NOS: First of all, what brings you to The Netherlands?
EAM: Well, a number of reasons, really. First of all, you know, it's a very major partner for us, in the world, in Europe. You know, not, often people recognize that for us, today, The Netherlands is our second biggest trade partner in Europe after Germany. It's also among our top five investment sources. In fact, if you look investments in Europe, Netherlands is the biggest, investor in India.
So one looks at it economically. There are very strong reasons. We've had, you know, a good relationship, a very important relationship. There are areas, like water, agriculture, health, where we have had cooperation. We want to upgrade all of that.
But now there are new areas, like semiconductors, chips, where Netherlands is a world leader. We'd like to, we are making some big bets on that. So there's a very strong economic case. There's also, I would say, a political strategic case as well. Big issues of the day, terrorism, multipolarity, strategic autonomy, standing on your own feet in a changing world.
So a lot of reasons to come here.
NOS: We will touch upon all of those subjects, of course. But when talking to the Dutch government, are you talking bilaterally, or are you also hoping to talk to the EU in a way?
EAM: Well, I am talking to them bilaterally. In fact, today, I've had a meeting with the foreign Minister, as well as the defense Minister.
I hope to see the Prime Minister tomorrow. But again, The Netherlands is a very important member of the European Union. So anything I say to them bilaterally also feeds into Brussels. So, when I speak to the foreign minister and he then walks into the foreign minister's council in Brussels, it's a way of talking to Brussels as well. But we do engage a lot with Brussels. I hope to be visiting Brussels very soon. We have very good relations with the new commission. I hope to be building on that.
NOS: Now, of course, you talk to, the foreign minister in The Netherlands, not so much the minister of trade. So I guess there's a lot of, global, subjects to talk about.
Is there room for improvement? Is there more cooperation between India and The Netherlands? Should there be more cooperation?
EAM: Oh, absolutely. There should be more cooperation for a variety of reasons.
Let me start with the economic side. As I said in areas like water, agriculture, health, Netherlands has been a very important partner. But, you know, when a country which is today the fifth largest economy, now actually maybe the fourth, I think we overtook Japan last month, and likely to grow, at 6- 7%, 8 % in the coming decades. I think, our growth, we are looking for partners, partners who have technology and experiences to contribute, partner for whom, you know, this relationship can be a new business opportunity, and The Netherlands is such a partner. So there are traditional areas we want to expand.
There are new areas, today, with world of AI and data, how intense, the whole debate about semiconductors and chips have been, and how sensitive it is, in a way, that countries want trusted partners, when it comes to these kinds of domains. Now, we have in past, many decades, we have neglected the semiconductor field. We have today, in last few years, made some, taken some very big bets. We have started something called the Indian Semiconductor Mission, and we are right now building, our first new big fab, which is underway.
We have a whole lot of, in the semiconductor chain, supply, many other, ATMP, projects which are taking place. And this is an area where, a country like The Netherlands can make a very very big difference. Now I'll give you the flip side of it. Okay. What can India bring to the table?
One of the areas we are strongest people. That if you look at the world, it's undergoing a shortage of engineers. It's also a shortage of health workers, many other areas, but relevant to this. So when you look at what difference Indian talent can make, and what is the contribution that we can bring to these areas, I think there's a complementarity there, that is, waiting, really, to be forged. Now I could take it into other sensitive areas with the defense minister, for example.
I discussed whether at a time when we are growing our defense industry, in India. And we know in Europe and in Netherlands, he spoke to me about the need to grow your own defense capabilities. Again, is there a fit? We need to explore that. So these are some examples.
NOS: But also to diversify. Now we buy a lot of weapons in The United States. Yes. We are looking to build them in Europe, but that may take time. So there may be an opportunity for India as a producer of arms.
EAM: Sure. Often in diplomacy, people speak about, it's a more multipolar world. Or, they say, we need strategic autonomy. What does it mean in real life? At the end of the day, it means having more of your own capabilities.
Nobody can have everything. But what, at least big countries and big groupings like the European Union want - they want to be able to have control and ownership about their basic security needs. That's what makes you feel self assured and self confident and able to handle a very, volatile world. So in this, as Europe grows, as India grows, I think both of us understand the world is not what it used to be. They're not even what it was a year ago.
NOS: Do you feel India and the EU are driven together by this insecurity in the rest of the world?
EAM: I think India and Europe need to find more common ground and more, partnership or working together, not against insecurity, against volatility, against uncertainty, on having multiple relationships so that at the end of the day, we are more secure by having more options and more partners.
NOS: But India, of course, has made a point of not choosing when others want you to choose. So there may come a time when either China or Russia or The United States wants India to choose for them instead of for the European Union, for example.
EAM: Well, look, India is a large nation with a strong history of independent decision making. Our history is different from yours. That's the way history unfolded. You are still in an alliance culture. With all the responsibilities and obligations which come out of it. We never, after our independence, we always stayed away from alliance cultures.
So in a way, we have grown up with a world of multiple choices and I would say handling, multiple relationships, if you would. So for us, such a situation would not be a new predicament.
NOS: I understand.
EAM: So we have handled it in the past.
NOS: Yeah.
EAM: We we know when to stand up for our interests. We know how to make the best decision for our national interests. I think today Europe, as it, you know, as this current situation unfolds, is discovering, I think, the merits of that strategic autonomy and decision making?
NOS: In Europe, perhaps, yes. But then, for example, in The United States, you have somebody who wants to be courted in a way, and there's still no trade agreement between India and The US.
So does The US understand the rationale of Indian foreign policy?
EAM: Well, every country comes, at the world from their history, from their national interest, from their culture and augmentation. I would imagine that The US understands that India is a very, very independent country, which will make decisions which are driven entirely by Indian interests.
NOS: Do they really? Because The US claims that your tariffs on US products would go down to 0%.
EAM: Well, we are in the middle of a trade negotiation right now. It's still being negotiated. So we have to wait and see at the end of this all, what happens.
In the middle of a negotiation, we at least don't give interim readouts. So where where the trade negotiation will end up, what kind of mutuality or benefits there are. Because, you have a trade understanding or agreement when it works for both parties. So it has to work for us too.
Just like it has to work for them. So don't jump the gun. Be patient. My sense is, if the negotiations which are going on right now, if they do lead to a result, we will see the mutuality of that.
NOS: You are confident that they will and soon because economies are hurting because of the sanctions?
EAM: Well, look, diplomacy is always a profession of, possibilities. When you enter a negotiation, you enter it with the idea of having an outcome. You don't enter it saying, I will not have an outcome. So, obviously, you know, and I know, as someone who has an inside knowledge of that particular negotiation, that we've had multiple rounds. Right now, I know it's something which has gone down to very deep detail.
So we're not talking a kind of a headlines, big picture agreement here. I mean, these are professional trade negotiators who are looking at very, sort of fine detail. I know our negotiating team. I have very high respect for them. We have, by the way, just concluded a free trade agreement with the UK.
NOS: But so has the United States, and they are very vocal about their negotiations with China, for example. We've seen this weekend Trump in the Gulf Region. Mr. Trump seems to be looking for deliverables. So the fact that he doesn't even mention, the trade agreement with India, does that worry you?
EAM: No. Because, look, the trade agreement with India hasn't happened. It's under negotiation. So do be patient, when the negotiations are over, an outcome will emerge.
But, again, look, different countries come at it differently. The UK US trade agreement is not comparable to the trade agreement that India and UK have had. We had a trade agreement which were negotiated over multiple months, in fact, multiple years, over multiple governments on The UK side. It's a very, very detailed agreement running to, a very thick level of detail. So each one of us will handle it from the perspective of, how they do their negotiations.
We like to do detailed, specific, trade negotiations which produce balanced outcomes. For us, a trade agreement, a trade deal has to be a deal which works for both parties. And if that takes, however long, we do it.
NOS: Now when it comes to means of negotiating, or ways of negotiating, the role of Mr. Trump is interesting also in another way. He claimed, for example, that he solved the recent flare up in the violence between India and Pakistan.
How do you see his role?
EAM: Look, where we had the recent, fighting between India and Pakistan. First of all, you want to understand what it was about. It started because it was triggered by a very barbaric terrorist attack in the Indian union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, where 26 tourists were murdered in front of the families, after ascertaining their faith.
And it was done in a way in which it was intended to harm tourism, which is the mainstay of the Kashmir economy, and to create a religious discord. Deliberately, an element of religion was introduced. And to understand that, you've got to also see that on the Pakistani side, you have a Pakistani leadership, especially the army chief, who's very driven by, extreme religious outlook. So there is clearly some connect between the views that were expressed and the behavior that was done.
NOS: Did did you catch the ones that murdered those 26 tourists?
EAM: I think we we were able to identify who they were because there were pictures of them. There was a body which called the resistance front, which took responsibility for that attack.
And, that's a body which has been on our radar for a number of years. In 2023, '24, and '25, we brought this body to the attention of the UN Security Council's 1267 sanctions committee. And we said, look, we see this as a body which has been created by the Lashkar. Lashkar is the main terrorist group in Pakistan - One of the two main terrorist groups. And we can see the connection.
So we had, well before the April 22nd attack, we had already drawn this to the attention of the United Nations. Now, we identified the people, the attackers. We know that they are linked to the Lashkar. We know the command centers, of, the terrorist groups.
It's not a secret. In fact, you know, I should show you. We have, if you look at the UN Security Council, UN Security Council publishes, regularly, a kind of list of major terrorists. So it looks like something like this. This is the UN. It says the list established, and maintained pursuant to UN Security Council resolution twelve sixty seven, whatever. Now if you go through this list, these very places, you know, the terrorist on this list. These are famous, you know, well known terrorists, notorious terrorists. They have a place of residence.
You know, it says they operate out of here. Okay. I mean, there's a whole list of these guys. Now these are the very places which are named in this. These are the ones which we hit on the seventh of May.
NOS: I just wanted to, verify that those people that you know who they are, they are still not caught. But the the operation you mentioned, it's still ongoing. How do I balance that with the claims that the recent flare up has been settled?
EAM: No. Well, that is not my assertion. And let let me explain this to you, then maybe you would get it. So what happened was, after the terrorist struck, it was imperative that we have a response, you know, because lack of response, you understand, was was impossible in such a situation.
NOS: It has been tried in the past not to respond.
EAM: Sure. And and we've seen the results. Okay. So, our government is very clear.
I accept that may not have been the policy of an earlier government. But our government is very clear that if there is such an attack, there will be a response.
NOS: So the response was there?
EAM: The response was there. The response, targeted these nine places, which, were the terrorist centers. They are, as I said, they're the places are all, shown in a UN list. I mean, this is where, the terrorists work and live and operate, from. Now, after that, the Pakistani military, chose to, fire on us, and, we responded. This went on, for four days. And, after that, the decisive day was the tenth of May.
On the morning of tenth of May, in response to an attack which they had launched on us earlier, that morning, we hit eight air bases. We basically made those air bases non functional. You know, we hit their runways. We hit their command centers.
NOS: As part of an operation that is still ongoing. Why ?
EAM: Hang on. Let me explain. So, this is the kind of, you hit a runway, you made the, airbase non operational, or you went after, what is, the air defense command control system. This is the airbase close to Rawalpindi. And, that, I think, compelled the Pakistani military to accept that we need to stop firing at each other.
And now what has happened is that, at the moment there is no firing, and there's been, some, repositioning of, forces, accordingly. Now, when you ask me, so why does the operation continue? The operation continues because there is a clear message in that operation, that if there are acts of the kind we saw on April 22nd , there will be a response, that we will hit the terrorists. If the terrorists are in Pakistan, we will hit them where they are.
So, there is a message in continuing the operation. But, continuing the operation is not the same as firing on each other. Right now, there is a agreed cessation of firing and military action.
NOS: So the operation is dormant, if you like?
EAM: Put whatever word you want to, but I can tell you the message is clear. And the message is active.
NOS: And for some reason, the both armies were able to talk to each other, initiated by the Pakistani army?
EAM: Yes. We have a mechanism to talk to each other, as a hotline. So, on the 10th of May, it was the Pakistani army, which, sent a message that they were ready to stop firing, and we responded accordingly.
NOS: And where was The US in this process?
EAM: Well, The US was in The United States. I mean, obviously, there were, US, you know, secretary of state Rubio and vice president Vance had called up, Rubio had spoken to me, Vance had spoken to our prime minister.
You know, they had, their, view, and they were talking to us, and they were talking to Pakistanis, as indeed were some other countries. I mean, The United States was not alone, in this. I think there were, some countries in The Gulf. There were some others as well. You know, that happens naturally.
We know when two countries are engaged, in a conflict, it is natural that, countries in the world call up and ask and and try to, sort of indicate, their concern, and, what they can do in such a situation. But the ceasefire, the cessation of firing and military action was something which was negotiated directly between India and Pakistan. We made one thing very clear to everybody who spoke to us. Not just United States, but to everybody. Saying, look, if the Pakistanis want to stop firing, they need to tell us.
We need to hear it from them. Their General has to call up our General and say this. And that is what happened.
NOS: Now Trump claims, this cessation of hostilities as a success that he brought about. Not only that, he is offering his help to solve a thousand year conflict, I quote.
Would you accept his help? And do you think India can benefit from his help?
EAM: We've had, a long, history of difficult relations with Pakistan. And the reason for that is that from the very start, we are talking since 1947. So, 1947 means you can do the maths, nineteen forty seven to 2025 and figure out how many years, the problem, has been.
We've had this problem because almost at the time of independence, Pakistan sent in, you know, exactly like this proxy people and said it's not us. These are, these are tribals who are angry. And then it turned out they were Pakistani military people, some of them in uniform, some of them not in uniform. So, they've also pursued a radical, I would say, extremist religious agenda, which using terrorism across the border, as a way of trying to pressurize us.
This has been, their history. Now, if you ask me how do we propose to deal with it, we propose to deal with it bilaterally with the Pakistanis. It is something that we and the Pakistanis have to settle one to one. And we are very clear with them that they need to discuss with us. We are open to their discussing with us and ending to terrorism. It has got to be a serious talk. It is something that we need to do between us.
NOS: And the governments the governance of, Kashmir or maybe even the lines that separate the different, is that up for negotiations in such conversations?
EAM: No. Because, you know, Kashmir is part of India. No country negotiates a part of its territory. So, for us, Kashmir is part of India. There is one segment of Kashmir which is today under occupation of Pakistan illegally since '1947- 48. So we are, you know, we would like to discuss with them when they propose to leave that part.
NOS: No magic role mister Trump, can play here.
EAM: It is something between us and the Pakistanis.
NOS: Now his rationale in offering seems to be, if you put aside those conflicts, he doesn't like conflicts. You can get rich together. To what extent does the situation on the border with Pakistan, but also with China, holds you back economically?
EAM: Well, you know, it's a very interesting question which you are, asking me as a European.
NOS: I am.
EAM: I'll tell you why I find it interesting. Because I think this part of the world is waking up to what it means if you're not given full attention to your security requirements. Our security challenges were far more threatening than yours.
So we had to prioritize security. You don't choose between security and economic prosperity. Today, you are realizing that. They are part of the same coin.
NOS: So my question is naive.
EAM: No, I think your question comes out of your historical experience. Your historical experience has been that after the second World War and certainly, after 1991, '92, you had the good fortune of enjoying a very favorable geopolitical circumstance. And that has conditioned you to think that is a normal. I didn't have that situation. I've had, difficult neighbors, Pakistan and China, especially.
I've had a continuing problem of terrorism from Pakistan. So I've always had to deal, with a degree of realism, with a very, harsh world, very nasty world, which I think Europeans were insulated from. So, I'm not accusing you of naivety. I'm just saying that your situation was different from mine, but you are today going through a reality check-in your own way. I've grown, grown up with that reality, over, almost eight decades.
So for me, it's not a choice between, oh if you are dealing with your security, does it come at the cost of your progress. I mean, defending your country and your territory is the first duty, of any any government, any people. So, I think that will obviously get priority. But we are confident. Look, at the end of the day, growth comes from strong fundamentals.
We've had whatever we've had, the conflict over the last, few weeks. But I think, the fundamentals of India's growth, the fact that today, we are heading to be a 4 trillion dollar economy. We are in a bandwidth of 6 to 8% growth rate for decades ahead of us.
We have very sound demographics in our favor. If you look at the, infrastructure growth in India, which has made it so much easier to do business, if you look, at the manufacturing, I frankly am quite bullish about our economic prospects. I don't think meeting a national security challenge undermines my economic progress. My economic progress is, based on the fact, that today, I have, a strong economy, a talented pool out there to draw from, Strategic autonomy, but also the ability to attract multiple partners.
NOS: Is that and then we're nearing the end of this entry interview, I'm afraid. But is this something that Europe or The Netherlands should learn from India to balance this security need with economic growth?
EAM: I don't think you need to learn from India. I think that realism is upon you already.
It is your situation. My situation cannot be, transposed to you. You have your own security challenges. Look, you had a situation where between your security needs, your trade needs, your energy needs, Europe thought it had optimized the world. Okay. Between an American relationship, a Russian relationship, and a China relationship. Today, there are stresses on all three fronts. Okay. That is your situation.
You have to discover an answer from to your problem through your situation. I have already, I've always had a much more, challenging environment to operate. But what is important, because I think this is part of the reason I'm here. Look, at the end of the day, there are certain fundamental beliefs for which we need to stand together if we have that belief. For me, terrorism, standing up to terrorism, having zero tolerance for terrorism, is a very important part of what we are.
I must say, we were very, very appreciative of the very clear stance that we got from the Dutch government. That Netherlands from the time Pahalgam happened. I mean, even today, I saw understanding about our policy of zero tolerance for terrorists. I think, I see with many partners, an understanding that we have the right to protect our people and to defend our people. So, , I do see, a better future, closer future between us, where, Europe and The Netherlands, which is, in a way, standing, and thinking much more autonomously, for its own interests, finds a reason or finds a virtue or finds a benefit in working with another big center, India, which also has an independent policy, and we can figure out how this supports each other.
NOS: Too many questions left. But, if I may ask one, maybe a slightly more personal question. Why after this, flare up of hostilities with, Pakistan, why in this change, why do you, if you, like, keep silent for so long? Why is this one of the rare interviews you are giving? Why choose to communicate now?
EAM: No. It's, I've not been silent for very long. I had a job to do. I had a job to do at home. We were in the middle, of a, very serious, conflict. When that happens, normally, you are very disciplined about your communications. So at that time, we had a communication system. We had a set of spokespersons who were mandated to speak about it. I'm talking to you because I'm in The Netherlands.
So when I go to Denmark and Germany and wherever else I go, it's my job as a foreign minister, to communicate.
NOS: I hope you enjoy your stay in The Netherlands, thank you.
EAM:Thank you, Great pleasure.