA which used to be the leading country. But we should not be complacent and continue to push forward.

PS: In your book, you mention that your wife, Mrs Kadambari, requested the President of the United States to act on the killings in East Bengal during the 1970s, hoping that it would enable the ten million refugees to go back home. Do you see a similar situation developing in Bangladesh today, and do you not think a war is inevitable, as some scholars suggest?

MR: Bangladesh’s political scene is noisy, but the country is stable. People argue, but that is democracy — always unsatisfied, always demanding more. This is a virtue of the system Gandhi-ji gave us, which was later nurtured by Nehru and his colleagues. God has given us troublesome neighbours, but no Indian prime minister has ever fled the country, unlike the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, some days ago. It is a reminder of our resilience, even during the Emergency, no leader fled India. While I was the Ambassador to France, George Fernandes came for a visit, and I invited him over for a dinner. He said that “we would finish this lady”; lady being Indira Gandhi. To which, I responded, “She might finish you.” But later on, I told him that she would not, as I knew her — her phraseology and thought process was in sync with democracy thanks to the political education injected into her by her father.

PS: Mrs Indira Gandhi, in an interview right after the Emergency, justified it by saying that foreign powers had been trying to interfere in India’s internal politics. How true do you think that was?

MR: She was giving a political answer to justify her actions. America did try to interfere, but did not cut much ice since Indian politicians are thoroughly Indian. So, no foreign power has been able to interfere in the internal politics of India as has happened in our neighbourhood.

PS: How was your experience of the Partition of India? I have heard many stories from my teachers during my time in Punjab. Did you feel fear, or did you hold on to hope?

MR: Oh! It was a terrible experience. It was a terrible experience. My entire family, except me, was in Pakistan. My parents were in Shakargarh near Jammu, and my brothers were in Multan running their businesses. They had to flee, walking for one day and one night along the Beas to reach Jammu. Although no one in my family was harmed, our businesses were taken over by our Muslim neighbours. At the time, I was a professor in Ludhiana and wrote to Nehru about my family’s situation. Despite his many responsibilities, he arranged for their evacuation from Multan by air. Nehru had a big heart.

PS: Sir, this is a contemporary political debate and might not have any relevance for the current times, but given you have had the experience of working with them and hearing about them — do you think Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel would have made a better prime minister than Pandit Nehru?

MR: Gandhi-ji had declared that Nehru would be the Prime Minister of India, and everyone followed suit. Sardar Patel might have been a better choice, but he died just three years after independence. Nehru provided stability, and Patel made his invaluable contribution by integrating the princely states. Had Patel lived longer, perhaps there would have been some friction between him and Nehru.

PS: Sir, you wrote in your book that Sri Satya Sai Baba had told you that when you are confronted with a difficult problem, do what you think is right and do it fearlessly as a duty that has to be done in the spirit of service. How do you abide by this in case of a dilemma?

MR: This advice was given to me by a saint. I have always had a temperament that allowed me to follow that advice. It has been a part of my mindset throughout my life.

PS: But how did you stay positive and receptive when you disagreed with a prime minister or your seniors on a policy issue, especially when you believed you were right?

MR: I am not a believer of this ‘would have been’ philosophy. As an after-thought, if you are wiser, you keep quiet and if you are foolish then you would say, “this could have been better” and make an enemy for yourself. But, if you can argue and change someone’s thought process then do go about the same. When I was the Foreign Secretary of India, I had daily discussions with Indira Gandhi on various issues. Sometimes she was right, and sometimes I was, but there was a mutual respect and trust, which allowed open dialogue. All prime ministers are receptive to discussion and disagreements with their bureaucrats including the current Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, who has been a chief minister as well for ten years and does listen to advice from his bureaucrats.

PS: Sir, in your book you talk about Nepal’s Durand Syndrome where in 1890, after a three-year stint in Kathmandu — the British Resident Major EL Durand reported to the then Foreign Secretary HM Durand in Delhi that “despite the fact of liberality of British-Indian government, the settled policy of the durbar is to play-off China against us and to make use of pretended subordination to that power as a safeguard against the spread of our influence over this country.” Do you not think it is still prevalent? And how do you think cordial relations can be reached with Nepal? Recently, they have updated their currency notes with the Indian territories of Lipulekh and Kalapani, how do we go about such issues?

MR: Talking things out is the only way forward. It has to be done over and over again. Let Nepal find out that they have made the wrong choice and allow them the autonomy to make such choices. As far as the question of territories is concerned, they are small and have not been officially handed over by us. A resolution will only come through dialogue.

PS: There was this idea of Indian diplomacy among the Western diplomats that our diplomatic parleys were argumentative, spiritually pretentious, and hypocritical. Is it still the case?

MR: Americans used to say that “you Indians are too argumentative”. We were argumentative since we had arguments to give. We used to laugh and talk it out. You see, bilateral interactions are about confrontation, understanding the opponent's point of view and agreeing that war is difficult. Diplomacy is about standoffs, stalemates, and interactions and that is the case.

PS: Sir, I would now like to ask you about China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which has tried to target India’s neighbours and trap nations in China’s debt diplomacy. One of the critical aspects in this regard is the military base developed by China in Djibouti and the failure of the Assumption Island Project taken up by India in Seychelles. Furthermore, why do you say in your book that the One Belt One Road Initiative is seemingly innocent?

MR: As far as the military base built by China in Djibouti is concerned, it is of not much importance and India is being too sensitive about Chinese plans. We have a small but skilled Navy which can take care of the same. I have my doubts concerning the Belt and Road Initiative, which is about creating Chinese influence over the Indian Ocean region. India is the ‘Big Brother’ in the neighbourhood and therefore suffers from the Big Brother Syndrome. As far as the Seychelles question is concerned, each country has its interest to take care of and our interest lies in making sure that their interests are not in conflict with ours. We have to make sure that we maintain friendly relations with such nations where our interest lies. We have done this job fairly in my opinion and face a challenge from China only because Pakistan is going down the drain.

PS: Sir, Winston Churchill had this proud view about the British Civil Service and its ethos. Does the British Civil Service act in the same way as it used to do? To what extent, did we inherit those post-independence?

MR: The British have been reduced to their small islands and have lost weight and influence which they used to have at one point in time across the globe. However, they still lead in higher education and the world’s two oldest universities — Oxford and Cambridge are there. But they suffer from a ‘do we matter now?’ problem and are trying to exert power that they do not have, just like India did in the case of Sri Lanka by sending its troops which was a serious mistake. Indira Gandhi’s message to Rajiv Gandhi that was delivered by me to him was to ‘Never enter Sri Lanka’. If we give India fifty years, it will indeed become a great power. But power should always be contained and not thrown around your neighbourhood or abroad as the USA did in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Containing your power is always enough to deter your enemies.

PS: How do you think India should respond to the turmoil in Bangladesh since Sheikh Hasina has also taken refuge in India?

MR: India should make sure to have cordial relations with the new regime. Muhammad Yunus is a good person in my opinion, and shall improve Bangladesh. Border management is very poor in India and needs to be voiced out by the youth as there has been an invasion of illegal immigrants in Assam and West Bengal that have become vote-banks for select political parties, but nobody is going to trespass India in my opinion. India should also ensure that Sheikh Hasina engages in no mischief against Bangladesh from India, where she has been given refuge on humanitarian grounds.

PS: Rasgotra-ji, if you were to give any suggestion to any student interested in foreign services about something you think you learnt late, which they should be aware of from the very beginning, what would that be?

MR: Nothing as such. The advantage I had was that I became a part of the services when the country was born but we were fast learners and our diplomats could take on anyone at the time.

PS: Do you think there should be a separate exam for foreign services?

MR: There is a common exam for all services but I think they check for the subjects taken by you before allocating any service. In my case, since I had opted for international relations, I was asked in my interview about how the Indian foreign policy is made. To this, I replied, “Firstly, Indian foreign policy is made by Jawaharlal Nehru and secondly, foreign policy is drafted based on our interests vis-à-vis other countries.” I wish we had succeeded in having a more diversified foreign policy as we had put all our eggs in the Moscow basket. When I became the Foreign Secretary of India, I was made aware by the Foreign Minister and Prime Minister’s Advisor at that time that India had only one friend and was very happy with that friend. In my first meeting with the Prime Minister, I reiterated my concerns about being friends with only Moscow and called for her to develop good ties with the USA as making an enemy of them would incur harm on India. I also asked the Prime Minister to ask her advisors what would happen if India got annoyed with Russia, what would Russia do? To which the Prime Minister responded, “That is why you have been called, to make them all think.”

Piyush Rangra (Associate Editor): Sir, how do you think Nehru’s foreign policy of non-alignment stays relevant to date with the coinage of a fresh term - ‘multi-alignment’ for the same, and why should we continue with it and not adopt a much more realist foreign policy view as the USA?

MR: Nehru’s idea was relevant at a time when the world was sharply divided. Despite not joining any of the two blocs, we were always leaning towards the side of Russia. We did come out strongly against the West and were tagged as ‘Russian stooges’, but we took a sharp stance against Russia in the case of their intervention in Afghanistan. I remember we were in Moscow where Mrs Gandhi, Principal Secretary Alexander, and I met with Brezhnev and his advisors. In the discussions that took place, Brezhnev kept saying that he was reluctant to go into Afghanistan and initially had sent about 10,000 troops and now, there were 1,10,000 troops and he did not know what they were doing there. He wanted to know the way out. Brezhnev repeated the same question twice to Indira Gandhi to which she ultimately replied that ‘the way out is the way in’. The room grew quiet and later on, the Prime Minister insisted that I stay in Russia and explain what she meant to the Soviets. Ultimately, I explained to them that they should leave the way they came in, and that is the only wise thing they can do as this is the region from which each foreign power had to flee, declare victory and retreat. I gave the same argument to the Americans during Vietnam. To sum this up with an aphorism — so many unwise people rule the world.

PS: How do you think we should be going about the neighbourhood problem and what are your suggestions to future policy-makers and budding diplomats for the same?

MR: When I was the Foreign Secretary of India, neighbours were stable. As such most of our neighbours are smaller than us which makes them inconsequential in my opinion. However, China is our biggest neighbour, and the biggest challenge can only be worked out through talks on borders and other issues of contention. China had already acquired the territory it wanted from India during the 1962 war. These areas in my opinion were never in Indian control historically and it was only Nehru’s wisdom that he tried to protect those territories and deployed troops over there. We have created noise on this incursion to get attention against Chinese advances. The hard truth about the 1962 debacle should be accepted as these areas were never under proper administration because the Britishers ruled over India very poorly.

PS: Rasgotra-ji, how did you find the peace of mind to write poetry while you were in the foreign services?

MR: When I was struck by a thought, inspiration, and figurative imagination — I have written a lot but published very few poems because most of them make up my personal collection which I do not want to publish.

PS: Sir, you have your origins in today’s Pakistan. With this pace, do you think Pakistan will still exist after fifty years? What do you think is the future of both the countries — India and Pakistan?

MR: Pakistan is messing things up well and properly. It was a reasonable chunk of British India and the richest part of British India agriculturally and had a solid industrial base which has now been destroyed. Islamic conquerors are very good at destruction and running destructive campaigns. Is there any rich and progressive Islamic-state? Saudi Arabia and UAE are rich but certainly not progressive as they live with mediaeval mindsets. Gods have been fairly unjust to India as it has not been allocated any resources. India in the future will get out of the poverty trap. Narendra Modi is trying to push the country out of this malaise. India will indeed become a developed country by 2075, and become more progressive and prosperous than China at that point. As I have said earlier, we have seen substantial progress since our independence and the pace of the growth is set to increase now. India suffers from a conservative mindset in the government's human resources, also called the Babu mindset. In my opinion, there is a Babu mind and a Nehru mind where the former is conservative and the latter is progressive. We require dynamism within these two mindsets to push India in the right direction.

PS: Rasgotra-ji, I am still not satisfied with your response on how to solve the neighbourhood problem. You said that they will taunt us, punch us, and we have to be absorptive towards this behaviour. What is the breaking point?

MR: We need not say aggressive things but we should make them feel guilty. Right from the beginning, Nehru focussed a lot on the development of Nepal and provided them with ample amounts of funds. Now, they are playing the politics of India versus China. If I were the Prime Minister of India today, I would let them get swayed by China to get more funds which over the long run will automatically make them balance relations with India.

PS: Sir, how do you make the right decision when you are in a position of power?

MR: If you are sitting in a powerful post, you can consult several people and you should do that. You are never alone in policy-making arenas whether public or private. You are surrounded by people who have ideas, who have jealousy, and who may want to mislead you as well. You need to be a capable judge of people and personalities, a skill that you can learn through debates, discussions, and dialogues. Your teachers are your best guides.

PS: Rasgotra-ji, eight years after the release of your book, do you think you might wish to add more to it or is it a complete

book for you?

MR: No. It is complete in my opinion and does not require any addition, as nothing major has happened or developed in India since 2016, which makes me inclined to not add anything to this book in the form of an appendix or a hundred-page book right now.

Ends.

Featured image credit: Rajeev Bhatt