What the S400 missile deal with Russia signifies
New Delhi will acquire advanced defence hardware from the best possible source
The conclusion of the multi-billion dollar deal for S-400 air defence systems – albeit done in a low key manner, with the contract finding no mention in the remarks by Prime Minister Narendra Modi or President Vladimir Putin after their annual summit – underscores why Russia will remain the main supplier of hi-tech military gear for the foreseeable future. That India decided to go ahead with the deal despite the US threat of action was a clear signal that New Delhi intends to stick with its independent foreign policy, and retain the autonomy of acquiring advanced defence hardware from the best possible source. Such contracts have to be finalised keeping in mind India’s national security interests, not those of others, and if the US truly considers India an ally in the Indo-pacific region and a counterbalance to China, it will understand and provide the necessary presidential waiver.
During Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit, India and Russia also made incremental progress in a host of key areas, including the construction of second nuclear power project with up to six Russian-designed reactors, work on nuclear projects in third countries and the development of the International North-south Transport Corridor, which will see New Delhi and Moscow working along with Tehran for the transportation of Indian goods to Russia through Iranian territory. This too was a clear demonstration that India intends to retain its strategic options while it works to strengthen its relations with the US in a host of fields. In other words, India has signalled that it will not be drawn into an “either us or them” game.
Friday (October 5) marked the seventh anniversary of Steve Jobs’s death, which has me thinking not only about his remarkable life, but also about the man most often compared to him in terms of charisma, audacity and vision. That, of course, would be Elon Musk. When Jobs was pushed out of Apple Inc. by then-chief executive John Sculley and the board, he was a brilliant brat, someone who led through insult as much as inspiration. Despite co-founding the company, building first the Apple II and then the Mac, he had become such a disruptive force that he had to go.
When Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, he was 42 years old. He returned as a grown-up; someone, yes, who could still be caustic, but who had learned how lead, primarily from watching Ed Catmull, the president of Pixar Inc. He managed the company with a maturity that had been lacking during his earlier stint at Apple. He moulded his top executives into a cohesive team that could dream up great products and execute them brilliantly.
Musk is five years older than Jobs was when he returned to Apple. He has done some truly remarkable things — more remarkable than Jobs. He built one company that not only sends rockets into space, but also lands the first stage of the rocket on what amounts to a giant trampoline. Musk has also created Tesla, the world’s first serious effort to build an all-electric car. And he has succeeded. A few months ago, the Wall Street Journal’s car reviewer, Dan Neil, described the latest Tesla Model 3 as “magnificent” and “the next step in the history of autos.” He noted, though, that Wall Street bears were swarming all over Tesla’s stock, not because of the quality of the car but because of the quality of the chief executive.
A grown-up CEO doesn’t go on a crusade against short-sellers; he or she “beats” the shorts by increasing revenue and earnings, and by satisfying the marketplace — by performing — not by calling for short-selling to be outlawed, an absurd idea that Musk has voiced. A grown-up CEO is able to hold onto key executives instead of watching them race for the exits. A grown-up CEO doesn’t overpromise and underdeliver, which has been Musk’s trademark ever since he took Tesla