I think each system has its strengths and weakness. And the diversity of views makes India a lively society. And this is a creative society, that’s what India has always been.

•We sometimes say, ‘Look at China, they’re so disciplined. We are an anarchy. Nothing moves, soft state, this, that. . .” And one little Tibetan thing happens and the whole Chinese state is in so much pain and trauma. India has a million mutinies going on at any point in time and we take them in our stride.

India will never have a revolution. China will need one every two or three centuries. Because their society is organised differently. It’s hierarchical, has one core centre. India is diverse. In many ways it’s like Europe: it’s tribal, has got all kinds of divisions, religions, and a commonality which is soft. I’ve said this before — that there’s no aspect of the human condition which Indians have not thought about or philosophised on and somehow given expression to. Whereas in China there has to be a certain way of looking at civilisation, a certain hierarchy, a certain orderliness. That enables China to move very fast when it wants to, but at other times it also creates a certain bitterness. In the case of Tibet, I think, it’s an expression (of that).

•To say things like “beast” for the Dalai Lama, or ‘We’ll crush them’ is not how a big power reacts to an internal disturbance.

Part of the problem is in the translation. Many translations they use are imported from the Cold War days and sound dated and awkward in the 21st century. I’ve often spoken to them to update their jargon. And perhaps be a little more flexible.

... contd.