Dhankhar invokes Savarkar's realism, backs national interest as India's international diplomacy compass
'Browsing through the pages of New World, I felt the imprint of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in the author's thought… Savarkar, despite all the untenable misgivings in extremity, remains a celebrated thinker…,' Dhankhar said.
At the launch of the book 'New World: 21st Century Global Order in India', authored by senior RSS leader & India Foundation president Ram Madhav, Dhankhar said he saw a Savarkarite lens in the author's worldview.
New Delhi: Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar Monday recalled Vinayak Damodar Savarkar who had said that global politics is dictated by realism and self-interest, not morality or solidarity.
'Savarkar, a staunch realist, believed in a post-war world where nations would act only in pursuit of their own interests not based on idealism, morality or international solidarity. Imagine how prophetic he has been. Look around—last fortnight, last 3 months. All this has been seen by all of us,' he said.
He also echoed Savarkar's critique of Western institutions, saying the nationalist leader had rejected 'pacifist or utopian internationalism' and 'emphasised that India must safeguard its sovereignty through strength, not by relying on Western-dominated institutions like the League of Nations or later the United Nations, both ignoring due place to one-sixth of humanity.'
Also read: 'Picture of ideal democracy': Mohan Bhagwat praises political unity post-Pahalgam, calls for self-reliance
'Strengthening Bharat is the governing philosophy today'
In a strong endorsement of the Modi government's worldview, Dhankhar said: 'Friends, today, strengthening Bharat is the governing philosophy and resolve of this government. It is steadfast, firm, non-negotiable, and notwithstanding the critics—it is spinally strong.'
'Let us not be misguided by the distraction—who said what. The government, and India and its people, stand firmly for the nation—nation first and our nationalism… Those who take a stand for momentary situations are not in the psyche or groove of Bharat. Once we attain strength inwards, we can shape our strategic environment outwards,' he added.
Backing Ram Madhav's thesis in the book, he said, 'I couldn't agree more with the lamentations of the author Dr. Ram Madhav. He highlights a perpetual decline of global multilateralism and prescribes India to give up romanticism and focus on economic growth.'
'George Tanham was wrong—India's strategic thought is deep-rooted'
The Vice-President also took on longstanding Western criticisms about India's lack of strategic culture.
'George Tanham, an American thinker, 3 decades ago, in a treatise effectively suggested that there is absence of a strategic thinking in India on account of its Hindu philosophical roots and there were takers of it. But with Shri Ram Madhav's volume, George Tanham stands corrected. He couldn't be more wrong,' Dhankhar said.
He added: 'The principle 'Rajadharma' (ethical statecraft) and 'Dharmayudha' (just war) in Mahabharata; Dhamma diplomacy in Ashokan edicts; and the Mandala Theory of Kautilya are all examples of theorising strategic environments—all feast to the intellect. These philosophies have ever been relevant, but in our contemporaneous challenging times, these are the needs of the global order.'
'India must re-strategise for a shifting global order'—Ram Madhav
Speaking to the media after the launch, author Ram Madhav said the world is shifting away from the liberal international order formed post-World War II, and India must reorient its strategy to keep pace. 'We are moving away from the international liberal order that was created some 75 years ago. We are entering into a new kind of world,' he said.
He cited the emergence of China and the rising importance of smaller nations like Turkey. 'In our recent clash with Pakistan, we not only talked about Pakistan, but also about Turkey. So, the realisation is Turkey is also a power today,' he said.
Madhav pointed out that wars are now being fought in unconventional ways—'no army is facing each other'—and that India must adapt quickly if it wants to become a Viksit Bharat by 2047.
'India has to re-strategise its whole future trajectory…That means doing some very important things and becoming a very proactive participant in this new order,' he said.
He added that international diplomacy must now be grounded in national interest, not ideological loyalty. 'In politics and diplomacy, there are no permanent friends and no permanent foes…That was a romantic approach of the past. There are only permanent interests.'
He also emphasised India's message to global institutions, saying, 'India has told the UN leadership that you are not delivering…you are failing. If you fail, we have to look for other ways…other countries will have to come forward.'
Underscoring New Delhi's diplomatic positioning amid global conflicts, Madhav said: 'India is not taking sides, India is fighting—or is working—for peace.'
Trump, Iran bombing, China, Kargil 2.0—a volatile new world
The backdrop to Monday's discussion was a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape. Tensions in West Asia have intensified in recent months, with the long-simmering Iran-Israel conflict spilling over into open confrontation. The US, a key Israeli ally, has become directly involved following a series of escalations, including Iranian missile strikes and retaliatory US airstrikes on Iranian military targets—marking a significant deepening of the regional conflict.
Congress MP Manish Tewari, who also spoke at the event, listed these global crises while framing the shifts in strategic thinking.
'There are unprecedented trade tensions across the world triggered by President Trump's attempt to restructure the international architecture of commerce. The Russia-Ukraine war that began in February of 2022, the Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah-Houthi-Iran conflict that broke out in October of 2023, and the rise of China over the past three decades that has attained potential overtones in large parts of the world beyond the immediate Chinese realms in North Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia. The added dynamic is the latest India-Pakistan standoff, the worst after the Kargil war 26 years ago, and now the US bombing of Iran. Modern strategic thought is essentially a European construct because of the experimentation with ideas and the impulses of colonialism,' Tewari said.
'Democracy means dialogue'
Spealing about the 'sarve bhavantu sukhinah, sarve santu niramayah' philosophy, Dhankhar said, 'Friends, even the Fabian socialists of the 50s cannot disagree with the direction of the country as we strive to attain. And what do we strive to attain? We are not creating Bharat, it was not born on 15 August, 1947. We only got rid of the colonial power then. 'Sarve bhavantu sukhinah, sarve santu niramayah'—that is our philosophy. May all beings be happy, may all beings be free from illness.'
Adding to this philosophical dimension, Dhankhar underlined the centrality of expression and dialogue to India's democratic ethos. 'We firmly believe that democracy is primarily defined by expression and dialogue. Both are complementary. This, in our Vedic philosophy, is anantavada. One of the fundamentals is, and that is inalienable facet, non-negotiable, respect the others' point of view. My own experience shows, more often than not, the other point of view is the correct point of view.'
Cautioning against internal division, Dhankhar urged political dialogue and maturity.
'Friends, the pathway to Bharat's rise would require careful treading. There are forces that are determined to make our life difficult. There are forces within the country and outside. These sinister forces, pernicious to our interests, want to strike by dividing us on issues even like language,' he said.
'Which country in the world can take pride in their language richness like Bharat can? Look at our classical languages, their number. In parliament, 22 such languages allow and afford opportunity for anyone to express in them.'
'It would require many such thinkers to come together and debate and discuss challenges and opportunities and aid policymakers in making right strategic choices. Evolution of policies must take place now with a little more representative character.'
Calling for political convergence, Dhankhar concluded that 'convergence' is required. 'There has to be greater dialogue among political parties. I firmly believe we have no enemies in the country. We have enemies outside. And some who are enemies within—a small fraction—they are rooted in outside forces, inimical to Bharat.'
(Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri)
Also read: Savarkar severely criticised RSS for its 'purely cultural' orientation
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
32 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Israel carried out targeted killings for 14 Iranian nuclear scientists, engineers
Israel's tally of the war damage it wrought on Iran includes the targeted killings of at least 14 scientists, an unprecedented attack on the brains behind Iran's nuclear program that outside experts say can only set it back, not stop it. This handout satellite picture provided by Maxar Technologies shows new airstrike craters at perimeter installation on Iran's Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) after US strikes.(AFP/Maxar Technologies ) In an interview with The Associated Press, Israel's ambassador to France said the killings will make it 'almost" impossible for Iran to build weapons from whatever nuclear infrastructure and material may have survived nearly two weeks of Israeli airstrikes and massive bunker-busting bombs dropped by U.S. stealth bombers. 'The fact that the whole group disappeared is basically throwing back the program by a number of years, by quite a number of years," Ambassador Joshua Zarka said. Also Read: Iran Israel's fragile ceasefire in place - What's next? Explained But nuclear analysts say Iran has other scientists who can take their place. European governments say that military force alone cannot eradicate Iran's nuclear know-how, which is why they want a negotiated solution to put concerns about the Iranian program to rest. 'Strikes cannot destroy the knowledge Iran has acquired over several decades, nor any regime ambition to deploy that knowledge to build a nuclear weapon," U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy told lawmakers in the House of Commons. Iran has long maintained that its nuclear program was peaceful, and U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Tehran is not actively pursuing a bomb. However, Israeli leaders have argued that Iran could quickly assemble a nuclear weapon. Here's a closer look at the killings: Chemists, physicists, engineers among those killed Zarka told AP that Israeli strikes killed at least 14 physicists and nuclear engineers, top Iranian scientific leaders who 'basically had everything in their mind.' They were killed 'not because of the fact that they knew physics, but because of the fight that they were personally involved in, the creation and the fabrication and the production of (a) nuclear weapon," he said. Nine of them were killed in Israel's opening wave of attacks on June 13, the Israeli military said. It said they 'possessed decades of accumulated experience in the development of nuclear weapons' and included specialists in chemistry, materials and explosives as well as physicists. Zarka spoke Monday to the AP. On Tuesday, Iran state TV reported the death of another Iranian nuclear scientist, Mohammad Reza Sedighi Saber, in an Israeli strike, after he'd survived an earlier attack that killed his 17-year-old son on June 13. Targeted killings meant to discourage would-be successors Experts say that decades of Iranian work on nuclear energy — and, Western powers allege, nuclear weapons — has given the country reserves of know-how and scientists who could continue any work toward building warheads to fit on Iran's ballistic missiles. 'Blueprints will be around and, you know, the next generation of Ph.D. students will be able to figure it out," said Mark Fitzpatrick, who specialized in nuclear non-proliferation as a former U.S. diplomat. Bombing nuclear facilities "or killing the people will set it back some period of time. Doing both will set it back further, but it will be reconstituted.' 'They have substitutes in maybe the next league down, and they're not as highly qualified, but they will get the job done eventually,' said Fitzpatrick, now an analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London think tank. How quickly nuclear work could resume will in part depend on whether Israeli and U.S. strikes destroyed Iran's stock of enriched uranium and equipment needed to make it sufficiently potent for possible weapons use. 'The key element is the material. So once you have the material, then the rest is reasonably well-known,' said Pavel Podvig, a Geneva-based analyst who specializes in Russia's nuclear arsenal. He said killing scientists may have been intended 'to scare people so they don't go work on these programs.' 'Then the questions are, 'Where do you stop?' I mean you start killing, like, students who study physics?" he asked. 'This is a very slippery slope.' The Israeli ambassador said: 'I do think that people that will be asked to be part of a future nuclear weapon program in Iran will think twice about it.' Israel is widely believed to be the only Middle Eastern country with nuclear weapons, which it has never acknowledged. Previous attacks on scientists Israel has long been suspected of killing Iranian nuclear scientists but previously didn't claim responsibility as it did this time. In 2020, Iran blamed Israel for killing its top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, with a remote-controlled machine gun. 'It delayed the program but they still have a program. So it doesn't work,' said Paris-based analyst Lova Rinel, with the Foundation for Strategic Research think tank. 'It's more symbolic than strategic.' Without saying that Israel killed Fakhrizadeh, the Israeli ambassador said 'Iran would have had a bomb a long time ago' were it not for repeated setbacks to its nuclear program — some of which Iran attributed to Israeli sabotage. 'They have not reached the bomb yet,' Zarka said. 'Every one of these accidents has postponed a little bit the program.' A legally grey area International humanitarian law bans the intentional killing of civilians and non-combatants. But legal scholars say those restrictions might not apply to nuclear scientists if they were part of the Iranian armed forces or directly participating in hostilities. 'My own take: These scientists were working for a rogue regime that has consistently called for the elimination of Israel, helping it to develop weapons that will allow that threat to take place. As such, they are legitimate targets,' said Steven R. David, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University. He said Nazi German and Japanese leaders who fought Allied nations during World War II 'would not have hesitated to kill the scientists working on the Manhattan Project' that fathered the world's first atomic weapons. Laurie Blank, a specialist in humanitarian law at Emory Law School, said it's too early to say whether Israel's decapitation campaign was legal. 'As external observers, we don't have all the relevant facts about the nature of the scientists' role and activities or the intelligence that Israel has,' she said by email to AP. 'As a result, it is not possible to make any definitive conclusions.' Zarka, the ambassador, distinguished between civilian nuclear research and the scientists targeted by Israel. 'It's one thing to learn physics and to know exactly how a nucleus of an atom works and what is uranium,' he said. But turning uranium into warheads that fit onto missiles is 'not that simple,' he said. 'These people had the know-how of doing it, and were developing the know-how of doing it further. And this is why they were eliminated.'
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Feckless Europe accepts Trump's Lone Ranger diplomacy
IF EUROPE CANNOT have America as a global policeman, it will settle for Donald Trump as the Lone Ranger. That, in effect, is the message from the leaders of Britain, France and Germany. All three have come close to endorsing strikes on Iran's nuclear programme by Israel and America. Many will welcome his imposition of a ceasefire and his imperious order to Israeli warplanes to 'turn around' rather than punish an apparent Iranian breach of it. The contrast with the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 is jarring. Back then, the West was split by debates about international law. For a camp led by France and Germany, only the UN Security Council—the governing body of the post-1945 order—could authorise attacks on Saddam Hussein. American talk of preventive strikes was dismissed as cowboy justice. Today, though, the initial response of Sir Keir Starmer, Britain's prime minister, was as clinical as a Pentagon press release. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat,' declared the man who had previously made his name as a human-rights lawyer. In post-war Europe, crafting elegant rationales for impotence is a prized skill. France's president, Emmanuel Macron, showed mastery of the form after Israel's initial raids on Iran. He told the Elysée press corps that an Iranian bomb would be an 'existential' threat to the world, and that—though France favoured a diplomatic solution—Israel's strikes had set back Iran's nuclear-enrichment and ballistic-missile capabilities, and so were steps 'in the right direction'. After America joined Israel in striking Iran, Mr Macron toughened his stance a bit. On June 23rd he spoke of the 'legitimacy' of efforts to neutralise Iran's nuclear structures, but added that America's actions lack 'a legal framework'. Winning the prize for bluntness, Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, told German television that Israel is doing 'the dirty work' for 'all of us'. Geopolitics help explain European meekness. Western governments fear power vacuums in the Middle East. They were thus glad to hear Mr Trump forswear regime change in Iran. Selfishly, it is also a relief for Western governments to be spared Trumpian lectures about free-riding allies. Mr Trump is proud that only America's bombs can curb Iran. Before ordering his raid, he scoffed at European offers to engage with Iranian diplomats, saying: 'Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one.' Europe's response is rational, but revealing. In foreign policy a useful principle is: that which cannot be changed must be welcomed, says Steven Everts, the director of the EU Institute for Security Studies, an EU policy-planning agency. Even so, he concedes, Europe's response 'speaks to our weakness'. For their part, non-Western powers have demanded that America and Israel heed international law. After Israel began bombing, China's supreme leader, Xi Jinping, telephoned a counterpart to agree that: 'The use of force is not a right way to resolve international disputes.' In particular, 'the red line of protecting civilians in armed conflicts must not be crossed,' declared Mr Xi. His lofty words were undercut only by the civilian-killing record of the other president on the line, his friend Vladimir Putin of Russia. China wants regional stability and fears higher energy prices, says a Chinese scholar in Beijing. As for playing a more active role, that depends on whether warring parties want China's help and 'whether China has any real leverage over the matter'. For now neither condition applies, adds the scholar. State-funded Chinese analysts signal that China, the largest buyer of Iranian oil, would be displeased if Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz to shipping. Should Iran try a nuclear breakout, a prominent Chinese commentator suggested, China might allow the imposition of new sanctions on Iran, by abstaining at the UN rather than casting a veto. Europe could come back into the picture as a diplomatic player, suggests João Vale de Almeida, a former EU ambassador to America and the UN during the gruelling years of nuclear talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the so-called P5), plus Germany and the EU. He predicts that any new pact with Iran, even one backed by America's hard power, may rather resemble the JCPOA, the multilateral agreement generated by those talks that Mr Trump quit in 2018. He laments the past seven years as 'a big detour' of lost time and credibility. No cowboy sunsets in the real world A big change since 2018 involves the splintering of the P5, whose members—America, Britain, China, France and Russia—were remarkably unified in their opposition to an Iranian bomb, says Catherine Ashton, who as EU foreign-policy chief from 2009 to 2014 chaired nuclear negotiations with Iran. The assembled envoys felt a sense of historic common purpose, says Baroness Ashton. That survived even crises like the political protests that swept Ukraine in 2013. She recalls leaving the Iran meetings in Vienna and flying to Kyiv to denounce Russian meddling in Ukrainian politics. Russia's lead negotiator would fly to Moscow to condemn the West. Then both would return to Vienna for constructive talks. She remembers China as 'a team player' on Iran nukes, too. Today Mr Trump seems interested in bilateral dealmaking, observes Lady Ashton. That approach raises hard questions about Iran's incentives to disarm. America acting alone can apply coercion. But given Iranian distrust of Mr Trump, only an international coalition can credibly offer the reward that Iran seeks: a long-term economic reopening to the world. The Lone Ranger was not big on commitment. After dispensing vigilante justice he would ride into the sunset. Western leaders know the limits of that approach. Alas, they must deal with the American president they have. Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Russian attacks kill 26 in Ukraine as Zelenskyy seeks more Western help
Russian drones, missiles and artillery killed at least 26 civilians and injured more than 200 others in Ukraine, officials said Tuesday, as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sought guarantees at a NATO summit of further Western help to repel Moscow's invasion. Russian forces have relentlessly struck civilian areas throughout the 3-year-old war. More than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed, according to the United Nations. Ukraine has also launched long-range drones against Russia, hitting residential areas. Zelenskyy joined Western leaders at a Nato summit in The Hague, Netherlands, and is keen to lock in additional military support for Ukraine, as recent direct peace talks have made no progress on a settlement. Key US military commitments to Ukraine left over from the Biden administration are expected to run out within months, according to analysts, and there is uncertainty over whether US President Donald Trump is willing to provide more. A Russian ballistic missile attack on Dnipro hit multiple civilian sites in the central Ukrainian city around midday Tuesday, killing 17 people and injuring more than 200 others, officials said. The number of casualties is constantly being updated, Dnipro's regional administration head Serhii Lysak wrote on Telegram. In the nearby town of Samar, an attack killed two people and injured 14, he said. The barrage damaged 19 schools, 10 kindergartens, a vocational school, a music school and a social welfare office, as well as eight medical facilities, according to Dnipro Mayor Borys Filatov. Schools are closed for the summer break. One of the blasts blew out the windows of a passenger train carrying about 500 people. Filatov declared Wednesday to be an official day of mourning. In a post on Telegram, Zelenskyy said Russia needs foreign components to build its ballistic missiles and he urged countries to crack down on Moscow's schemes to obtain them. Sanctions against Russia must also be significantly strengthened, he said. Russia also shelled residential neighbourhoods and critical infrastructure across Ukraine's southern Kherson region, killing four civilians and wounding at least 11 others, according to Oleksandr Prokudin, head of the regional military administration. In the Sumy region of northeastern Ukraine, a drone attack late Monday killed three civilians, including a 5-year-old boy, and injured six others, local authorities said. Among the injured were two 17-year-old girls and a 12-year-old boy, according to officials. Russian air defence forces overnight shot down 20 Ukrainian drones, the Russian Defence Ministry reported Tuesday. It said 14 were downed over the Kursk region, which borders Ukraine, while two had been flying over the Moscow region. One drone slammed into a tower block on the outskirts of the Russian capital, sparking a fire on its 17th floor, local Gov. Andrei Vorobyov said. He said a 34-year-old resident suffered shrapnel wounds to his arm and leg. Two other drones were shot down while approaching Moscow, according to Mayor Sergei Sobyanin. Air traffic was briefly halted as a precaution at two major Moscow airports, Vnukovo and Sheremetyevo, according to a representative of Russia's aviation authority Rosaviatsiya.
