TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW GIVEN BY EAM DR S. JAISHANKAR AT ET CONCLAVE

Interviewer

Good morning, Dr. Jaishankar. Always a pleasure to have you. Our guest here needs no introduction, so I'm not going to waste much time. Troubled days, tough playing conditions.

S. Jaishankar

So is that a question or an observation? A question Well uh uh things are a little complicated because I think lot of lot of uh lot of changes uh in lot of accounts, uh some very important ones. And and it isn't you know specific to us. I I think that's the state of the world. If you go anywhere in the world and ask probably any foreign minister, they probably give you the same answer.

Interviewer

It's true. But you know, we all have been uh so uh focused on the Uh US conversation. Uh sort of taken over everything else and a lot of the mind space. Now I we all are fondly remembering those days when the reset happened. We are talking about at least two and a half decades of work. You were at the start. How do you feel today?

S. Jaishankar

Well look uh I I've always maintained uh that uh what has been happening for the last uh twenty-five years uh I mean I would uh I would uh I even in my writings or other occasions I really sort of identified uh probably Clinton's visit as the major inflection point, then the nuclear deal as the next one. then probably PM Modi's visit in 2014 as the next one. So we've had uh we've had uh uh developments. I would say the overall trend has always been net net positive. It's not like we have not had issues with the US. We've had Uh I mean I remember uh for example lot of pressures we got on Pakistan during the George Bush time at the very time when nuclear uh uh deal was also being negotiated. Uh so uh there have been issues, there were issues even with China, you know uh during Obama's time there was this whole idea of a G2. Uh so Uh what happens with the passage of time, everything looks smooth and nice and you think this was preordained and it was going to happen. The reality is it's always, you know, relations uh particularly with big countries who have multiple stakes and we ourselves today are a big country also with multiple multiple relations. They are bound to, you know, there'll be areas where you work together, there'll be areas where you argue with each other. That's the nature of it. I think the the key would be to say, okay, at the end of it all, uh overall are you ahead? And and that's uh been largely the trend. Uh so uh yes, right now uh I think uh there are issues uh it's it's not uh it's it's pretty open. Uh but uh I would not uh therefore take it you know uh I Uh first of all, it's not that we've not had issues before and I would not say therefore uh other parts of the relationship where the convergences are strong and things are moving, that's not there.

Interviewer

That is very much there. But you've not had a US President come down so hard on India and publicly and also his key advisors and then slapping you with tariffs and now national security tariffs at the same time when we have a strategic relationship. I mean we need to explain this or understand this for the audience also and generally.

S. Jaishankar

Well, we've not had a US president who's conducted foreign policy as publicly as the current one. You know, that itself is a departure. That's not limited to India. That's limited, in fact, for that matter, who's not conducted his domestic policies as publicly as this one too. So I I think we got to understand, you know, uh before I come to India US, that uh uh the President Trump's way of dealing with the world, even dealing with his own country, is uh uh very major departure from the traditional orthodox manner of doing so. You know, the I'm just giving you some examples. Say the applications of tariff in this manner, even for trade, is is novel. The application of tariffs for non-trade issues is even more so. The fact that a lot of this is said in public, often the first pronouncement is in public is even more anusual. So this is this is a situation which the entire world is facing. Now where we are concerned, I think uh we have uh at this moment uh three issues first of all trade. And I I think in my mind that's really the major, major issue. uh uh in terms of uh uh the negotiations which are underway. And uh uh you know negotiations are still going on. Uh but the bottom line is you know, we have some red lines. No, w look I mean negotiations are still going on in the sense that nobody said the negotiations are off. You know. I mean and uh and people people uh do talk to each other. I mean it's not like uh there's a cutie uh there. So so look, there is a uh there is a um uh what happens is uh we have red lines In the negotiations, we have to be clear as to you know red lines by definition are lines to be maintained and defended Uh uh keeping that in mind, see what we get. And uh frankly, uh where we are concerned, uh m the red lines are primarily the interests of our farmers uh and to some extent of our small producers. So when people pronounce that we have uh succeeded or failed or you know where are you, the bottom line is I my counter question is We as a government are committed to defend the interests of our farmers and our small producers. We are very determined on that. That's not something which we can compromise on. So anybody who thinks that uh you know who criticizes what we are doing, my counter question is are you therefore willing to compromise on those interest? Because I'm not. The second issue in a way is being presented as an oil issue But why I say it's being presented is because the same arguments which have been used to target India Have not been used to have not been applied to the largest oil importer, which is China, has not been applied to the largest LNG importer, which is the European Union. Uh and uh you know uh when people say uh we are funding the war or putting money in the coffers of uh uh Putin. Uh India European Union trade is bigger than India Russia trade. So is American money not uh European money not uh putting coffers uh putting uh money into Putin's coffers So and if you look even at trade, look at countries who say they are getting more from Europe than from us, is that the point is that the overall India EU uh your Russia EU trade with is bigger than Russia India trade. So my point is: look, if the argument is energy, there are bigger buyers. If the argument is who's trading more, there are bigger traders. If the argument is, by the way, percentage of increase. Okay. Now, yes, some countries haven't increased the percentage but because they've got bob gone and bought oil from Iran. Okay. To which also the Americans have objections. So my point, look, there is a certain inconsistency here. And if you look even at exports. I mean India's exports to Russia have grown, but not that much. I can think of some other countries whose exports have grown dramatically after 2022. And if our exports have suddenly surged, you know what that means.

Interviewer

You won't name those countries?

S. Jaishankar

I think go look at the trade statistics, it's pretty obvious. So here's my point. Uh at the end of it all, I think there is a issue of Decisions which we make in our national interest. That's our right. So in my business, we would say that's what strategic autonomy is about. And the third issue pertains to our own region, which is the issue of uh mediating uh uh you know since 1970s for f more than 50 years now. There's a national consensus in this country that we do not accept mediation in our relations with Pakistan. So here's my point. When it comes to the trade rate, the interests of farmers When it comes to our strategic autonomy, when it comes to uh opposition to mediation, this government is very clear. Our positions are there. If anybody disagrees with us, please tell the people of India that you are not prepared to defend the interests of farmers. Please tell the people of India you don't value strategic autonomy. We do. We do, we will do whatever we have to do to maintain it.

Interviewer

There are allegations which come from the other side of not just uh you know purchase of oil but profiting from oil. Uh how do you respond to those accusations?

S. Jaishankar

Look, uh it's funny you have uh people who work for a Pro-business American administration accusing other people of doing business. Okay, that's that's really uh uh curious. But here's the point. If you have a problem buying oil from India, oil or refined products, don't buy it. Nobody forces you to buy it. I mean, but Europe buys, America buys. So you don't like it, don't buy it.

Interviewer

Well that's that's a that's a good point. But uh at the same time uh you've come out in public and now things are that w with the previous Biden administration, there was an understanding of sorts or

S. Jaishankar

No, no, there wasn't on the on the oil issue.

Interviewer

It wasn't understanding.

S. Jaishankar

There was a there were a series of very explicit conversations. If you could explicit conversations saying look, we have we have no issues with your buying uh look How did that whole price cap idea come? If if the Europeans and the Americans uh I mean you can't say I object to your buying oil but I have a price cap. The the idea of a price cap is you accept that people buy that oil? So the fact that you devised the price cap meant that you accept that there's an oil trade going on with Russia. Otherwise you won't need a price cap.

Interviewer

But you've been I mean that there was a that India's role in keeping the price table. I was trying to Absolutely. There were clear conversations on that?

S. Jaishankar

In twenty twenty-two there was deep nervousness because oil prices went up. There was great nervousness, international nervousness about the price of oil. And there was a very Uh there were a set of conversations with different people in the American administration at that time that if India wanted to buy Russian oil, that's fine by us because it will stabilize the price of oil. And by the way, those, you know, after January, there were no conversations with the current administration saying don't do that.

Interviewer

And this never came up in any of the trade conversations. Never? Anyone ever asked you?

S. Jaishankar

No, I wasn't doing the trade. But no, it's not look, our trade conversations pertain to our bilateral trade. Our trade conversations did not, you know, the trade conversations did not go into the.

Interviewer

But they are linking it, so they should have obviously.

S. Jaishankar

Yeah, but you know. Uh as I said, that was not the case. There were no discussions on this issue before uh deposition was made public.

Interviewer

They've used the term national security tariff. We had uh Shashitaroo yesterday who called it sanctions. Uh how do you look at national security tariff as a as just the way it has been framed? And and sort of pushing India in that.

S. Jaishankar

My point is a b uh is a very clear point, which is that We are buying oil to stabilize the oil markets. Yes, it is in our national interest. We have never pretended otherwise, but we also say it is in global interest And you call it what you will. You know, I don't think that is the relevant point. I think the relevant point is that uh living tariffs on a country for doing what it has been doing uh openly with you know and which other countries continue to do in larger uh volumes than us is in our view unfair and unjustified. Beyond that point, you know whether you call it this or that, I I don't think makes a difference.

Interviewer

How do you see the road ahead?

S. Jaishankar

Well, I I see the road ahead as uh you know uh we are two big countries, we need to have conversations. We are Uh you know, as I said the lines are not cut, people are talking to each other. Uh and uh we will see where that goes.

Interviewer

We hear that an ambassador has been appointed

S. Jaishankar

Uh yeah I read about it too.

Interviewer

No views yet on that?

S. Jaishankar

Look, I am uh uh foreign minister. I don't comment on ambassadorial appointments of other countries. That's too in public.

Interviewer

No but it's a it's a good development in one way if you were to figure it. There you leave that uh to you. But you are also, if correct me if I'm wrong, sir, you are uh You were the first person to go into Kremlin after Alaska?

S. Jaishankar

Uh not the as the first foreign minister. Foreign minister to to uh visit

Interviewer

uh Russia and and and I guess so. And Met Putin.

S. Jaishankar

I guess so.

Interviewer

What is the sense you got of that conversation's everybody's linking us to that conversation as well.

S. Jaishankar

Uh well there were there were two parts to it. I mean one part of it was uh our own relations and uh uh we we have a practice of annual summits with the Russians. uh we are planning one at the end of the year. So a lot of it was devoted to what would happen there. It's uh it's an annual exercise. That's how the relationship grows And I'm like the account keeper for the non-military side of it. So the way it is divided is defense minister manages the military side. I do the rest. So a lot of it was devoted to what would happen, what's happening in our relationship, where are we going, what will we do, things like that. Uh and uh w there were some good developments. I think we are uh our trade has grown a bit, we would like to grow it further. There's been some mobility of people, we would like to see that increase, we want more market access in Russia, you know, things like that. Uh the other part of it of course was the global picture uh and uh particularly post you know, since uh President Putin had come out of Alaska, so he spoke to me about his

Interviewer

views on you know what was happening and so could you give us a window or or an understanding of how how that conversation has gone and how it's looking in the ground since you're coming from there.

S. Jaishankar

Well, uh obviously I'm constrained in many respects in doing that, but uh I mean overall uh look we where we stand we've been very clear from the very start that we would like to see an early end to the conflict. We've also taken the view that in any conflict, any, it's for the parties concerned to sort it out. Okay? Now, in this particular case, because the parties concerned are also comfortable and the Americans took the initiative, we've been supportive of the efforts, because we're supportive of any efforts which would uh bring about uh that change. Uh now it is a very complex uh it's a very uh complex situation there because there are military complexities, there are political complexities, there's a whole history there, uh it involves you know uh NATO, European Union. So uh there are a lot of moving parts there. So it's not as simple as sometimes it appears, you know, uh in the media. But Uh uh you know overall as I said our good wishes are there for an early end to the conflict on terms which obviously the two sides have to set up. Uh well uh uh certainly I think it would be a fair assessment uh and you don't need a you know uh meeting with uh President Putin to say that. I think it was visible that in Alaska uh a lot of things were talked about and some things were agreed about. So to that extent yes it was progress.

Interviewer

We are fresh out of Operation Sindoor, and we saw the conflict uh I mean the way it played out and Uh the way the Pakistanis fought, uh with the help of Chinese, not just equipment, but as our military officials have also gone on record of you know live cooperation between China and Pakistan. At the same time, uh you've had conversations which relate to India-China relationship, and there has been improvement on the northern borders, and your disengagement process has also moved uh at at at at a decent pace, which has led to certain positive outcomes on the bilateral front We now see a lot of easing up of economic restrictions uh which the Chinese had made. Now how do we read it? Because there are some quarters which say there's a reset. Or is it just normalization? How does uh uh industry also here understand it because China is is is a is an important economic partner.

S. Jaishankar

Uh you know uh uh the nature uh of your business media in a way is to correlate what happens with something which happened immediately before or in the same time frame. It's natural, understandable. The nature of my business is really to pursue relationships, accounts, problems over a much more extended timeline. I think that's important to understand. Especially in this particular case. Now take China. You know, what is actually on the agenda with China? We have problems, problems which go back to the 1950s, which is, for example, the boundary question. Okay. So because other things happened, that has not gone away. In fact, that is very much still uh at the center stage and uh it is in fact uh the maintenance of the peace and tranquility in the border areas that is a prerequisite for development of that relationship. So you have uh I would say uh fifties, sixties, seventies almost uh uh I would say sixty years, seventy years of eighty years now of uh uh that problem. Then we have uh an issue which started in the early 2000s after China entered the WTO, which is the beginning of a trade deficit, and it rapidly became a concern. It didn't become a concern in 2025 or 24 or after 2014. I was ambassador in China from 2009 to 2013 and I can tell you trade the growing trade deficit was an increasing concern for us. Okay. So so you have a historical problem, then you have a problem which started maybe about twenty, twenty-five years ago. Then you had we had some issues which came out of COVID. Say, for example, the stoppage of air flights, direct air flights was an outcome of the COVID period Even the halt to the Kalash Mansaravar Yatra, which is now resumed, also happened because of COVID. Then we had the Galvan clash and that very difficult period uh after that. And then there were steps uh oh by the way, even during COVID, for example, some of the precautions which you took generally with regard to investments, please Remember, was actually immediate post-COVID. They were in response to the economic uncertainties of the COVID. which uh took place then. Because I think there was worry after COVID about uh takeover of companies when the valuations were dropping. Okay. So then you had the Gulvan uh clash and that period and then there were a set of issues which came out of it. So when and then I must uh add to you, there are some issues which are of very recent uh origin. For example, uh the magnets for the uh auto industry. Uh that's that is an outcome of a Chinese export control policy uh which is which is a few months old. So it's not like there is one problem or one cluster of problems with a certain uh timeline. It is something, you know, different problems have different histories, you could say And uh we're at different levels of processing. Now look at the solution side. You know, again, you brought up Sindoor, you brought, you know, you referred to the fact that now given what is happening in the current state in the world. I would actually point out to the fact that much of what is happening now or what was agreed to when Minister Wangi was here. Was actually decided last October when President Xi and uh Prime Minister uh met uh in Kazang. Some of it was followed up in November last year when Wanghi and I met uh in uh uh Brazil.

Speaker 3

I think.

S. Jaishankar

So look it's not uh uh what what I want you to understand is Uh it's not black and white. It's not something has happened with America, so therefore immediately something has happened with China. I mean if you are looking at the kind of things we announced now, air flights was not decided now. I mean we are just operationalizing something we wanted to work on.

Interviewer

So there are parallel timelines which

S. Jaishankar

There are there are different timelines of different lengths on different problems. And you're okay with implementing it like I think it would be uh a mistaken analysis to try and crunch everything. and make it into a uh integrated response to a very specific situation. That's what so uh there may be you know today yes of course there is a global landscape. I'm not uh impervious to it. But I'm telling you that many of the things, I mean, for example, boundary neg you know, this is the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth round of uh talks between the SRs. Now what they decided on boundary Has been actually a subject of conversation for multiple rounds, some of them for 15 years. So they are not necessarily new concepts which are decided now because something is happening on some other account. So I want you to understand there is an evolution, there's a flow of that relationship. There are other relationships, but don't make this connect so tight and make it a causality. That's not That's not the reality.

Interviewer

Particularly on the business side.

S. Jaishankar

You know Uh okay, let me put it to you uh very simply. We ha we have always maintained that If there are if the border is stable, predictable, free of incidents, then there is a natural improvement in the rest of the relationship So the border has been stable for some time now. And as the disengagement was completed, naturally there was a it was logical. that there would be an improvement uh in in other areas. So I don't want you to overdraw, you know, it's not like there's some great U turn and now everything is great. I don't want you to go the other way around also that the relationship is only full of problems and everything in it is negative. I think there is a uh there is a sort of uh uh uh uh s uh a ground somewhere in between. Uh we do we do trade. You know there are things which are important for us. Again, if you look at the interests of the farmers of the country, I think a predictable flow of fertilizers is important. I think when you look at people in the infrastructure field, for them getting machinery out of China is important. For our auto industry, uh having uh uninterrupted flow of magnets is important. I think these are legitimate issues of our industry. We should take it up with China. And we should, you know, uh if there are blockages, I think we we owe it to the businesses and to the workers of India that we should address those uh issues.

Interviewer

The issue which we've been debating over the last two years is dependencies and and supply chains. It is the unpredictability around supply chains, around uh you know building dependencies which then can lead to sudden shocks across industries. What's the geopolitical mantra for Supply chains as we move ahead. Looking at, you know, even though the frost settles on the India-China relationship, a new frost comes on the India-US as you say, these things can be temporary.

S. Jaishankar

But looking at supply chains, how do you say uh Pranap, right now uh what to do about supply chains you shouldn't be looking here, you should be looking there Okay.

Interviewer

I said the geopolitical money.

S. Jaishankar

But the geopolitical, I'll tell you the answer. I think recent experience has taught us That don't be excessively dependent on a single supply chain or a single country source. Recent experience has also taught us don't be dependent on a single market. Okay, so it isn't just from the sourcing to the production, it is also from the production to the market. Now that doesn't mean you switch off from somewhere, it means you diversify, it means you hedge. And most important, which is the continuous messaging from the government, it means you do more at home. Now, we know more at home uh is hard work, it is complicated, it requires a different you know uh kind of uh effort even from particularly from business that is why the emphasis on Atman Edvarta. So uh looking at the geopolitics of our current end, I would I would really uh sort of uh analyze or prescribe I've got problems at both ends. I've got a problem on the on the sourcing and the supply chain, I got a problem post-production in the markets. So both are volatile. Both hold their own complications, and the best way of de of dealing with both is to de-risk it by having multiple options, multiple options of supply chains coming into India, multiple options. Of production going out of India, but most important an India which has a greater ability to plug as many parts of the supply chain and nobody can do it perfectly.

Interviewer

I accept that as possible So Atman Nirvharta is look at as much as you can.

S. Jaishankar

Absolutely. And look, you know, again, it's completely understandable that people look at costs. You know, after all, what other metric would a business use other than cost? It's a no-brainer. But today there is a cost to the risk. You know. But it isn't pure numerical cost. There is a there is the uncertainty of supplies has a cost, the uncertainty of markets has a cost. I think they need to be factored in.

Interviewer

Uh but if you look at the trend since the last decade maybe. Everybody is weaponizing their commercial advantage. Say if it was China, we talked about weaponizing supply chains. Today you see Donald Trump. I would say weaponizing tariffs in one way is a form of weaponizing commerce. Do you think we as we have lesser options when it comes to that on the table? Uh both in terms of projecting and dealing with it?

S. Jaishankar

Uh okay. Even if you t take away that hard term weaponized and say how indispensable are you? to everybody else. Because you know, you need to be indispensable if you have to weaponize. So you've got to be able to consume things or produce things which only you can. Or you can do in sufficient manner that other people have to make adjustments. I think that in a way is part of the Atman Nirbhattat that we are trying to encourage, which is that the more you are able to produce, the more unique things you are able to produce, the more you get into the global supply chains. the the fact that your our uh consumption because uh you know consumption can also be a power you know it's not just production which is a power So in the at the end of the day, our position in the world would be very much a function of how we are able, how unique we are, how important we are. uh how to that extent indispensable we are to global economics to the product to the production the supply chain the production the consumption the entire Entire eco cycle.

Interviewer

The consumption side you might have an advantage. I mean we could see as a consumer on oil we are making difference in terms of

S. Jaishankar

No look uh again it's uh it's uh it's not I mean in some cases, like some countries set out. China did it with red earth. I mean but that would be more of a of a uh standout. Often you take an industry and you become so good at it that then you start becoming a key player in that industry. So that's really part of how uh a big economy becomes uh more critical for in global global calculations.

Interviewer

And that is a strategic geopolitical requirement also now you would say.

S. Jaishankar

Yes, ideally I mean but it's easy for me to say it. You know, it has to be done by people for it to reach that level.

Interviewer

Sure. Uh coming closer home to Pakistan. Were you surprised at the manner in which Pakistan, US have come to at least the Trump administration, have suddenly cosied up and come together? Did it catch you by surprise?

S. Jaishankar

Look, uh you know, they have a history with each other, and they have a history of overlooking that history. So uh so what happens is you I mean we've it's not the first time we've seen uh things. Uh and and the interesting thing is uh when you you look sometimes at the certificates Say somebody in the military will give. You know, it's the same military which went into Abatabad and found, you know, who there. So the the issue in a way is uh when countries are very focused on doing politics of convenience. They they they keep trying to trying to do this, you know. And some of it can be tactical, some of it can have you know uh some other benefits or calculations. But uh again look at the I uh Uh y obviously I respond to the situation or the challenge of the day, but I also do so always keeping in mind the larger structural uh uh sort of strengths of the relationship, the confidence that comes from it. So I I take it in that spirit, you know. I know finally what I am about. I know what are my strengths. I know what are the importance and the relevance of my relationship. So that's what guides me.

Interviewer

But suggest now we are a little distance away from uh Operation Sindur. I know mediation is not exactly uh something which which Which ha must have happened or our position has been very clear historically on that. But was the United States helpful at all during that period? Look, uh did it play a constructive role of any sorts.

S. Jaishankar

The uh the I mean it is not it is a fact that at that time phone calls were made. You know, phone calls were made by the US, phone calls were made by other countries as well. I mean this is not a secret I mean at least in my case every almost every phone call I had, uh definitely every American phone call I had uh is there on my uh on my X account So when when something like this happens, countries do call up. I mean after all, don't I call up? I mean when Israel-Iran was happening, I called up. Or when Russia-Ukraine was happening, I called up. So it's in today's international relations because it is an interdependent world and countries uh feel okay something is happening somewhere I should know, I should uh and particularly uh I would say uh those who have a stronger history of international relations will do that. But uh you know uh that is one thing. It is something quite different to assert mediation or to assert that an outcome which was negotiated uh between India and Pakistan was not uh negotiated between India and Pakistan, it was

Interviewer

And that was a consequence of military actions the way it played out.

S. Jaishankar

Oh absolutely. I mean look, I've I've done this before, so you don't want me I I I tell people that if on the ninth night We had, you know, uh President once uh Vice President once conveying that you know the Pakistanis were going to do uh a big attack and then 10th morning uh the Pakistanis now ask for uh uh talking to DJ Mo what happened in the interven in the intervening period. What happened in the intervening period was very bad things to the airfields. But to me the causality is very clear. The causality is a military hapnik. You know, ultimately, you know, how how does the course of conflict progress? Yes, it can progress through reason, but mostly it progresses through events on the ground. So something happened militarily on the 10th morning. Now please look at what happened on 10th morning Morning and the pictures of the Pakistani Airfields tell you what happened on 10th morning.

Interviewer

But still the Pakistanis found seem to have found new currency in Washington and it's probably coming from the crypto route. So is that now a new new channel of diplomacy which is working in Washington and that you have to contend with it? Where are we on on on these because see a lot of countries are facing these difficulties a lot of allies of US area?

S. Jaishankar

For that you have to get another minister to sit here and answer that. No, it's not me.

Interviewer

But but does it become a part of your folder at any place?

S. Jaishankar

To look, uh I uh uh you know we negotiate or we uh discuss with other countries what are our policies. I mean because somebody else has a some other to instrument in that toolkit doesn't automatically mean that therefore I have to acquire it. I have what I have, they have what they have.

Interviewer

Uh but do you think it's becoming uh difficult to deal with the Trump administration through its own system? Rather the personal or or or direct or maybe certain other parallel approaches are at work which are more productive in terms of outcomes?

S. Jaishankar

Well, uh I think we started off with the with the agreement that we are in unusual times and the methods of diplomacy are very uh very different from what they used to be.

Interviewer

So what is I'll take it from your book. What is the India way?

S. Jaishankar

I I look uh you you adapt to the uh landscape and the nature of the challenge. I mean so if if there is a relationship uh which has to be uh addressed in a different manner If you want results you figure out how to crack the problem. I mean that's what diplomats do.

Interviewer

So a l lot of what was happening we in the past few years, the quad was at the center of it. You know, we and and and that it's a very n diverse agenda. It opened up many conversations in technology. But today BRICS has taken over. So uh where is the quad conversation? And uh these plurilaterals which you had so craftfully put together, what's the fate?

S. Jaishankar

No, uh look, uh I I'm not sure I agree with your question. I think the quad is still the quad and the bricks was always the bricks. I mean when we did the quad the bricks didn't go away And as quad progressed, uh you know uh bricks also progressed. So you are putting it almost as alternatives, whereas in fact it is a core core uh belief of Indian foreign policy that countries like us should not be forced to uh you know make binary choices

Interviewer

So uh we had quad summit by the end of the year.

S. Jaishankar

Uh and you know after that I think uh uh different parts of you know of the system are talking to each other. So in between the quad meetings are held. We haven't made uh further decisions about you know what to do in quad. So that that's quite natural. Uh I think uh in the in the case of BRICS, BRICS Came in the news partly because we had a BRICS summit and partly because it came in the news because people put it in the news So I think in the next week you'll probably see the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in the news because the meeting of happened. You know the news cycle moves as per the events of that time. But what is not in the news cycle doesn't stop to exist because it's not in the news cycle. It still continues.

Interviewer

So you're still sticking to the timelines agreed in the February visit of the Prime Minister to Washington? On on what? On the timelines which were there that by September or October we'll do have this and that.

S. Jaishankar

Uh I uh look, I I think at this time, as I said, we are we are looking at the issues rather than I mean it's not a clock driven process, you know. I mean there's not a chess game where you are moving and you're also looking at the clock.

Interviewer

And uh Uh what do we expect from the visit uh the SCO uh meet since it's happening right now?

S. Jaishankar

Well uh I think uh the SEO uh has a has a value in itself because if you look at the membership it covers a lot of countries which are uh quite different from other organizations of the country. which we are part. We are very much uh uh we are an important constituent of the Eurasian landmass uh and the SEO primarily devotes itself to that SEO also has uh a particular, you know, the uh the original mandate of the SEO was to fight uh uh separatism uh and uh terrorism and there were what were called three evils uh at that time. Uh so uh the uh for us Because that is very much part of the overall threat scenario that we see. I think it's important that we are there, we make our presence felt uh we shape the outcomes and we say where we go.

Interviewer

Do we expect a summit level meeting with the the Chinese over there on the sidelines?

S. Jaishankar

I think uh so you know uh the program for that would be announced in the coming days. All right.

Interviewer

You've been very, very defensive than your usual front footedness, but I guess times are such and uh thank you for making time for us even in a in a very difficult situation. And as I said, tough playing conditions. Wish you all the best, Mr. Jaishangar.

S. Jaishankar

Thank you once again for paying time. Thank you.