Talmiz Ahmad, India’s former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Oman and UAE, spoke to Karan Thapar about the implications for India of the Pakistan-Saudi mutual defence agreement. What implications does this have for India’s relationship with Pakistan? Does this mean Saudi Arabia has closer and stronger relations with Pakistan than India? Could this sour New Delhi’s ties with Riyadh? Read the full text of their conversation below.Karan Thapar (KT): Hello, and welcome to a special interview for The Wire. Today, we shall discuss and analyse the implications for India of the Pakistan-Saudi mutual defence agreement. What implications does this have for India’s relationship with Pakistan? Could it make the resumption of operation Sindoor extremely risky? Does this mean Saudi Arabia has closer and better relations with Pakistan than India? Could this sour New Delhi’s ties with Riyadh? And what does this mean for the three million Indian workers in Saudi Arabia? Those are the key issues I shall discuss today with Talmiz Ahmad who has twice served as ambassador in Saudi Arabia. Also Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Mr. Ahmad joins us live. Talmiz Ahmad, on Wednesday, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia signed a mutual defence agreement. The joint statement put out by the two countries says, and I quote, “Any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both.” As someone who has served in Saudi Arabia on two separate occasions as ambassador, how do you view this development?Talmiz Ahmad (TA): This development is a very quick response to the total breakdown of the regional security order following the Israeli assault upon Doha. What the Israelis have proclaimed very clearly and unambiguously that every target in the region, whether it is the royal family’s palaces or their military facilities or anyone else who is visiting them, every one of them is viewed as a legitimate target by Israel. They have also signalled that they have no respect whatsoever for any limits or constraints that might be placed upon them because the Americans have had a certain relationship, a strategic partnership, a security guarantee partnership with all the countries of the Gulf. I think that has been put into the dust bin. Obviously, as a result of this proclamation, the countries of the Gulf have to now scurry around to build alternative security arrangements. This is the first response that we have seen from Saudi Arabia. They have rushed to their traditional military partner Pakistan and have attempted to proclaim to the region that they have now a solid support from an important partner within the region and they can hold their own.KT: I hear what you’re saying in terms of how this is a response to the Israeli strike on Qatar and therefore Gulf security from the Saudi point of view is the paramount reason why this has been done. Let’s look at this from the Pakistan point of view. Although India isn’t named clearly as far as Pakistan is concerned, the aggression it’s worried about is from India. Doesn’t this make the resumption of operation Sindoor, and remember it’s only been paused, it’s not ended, very risky, if not virtually impossible. Our hands have been effectively tied for us.TA: I’m not sure that is the case at all. What Pakistan has achieved in terms of its engagement with the Americans earlier and now with the Saudis is to signal that they are not isolated, that they have strong support systems within the region and globally and that the attempts made to signal that they are sponsors of terror and therefore worthy of opprobrium, that has been now indicated by them that they are quite safe. I do not see any-KT: Can I interrupt, Mr. Ahmad? This goes a lot further than Pakistan signalling that it’s not isolated. Pakistan has now got Saudi Arabia to accept that any aggression on Pakistan will be deemed an aggression on Saudi Arabia as well. So the next time India chooses to carry out operation Sindoor to strike terror targets in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia is now treaty bound to come in support of Pakistan against India. That’s undeniable.TA: See, this is what the Pakistanis would like to see, in-KT: No, forgive me. This is in the treaty. It’s not what Pakistan would like to see. Let me repeat those words from the joint statement: “Any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both.” Saudi Arabia is committed to that.TA: With deep respect, may I suggest that you allow me to complete my sentences so that your viewers can understand what the issues are in place. The main point to be noted is yes, there is this language. There is no commitment on the part of Saudi Arabia to stand side by side with the Pakistanis. These are general statements in different agreements. But whenever there is a specific occasion the countries concerned decide what will be the response. I do not envisage any scenario whatsoever in terms of which Saudi Arabia will reign itself with Pakistan against India militarily. That is not-KT: Forgive me, Mr. Ahmad, when you say there is no commitment, there’s a categoric commitment and I’ll repeat it again – “Any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both.” That is a commitment.TA: Absolutely correct. I have read the same document that you have and I have drawn the conclusion that this is a general statement. But every country, whenever it faces a specific challenge, makes up its own mind in terms of own national interest as to how it is going to respond to the contingency. I do not imagine any situation that Saudi Arabia will stand with Pakistan against India. That is not the intent of this joint statement or the agreement that it refers to.KT: Hang on a second. How do you know what the intent is? We can only go by what the statement says and-TA: No, you cannot go by just by a bold statement of two lines. Excuse me, Mr. Karan Thapar, you cannot just read two lines behind every document, every diplomatic document in the public space. There is an entire history of diplomacy. There is an entire history of engagements. Saudi Arabia has very substantial ties with India, why do you ignore that and forget about it? These substantial ties have been built over 25 years. Indian diplomacy has worked full-time in the kingdom and the kingdom has responded very vociferously. Today as I speak to you, there have been numerous exchanges at the highest level between India and Saudi Arabia. We have strategic dialogue at the prime minister’s level between our national security advisers, between the external affairs minister. There is perfect understanding between us about the security issues that agitate both of us. This agreement has nothing to do with India Saudi bilateral relations.KT: I won’t quarrel with you further on this point but I am going to repeat for the sake of the audience that critical sentence in the joint statement issued by both countries – ‘Any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both.’ Saudi Arabia is committed to that. It is not a general statement.TA: It is not committed to any such thing. Please be very clear.KT: How do you know?TA: Mr. Thapar, you have invited me. Please don’t raise your voice to me.KT: I’m not raising my voice.TA: You have asked me a question and I have responded to it as well as I could. I’m familiar with Saudi history. I’m familiar with Saudi culture. I am familiar with Saudi politics and I’m familiar with the engagements that we have had with the kingdom over the last 25 years. I am personally convinced that this line as I have repeatedly said every country in the world facing a particular political or military challenge consults within itself and decides how it will respond. What you are constantly harping on is precisely what the Pakistanis would have liked us to see here. There is no such implication whatsoever as far as India is concerned. Please shift your lens away from New Delhi and try to see the bigger picture that is right there in front of us.KT: Well, I think it’s important to keep our lens focused in terms of how this affects India’s relationship with Saudi Arabia. It is a focus that the Congress party brought to the forefront. Jairam Ramesh has tweeted about it. It is not a concern that I share alone.TA: You are taking a very narrow view of the scenario. Yes, we must study in great detail the very significant developments taking place in our neighbourhood and we must then come up with policy options so that we can cope with those challenges. But to confine our entire discussion to an Indo-Pak scenario is a waste of time and we should be very conscious about our approach in this discussion.KT: Mr. Ahmad, we are not confining the entire discussion to that at all. I simply said to you that this agreement, this mutual defence pact between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would make it not just risky but perhaps impossible for India to resume operation Sindoor.TA: I have made my point very clear. I have made my point clear and I don’t wish to repeat this. You may ask some other question now.KT: India has very close relations with Saudi Arabia. The prime minister has made a significant effort in the last 11 years to improve this relationship in particular. Will this pact between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have an adverse impact on how India views Saudi Arabia?TA: Not at all. India has very substantial bilateral ties with every country in West Asia. Our approach to the region is bilateral. And therefore if you look at the documentation and the visuals connected with Indo-Saudi relations you will find that we have reached agreements on very substantial issues for mutual interest. We have very substantial defence ties. We have had numerous exercises. Our soldiers have participated in different terrains. We have had air exercises. We have had naval exercises. We have very substantial dialogue and consultations with each other. We therefore have a good understanding about what is happening in the region and I believe there is considerable convergence in terms of their views and ours with regard to the regional scenario.Therefore, I don’t believe there can be any occasion or any reason for us to be concerned that there will be a dilution in terms of our substantial ties. Saudi Arabia too looks at India and Pakistan as two complete separate entities and there is no zero sum involved here. With India, their relationship is energy related, economic, investment, trade, joint ventures, technology, and the presence of our community. As far as Pakistan is concerned, it has been a defence partner with the kingdom for the last 70 years and it has turned to Pakistan in that context and in that background.KT: Pakistan, as you say, has a very long and well established military relationship with Saudi Arabia. I believe it goes back to 1967. For instance, in 1979 after the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Pakistani troops helped clear the shrine. I believe at the moment there are some 20,000 Pakistani troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan plays a role training the Saudi army. Was there something inevitable about this mutual defence pact? Was it always likely to happen?TA: It is very difficult to say because this is a response to an extraordinarily unexpected event and that is the Israeli assault upon Doha. Very few of us could have anticipated that the Israeli war machine would be engaged in such a thoughtless, mindless strategic blunder. I don’t think there has been any advantage that has accrued to the Israelis. Many scholars have referred to this as a tactical defeat for Israel because they did not achieve any of their targeted mission and also, it is a blunder because you have now pushed this entire region in a churn where they are looking for alternative strategic partnerships and that the Americans have lost all credibility as security guarantors in the region.I think that the Israelis have done something for their own interest and possibly the personal political interest of Prime Minister Netanyahu. They have done something which has crucially damaged Israeli standing in the region, certainly, but also the American standing and I think this is going to be the major churn. I cannot see a scenario where the Gulf countries are today going to go back to the Americans and re-establish the kind of security arrangements they had with them. There has already been a deep distrust of the Americans over a period of time, but I think this has been the last straw in this regard.KT: Let me put to you a couple of questions that are on social media and ask you for clarity on them. Many people are asking the question – which country has closer and better relations with Saudi Arabia today. Which country does Saudi Arabia feel closer to – India or Pakistan?TA: See, this is a kind of question that comes naturally from the public at large. But those of us who deal with foreign affairs know that this indicates a zero sum mindset. It is either or. If you ask me, in terms of its partnership with Asian countries, they would attach equal importance to China, India, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Korea. There is no hierarchy in this. With regard to Pakistan, there is a very separate and very substantial and important relationship. And India has understood this. Let me be very clear. India has understood this that just as we have a bilateral approach to the region, Pakistan and India also are treated as separate entities in terms of Saudi national interest. Pakistan provides them with a comfort in regard to the defence area. We give them the economic and energy balanced and also the presence of our very substantial community. So there are two very different relationships.KT: Can I ask you this? What was the position Saudi Arabia took in 1965 and again in 1971? The newspapers report that King Faisal immediately gave Pakistan in 1973-74 $300 million to help the country stabilise its finances. Has Saudi Arabia had a historical tradition of leaning in support of Pakistan at critical moments like 65 and 71?TA: I would imagine that any discussion that we have should be a little more sophisticated. You are referring to an era which was the cold war. The cold war had a very different landscape. And who was the strongest supporter of Pakistan in 1965 and 71? It was the United States. The country that we are seeking to cosy up to today. It is United States that has been the principal support base as far as Pakistan is concerned. Yes, Saudi Arabia was an integral part of the western alliance at that time and, indeed, we did not have substantial political ties. King Faisal was deeply disturbed by the breakup of Pakistan and remonstrated with India in this regard. In 1982, the Saudis made a very major effort to reach out to India. But at that time, it is we who resisted because at that time we were reluctant to give up our affiliation with the Soviet Union. So that is another era. Post-cold war you find a very different landscape. The Saudis became very anxious to reach out to us. And when finally Mr. Jaswant Singh, our external affairs minister visited Riyadh in January 2001, Prince Saud al Faisal, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia, categorically told him that we value our ties with India and we will not view these relations through the prism of our ties with any other country. He also reassured the Indian minister that their position on the Jammu and Kashmir issue is something that we can live with. He read out a long statement and at that time, Mr. Jaswant Singh said, I cannot disagree with a single sentence or phrase.After that we built up an energy security partnership during the visit of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz in 2006 and we built up a strategic partnership in 2010 when Dr. Manmohan Singh visited Riyadh. So, there has been a very steady growth of political relations founded on the basis of similar concerns relating to extremism and violence. Do recall here and I emphasise this for your viewers that it is the attack on Mumbai in 2008 that had a very major impact on the mindset and thinking and perceptions of the countries of the Gulf. They finally were persuaded. We have been agitating this point for a long time. But they were finally persuaded that India faces a challenge from Jihad. That this has nothing to do with the Kashmir issue. That this is a very dangerous development for the region. That this attack upon Mumbai had been engineered from within the state order of Saudi Arabia and that is the basis on which we could go forward with our strategic autonomy.That does not mean that there is a zero sum scenario. Pakistan is recognised as a state sponsor of extremism but at the same time it also provides military support to the Saudis when they need it. India is not willing to do any such thing. That is not our way, that is not our diplomacy. Our approach is substantial economic relationship, energy related relationship, and it has we have done well on both sides in this regard.KT: The foreign ministry in Delhi put out a statement yesterday to say that India is considering and studying the implications of the Saudi-Pakistan defence pact. They will study both the political and the strategic implications of it. Do you believe that Mr. Modi who put in so much effort to build relations might see this as some sort of rebuff or could it affect the strength with which he pursues the relationship hereafter.TA: I think what this foreign office statement means that they are studying the place of disagreement within the larger security context that is going through important changes all across West Asia. It is not just confined. We are not sitting in South Block just looking at a Saudi-Pakistani arrangement. We are not blind to the major developments that are taking place across the region. There’s an extraordinary churn in the region. I mentioned to you that the regional security order has collapsed. It has very important implications for India’s security interest and our approach to the region as a whole. That is what South Block would be studying today, not the simple implications of the Saudi-Pakistan thing. That, we are very confident, our national security adviser and external affairs minister can pick up the phone now and speak to their counterpart and I’m sure they will be completely reassured.Those of us who have followed events in West Asia are fully aware of the very deep regard and the respect in which India is held. India has had a relationship with them for 4,000 years. It’s not something that happened day before yesterday. Therefore, I am completely convinced that what would be of concern and, I think, legitimate concern in South Block would be what are the implications of what is happening in West Asia. There is disagreement that has come. There will be some other agreements. There will be a lot of movement all across the region. Where does India fit in? What can India do in order to safeguard its interest and stabilise the region that is so crucial for our national interest?KT: Let me end by going back to social media and putting to you an issue that is being raised, I believe, from the right. Is it possible for India to have a better relationship with a Muslim country – Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, all three countries in which you served, than Pakistan? The concern in social media is that Pakistan has close Muslim fraternal relationships with the Arab world which India does not. When the chips come down, the concern in social media is that Pakistan’s relationship with these countries will always be better than ours. How do you respond to that concern?TA: I would plead with my Hindutva brethren to shed their communal lenses, read the literature relating to India’s ties with West Asia over 4,000 years. Their obsession with matters of faith as crucially defining identities rather than numerous other aspects of our history and culture that are much more accommodative, much broader, much more respectful of multiculturalism. I would say to you, I have spent 40 years in West Asia. Faith does not animate their foreign policy at all. They have a multiplicity of relationships. They value the relationship with India. And I believe that our top leadership has understood this because they are the ones that have been pursuing the very strong ties with the countries of the Gulf.Do recall here, Mr. Thapar, that we have 9 million people living there. Not the Pakistanis, Pakistanis are less than half of us and never has the Gulf given priority to recruiting Muslims from India. Our presence in the Gulf is proportionate to our numbers at home. I would really say that this kind of communal clap trap that has destroyed the nation from within and has corroded our national ethos should now be given up. It has served no useful purpose over the last 12 years and I can’t see it doing anything useful. Please do not label other countries by the identity of the majority community. Are we therefore to see the United States as a Christian country, Germany as a Christian country, Russia that it is an orthodox, or that the Chinese are Confucian. This kind of nonsense should be given up. We should consider foreign affairs very seriously in terms of our interest. Bring into play our very old history and culture and the long traditions, lived traditions, may I add, over 2,000 years that have shaped our strategic culture. Our strategic culture is self-confident. It is eclectic. It is accommodative. It brings people together.It is this Hindutva mindset and this whole effort to see everything from a very narrow vision and even that narrow vision is not supported by any historical document that I’m familiar with. Our stalwarts consistently have pursued India’s national interest on the basis of having good relations with all different countries. Look at the Non-Aligned Movement and, today, we call it strategic autonomy or multilateralism or having ties with different countries. The Global South. How many countries of the global south have Muslim majority populations. Are we going to stop talking to them? Which other country are you going to deal with on the basis of faith and faith alone? No country in the world shapes its foreign policy on the basis of the identity of its community of rich people. They all are have very different and very diverse population. They bring people together. They focus on national unity. Only through national unity are you going to be a credible role player in regional and world affairs.KT: All right, Mr. Ahmad, let’s leave it there. Thank you very much for the time you’ve given me. Thank you for sharing your understanding and analysis of the Pakistan-Saudi mutual defence agreement. Take care. Stay safe.TA: Thank you very much. I wish you all the best. Thank you.