Rami Desai: To achieve the goals of becoming a developed nation, or Viksit Bharat, by 2047, there are numerous markers to consider, such as technology and social cohesion. We have witnessed significant disruption in recent years. Let me pose the first question that comes to my mind: social cohesion, which is crucial for a developed country. There has been considerable discussion and concern regarding illegal immigration into the country. Reports indicate that there are approximately 20 million illegal immigrants in India, many of whom are connected through vast and complex networks involving anti-India elements, including terrorist organisations and groups like the Rohingya. How do you think India can address the issue of illegal immigration? Additionally, how can it safeguard itself from these existing networks?
Ashok Malik: This calls for something more than a simple, better border-patrolling answer. If you consider Bharat or India as a civilisation, we are going through the post-1947 or post-1950 phase. For instance, a vast ancient civilisation with a lot of ambiguity in its frontiers is crystallising into a modern nation-state. It’s not an easy process; it’s a challenging process. For example, fairly open borders with migrants coming in, not sometimes as invaders- I appreciate that- but much more often as traders, as migrants, as pilgrims, back and forth. This has been a part of our history. Obviously, this is not sustainable in a modern 21st-century environment. It needs to be curbed to a necessary degree. However, India is also the biggest economy, the biggest country, the biggest magnet in the Indian subcontinent- or what some people prefer to call South Asia; I prefer calling it the Indian subcontinent. As such, not integration, but inter-linkages with our neighbouring countries, whether social, cultural, or economic, are making them part of the broader Indian economy.
As a mechanism to enhance connectivity, which benefits us as well, especially if you consider the states of the Northeast, access does come through border countries, for instance. Someday, if Pakistan sorts out its terrorism problem, regular economic exchanges with Pakistan could benefit our state of Punjab. Of course, I don’t see that happening right now. But what we need to do, what we are trying to achieve, is solidifying our borders, crystallising them, which have not been clearly defined for thousands of years. Still, this is in the context of the modern Indian nation-state. We must secure our borders, curb illegal immigration, while incentivising legal immigration that meets genuine economic and labour needs in our country. All of these processes have to work in parallel. It’s complex; it’s not easy. India can’t afford an open border, nor can it sustain a completely closed system like the Great Wall of India. There is a halfway house which we will have to live in for our own needs and gains. This involves negotiation between India and its neighbours, and a frank discussion we must have with ourselves. What are the metrics or parameters for how much we open and how much we do not? This varies from border to border, neighbouring country to neighbouring country, and region to region. There is no one-size-fits-all answer. Thus, the perspectives on frontiers from Delhi and those from the ground are very different.
Rami Desai: But you speak about the borders, and we know that we have some of the largest porous borders any country has. We are also surrounded by countries that are, to say the very least, in flux. Recent developments on our northeastern borders have revealed a complicated relationship regarding whether we should shut it down and what the process should be. Considering that we have made significant progress in developing infrastructure in these areas, how do you envision safeguarding our borders?
Ashok Malik: Look, infrastructure at our borders is something we have ignored and neglected for years. We adopted a defensive posture, arguing that we couldn’t afford to improve it because it was exceedingly difficult and logistically impossible. Transporting construction materials to the border was also much more challenging, and we believed it would incentivise invading armies, reflecting a very defensive strategy. Over the past 10 years, one of the outstanding achievements of the Modi government has been the significant upgrading of border infrastructure, which is necessary and has occasionally caused other countries to feel more alarmed than they should have. This is particularly relevant given that countries like China have constructed much greater infrastructure over a more extended period. However, this is important not only for military posture but also for integrating our Indian communities and citizens living in border regions with the rest of the economy. This integration is crucial; otherwise, they remain in an isolated limbo. There is a challenge in Bangladesh today that requires a tough stance, but we have also achieved much with Bangladesh under previous governments. Our relationship with Nepal is somewhat inconsistent, but there have been achievements. There have also been successes with Bhutan. Regarding the Maldives and Sri Lanka, circumstances are looking better today.
Given all of this, I realise I am discussing sea borders as well as land borders. With all of this infrastructure at our borders to build connectivity, enabling commerce, promoting economic interchange, and incentivising countries and societies to live peacefully and equitably with India. Because if the economic stakes for a good relationship with India are significant, then the willingness to allow their politicians to act recklessly will be much more limited. For a country like India to deal with this neighbourhood, there is a combination of the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove. Coercion is needed when it’s necessary. Absolutely, like right now in Bangladesh, considering what is happening and the fact that Bangladesh is being unfair to its minorities, which immediately impacts India socially, and given that Bangladesh is flirting with Pakistan and China, we must take a tough stance, and we have done so. I suspect it will get tougher.
On the other hand, where the environment is more welcoming, as it is currently in Sri Lanka, we should incentivise a close relationship. If that means enhancing border infrastructure or connectivity corridors, we should do so. Thus, there is no one answer for all countries in the region, and there is no single solution for any one country over time either. It changes with the posture of other countries.
Rami Desai: Correct. But what interests me is that while we talk about these other countries and what we should be doing with them, taking a tough stance when necessary, as we have done, we have also faced repercussions in terms of major international powers. Whether it’s cross-border issues or internal matters, major powers want to counter a rising India and an assertive India. We have seen this during the farmers’ protest, CAA, and so on. Why do you think this happens, and how should we react to it?
Ashok Malik: The world doesn’t owe you a living. If you are a rising power, you will face challenges, even from friends who want you to rise only to a certain point. That’s how it is in an office environment. That’s how it is in the ruthless world of global politics. You have to secure your interests. You have to protect your core priorities, which are non-negotiable. We are moving towards a world where they say spheres of influence are re-emerging as a concept, in contrast to globalisation, which created a flatter world. I don’t know whether this is true because I don’t want to make a prediction too early in the process, but assuming it is even halfway true, we need much greater influence and control in our neighbourhood. If that requires confronting even larger powers from outside the region, or those who may be friendly with us in other areas, we should be willing to do that. A former American Secretary of State at a conference in India a couple of years ago said we can walk and chew gum at the same time; if the Americans can do it, so can Indians. You can have Bhelpuri and walk at the same time.
Rami Desai: Absolutely, I agree, especially with the Bhelpuri. But you know, we have also made considerable advances in digitisation. That has been one of our fantastic success stories, and this government has put our digitisation story on the map. However, this also brings about some vulnerabilities that can be exploited in our weaker moments. What do you think those challenges are? How should we approach them over the next 22 years?
Ashok Malik: This is a good point you raised because, if you ask me what my nightmare security scenario for the proximate future is, much more than a nuclear attack, it is possibly a devastating cyber-attack that cripples our financial systems. The whole concept of what is considered critical infrastructure for our country has changed. In the old days, critical infrastructure may have included places like Bombay High or steel plants. We have four or five legacy steel plants in both the private and public sectors, which are iconic, along with other industrial facilities. However, the definition of critical infrastructure today has expanded to include our digital backbone—undersea cables, for instance, of which we are part of a global consortium. Separately, in our use and adoption of the Internet, whether through social media or email, we are also vulnerable to manipulation, just like other countries. I am not saying we are the only ones. Given how rapidly and impressively we have digitised, many countries in the Global South are looking at aspects of India’s digitisation. They may not want the entire India Stack, but they seek parts of it, whatever suits their needs.
It is essential for us to be at the forefront of cybersecurity. I would assert that our global partnerships, be they with European countries, France, or the US, particularly in the area of cybersecurity through the collaboration of many Indian tech professionals and cybersecurity workers in the Indo-US tech corridor, hold great promise. At the most basic level, all our public and private institutions need to invest more and more wisely in cybersecurity. Some years ago, we experienced a cyber-attack on the AIIMS Delhi database, which is notably valuable. It contains patient records and extensive epidemiological data, yet insufficient care or consideration was given to its protection. I am not casting blame here, but this should act as a wake-up call. A crippling cyber-attack is my worst nightmare, far more troubling than a nuclear attack.
Rami Desai: Absolutely. I must agree with you regarding how dependent the common man is on our digital infrastructure. However, let me shift to technology as well. Some would say that we completely missed the industrial revolution bus and shouldn’t miss the technology revolution bus. Whether AI, the semiconductor industry, or quantum computing, a certain amount of resources is needed. How can we compete with other countries? Where do you think we are lacking, and how quickly do we need to progress in this area?
Ashok Malik: We have more resources today than we did 20 years ago. I will explain what I mean by that. The other day, I was discussing this topic, which is slightly unrelated to your answer, but I will return to your answer shortly. I was talking about Hyundai, which raised money in India last year in what was India’s largest IPO. Hyundai entered India in 1995. India’s GDP at that point was about $400 billion because, in 1991, our GDP was $ 275 billion. So, I am assuming it grew to $ 400 billion by the mid-90s. Today, our GDP is $ 4 trillion. It is ten times larger. Simply put, more capital is available now, which is why Hyundai, once an investor that brought in money in the 1990s, is raising capital in India today.
Now, if you look at semiconductors, which is a vast and resource-intensive ecosystem- from chemicals and materials at the base to a fully-fledged fab at the top- we are currently at the 3rd or 4th echelon of a skyscraper. However, 20 months ago, we were not even at the groundbreaking level; thus, we have made appreciable progress. There’s much more to do. We have brought in technology from other countries, but much of the investment has actually come from Indian funds: Indian public money, Indian taxpayer money, and some Indian private money. Capital is undoubtedly needed, and I do not suggest that we don’t need foreign investment. Of course, we do, especially for AI partnerships with global companies, all of whom want to test their models and have different approaches toward India or with India. We must allow them access and create workable relationships that benefit them and us.
That will bring in capital and investment. Money isn’t as much of a problem- whether global or local- as deploying that money smartly. You are quite right about semiconductors, which are now seen as a metric of national security. We saw this during COVID when car waiting lists in India were up to a year. We need semiconductor legacy chips for the electronics and automobile industries, which is our focus. Quantum computing, although still emerging, is just around the corner, and we know it. Artificial intelligence, of course, has enormous social implications. It’s not just about weaponisation; it can enable better lives for our farmers, students, and poor people in general, improving governance. A controversial suggestion here is that we need to integrate AI into our judicial proceedings. Instead of having one person go through copious documentation, how about using AI as a filter? I suspect it will be better than many want to believe.
Rami Desai: Do we need an overarching commission, like the Atomic Energy Commission?
Ashok Malik: For new technology, there are groups within the government that bring in private sector people as well, because much of the technology here lies with the working private sector. Our semiconductor mission, for instance, uses government personnel and private sector individuals, including people of Indian origin living abroad. The AI missions, similarly, are looking at a more inclusive collaborative formulation. We are hosting a big AI conference next year. I think early next year, February next year, if I’m not mistaken, which is also seen as AI for impact and inclusion. So, I don’t think there is a need for one big technology commission, but each of these areas will require a collaborative process, and some of that is happening. Maybe it can happen better, but it’s there.
Rami Desai: A nation like ours needs a robust defence sector. That would contribute to the assets we require to better achieve our goals by 2047. Do you think we are on the right track, or do you believe there are challenges ahead?
Ashok Malik: We are both on the right track and facing some challenges. It’s like this: for many years, for various reasons- some of which were our doing and some not- we have had a dependency on Russia or the Soviet Union regarding our military platforms. We have now diversified. We obtain platforms from France; we have platforms from the US, of course, and we also get platforms from Israel. However, we do not want to replace one dependency with another. In the end, we will need to make ourselves. Of course, every country buys military platforms, defence equipment, or munitions, but we also want to establish at least a sufficient critical mass of our own. We aim to develop our platforms, which we are starting to do with aircraft carriers, for instance, and advance up the value chain.
But no one will hand it to you on a platter, not even your best friend. They want to keep the crown jewels to themselves. For example, when you look at jet engine technology, we are collaborating with the Americans and the French. There is also some discussion about working with the British. No one is going to give you 100%. You will need to work with all of them, triangulate your efforts, and still face a gap you must fill yourself. A strong defence manufacturing sector, one of this government’s main priorities, intersects significantly with a modern industrial economy. The two are interconnected – if you have a strong defence sector, you will have a manufacturing economy. If you possess a manufacturing economy, transitioning to defence manufacturing is natural and straightforward. The two are linked, and in a way, the defence manufacturing or the defence production, or the Atmanirbharta in defence initiative, will test how successful we are in boosting manufacturing indices in our country.
Rami Desai: Yes, we have achieved quite a bit, but there is still a little way further to go to achieve our goals by 2047. To make all of this happen, we need effective systems that include our bureaucracy. Are we on the right track, or do you feel that more lateral inclusions are required, where we can draw talent from subject experts?
Ashok Malik: I worked for five years in the government as a lateral entrant, and it was an enormous learning process for me. I think I managed to contribute somewhat; at least, I hope I did. That said, every country- whether it’s the US or China- needs a permanent bureaucracy. I don’t believe lateral entrants can replace permanent bureaucracy; they can complement it. They can come for short periods, three years, five years, or whatever, bringing their expertise and then moving on. They will move on because a career bureaucrat or civil servant thinks differently. I am not saying they think better or worse; they think differently, and that perspective is also needed in the system. Career bureaucrats are generally more cautious, and their training reflects that caution. Some of that caution is necessary, but sometimes it can become an end in itself, which is problematic. Therefore, more people from outside should come in. I also believe that government employees should be allowed to transition to the private sector for a couple of years, as in many countries, mainly European countries.
Osmosis is meant to be two-way; otherwise, we produce two cultures that barely interact, which is not beneficial for the government or the private sector. There is an understanding gap regarding how each side makes decisions, their motivations, and those of the private sector and civil service. These are genuine motivations. It’s not that I don’t want to do something for the sake of avoiding it. For example, a decision was to be made during my first couple of months in government. I made a recommendation that seemed straightforward to me. However, I kept receiving questions repeatedly from my senior, and initially, I felt irritated. I wondered if he was trying to provoke me because I was an outsider. Eventually, I realised he was examining my decision to give every possible justification so no one down the line could question it. I came to understand that he was teaching me. Should our system be so laborious that making a fairly straightforward decision takes so long? That is a fair question. Does our system need to be more cautious because it’s taxpayer money compared to what might happen in the private sector or a foundation? That’s also true. Therefore, there is no one answer. I also believe that the quality of ministers matters. Unfortunately, in India, the skills required to get elected to parliament and those needed to govern are increasingly divergent, posing a challenge.
Rami Desai: On that note, one can hope that, as you mentioned, this osmosis is essential for better functioning. I believe it would provide valuable insights to even the bureaucrats if they were allowed to experience the private sector, as there seems to be a cocooning within the bureaucracy. Thank you so much, Ashok ji, for being here and sharing this insider’s view with us. You have been in the government and truly know this from an insider’s perspective.
Ashok Malik: Absolutely. Thank you very much for having me.
Brief Bios:
Shri Ashok Malik is a Partner at The Asia Group (TAG) and Chair of its New Delhi-based subsidiary in India where he leads the firm’s in-market business strategy and services. Prior to joining TAG, Ashok served for three years (2019-22) as Policy Advisor/Additional Secretary in India’s Ministry of External Affairs. In that capacity, he worked closely with the senior leadership of the Ministry to help shape and explain India’s foreign policy in a crucial and eventful period for the international system. Between 2017 and 2019, Shri Ashok Malik served as speech writer and spokesperson for the 14th President of India, President Ram Nath Kovind. Before entering government, Ashok was a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, one of India’s preeminent think-tanks. From 2015, he led ORF’s Neighborhood Regional Studies Initiative. Shri Ashok Malik began his career in the news media, serving in senior editorial positions in leading Indian publications that included Times of India, India Today and Indian Express. He rose to become one of India’s best-read columnists and commentators. In 2016, he was awarded the Padma Shri, one of India’s highest civilian honor.
Ms. Rami Desai is Distinguished Fellow, India Foundation. An alumnus of King’s College, London, she has degrees in Anthropology of Religion and Theology. She has been actively involved in research, fieldwork and analysis of conflict areas, with a special focus on the North East region of India for over a decade.
