Events

Dr. R. Vignesh, Research Analyst, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), spoke on “Maritime Dimensions of the Ukraine War” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 11 September 2023 at 1000h in Seminar Hall I. Cmde. Abhay Kumar Singh (Retd.), Research Fellow, MP-IDSA, moderated the Session. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, and scholars of the Institute attended the meeting.

Executive Summary

At the beginning of the war, the Russian Navy played a critical role in turning the tables in favour of Moscow. As the war progressed, the application and role of naval power became peripheral. The Ukrainian Navy was always inferior in front of the Russian side. It was always a mosquito fleet. Despite superiority, the Russian Navy has not been able to make any difference in the outcomes of the land battle. The war planners in the Kremlin did not envisage a clear role for its navy before initiating their special military operation. Ambiguity in Russia’s War objective resulted in its Navy's failure to make optimum use of available assets. Despite suffering considerable losses Russia continues to dominate the critical Sea Lanes of Communications (SLOC) in the Black Sea. The maritime theatre of this war will have a lasting influence on the history of naval warfare.

Detailed Report

Cmde. Abhay Kumar Singh (Retd.) commenced the meeting by offering insights about the Ukraine War. He stated that the navy’s role in the short war is difficult to discern. But when the war is prolonged, the role of naval power can make a decisive difference to the result of the war. However, the Ukraine War is an exception to this proposition. At the beginning of the war, the Russian Navy played a critical role in turning the tables in favour of Moscow. As the war progressed, the application and role of the naval power became peripheral. The Ukrainian Navy was always inferior in front of the Russian side. It was always a mosquito fleet. Despite superiority, the Russian Navy has not been able to make any difference in the outcomes of the land battle. With these initial comments, Cmde. Singh (Retd.) called upon Dr. Vignesh to speak on the subject.

Dr. Vignesh began his presentation by introducing the strategic geography of the Black Sea to the audience. He said that the maritime theatre of this War was confined to the Black Sea. The Black Sea is a large enclosed sea which can be accessed through the straits of Marmara and Bosporus, both of which are located within the sovereign territory of Turkey. He mentioned the Montreux Convention, of 1936, which governs the maritime traffic passing through these straits. Further, he briefly spoke of the Russian sense of glory vis-à-vis Crimea and Sevastopol, and the Russian threat perception about North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) presence in the Black Sea.

The Speaker spelt out that enclosed geography and restricted access to the maritime theatre as the main reasons behind the limited scope of application of Sea Power by Russia. Further, the role of Turkey in closing the Straits of Marmara and Bosphorus; the restrictions imposed by the Montreux Convention prohibiting warships above 15,000 tonnes from transiting through the Turkish Straits; shallowness of waters and the narrow passage of the Turkish Straits were additional factors behind limited use of the Russian Navy. Dr. Vignesh brought out the asymmetry between Russian and Ukrainian Navies and the historical reasons behind the same. According to the Speaker, the roots of this naval asymmetry lies in the 1997 Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet. The Ukrainian Fleet was only sufficient for promoting good order at sea rather than fighting conventional wars.

After 2014, the US and NATO became actively involved in rebuilding the capabilities of the Ukrainian Navy which marked the Ukrainian Navy’s transition from Soviet Naval Philosophy to that of the West. As a result of which Ukraine’s Naval Strategy, 2018, identified the Mosquito Fleet Strategy as the most realistic and cost-effective solution for countering Russian naval supremacy. The term Mosquito Fleet is used to describe a naval fleet consisting predominately of small, fast and cheap platforms. Such fleets are often raised by lesser naval forces to deny command of the sea to a superior naval power through the use of asymmetrical tactics.

Dr. Vignesh called attention to the importance of Snake Island in the Russia-Ukraine War saga. Alluding to the developments throughout the war, he explained how Russians took over Snake Island from Ukraine but could not hold on to it in the ensuing months. The retaking of Snake Island was a tactical victory for Ukraine as it diminished Russia’s ability to dominate the North-Western part of the Black Sea. Furthermore, the Speaker touched upon amphibious operations by Russia against Ukraine. He explained how amphibious landings near Mariupol from the Sea of Azov played a crucial role in the capturing of Mariupol by Moscow. However, Russia did not carry out similar amphibious landings in Odesa due to several reasons including inadequate amphibious lift capability of the Russian Navy, challenges in maintaining air superiority over beachheads, logistical issues arising due to the distance between Crimean ports and Odesa, rough weather and sea conditions of the Black Sea and lack of Landing Sites due to terrain of Odesa’s Coast.

Dr. Vignesh claimed that the sinking of the Russian warship Moskva, the flagship of the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet, was not only a pivotal event in the Ukraine War but also in the history of naval warfare because it is the largest warship to be sunk since the sinking of an Argentine cruiser by the Royal Navy during the 1982 Falkland Wars. The sinking of Moskva was a major blow to the Russian Navy as the Black Sea Fleet lost its protective air cover and became more vulnerable to aerial attacks from the Ukrainian coasts. As a result, the Russian warships were forced to operate further away from the Ukrainian Coasts. The Speaker, also, mentioned Ukrainian Uncrewed Surface Vessel (USV) attacks against Russian naval targets. Although these attacks had not yet inflicted any major damage, they effectively challenged the Russian Warship's ability to operate freely in the region. Touching briefly upon the attacks on the Crimean Bridge and the Black Sea Grain Initiative, Dr. Vignesh inferred that the war planners in the Kremlin did not envisage a clear role for its navy before initiating their special military operation. Ambiguity in Russia’s War objective resulted in its Navy's failure to make optimum use of available assets.

Talking about Ukrainian naval operations, the Speaker claimed that the Ukrainian Navy’s primary objectives had been to restrict the Russian Navy’s operations at the farthest from its coasts. They effectively used USVs, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and Coastal defence missiles as a part of the Mosquito Fleet Strategy. In the forthcoming days, the Ukrainian Navy would attempt to severe Russia’s connectivity with the Crimean Peninsula. While concluding, Dr. Vignesh said that despite suffering considerable losses Russia continues to dominate the critical SLOCs in the Black Sea. The maritime theatre of this war will have a lasting influence on the history of naval warfare.

Question and Answer Session

Ambassador Chinoy observed that the Ukrainian Mosquito Fleet Strategy can be of help to countries like North Korea and Iran. Thus, there will be lessons drawn by these countries rather than naval historians. Further, Ambassador Chinoy raised the point of use of naval assets in the Black Sea when the enclosed space can be easily covered by shore-based air power, shore-based batteries, or the USVs/UAVs launched from the land. He said that the control of the Black Sea by Russians would give them leverage to open a new front on the southern flanks of Ukraine. Additionally, the naval battle in the Black Sea did not seem decisive but it was hurting the food security of the world, especially Africa.

Dr. Vignesh said that Russia not conducting the amphibious operations was a missed opportunity. Commenting on some of the issues raised during the discussion, Cmde. Singh (Retd.) asserted that naval ships provide persistent air defence cover potently. Thus, even if, shore-based air cover is effectively employed in an operation, one needs capable ships to provide an air-defence umbrella. One should use a shore-based air defence system in combination with the air defence by the naval assets. Further, Cmde. Singh (Retd.) observed that Russia agreed to the Black Sea Grain Initiative because Moscow wanted to trade their products and did not possess the ability to completely blockade the Ukrainian shipments through the Black Sea.

Report prepared by Mr. Niranjan Chandrashekhar Oak, Research Analyst, MP-IDSA.

On 1 September 2023, Manohar Parrikar-Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) in collaboration with the Indian Pugwash Society (IPS) organised a Roundtable on the “State of Nuclear Disarmament in the World.” The roundtable was Chaired by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, DG, MP-IDSA and consisted of eminent experts Prof. Amitabh Mattoo (Professor, CIPOD, SIS, JNU), Lt. Gen. Amit Sharma (Retd.) (former Commander-in-Chief of India’s Strategic Forces Command), and Dr. Rajiv Nayan (Senior Research Associate, MP-IDSA). Scholars from the MP-IDSA were in attendance, as were distinguished guests from the IPS.

Executive Summary

The topic of nuclear disarmament remains very relevant in today’s climate. Nuclear rhetoric by Russia against Ukraine and the West has rekindled the global discussion on nuclear weapons, and raised questions on efforts to achieve disarmament. 78 years after the first atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima, a nuclear weapons-free world remains a pipe dream, most poignantly marked by the modernisation of arsenals being undertaken by countries such as Pakistan and China. Deterrence is considered indispensable for most nuclear weapons states, while countries such as North Korea also see them as a means to ensure regime survival. At the same time, the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by non-state actors is a growing risk. Emergent risks, such as the emergence of AI and the Internet of Things (IoT), further make it imperative to promulgate joint initiatives, yet consensus on disarmament remains elusive due to core political, economic and strategic divergences among the key actors.

Detailed Report

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy delivered the Welcome Remarks where he introduced the Speakers, and laid the context for the Roundtable. He then made some introductory remarks, wherein he noted that the topic of nuclear disarmament remains very relevant in today’s climate. The Joint Statement issued by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council last year emphasised that nuclear weapons are relevant only to deter aggression and prevent war. He also noted that 78 years after the first atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima, a nuclear weapons-free world remains a pipe dream, most poignantly marked by the modernisation of arsenals being undertaken by Pakistan and China.

Amb. Chinoy went on to enumerate the key disarmament efforts made by countries so far, and introduced the audience to some of the risk factors that surround the issue, such as non-state actors obtaining nuclear weapons, states seeking nuclear weapons as a means to ensure regime survival, and the emergence of critical new technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data that significantly complicate nuclear strategy planning. In light of all these events, the Chair pointed out, India has continued to maintain its position of No First Use (NFU) of nuclear weapons. India continues to have an unblemished record on non-proliferation, and has floated a host of UN initiatives that are still discussed by various bodies in that organisation. Above all, India is clear that “now is not the age of war”; peaceful dialogue is necessary to solve any and all conflicts.

After setting the stage, he then turned over the floor to Prof. Amitabh Mattoo to provide his perspective. Prof. Mattoo commenced by demarcating the three areas on which he would reflect. These were:

1. What is the Pugwash Society, and what is its role?
2. What is the current state of nuclear disarmament?
3. What is the relevance of these thoughts on India?

The Speaker then took the audience on a brief tour of the history of the Pugwash Conference, commencing in 1955, when British philosopher Bertrand Russell and physicist Albert Einstein wrote a manifesto-cum-letter to the US President outlining the nightmare of nuclear war. This manifesto essentially became the raison d’etre of Pugwash, when twelve scientists got together at the eponymous town in Canada, and adopted the manifesto as their mission statement, setting up the Pugwash Conference as a result. The aim of the organisation was to “rediscover our humanity at the cusp of the apocalypse”. In India, the Atomic Energy Commission of India was key in supporting the aims of Pugwash, while Shri K. Subramanyam brought it to MP-IDSA during his tenure as Director of this organisation.

Turning to the state of nuclear disarmament in the world, the Speaker informed the audience that the “Doomsday clock” maintained by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is the closest it has ever been in history to midnight (which signifies global extinction after nuclear war) after the Russian threat to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Looking at history, however, the Speaker noted that the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 brought the clock to two minutes before midnight, but despite the threats, the world survived. This was characterised by the Speaker as heartening news.

The Speaker highlighted the point that the number of warheads in the world is at an all-time low: whereas the Cold War period saw approximately 60,000 warheads held by the nuclear weapons states (NWS), now there are approximately 13,000. Of these, the bulk are held by the US and Russia, whereas the other nuclear powers combined form not even a fraction of this tally. Also, before the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed, it was commonly assumed that 25-30 nuclear weapons states would exist, but because of the NPT, very few countries possess the capabilities necessary to produce nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, several countries have given up their nuclear weapons programmes, and the NPT has been extended indefinitely.

However, the Speaker noted, the world is still not a safer place. He cited leading nuclear strategy researcher Scott Sagan’s contention that complex organisational structures create redundancies, which can interfere in nuclear decision-making, by generating delegation issues. On the other hand, having a single key person is also dangerous, as it can create unaccountable power structures within the state structure. Another concern is the threat of use of nukes, such as the one issued by Russia in 2022, marking the first time such a threat has been issued since US General Douglas MacArthur’s threat to use nuclear weapons on North Korea during the Korean War. A third issue revolves around the modernisation of Pakistan and China’s nuclear arsenals. Though India has hitherto maintained a consistent posture of NFU, with an emphasis on developing a nuclear triad (with ground-, air- and sea-launched nuclear weapons) to ensure minimum vulnerability, is there enough reason to revise this nuclear doctrine given the moves by China and Pakistan?

Finally, before wrapping up, the Speaker noted that in an age of realism, India is at risk of forgetting its wisdom from the past. In particular, he pointed to Lord Krishna’s advice to Arjuna on the eve of the latter’s use of the Brahmastra (the ultimate weapon) to destroy his enemies, which the Speaker argued could be especially valuable in determining a truly Indian way forward.

The Chair thanked Prof. Mattoo for his perspective, and invited Lt. Gen. Amit Sharma (retd) to offer his perspective. Lt. Gen. Sharma began by outlining the three issues listed below which would be key to the rest of his discussion.

1. The logic of non-use of nuclear weapons,
2. Why disarmament is not moving forward, and
3. What is the way forward.

The Speaker cited historian Michael Jordan on the logic of the Allies while they were planning their attacks. The Speaker also cited Thomas Schelling as propounding that the logic of nuclear restraint is a realisation of the enormity of what the decision to bomb Hiroshima entailed. He gave the example of the Cuban missile crisis, where despite significant pressure on both leaders from their respective staffs, President John F. Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev ultimately backed down from pressing the nuclear button. Even in Vietnam, the US ultimately did not use nukes, accepting a “strategic” defeat instead, because of the effect of the decision made in 1945 to use the bomb. Thus, the nuclear decision is not a “gung-ho” decision, and checks and balances must exist.

However, over time, these checks and balances are fading, as younger generations emerge without having personally experienced nuclear war. The Speaker offered the outcomes of some surveys of youth in the United States, where youth in both Japan and the United States were unable to answer basic questions about the events of 1945. Therefore, the Speaker argued that it is high time to create an awareness of nuclear holocaust among young people so that the memory and knowledge of the effects of the atomic bomb do not fade away.

In terms of disarmament the Speaker noted that that there have been many treaties over the years, but there is doubt as to their effectiveness. In 1986, there were 66,000 nukes in the world, while today there are 12,700 nukes. Yet, each of these 12,700 weapons can destroy the world many times over, as they are more lethal, more accurate and more destructive. These days there are 16 warheads in each missile, each on a megaton scale of destructive yield (whereas the Hiroshima and Nagasaki weapons only had kiloton yields). Thus, the world faces a grave danger if somebody decides to use a nuclear weapon in today’s day and age.

Disarmament is thus a good idea, but an idealistic one. The Speaker noted that since only nine countries possess nuclear weapons today, the nuclear taboo seems to be intact. He also gave the example of South Africa, which gave up its weapons of its own accord. On the other hand, the Ukraine War’s impact on countries like South Korea and Japan’s nuclear posture remains an open question. The intent of these countries to nuclearize is debatable, but public support is there in both countries.

Will anyone get rid of their nuclear weapons? The Speaker noted that as nuclear weapons bring power and prestige, no country is likely to let go of its trump card. Even if any were to do so, there is still the problem of trust to deal with: some nuclear weapons might be kept hidden away, while the technological knowledge would still exist. Thus, while all countries support denuclearisation in their doctrine, but the chances of it actually happening are slim.

Thus, the way forward might lie with risk reduction and restraint. The Speaker offered some suggestions in this field, especially noting the effect of public awareness using visual media as a powerful tool, with short clips on effects of nukes as a possible way to reach younger audiences. The aim should be to affect young people, so that glib talk of tactical nuclear weapons and limited bombing are exposed for the fallacies they are. Another good move would be to have a declared nuke policy. The Speaker noted that when it comes to nuclear weapons, surprise is not a good thing. Thus it is always wise to declare a country’s intentions in advance.

In the ideal case, the Speaker noted that a universal NFU should be the next step in building trust, as it is not too difficult a step for countries to take. The majority of NWSs are proponents of restraint. If these six powers can be brought together to agree on universal NFU, the ensuing mutual vulnerability would create detente. Then, it would be a matter of trying to build up trust and restraint. With these words, Gen. Sharma ended his remarks.

The Chair thanked the Speaker for his remarks, and invited Dr. Rajiv Nayan to share his perspective. Dr. Nayan started by discussing the new film on Robert Oppenheimer, and argued that Oppenheimer stands today as a symbol of the dilemma of nuclear weapons.

The end of the Cold War raised some ideas that nuclear weapons were now going to be a thing of the past. However, the current situation has raised other questions, principal among which is whether nuclear disarmament is feasible or desirable. The Speaker argued that nuclear disarmament is desirable, as all powers adhere to that norm with some exceptions. However, the accomplishment of the goal remains a far-fetched idea. He offered a critique of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), signed in 2019, and also outlined India’s objections to the treaty.

Why is there no disarmament in the world today? Despite there being no fear of reprisal, no state has used nuclear weapons in its conflicts. This, the Speaker argued, has created an environment of complacency. The NPT crisis also played a part in this, as it has become difficult to getting an outcome document approved in recent years. The Tenth Review Conference faced the disappointment of issuing no outcome document due to Russia’s opposition. However, since no non-nuclear weapons state has left the NPT, it can be said that the regime is in crisis but not collapsing. Thirdly, nuclear weapons, as of now, pose no personal threat to the great powers. The Speaker offered here the examples of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention. The Chemical Weapons Convention was negotiated and finalised only when the United States was afraid of the countries of West Asia acquiring such weapons. On the other hand, the Biological Weapons Convention was concluded when the leading powers realised the redundancy of biological weapons in the national stockpile. Fourthly, the US in its recent Nuclear Posture Review raised its concern that several states may decide to go nuclear in response to threats from one or other of the great powers, a sea change in attitudes from a nation that was previously ruthless in the suppression of nuclear weapons. Fifth, disarmament as currently conceived is a project championed mainly by civil society in new countries. Western civil society fails to push the disarmament agenda among Western nuclear weapons countries. They are thus widely perceived to have used their rhetoric to disarm other countries, not the key Western countries.

On the topic of China’s NFU, the Speaker argued that there is a gap between precept and practice. Informally, China is revisiting its NFU policy. Since 2004, apparently, an informal doctrine is in circulation, which looks like a replica of the Russian doctrine as for the conditions to use nuclear weapons. However, the Chinese currently deny the very existence of such a document. It is thus an open question whether China would go for launch on warning if the situation is right, a hypothesis the Speaker noted was possible. There would also be the complex issue of whether a joint force of Chinese and Pakistani soldiers fighting a war with India in future would be willing to countenance the use of nuclear weapons, given that Pakistan does not have NFU as its doctrine, whereas China does. While concluding, the Speaker cautioned that India needs to send a tough message at this juncture if it is to ensure that such a development does not come to pass.

Amb. Chinoy thanked Dr. Nayan for his remarks, and then opened the floor for questions and comments. Amb. Saurabh Kumar asked whether there was anything in the offing regarding the integration of AI and nuclear weapons systems. He also wished to know the essence of the US’ statements given in its NPR, as cited by Dr. Nayan.

Dr. Rajiv Nayan answered Amb. Kumar’s question on the NPR and US position by informing the audience that one paragraph in the document mentions events in Ukraine causing a rethink on denuclearisation among countries. This can be interpreted as saying that countries today have a powerful rationale for nuclearisation. He also answered Amb. Kumar’s question on AI and nuclear weapons by noting that the issue was currently being considered, and nothing practical had emerged yet.

Gp. Cpt. Rajiv K. Narang, Senior Fellow, MP-IDSA, asked whether it was true that China has NFU only against countries with which it does not have a border.

Lt. Gen. Sharma answered Gp. Cpt. Narang’s question by informing the audience that China’s NFU holds to everyone without exception. He added that though China is not believed on this point, there is a logic to it, as the Chinese are following Mao’s line on credible minimum deterrence (CMD). The modernisation and expansion of their arsenal comes out of a need to develop enough weapons to achieve CMD.

With that, the Chair ended the discussion with a Vote of Thanks.

The report was prepared by Dr. Arnab Dasgupta, Research Analyst, MP-IDSA.

A nine-member delegation from the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences visited Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) on 13 September 2023 for an interaction. The scholars of MP-IDSA were in attendance.

Executive Summary

The session explored the common areas of interest between India and Norway. The agenda focused on several key aspects, including the exploration of shared interests in the realm of renewable (non-traditional) energy sources. The interaction delved deeply into the significance of exploring clean energy sources and emphasised the importance of researchers giving priority to clean and sustainable energy solutions. It also highlighted the necessity for collaboration and briefly touched upon ongoing collaborative efforts between India and Norway in this regard.

Detailed Report

Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha, Senior Fellow at the MP-IDSA, initiated the conversation by providing an overview of the Institute's history, its goals, and its mission. He also highlighted the Institute's longstanding collaborative history with Norway and various other nations. Subsequently, Gp. Capt. (Dr.) Rajiv Kumar Narang, Senior Fellow at MP-IDSA, shared his insights regarding India's objective of establishing itself as a leading hub for drone technology by the year 2030. He underscored the pivotal role that drones play in diverse sectors, including agriculture, disaster management, and commerce. He observed that the majority of the drone industry is currently driven by private sector entities.

He illuminated the key features of the Drone Rules, 2021. He explained how these rules stimulated development of policies and procedures for pilot certification, the assignment of Unique Identification Numbers (UIN) to each drone, insurance coverage, and certification by the Quality Council of India. He acknowledged that there was initially reluctance to open the skies for private players. However, over time, the situation has evolved in India. Presently, India can proudly claim to have 28 type-certified drone models, 66 drone training schools, 6,600 drone pilots and 10,700 UINs. Notably, the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, has developed a comprehensive course on drone technology offering an M.Tech program in Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Engineering.

To facilitate drone operations, the Indian airspace has been divided into green, yellow, and red zones. The red zone is specifically identified as a no-drone area, where drone activities can only be conducted with prior permission from the Central Government. Notably, over 90% of the Indian airspace falls within the green zone. DigitalSky, an online platform hosted by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), has introduced a single-window system for the approval and management of activities related to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in India.

Drones have played a pivotal role in the SVAMITVA initiative, a Central Sector Scheme of the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, aimed at establishing property ownership in rural   regions through the mapping of land parcels using drone technology. This initiative has deployed approximately 1,671 drone teams across 31 States and Union Territories in India. Moreover, drones have also been instrumental in trials for the delivery of life saving drugs. Indian startups have played a major role in the evolution of the Indian drone industry.

Furthermore, Gp. Capt. Narang observed that the Indian Government has formulated a policy for the export of Drones/Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for civilian purposes. Notably, three drone startups are now listed on the stock market, underscoring the significant growth potential within the sector. The Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) located in Kanpur and Chennai, along with their dedicated incubation cells, have played a pivotal role in fostering the growth of drone startups aimed at tackling a wide array of challenges.

India has also recognised the uniqueness of its requirements and aims to evolve into a manufacturing ecosystem that contributes to the global supply chain. Furthermore, Gp. Capt. Narang highlighted the potential domains for technological collaboration in the drone sector, including unmanned traffic management, advanced air mobility, secure communication, command and control systems, electronic components, Internal Combustion engines, and hydrogen, solar and other new power sources for drones.

On the Norwegian side, Geir Kåre Resaland, who serves as the Pro-Rector for Regional Development and Pro-Rector for Research at the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, provided an introduction to the university, shedding light on its history, goals, and objectives. He emphasized the university's commitment to fostering collaboration in research and education at the local, national, and international levels.

Furthermore, Professor Dhayalan Velauthapillai, whose research centers on the potential of nanomaterials in generating clean energy, underscored the imperative of ensuring energy security. The importance of energy security was accentuated by the energy crisis Europe faced in 2022. Professor Velauthapillai stressed that the escalating energy demands of the future are inevitable, making it imperative for researchers to prioritise clean and sustainable energy sources.

Additionally, he highlighted how solar cell technologies hold promise for meeting future energy needs. However, he also pointed out challenges, such as the monopoly over the supply chain, predominantly held by China in this context. Monopolisation of a critical technology poses significant challenges, and both the European Union and the United States have initiated efforts to address this issue.

Considering that the development of clean energies, like solar cell technology, requires substantial capital investment, African and Asian countries are likely to face hurdles in this regard. Professor Velauthapillai emphasised the necessity for global collaboration in developing new types of solar cells and other clean technologies to address these challenges collectively. Furthermore, he underscored the ongoing collaborative initiatives between India and Norway in the field of hydrogen production. He also shed light on the university's exchange programs, which facilitate knowledge sharing among international students. In addition, he emphasised the importance of integrating Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence into various academic departments, recognising their vital role in shaping the future across various fields and industries.

Subsequently, Nanthini Nagarajah, a PhD scholar at the university, presented her research on sustainability transitions within the context of a developing country, using Sri Lanka as a case study. She placed significant emphasis on the pivotal role played by the diaspora, specifically the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora, in knowledge creation and exchange. Nanthini highlighted how the diaspora acts as a crucial coupling mechanism, facilitating connections between the global and local spheres through informal networks. She particularly emphasised the importance of networks such as Higher Education and Research Collaboration on Nanomaterials for Clean Energy Technologies (HRNCET) and Advanced Nanomaterials for Clean Energy and Health Applications (ANCEHA).

Questions and Comments

Following the presentations, there was an interactive session with questions and comments from the participants. Dr. Sinha pointed out how the Indian Government has implemented various policies to harness the potential of the Indian diaspora. In response, Ms. Ruchita Beri, a Consultant at MP-IDSA, underscored the significance of the diaspora as both a cultural and strategic asset to a country.

Gp. Capt. Narang delved into the challenges associated with green energy production, particularly concerning hydrogen, where achieving the requisite temperature is a significant hurdle. He also discussed the future prospects of hydrogen and solar cell technology within the drone sector. Additionally, he stressed the importance of collaborative efforts and the necessity for joint ownership of intellectual property to overcome these challenges effectively.

Jonathan Økland, an Associate Professor at the Department of Mechanical & Marine Engineering, emphasised that researchers are actively collaborating in their field, often working together on research papers. Notably, the industry is playing a crucial role in funding many of these research endeavors. Industry presents problems to the universities, and researchers work on finding solutions. This collaboration has also led to companies funding PhD programs and other research initiatives.

Professor Velauthapillai elaborated on the challenges associated with hydrogen shipping and how they are actively working with Indian universities to develop materials that can facilitate the production of green hydrogen. Additionally, he discussed the potential of combining supercapacitors with batteries as a means to generate energy, showcasing innovative approaches to energy production and storage.

A notable collaborative effort between an Indian Institution, the Coimbatore Institute of Technology, and the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, commenced its joint academic and research initiatives in 2010. The first Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between these two institutions was formally established in 2011. The research groups from both sides have been actively engaged in collaborative work, focusing on the modeling, synthesis, and characterisation of nanomaterials specifically designed for applications in solar cell technology.

The delegation highlighted how the internal structure within the university plays a crucial role in facilitating researchers with patent and technology transfer agreements. This structure helps streamline the process of transferring research findings into practical applications and commercialization.

Gp. Capt. Narang observed that India ’s Global Innovation & Technology Alliance (GITA) is a suitable platform for global partners to establish technology collaboration with start-ups and industries of two countries.
Dr. Sinha concluded the discussion by emphasising the instrumental role of MP-IDSA in facilitating technology-related collaborative efforts and its commitment to bridging the gap between scientific advancements and policy formulation.

Report was prepared by Mr. Rohit Kumar Sharma, Research Analyst, Strategic Technologies Centre, MP-IDSA.

Dr. Rajeesh Kumar, Associate Fellow, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, made a presentation on the “15th BRICS Summit” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 21 August 2023. The session was moderated by Mr. Mohanasakthivel J, Research Analyst, MP-IDSA. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, the Director General of MP-IDSA, and scholars of the Institute were in attendance.

Executive Summary

The presentation by Dr. Rajeesh Kumar on BRICS highlighted its evolution from BRIC to BRICS, the group's focus on global governance inequalities, and its potential to challenge the established world order. BRICS supports a rule-based international order while fostering a non-Western identity. The 15th BRICS Summit's significance lies in partnerships with Africa, addressing green transition, education, trade, recovery, and multilateralism. The possibilities of BRICS expansion and a common currency were explored. India's participation in BRICS aligns with pursuing strategic autonomy and geopolitical equilibrium. The group acts as a platform for India to advocate Global South solidarity, multipolarity, and reformed multilateralism.

Detailed Report

The discussion was initiated by Mr. Mohanasakthivel J, who emphasised the commencement of the inaugural BRICS Summit in 2009. According to him, throughout the last 14 years, each leader has taken an active part in the BRICS Summits, even amid the pandemic. BRICS represents 41% of the global population, 31% of the world's GDP, and 16% of worldwide trade, allowing for a comparison of its performance with that of other institutions. Over 40 countries are expressing interest in becoming part of BRICS.

Dr. Rajeesh Kumar began his presentation by highlighting that the term "BRIC" was coined by economist Jim O'Neill in 2001, reflecting the growth potential of emerging economies. The acronym initially included Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC), which evolved to BRICS with South Africa's inclusion in 2010. Annual Summits of the group started in 2011.

The presentation underscored that BRICS functions as a forum aimed at addressing global governance inequalities and encompasses an ambitious agenda that mirrors the increasing influence and interests of emerging powers. Dr. Kumar said that over time, BRICS demonstrated superiority over G7 economies in terms of GDP (PPP), and the grouping endorses an alternative, multipolar world order.

Dr. Kumar highlighted that BRICS takes a stance that supports a rule-based liberal international order (LIO) while emphasizing sovereignty and non-intervention. This positions BRICS to foster a non- western identity and solidarity. The group's interactions with the United States influences its negotiations, indicating its aspiration for an alternative, multipolar world order within the existing LIO.

The 15th BRICS Summit holds significant importance, focusing on "BRICS and Africa: Partnership for Growth, Development, and Inclusive Multilateralism." The Summit's priorities encompass equitable transitions, education, the African Continental Free Trade Area, post-pandemic recovery, and strengthening of multilateralism. Topics of discussion range from expansion and local currency fundraising to economic cooperation and Africa-centric issues.

Notably, the 15th BRICS Summit is the first in-person meeting post-COVID. The absence of Russian President Putin poses diplomatic and legal challenges for South Africa. However, this absence offers BRICS the opportunity to concentrate on key issues, thereby showing the group's maturity.

Regarding expansion, with over 40 countries expressing interest and 23 formally applying for membership, Dr. Kumar noted that the possibility of expansion is high. The idea of expansion can be traced back to South Africa's outreach in 2013 and China's introduction of the BRICS Plus concept in 2017. While all five members support expansion, challenges involve accession criteria, internal contradictions, and differing African positions.

Dr. Kumar also highlighted the limited potential for a common BRICS currency, focusing on reducing US dollar reliance due to historical sanctions. This involves boosting local currency transactions to decrease dependency. Reduced USD usage in trade settlements is noted, supported by tools like BRICS Pay for bilateral local currency transactions. This shift reflects BRICS' strategic response to enhance economic autonomy in the face of external pressures.

Dr. Kumar further explored India's strategic stance within BRICS, highlighting its pursuit of strategic autonomy, geopolitical balancing, and roles in combating terrorism and addressing climate change. India's positive response to BRICS, despite growing friendship with the West underscores its commitment to cooperation within the group and the multipolar world order.

In conclusion, Dr. Kumar said that despite potential weakening, BRICS remains a functional entity driven by common economic interests. Its unity originates from shared economic goals rather than a uniform political vision. The enduring objectives of representing developing countries, reforming global governance, and fostering economic growth remain fundamental. While expansion prospects remain on the card and the creation of a BRICS-specific currency seems improbable, the core values and missions of BRICS continue to guide its path in the intricate landscape of international cooperation.

Q&A Session

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, commended the presentation and raised a query about the current relevance of BRICS. He also remarked on the proliferation of various global alliances, noting that creating groups solely for the purpose of formation diminishes their significance. He highlighted that groups like G77 do not necessarily represent shared common objectives. He cautioned against BRICS leaning towards an anti-western stance rather than a non-western one, necessitating careful consideration. Regarding expansion, he pointed out that the countries aspiring for BRICS membership often align with China on various international resolutions, counter to Western interests. In response, Dr. Kumar concurred with the Director General's remark and expressed that the enlargement of BRICS is detrimental to India's interests.

Dr. Rajiv Nayan, Senior Research Associate, asked how BRICS differs from SCO as a non-western multilateral grouping.

Group Captain (Dr.) Rajiv Kumar Narang, Senior Fellow, raised queries about BRICS expansion, particularly India's relationship with the countries which officially applied for the membership. He also asked about the scope of India-Brazil collaboration in the aeronautics sector.

Dr. Anand Kumar, Associate Fellow, inquired about any forthcoming developments as Modi and Xi reconnect during this Summit after years.

Mr Niranjan Oak, Research Analyst, inquired whether the expansion of BRICS could contribute to bipolarity in the global world order.

Capt. Anurag Bisen, Research Fellow, explored the possibility of India utilising the IBSA (India, Brazil, and South Africa) trilateral framework within BRICS to counter China.

Dr. Rajeesh Kumar gave a detailed explanation to the queries and comments raised by the participants.

The report has been prepared by Mr. Mohan Singh Dhangar, Research Intern, East Asia Centre, MP-IDSA, New Delhi.