EVENTS

You are here

Events

Title Date Author Time Event Body Research Area Topics File attachments Image
Monday Morning Meeting on 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting: Key Takeaways June 10, 2024 Monday Morning Meeting

Mr. Bipandeep Sharma, Research Analyst, Non-Traditional Security Centre, Manohar Parrikar IDSA (MP-IDSA), made a presentation on “46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting: Key Takeaways” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 10 June 2024. The Session was moderated by Comdt. M. Srivastava, Research Fellow, MP-IDSA. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA and other scholars of the Institute attended the meeting.

Executive Summary:

India successfully hosted the 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) and the 26th Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) meeting from 20-30 May, 2024 at Kochi. Key discussions focused on Antarctic Tourism, bio-security measures to combat avian influenza, issues related to Emperor penguins, and utilizing renewable energy in Antarctica. The successful hosting marks India's growing role in Antarctic affairs and its dedication to scientific collaboration and environmental stewardship in the region.

Detailed Report:

Comdt. M. Srivastava introduced the Speaker and set the stage by introducing the audience to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM). He mentioned that ATCM meetings consist of representatives of the Consultative parties, the non-consultative parties, observers such as the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), Commission for Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) and invited experts like the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO). Comdt. Srivastava pointed out that India became a consultative party to the Antarctic Treaty in 1983.  Comdt. Srivastava noted that the ATCM serves as an important forum for exchanging information and discussions on matters of common interest pertaining to Antarctica. He stated that during the ATCM, a meeting of the Committee for Environment Protection (CEP) is also conducted. India had earlier conducted the 30th ATCM and 10th CEP in 2007 at New Delhi. The 46th ATCM and 26th CEP was hosted by India at Kochi between 20 to 30 May 2024. He highlighted that the recent initiatives by India such as the Antarctic Act 2022 and its support for protecting the Antarctic Environment by designating East Antarctica and the Weddell Sea as MPAs (Marine Protected Areas) shows its active involvement in Antarctica.

Mr. Bipandeep Sharma commenced his presentation by explaining the Antarctic Treaty System. He highlighted India’s proactive diplomacy and success in hosting the ATCM-46 and CEP-26 meeting. Mr. Sharma mentioned that the participation of parties in ATCM and CEP meetings witnessed the reaffirmation of the Antarctic Treaty (1959) and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the Madrid Protocol, 1991). He highlighted  ATCM and CEP to be crucial global forums for Antarctic affairs. Mr. Sharma mentioned that this year ATCM witnessed the creation of an additional working group which discussed the development of a ‘tourism framework’ for Antarctica. Mr. Sharma pointed out that CEP-26 discussed and addressed multiple issues that contributed to the implementation of the Environmental Protocol in Antarctica. He further highlighted that some of the priority issues highlighted in CEP 26 included issues of climate change and their implications for Antarctic Sea ice; environmental impact assessment of major activities in Antarctic; protection of the Emperor penguin, and developing of an international framework for environmental monitoring in Antarctica. Mr. Sharma mentioned that as per the CEP recommendations this year, Parties adopted 17 revised and new management plans for ASPAs (Antarctic Specially Protected Areas) and several modifications and additions to the list of Historic and Monument sites were undertaken. In his presentation, Mr. Sharma highlighted that in ATCM-46 serious efforts to increase parties focus towards renewable energy use and to ensure robust implementation of biosecurity measures to minimise the risks of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in the Antarctic were prioritised.

Commenting on India’s part, Mr. Sharma pointed out that the inaugural remarks at 46th ATCM were made by Shri Kiren Rijiju the then Union Minister of Earth Sciences, who was accompanied by Ambassador Pavan Kapoor, Secretary (West), Ministry of External Affairs and Dr. Shailesh Nayak, former Secretary of MoES and Director, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru. Mr. Sharma highlighted that India’s traditional philosophy of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (one Earth, one family, one future) resonated well in India’s inaugural remarks. He further pointed that India’s plans of setting up of a new Antarctic research station, Maitri-II were also discussed in these initial remarks. He highlighted that India informed the parties regarding its future plans of submission of comprehensive environmental evaluations for establishing Maitri-II in Antarctica.

In the final part of his presentation, Mr. Sharma highlighted the need for enhancing collaboration and cooperation between Indian and other like-minded countries in the Antarctica. He further pointed that there is need for promoting interdisciplinary research in polar regions by engaging Indian higher institutes of excellence in research from both scientific and social science domains. Mr. Sharma pointed that India needs to prioritise its efforts in fast-track construction/acquisition of polar infrastructures of which construction/acquisition of an independent Indian Polar Research vessel remains most important. Lastly, he stressed that Indian representation in all future ATCM and CEP meetings, needs to have polar domain experts from both scientific and policy spheres. This would further enhance India’s position in negotiating and raising India’s view point on matters of scientific and broader national interests in future ATCM and CEP platforms.

Questions and Comments

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy complimented Mr. Bipandeep Sharma for providing a detailed account of ACTM-46 and CEP-26 meetings. He pointed that in the age of Anthropocene, the Antarctic region remains vulnerable to multiple human induced transformations. Ambassador Chinoy in his remarks also questioned the basis of territorial claims of different states in the region. He further highlighted that India needs to prioritise the development of independent polar infrastructures to meet the country’s long term national interests in the region.

Mr. Tatsat Pati, Intern, made a query regarding the role of CCAMLR in the Antarctic region. He also asked the Speaker about the use of unmanned systems in undertaking various activities in extreme Antarctic climatic conditions.

Gp. Capt. (Dr.) R.K. Narang, asked the Speaker to comment on the status of India’s planned Polar Research Vessel.

Mr. Bipandeep Sharma gave detailed remarks to all the questions and comments raised.

Report prepared by Ms. Dorothy Vaanmalar C., Intern, Non-Traditional Security Centre, MP-IDSA, New Delhi.

Monday Morning Meeting on Alignments and Realignments in Armenian Foreign Policy since the Velvet Revolution June 03, 2024 Monday Morning Meeting

Dr. Jason Wahlang, Research Analyst, Europe and Eurasia Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), made a presentation on “Alignments and Realignments in Armenian Foreign Policy since the Velvet Revolution” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 3 June 2024. The session was moderated by Dr. Rajorshi Roy, Associate Fellow, Europe and Eurasia Centre, MP-IDSA. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director-General, MP-IDSA and other scholars of the Institute attended the session.

Executive Summary

The global arena is in flux due to the conflicts across the Middle East, Europe, and the Caucasus, creating widespread instability. This has revived great power competition and fostered realignments between global and regional actors. The same can be seen in the Eurasian region with the – Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts. Owing to these developments, in recent years, Armenia has contemplated various options for alignments and realignments in its foreign policy.

Detailed Report

Dr. Rajorshi Roy, in his opening remarks, provided an overview of the 2018 Velvet Revolution in Armenia, which saw widespread protest against the government, leading to the overthrow of the then President turned Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan and the coming of the current Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinyan. However, Pashinyan today, faces increasing scrutiny and criticism for his policy decisions taken regarding Armenia’s shared border with Azerbaijan. Dr. Roy stressed the importance of Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenia’s history and the formation of its national identity. In the last year, Armenia has lost the entirety of the Nagorno-Karabakh region to Azerbaijan. This has given rise to massive criticisms and protests in Armenia against Pashinyan domestic policies. The ongoing geostrategic contestations in Eurasia have led to new alignments and realignments, Armenia being no exception. It has sought to strengthen its strategic autonomy and multi-vector policy by engaging with regional and extra-regional powers beyond Russia and China.
Dr. Jason Wahlang commenced his presentation giving a brief overview of the recent conflicts in the Eurasian region, namely the Ukrainian and Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts, and how these developments have led countries recalibrating and recalculating their alliances with regional powerhouses, attracting attention from various global powers and organisations. In recent years, Armenia has undergone a profound political transformation – transforming from a presidential system to a parliamentary one. This monumental change, saw former President Serzh Sargsyan assume the role of the Prime Minister leading to widespread protests within Armenia. These protests were led by various civil society groups and the then–opposition member and journalist, Nikol Pashinyan – who later became the Prime Minister. This domestic shift in political leadership, coupled with regional defeats to Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict from 2020 onwards, has prompted a reassessment of Armenia’s security and foreign policy architecture, underscoring the magnitude of the transition and its implications.

Regarding Armenia’s foreign policy Dr. Wahlang noted, that like most post-Soviet spaces, Armenia follows a multi-vector foreign policy known as the “complementarianism” foreign policy. This complementarianism necessitates pursuing a multi-vector policy, equilibrium-seeking diplomacy, and balancing ties with all regional and international stakeholders. This policy helps Armenia emphasise its partnerships not just with the West but also with Iran and India, while maintaining strong relations with Russia.

Dr. Wahlang emphasised that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been omnipresent in regional geopolitics since the final years of the Soviet Union. Post the Soviet collapse it became a constant deterrent to permanent peace in the region and is deeply connected to Armenia’s foreign policy as well. This influence is visible in Armenia’s policy with its neighbours Azerbaijan and Türkiye, and with regional powers like Russia and European powers like France, and vice versa. One prominent example can be France's recent recognition of the Republic of Artsakh (the Armenian name of Nagorno-Karabakh). The policy has shifted with the current dispensation under Nikol Pashinyan and the recent defeats, especially with the leadership’s attempts to find perpetual peace.

According to Dr. Wahlang, the Armenian diaspora plays an important role in its foreign policy, apart from playing a crucial role in the Armenian quest for genocide recognition. Their presence in major countries such as Russia, France, the USA, and India has been able to push some of the agenda of the Armenian state and also better relations with Yerevan.  One such example is the role of pressure groups such as the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) and Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU), present in the United States and France, and how they help shape good relations of the countries with Armenia.
Dr. Wahlang noted that the current leadership’s attempts to find a long-term solution to peace, particularly by delimitating the border, have not been received positively by the Armenian public. Protests against the regime in Armenia have been linked to the government's foreign and neighbourhood policy, i.e., Azerbaijan. The local populace within Armenia is active and has coordinated protests in the past regarding Armenia’s policies, particularly on Azerbaijan. Thus, the domestic situation does relate to foreign policy and impacts the popularity of the leadership.

Dr. Jason further explained Armenia’s foreign policy in four phases. First, the “Rise of Un-Sovietised Nationalistic Foreign Policy after 1991”, under President Levon Ter Petrosyan. This policy was based on the first war of Nagorno-Karabakh, wherein the leadership tried to establish Armenia’s own image by shedding its former Soviet image. However, it still maintained strong relations with Russia. The second phase focused on “Shift in the Nature of Foreign Policy towards Multi-Vectorism”, under President Robert Kocharyan. During this time, there were attempts to create a feeling of diversification which also included trying to improve relations with European nations. The third phase saw “Disconnect between European Aspirations and Security-driven Russian/Eurasian Constraints”, under President Serzh Sargsyan. During this phase Armenia joined Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) instead of furthering improved relations with Europe. The fourth phase is “Diversification due to Rising Geopolitical and Regional Complexities”, under Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. Under his leadership, Armenia tries to engage with countries of the West, and countries like Iran and India.

Focusing on current developments within the Armenian State, Dr. Jason stated that the current protests against Armenia’s political leadership led by Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan have gained great prominence. According to Dr. Wahlang, the domestic populace has been more active in this protest as compared to the previous demonstrations. This is because the delimitation process would transfer territory from Armenia to Azerbaijan and is being seen as a compromise on Armenian sovereignty. The Armenian leadership, on the other hand, is attempting to find a solution for perpetual peace in the region. The main effort is based on the Armenian leadership's focus on the Crossroads of Peace Project, which aims to connect the neighbourhood through various connectivity projects and, in return, bring about peace in the region.

As mentioned before, Armenia is trying to diversify its relations with various major powers. Dr. Jason highlighted that the Armenia-Russia relationship is based on three key sectors – security, economy, and natural resources. Russia is the security provider and the main arms importer of Armenia and has long been Armenia’s principal supplier of weapons and ammunition. In recent times, due to Russia’s pre-occupation in Ukraine, there have been certain issues, like Russia’s inability to meet the demands for the supply of arms. Moreover, the presence of the 102nd military base in Gyumri and the presence of Russian troops protecting the borders near adversarial neighbours such as Türkiye and Azerbaijan show the relevance and importance of the security and military aspects in this relationship. Dr. Wahlang pointed out that both nations are economically linked, with about 40 per cent of the Armenian economy being dependent on Russia.       Moreover, Russia dominates the gas distribution outlets in Armenia, with Gazprom Armenia owning all the gas distribution infrastructure. Russia also has a monopoly over grain and petroleum products. In 2023, the trade volume between the two nations reached a record high of USD 4.16 billion, the highest since the Soviet collapse.

However, the two former Soviet Republics’ leaderships have been at loggerheads with one another since the second Nagorno-Karabakh war, with the Armenians accusing Russia of not supporting and not providing assistance to them. This clash is due to the Collective Security Treaty Organisation’s (CSTO’s) inability to involve itself in both Nagorno-Karabakh and when Armenian territory was under threat. This has led to Armenia suspending its participation in CSTO and even threatening to leave the organisation altogether. Despite these disagreements, the two leaders have maintained contact and made attempts to bring about solutions.

Dr. Wahlang noted that the European Union (EU) has sought to increase its presence and carve a space of its own in Armenia. There have been significant attempts to strengthen this partnership, like Armenia joining the European Union Eastern Partnership and the signing of the Armenia–EU Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) in 2017. There have also been discussions in Armenia about joining the EU, particularly after the War in Karabakh, but these discussions have not moved forward. He also highlighted that the EU is Armenia's second-largest trade partner after Russia. Moreover, in the recent conflict with Azerbaijan, the EU has been proactively trying to forge a peaceful solution. These steps have been seen positively by Armenia.

With regard to Armenia’s relations with France, Dr. Wahlang pointed out that France has been Armenia's second-largest foreign investor since 2016, totalling €229 million. Its investments are primarily in agri-food, water and banking sectors. In recent times, this relationship has been further strengthened by the growing defence cooperation, which includes the sale of air defence systems, radars and sensors. Apart from Defence, Armenia has gained support from France in Nagorno-Karabakh, including aid for looking after the refugees.

Emphasising Armenia's relationship with Türkiye and Azerbaijan, Dr. Wahlang noted that they have a history of conflicts and discontent. Türkiye’s constant and unwavering support for Azerbaijan since the start of the first Nagorno-Karabakh conflict till current times has been seen as further evidence of Armenia's anti-Türkiye stance. Moreover, Türkiye’s military and drone support for Azerbaijan became a decisive factor in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. There has, however, been a change in approach, with attempts at peace-building, including the opening of the Armenian-Türkiye border after thirty years to supply aid to Türkiye during a major earthquake in 2023. The new leadership in Armenia under Pashinyan is attempting to find permanent peace in the region through new avenues of diplomacy and connectivity.

According to Dr. Wahlang, Armenia and Iran are important allies, with both sharing a border and common interests and threats. Iran is important for Armenia in connectivity projects, including assisting and cooperating with India. Armenia, Iran and India have also recently met for trilateral cooperation. Given Armenia’s landlocked status, its terminal in Chabahar Port could help assist Armenia in connecting with the world. He emphasised that with Armenia attempting to diversify its foreign policy and resource allocation, Iran can be a good option. However, Iran's fractured relationship with the West and Armenia's diversification attempts towards the West could become a stumbling block for long-term cooperation.

With regard to Armenia-India relations, Dr. Wahlang stated that the two nations share a historical relationship, with trade being the base for it in the past. Armenia has also long supported India's territorial integrity and sovereignty on the issue of Kashmir. The two nations share a robust defence relationship as well. In recent years, India has decided to appoint its own defence attaché to Yerevan. When it comes to defence trade, India has exported the Swathi weapon-locating radar system and Pinaka multi-barrel rocket launchers, as well as anti-tank munitions and artillery guns. Additionally, the two nations have scope for cooperation in the field of Information Technology and pharmaceuticals.  The only deterrent in the relationship is the lack of connectivity.

Lastly, Dr. Wahlang concluded his presentation by emphasising that Russia is still a prominent player in the region, and it may view the Armenian attempts at diversification towards Europe negatively. He also stressed that considering the gains to both sides, India could emerge as a long-term partner to Armenia.

Comments and Questions

Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy, complimented Dr. Wahlang on his comprehensive presentation highlighting the complexity surrounding Armenia’s geopolitical, geostrategic and geoeconomic situation. He pointed out that this is the first time in the history of Azerbaijan that all the territories historically claimed by them are under their control. He stressed that Armenia finds itself in a dilemma as its traditional supporter, Russia, is not able to do much. This raises concerns about Armenia exploring other options and the obstacles involved in it. Regarding relations of Iran and Türkiye, Amb. Chinoy stressed on their influence in the region. He also mentioned the memorial for the Armenian Massacre in Isfahan, highlighting Iran’s sympathy for the Armenians. He noted that it is important to look at Azerbaijan’s relations with Israel and the US, predicated on oil and gas pipelines, and their traditional relations with Türkiye.

Dr. Swasti Rao, enquired about Russia’s weapons supply to Azerbaijan, value of connectivity with countries like Georgia and how Azerbaijan could impact the future of India-Armenia relations.

Gp Capt. (Dr.) RK Narang (Retd.), enquired about the payment process of the weapons trade between India and Armenia.

Dr. Wahlang responded to the comments made by the Director General and the questions raised by MP-IDSA scholars.

Report has been prepared by Ms. Anusua Ganguly, Intern, Europe and Eurasia Centre, MP-IDSA.

Monday Morning Meeting on Security and Defence Cooperation between India and Poland May 27, 2024 Monday Morning Meeting

Dr. Patryk Kugiel, Senior Analyst for South Asia at the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM), Warsaw, made a presentation on “Security and Defence Cooperation between India and Poland” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 27 May 2024. The Session was chaired by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director-General, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA). Scholars of the Institute participated in the discussion.

Executive Summary

The people of India and Poland have shared cordial relations since historical times. In 1942, Maharaja Digvijaysinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja established the Polish Children's Camp in Jamnagar-Balachadi, offering refuge to Polish children. During World War II, Polish and Indian soldiers fought together in various battles, prominent among which was the Battle of Monte Cassino. Not only do both the countries have a history in defence cooperation over the last 70 years, but also have a shared future in the defence sector.

Detailed Report

Dr. Patryk Kugiel commenced his presentation by highlighting the glorious past of Poland-India relations in the defence sector. During the Cold War era, Poland was the seventh largest supplier of arms to India and India was the second largest market for Polish arms export, showcasing very intensive cooperation between both the countries. In 1989, Poland entered into a complex transition in political, economic and strategic dimensions. This led to the rearrangement of Poland’s foreign policy from East to the West, in turn bringing about change in its strategic defence partners. The Polish defence sector and heavy industries underwent remarkable restructuring and privatisation as well. These developments transitioned Poland from an arms exporter (of Soviet equipment) to arms importer (from the West). Dr. Kugiel highlighted that from 1991, the Indian economy also started to transition and so did its defence sector. During this time India remained heavily dependent on Russia for arms supply, but in the subsequent years, India has also started to diversify its imports, by opening markets to supplies from USA, France and Israel, among others.

Dr. Kugiel highlighted that during the last three decades there have been many attempts to revive defence cooperation. For instance, in 1998 India bought 22 TS-11 Iskra jet trainers and 44 WZT- 3 Armoured Recovery Vehicles (ARVs); in 2002, 88 WZT (ARVs) and fire control DRAWA-T systems. Furthermore, in 2003 the countries signed a Defence Cooperation Agreement and in 2004 a Joint Working Group (JWG) on defence cooperation was established. Moreover, the Defence Wing of the Indian Embassy in Warsaw was reopened on 8 May 2024, with Brigadier Satish Trivedi's accreditation to Poland's Ministry of National Defence.

Dr. Kugiel emphasised that the war in Ukraine has complicated relations, but can also be seen as a new opportunity in India-Polish cooperation in the defence sector. He highlighted the changes that have taken place in the Polish defence sector since the war i.e., urgent replacement of Russian military equipment, modernisation of armed forces (through a spike in defence budget and investment in domestic industry) and increased international cooperation. There have also been changes in the political dimensions, as Poland has now become a frontline state and is a key member of NATO. He also stressed on the Weimar Triangle between France, Germany and Poland emerging as a new engine for European cooperation and integration.

Regarding India’s defence sector, Dr. Kugiel raised the following strategic questions. Is Russia a reliable supplier? Is Russian equipment the best? Is the Russia-China axis emerging? Is the overdependence on Russia in sync with India’s strategic economy? He also highlighted the following strategic implications for India i.e., replacement of Russian/post-Soviet equipment which might impact the modernisation and development of the domestic defence industry in India.

Dr. Kugiel emphasised that both countries have potential for cooperation in the defence sector, mainly in three areas - modernisation of post-Soviet equipment, experience of ready-made products (such as Krab howitzer, Piorun and Grom man-portable air-defense systems, Grot rifles), and co-development and co-production of new weapons system (Borsuk Amphibious Infantry Fighting Vehicle). However, according to Dr. Kugiel, this cooperation between Poland and India faces the challenge of lack of trust and mutual understanding. There is lack of clear understanding on the requirement, rules and procedures of procurement. Additionally, there is uncertainty about whether the existing resources and technologies are sufficient for the mass-production of weapons required in current times.

In his concluding remarks, Dr. Kugiel provided recommendations to meet these challenges and obstacles. For the rebuilding of mutual trust and understanding in defence cooperation he suggested that there is a great need for dialogue between the policymakers such as the National Security Advisors (NSA), the countries should focus on the revival of the JWG on defence, match major arms producing companies for co-production projects and find solutions to the issues in the Bumar contract. He stressed on the need to address the existing knowledge gap between the procedures of procurement in both the countries, suggesting detailed studies to examine the potential of joint projects. This would help in strengthening military dialogues with the exchange visits of military personnel and academicians. There is also a need to revive joint bilateral and multilateral military exercises. He emphasised on the need for maximisation of resources to address these deficiencies together and intensify partnership in major arms fairs.

Comments and Questions

Amb. Sujan Chinoy thanked Dr. Kugiel for his recommendations on advancing the bilateral relationship and defence cooperation between India and Poland.  He stressed the need to encourage Polish companies to participate in Indian trade fairs and also the Indian defence industrial corridors. He also emphasised the possibilities of investing in the Indian defence sector as it has been opened for 100 per cent foreign direct investment (FDI), stating the example of ‘Saab’ – becoming the first global defence company to secure an approval for a 100 per cent FDI project in the defence corridor in Uttar Pradesh to manufacture the Carl-Gustaf rocket systems. Amb. Chinoy agreed on the need for increased dialogue at different levels. Regarding overdependence on Russia, he pointed out that Indian imports from Russia have come down from 70 per cent to about 36 per cent and that overdependence is a thing of the past. Commenting on the Russia-China axis, Amb. Chinoy said that the two countries are coming closer against the primacy of the West in the current international order in terms of agenda setting and not against India.

Gp. Capt. (Dr.) R.K. Narang (Retd.), commented on the changing landscape of the Indian defence industry in the last decade and the development of niche technologies by Indian companies.

Dr. Swasti Rao, enquired about how India could improve its exports to Poland, and asked the Speaker to share his views on the geopolitical development of the Weimar Triangle and its role in Ukraine’s and Europe’s security at large.

Dr. Rajorshi Roy, questioned about NATO’s overtures to India, and Dr. Kugiel’s assessment on how India would react to these overtures.

Dr. Rajiv Nayan, enquired about Poland’s import of military equipment from South Korea.

Dr. Samuel C. Rajiv, enquired about Polish and European export efforts post the war in Ukraine.

Dr. Patryk Kugiel responded to the comments and the questions raised by the MP-IDSA Scholars.

Report has been prepared by Ms. Anusua Ganguly, Intern, Europe and Eurasia Centre, MP-IDSA.

Lecture by H. E. Dr Philipp Ackermann, Ambassador of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany on “Challenges in Europe and Indo-German Partnership” May 22, 2024 Speeches and Lectures

On 22 May 2024, the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised a lecture by His Excellency Dr. Philipp Ackermann, Ambassador of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, under the Eminent Persons Lecture Series. The topic of the lecture was “Challenges in Europe and Indo-German Partnership”. The event was chaired by the Director General, Ambassador Sujan R Chinoy.

Executive Summary

The conflict in Ukraine has impacted the European continent including Germany. Germany has attempted to diversify its partners, which has ensured a reduction of its dependence on Russia. When it comes to India, Germany's relationship with India has gained prominence, and it will continue to grow in the long term.

Detailed Report

The session began with the opening remarks from the Director General, MP-IDSA, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy who underscored the pivotal role of Germany as a critical player in the European Union and one of India’s most important strategic partners. He highlighted the various high-level dialogues that have taken place, including the visits of India’s Prime Minister to Germany in 2022 and the German Chancellor's reciprocal visit in 2023, which have significantly bolstered bilateral ties. There has been a rise in trade and investment between the two nations. Germany's foreign policy towards China was mentioned with a particular focus on the term de-risking, which is the recent focal point of the policy regarding China in Europe. Amb. Chinoy said that Germany is concerned about issues such as climate change, and illegal immigration and asked about the perspectives of the various political parties and ideologies.

Ambassador Dr. Philipp Ackermann began his talk by proposing that he would present a few key messages and five points regarding the topic. The first key point is that Europe faces challenges but in the last couple of years has shown resolve to overcome them. On the migration challenge, he stated that Europe is very popular among migrants, and migration is encouraged, but illegal migration from various nations is an issue. This has led to certain insecurities and ensured that a rise of the far right has become possible, which would be visible in the results of the upcoming European elections. Germany has an ageing population, so there is a need for migration. Germany has also signed a migration partnership with India and with the consent of the state and centre, is recruiting skilled labour for Germany from India. He emphasised the need to legalise and channel legal migration while ensuring that illegal migration is brought down.

The second challenge is the economic shock Germany suffered in the last two years due to the war in Europe. This support has been costly but it is a price that needs to be paid to support Ukraine. Ukraine is close to Germany, and the war has changed the texture of the European security structure and affected the cohesion of the European Union. Germany thought that any security structure in Europe could not be possible without Russia. Various avenues have been set up to deal with Russia, including the Russia-NATO Council. Russia's reactions at present and its approach in 2014 have changed the mindset within Europe, and now the focus is on building a resilient security structure against Russia. The main reason for this is to ensure that Russia does not invade any other countries in Europe. Russia has a clear appetite to have more territory.

The second key point of concern is the Russia-Ukraine war. If Russia is not shown the limits of its actions, it will continue. Russian President Vladimir Putin has an expansionist mentality. NATO's eastern front is not very strong and its deeper integration into the larger security structure is required to prevent any other aggression. Putin has miscalculated the unity of Europe, and Ukraine cannot be left alone, and its territory allowed to be taken away by Russia. The war has impacted the world, particularly in the energy sector. Germany paid the price since 50 per cent of its gas came from Russia, but now, after diversification, no gas comes from Russia.  India has felt the impact of the war on various sectors, including fertilisers, gas, and oil.

The third key point is the India-Germany Partnership. India has gained a new weight in Germany’s foreign policy. India’s position is much higher, and the German Government has seen a need for like-minded partners. India's democratic ethos and non-expansionist character are similar to what Germany feels. India and Germany have a sound strategic partnership, and the two nations can focus on all the areas of cooperation. Certain avenues include start-ups, academic research, and energy (hydrogen); the governments also want to intensify this cooperation. The inter-governmental consultations, which will happen in October 2024, would further strengthen the collaboration. Germany and India have cooperated in the sustainability of smart cities, biodiversity and trade. Already there are 2200 Indo-German companies who have invested in both the countries and there is hope for more investments.

The fourth key point is based on defence cooperation. There has been evident growth and a step forward in this area. Progress has been made in delivering military equipment, systems, arms, and supplying of aircraft. Joint exercises, capacity building, and information sharing have increased. In August 2024, for the first time, fighter jets would be sent by Germany to participate in Tarang Shakti Phase 1 exercise in Coimbatore. In October 2024, a German frigate would come to Goa and exercise with the Indian Navy. The two defence ministries share a strong relationship. This was underscored by the visit of the German Defence Minister in June 2023 and the signing of various tenders during that visit.

The fifth key point is focused on the Indian Ocean. Protecting international borders and oceans for free navigation is essential. We must keep the lines of communication in the open seas as safe as possible. Germany wants to promote a rules-based order protecting free and open trade. Germany and India can try to minimise the security challenges in the Indian Ocean together. China’s aggressive behaviour in the Indian Ocean concerns how China is attempting to expand its influence. For Germany, China is a partner and a competitor; when it comes to politics, it is considered a systemic rival.

Questions and Comments

Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy inquired about Chinese Influence Operations in Europe, including Germany. Secondly, he asked whether Germany sees China as a long-term or immediate threat? Lastly, he asked whether Germany's understanding of the rules-based order collides with their experience with China’s approach to a rules based order.

Ambassador Dr. Phillip Ackermann replied that China has firmly pushed its policy in academic institutions in recent years. This is done to shape and form an understanding of how China functions. In the case of a policymaker influenced by China, he gave an example of an individual who was a Chief of Staff of a Member of Parliament. Therefore, it shows how strongly China has influenced decision-making and policy-making. When it comes to cyberspace, the Russians participate more actively. For Germany, China and Russia are a threat as influence operators.

Dr. Swasti Rao asked if Germany believes in a de-risking policy vis-a-vis China and, if so, what steps should be taken. The Speaker answered that de-risking means encouraging and recommending the private sectors to de-risk. Germany cannot force them to not go to China; this was done with Russia, but it was easier since Russia is not an important economy. German companies have diversified and have begun focusing on the Asian arena, including India. Many German companies want to set up shop in India. German companies see India more as a brain than a muscle; therefore, the focus is more on investing in Rand D, technology and development sector.

Grp. Capt. (Dr.) Ajey Lele asked about German investments in the technology and space arena.

The Speaker emphasised that Germany is lagging behind in space, and the French are ahead. India needs to cooperate in this sector.

Dr. Rajorshi Roy asked about the European assessments of a scenario of a defeated Russia and its impact on regional security and stability.

The Speaker focused on the possibility that a period of frozen conflict would arise if the war did end, and he felt it wouldn't end very soon. They would still need to deal with Russia. Russia did attack a sovereign country, and Russia did take 20 per cent of the land; this act cannot be accepted. The history of the First World War shows that humiliation was not a good option for better relations after the war ended. The priority is to support Ukraine in its legitimate fight to protect its territorial integrity.  

Ms. Anandita Bhada enquired about how Germany plans to reduce dependence on China in the renewable energy sector. Secondly, with Germany's attempts at energy diversification, whether Germany is looking at other energy partnerships soon?

The Speaker answered that we are much more diversified in the energy sector in the current period, and Germany is not dependent only on one source of energy. Germany gets its gas from Norway, the Gulf, etc. It has become a mixed basket.

Dr. Jason Wahlang asked how Germany sees the rise of the right-wing in the European Parliament. Secondly, how much influence does the Alternative for Germany party have in the Western side of Germany when it comes to immigration debates?

The Speaker stated that there will be a rise of right-wing parties in the European Parliament for many reasons. The far right is not as powerful as it seems; its percentage is about 15-16 percent. On the immigration question, Germany does not think immigration is a bad thing; they do not want illegal immigration. Twenty percent of German individuals have at least one non-German parent.

Dr. Rajiv Nayan enquired about the different perceptions of terrorism in India and Europe.

On the topic of terrorism, the Speaker explained that India has its own experience and Germany has its own. In this globalised world, there is a need to compare whether, for example, the Khalistan issue is taken more seriously only in India or other nations as well. Intelligence sharing is important, and there is a need to find ways to cooperate.

Ms. Shruti Pandalai asked whether China's relationship with Germany limits its national policy in the Indo-Pacific. Secondly, how could a change in the White House's leadership impact the future of the Trans-Atlantic alliance?

The Speaker opined that Germany was considered the least popular country in Europe in the first tenure of the Trump leadership. With any change in leadership in the United States of America, Germany would still find a way to work and function with this relationship.

Dr. Prashant Singh enquired about the perceived disunity between the United States and Europe regarding trade and investment with China.

The Speaker stated that Europe and Germany are wholly localised economies compared to the United States of America. It would appear that the de-risking has reduced German engagement with China.

Captain Sunil Tyagi, Centre for Air Power Studies, asked whether Russia would shift its attention to Georgia and Moldova after the Ukraine War.

Ambassador Dr. Philip Ackerman stated that Russia has, in a way, played with Georgia and Moldova. He feels that both countries can be seen as candidates for membership in the European Union, but their conflicts are very different.

The report has been prepared by Dr. Jason Wahlang, Research Analyst, Europe and Eurasia Centre, MP-IDSA.

Monday Morning Meeting on “Debates on US-China Science and Technology Agreement” May 20, 2024 Monday Morning Meeting

On 20 May 2024, Dr. Opangmeren Jamir of the East Asia Centre delivered a talk during the Monday Morning Meeting on “Debates on US-China Science and Technology Agreement.” The meeting was moderated by Commodore Abhay Singh (Retd), Research Fellow at MP-IDSA. Scholars of the institute were in attendance.

Executive Summary

The United States-China relationship has gone through several ups and downs during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, impacted variously by the legacies of imperialism, world war and superpower competition between the Soviet Union and the US at a global scale. As China now emerges as a peer competitor of the US and attempts to surpass the latter in the field of science and technology (S&T), it is important to understand the historical and cognitive foundations underlying the Chinese conception of science, its application to collaboration with the US commencing from the 1970s and its continued relevance today under the rule of Xi Jinping. Dr. Opangmeren Jamir’s presentation attempts to address just such a lacuna in the understanding of China’s push to unleash the ‘new productive forces’ of science and technology so that it may outstrip the US in the quest to provide an alternative technology hub for emerging economies.

Detailed Report

The meeting was called to order by Cmde. Abhay Singh (Retd.), who introduced the Speaker and delivered short introductory remarks on the topic under discussion. He laid the groundwork for the Speaker’s remarks by articulating the challenge posed by China’s growth in technological prowess, and the apprehensions this has caused in Western strategic circles. He pointed out several pessimistic findings from Institutions of repute such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), whose work he cited to highlight how the Western powers face an imminent loss of their competitive edge in 33 of 44 key sectors where China already has or will have a strong lead in the near future. He also noted that in the current context, technological advancement in the form of an ‘innovation marathon’ will determine the course of our global future. He also briefly introduced the US-China Science and Technology Agreement of 1979, and outlined its current status. He then invited the Speaker to commence his remarks.

Dr. Jamir began his talk by providing a background of the current state of the US-China Science and Technology Agreement, namely, that it has been extended for a short term of six months, so that the agreement is in force while negotiations continue, though a formal declaration of extension is pending. He then outlined the key features of his presentation, stating that the intention would be to focus on historical and technical background of US-China collaboration in S&T. He then took the audience through a theoretical overview of various normative understandings of S&T as a form of national power. In particular, he cited Adam Smith’s conception of a ‘division of labour’, Joseph Schumpeter’s conception of ‘creative destruction’ of industries and innovation and Susan Strange’s idea of ‘scientific knowledge as power’ whereby states with robust research and development (R&D) capacities are deemed to have the most power.

Following this theoretical exposition, Dr. Jamir introduced the audience to the history of science policy in China before the takeover of the country by the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1949. Here he discussed in some detail the 1911 Revolution which toppled the declining Qing Empire, as well as the May Fourth Movement of 1919, which aimed to reform China into a modern, prosperous and democratic state free of the harmful impacts of Western imperialism. In order to achieve these goals, the leaders of the May Fourth Movement looked broadly to both ‘Mr. Democracy’ as well as ‘Mr. Science’ as fundamental pillars on which a strong China would be built. This led in 1928 to the formation of the setting up of premier academic societies such as the Academica Sinica, as well as the reform of the education system according to American models, as the Republic of China attempted to execute nation-building projects. He thus highlighted that the Chinese have always conceived of science instrumentally, that is, as a means to achieve a strong state, rather than as a noble pursuit in and of itself.

As China fell to the Communists in 1949, this background led the CPC to proclaim that only science could ‘save China’. Dr. Jamir pointed to two pivotal events which shaped science policy after the CPC’s takeover, until the late 1970s: the replacement of the Soviet Union with the US as the preferred model of educational emulation, and the scars left by the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) when the regime itself unleashed a wave of suspicion and mistrust against scientific authorities. He spoke at length on the impact of Mao’s Cultural Revolution and the irreparable harm it caused to scientific progress in China for over two decades, as first he and then the Gang of Four encouraged students to revolt against their Western-educated teachers, condemned and persecuted them as ‘rightists’ and ‘capitalist roaders’ and fostered an environment of hostility against all practitioners of science.  

It was only after 1978 that the context for US-China scientific cooperation became clear, as Deng Xiaoping channelled China’s energies into the ‘Four Modernisations’, which removed Soviet influences from Chinese scientific education and restored the normative significance of Western models. The signing of the US-China Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement in 1979 thus marked a sea change in China’s scientific progress, as it firmly established the importance of science as an article of faith within the CPC’s worldview. Driven by a desire to not repeat the mistakes of the Cultural Revolution, Deng and his successors up to and including Xi Jinping continued to encourage scientific cooperation with US in order to develop China into the powerhouse it is today.

Dr. Jamir concluded his lecture by pondering the question of whether the US and China would be better off collaborating or competing, especially as their trade frictions continue to intensify and cautious delinking seems the order of the day. In this regard, he cited Wang Huning, who in a 1992 publication pointed out that the US could only be ‘defeated’ by being surpassed in S&T. Thus, there is a need to be wary of sharing dual use, critical and emerging technologies, while maintaining robust cooperation on pressing issues such as climate change mitigation, space exploration and knowledge production.

Questions and Answers

Before opening the floor to the audience for Q&A, Cmde. Singh asked Dr. Jamir to elucidate the drivers of change in China’s S&T policy post-Cultural Revolution, and whether a specific point could be identified when imitation of Western models shifted to indigenous innovation. Dr. Jamir answered that the seeds of reform were already present in the late Qing empire, almost seven decades prior to the Cultural Revolution’s termination, but the cumulative effects of the ‘century of humiliation’ by Western powers as well as the disastrous policies adopted in the initial years of the People’s Republic led to a thorough rethinking of S&T policy.

Dr. Swasti Rao asked about the sectors where the US-China Agreement currently being negotiated is deadlocked, and whether Xi Jinping’s leadership plays a role. Dr. Jamir answered that areas of deadlock were mainly confined to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing. As for Xi’s role, Dr. Jamir noted that each leader of China after Deng has attempted to put their own imprimatur on S&T policy, and Xi’s contribution, the ‘New Prosperity Theory’, essentially sets entrepreneurs free to innovate indigenously in order to break the deadlock faced due to geopolitical headwinds.

This report was prepared by Dr. Arnab Dasgupta, Research Analyst, East Asia Centre.

Europe and Eurasia
Monday Morning Meeting on “Understanding Nepal’s Coalition Shift: Implications for Domestic Governance and India’s Interests” May 16, 2024 Monday Morning Meeting

Ms. Sneha M, Research Analyst, Manohar Parrikar IDSA (MP-IDSA), made a presentation on “Understanding Nepal’s Coalition Shift: Implications for Domestic Governance and India’s Interests” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 6 May 2024. The session was moderated by Dr. Ashok Behuria, Senior Fellow, MP-IDSA. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA and scholars of the Institute attended the meeting.

Executive Summary

Dr. Ashok Behuria, in his opening remarks, provided a brief and insightful overview of Nepal’s political landscape, highlighting the frequent changes in the administration and the challenges leading to the failure of the previous coalition governments. He discussed Nepal’s two electoral methods - First Past the Post (FPTP) and Proportional Representation (PR) system. After giving a short overview of the 2022 Parliamentary Elections, he noted that no government has ever lasted in power for a full term, which indicates the instability in the Nepalese political system. He drew attention to the diversity in Nepal with almost 135 spoken languages and high representation level of Members of Parliament (MPs), with one MP representing a population of only one lakh. He further highlighted that with the increase in bilateral engagements between China and Nepal, there are concerns regarding China’s growing influence in the region.

Detailed Report

Ms. Sneha M. commenced her presentation with a comprehensive overview of Nepal’s tumultuous political history, marred by divisions in the successive governments. She traced Nepal’s trajectory towards democracy from the time of Absolute Monarchy in 1846 to the adoption of a new constitution in 2015, highlighting significant events such as the Partyless Panchayat system in 1960 and emergence of multiparty democracy in 1990. She highlighted the challenges posed by the emergence of the Maoist insurgency in 1996 which was largely driven by grievances related to poverty, inequality and corruption, and the subsequent transition to a Federal Democratic Republic in 2006-2008.

While giving an overview of the 2022 Parliamentary Elections, Ms. Sneha noted that the Nepali Congress (NC) emerged as the single largest party. Due to differences among leaders for the post of Prime Minister, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, popularly known as “Prachanda”, of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-MC) broke the coalition and joined hands with the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) resulting in him becoming the Prime Minister. However, the coalition collapsed within two months, causing further instability in the country. Ms. Sneha pointed out the political shift in March 2024, when Prachanda formed a new coalition with “CPN-UML”, Rashtriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and Janata Samajwadi Party (JSP) after terminating the alliance with the Nepali Congress. She also noted that a country with such a small population of almost 3 crores, has 109 registered political parties due to the ease of securing just 3 per cent of the total vote share to achieve a PR seat  and become a national party.

Throwing light on the instability in the government alliances, she assessed some key factors which led to the fall of the coalition including clash of opinions between Prime Minister Dahal and NC Finance Minister, Prakash Sharan Mahat, personal interests of leaders, and external pressures. She emphasised how the coalition dynamics have been impacted by Nepal’s complex electoral system and the proliferation of political parties. She also analysed the implications on domestic governance, citing Nepal’s GDP growth having an average of about 4.2 per cent since 2008 which falls short of 7 per cent to qualify as an emerging economy. She elaborated on the escalation of the trade deficit from 14 per cent to over 50 per cent of the GDP since 2008. As a result, she observed that a significant number of young people have been departing the country in search of better opportunities abroad, citing the limited job prospects within Nepal.

Assessing implications for India, Ms. Sneha acknowledged the robust ties between the two countries across economic, security, cultural and strategic domains. India has always engaged with Nepal over mutual interest irrespective of the party in power. She emphasised that China would any day prefer a left party rule in Nepal for its own political benefits. Highlighting recent developments, she emphasised that Nepal's balance is shifting towards China, which is evident in the increased bilateral exchanges and investments.

Furthermore, she stated that the inclination of the current administration towards China is unlikely to impact the bilateral relationship between Kathmandu and New Delhi given that India is still the largest trade partner of Nepal, comprising two-third of Nepal’s merchandise trade and about one-third of trade in services. India is also the largest source of foreign investments in Nepal. However, she analysed that India might lose smooth cooperation with Nepal and experience delays in implementation of projects that India has invested in and funded, in the near future.

Questions and Comments

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, commended Ms. Sneha for her comprehensive and engaging presentation. He pointed out the significance of the India-Nepal relationship and emphasised on adopting a strategy of aligning with Nepal on issues of mutual interests. Amb. Chinoy stated that allowing local dynamics to shape Nepal’s domestic politics is a better approach for India.  However, he recognised the importance of closely observing regional developments and responding appropriately, as porous borders might be exploited by adversaries to undermine India’s security landscape.

Scholars raised pertinent points such as Nepal's decision to print NPR 100 currency incorporating disputed territories and how it impacts Indo-Nepal relations, the relevance of anti-Indian sentiments propagated by political parties, the role of culture in International Relations. Additionally, concerns related to Nepal’s reconciliation with India’s Agniveer Scheme and the recruitment of Nepalese in the Gorkha regiment were also raised. Commenting on the same, Amb. Chinoy stated that there are enough Indian Gorkhas who could be recruited to continue the legacy of the Gorkha regiment.

Ms. Sneha M. responded to the comments made by the Director General and the questions raised by MP-IDSA scholars.

Report prepared by Ms. Puspa Kumari, Intern, South Asia Centre, MP-IDSA.

Report of Monday Morning Meeting on ‘iDEX: The Future of Defence Startups’ May 13, 2024 Monday Morning Meeting

Dr. Shayesta Nishat Ahmed, Research Analyst, Defence Economics and Industry Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), delivered a presentation on “iDEX: The Future of Defence Startups” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 13 May 2024. Mr. Arvind Khare, IDAS, Senior Fellow, Defence Economics and Industry Centre, MP-IDSA, moderated the session. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, Gp. Capt. (Dr.) Ajey V. Lele (Retd.), Deputy Director General and the scholars of MP-IDSA attended the meeting.

Executive Summary

Innovation for Defence Excellence (iDEX), is a flagship programme of Department of Defence Production (DDP) under the Ministry of Defence (MoD), in collaboration with Start Up India and Atal Innovation Mission (AIM), unveiled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in April 2018. The objective of iDEX is to further self-reliance and Atmanirbharta in Defence and Aerospace Sector by way of extending financial support to Startups and individual innovators for indigenous innovations in relation to technology projections and existing technology gaps.

Detailed Report

Mr. Arvind Khare, IDAS, Senior Fellow, initiated the meeting by providing a brief outline of iDEX. Dr. Shayesta Nishat Ahmed, Research Analyst, began her presentation by providing an introduction of what exactly iDEX is, as a Scheme for granting funds, its aim, the existing procedure and its performance so far. iDEX initiative aims at promoting India’s defence indigenisation and self-reliance by rapidly incorporating innovations in weapon technologies and systems procurement by startups and individual innovators. She brought out the rationale behind the quest for achieving indigenisation in the defence sector is reducing import dependency and achieving strategic autonomy. The iDEX framework was developed in collaboration with Start Up India, Atal Innovation Mission (AIM), and Make in India programs.

Apart from the objectives of iDEX, the presentation also included the modus operandi of iDEX functioning to facilitate granting funds from the Defence Innovation Fund (DIF) for innovations. iDEX aims to foster the fast development of indigenous but innovative technologies for defence and aerospace by engaging with competent startups, and to empower a culture of technology co-creation and co-innovation in the Defence R&D ecosystem.

The presentation highlighted the institutionalised structure of Defence Innovation Organization (DIO), which is a Section 8 company executing the iDEX scheme. The process of identification of a technology gap area, selection of competent startups, granting necessary funds, monitoring the execution of projects and assessment of fund utilisations by the startups under the iDEX scheme was elaborated. The presentation also covered the provisions of Defence Acquisition Programme (DAP) 2020 regarding iDEX and the Technology Development Fund (TDF) scheme of the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), and their differences in structure, budgeting, execution & monitoring of the projects and their funding mechanisms. Following that, Dr. Shayesta  delineated the ‘Support for Prototype and Research Kickstart’ (SPARK) framework, through which iDEX provides grants to startups and MSMEs to develop functional prototypes for the required technologies. Various programmes that run under the iDEX set up such as the DISC Challenges, iDEX4Fauj, iDEX Prime (Space) for Mission DefSpace, iDEX Prime (Sprint) for Indian Navy, etc. and the amount of grants per project under different variants of iDEX were also discussed.

Recent developments under iDEX umbrella, viz. INDUS–X and ADITI were also discussed. India-United States Defence Acceleration Ecosystem (INDUS-X) was launched in Washington DC, USA on 21 June 2023, in an event co-organised by iDEX (Ministry of Defence, Government of India) and US Department of Defense, and hosted by US-India Business Council (USIBC), for co-development and co-production of advanced technologies by Indian and US Startups by developing suitable mechanisms for future collaboration across industries, academia, and investors. ADITI (Acing Development of Innovative Technologies with iDEX) is an encouraging endeavour of iDEX, DIO, DDP for extending financial supports up to Rs. 25 Cr. per project relating to innovation in critical and strategic deep-tech technologies.

Dr. Shayesta spoke on the role of partner incubators in iDEX, which provide mentorship and support to iDEX winners, and of the iDEX Investors Hub, which aims to accelerate the growth of the defence ecosystem by providing access to interested investors. The process of prototype development, commercial solicitation, and IPR management under iDEX was also discussed. She also highlighted in her presentation, challenges of the iDEX initiative, including difficulties in monitoring the development of critical defence technologies, lack of user involvement, less commercial proliferation of the developed technologies, IPR issues, accountability aspects, etc.

Questions & Comments

Before opening the floor for a Q&A session, Mr. Arvind Khare, IDAS noted that the concept of iDEX, i.e. involving small & focused teams for getting rapid technological solutions in the form of startups under a government funding mechanism, is not something new in the defence innovation ecosystem worldwide. He quoted the examples of the establishment of MIT Rad Lab by the US Department of Defense in the 1940s and the establishment of Defence Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx) in 2015, to involve the startups in defence innovations. He also mentioned the Maf’at, a joint administrative body of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) & Israel’s Ministry of Defence and touched on other similar frameworks in Israel such as ‘Yozma’, ‘Lotem’, ’Unit 8200’ of Israel. He also referred to the ‘European Defence Fund’ having sharp focus on engagement with and investment in SMEs, startups and midcaps for the defence industry.

The Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy began his comments by complimenting Dr. Shayesta for a comprehensive presentation. He mentioned that during the 1950s the focus was on heavy industries in India and also there was reduction in defence budget. Later, there was a realisation within the country about the significance of prioritising defence R&D and innovation especially in critical supply chains, in order to attain strategic autonomy.  Moreover, since defence production was solely dependent upon Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs) and due to lack of investment & interest in the Private Sector for R&D in the defence sector, there was a serious necessity for government funding to the private sector, particularly to MSMEs and Startups for encouraging them for innovations and R&D. Now the time has come where schemes like iDEX and TDF are doing wonderful work for involving MSMEs and Startups to become part of the defence supply chain. However, Amb. Chinoy also emphasised that more systemic and robust changes are required to make these funding schemes more accountable, responsible, target-oriented and business-focussed; and elaborated upon the need for removing bureaucratic hurdles and red-tapism in implementation of such initiatives. Amb. Chinoy also expressed the need for formation of a Technology Commission for steering  futuristic technological developments involving all stakeholders like Armed Forces, DRDO, DPSUs, private industries (MSMEs & Startups) and strategic collaborations with foreign partners.

During discussions, the issue of IPR, possibility of certain companies with inimical interests attempting to acquire startups, absence of any regulatory mechanisms for monitoring the performance of startups under iDEX funding, ways & approaches to enhance the participation and engagement of competent startups, and lack of information about cancellation of projects due to non-fulfilment of quality requirements and about lack of transparency in identification of incubation centres, along with the contributions of the project directors in the technology development milieu, were also discussed.

The Report was prepared by Mr. D.S. Murugan Yadav, Intern, Military Affairs Centre, MP-IDSA.

Lecture by H. E. Dr Philipp Ackermann, Ambassador of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany on “Challenges in Europe and Indo-German Partnership” May 22, 2024 1000 to 1100 hrs Talk

The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) is organising a lecture by H. E. Dr Philipp Ackermann, Ambassador of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany under the Eminent Persons’ Lecture Series from 1000-1100 hours on 22 May 2024 in Room 005, Ground Floor.

The topic of the lecture will be “Challenges in Europe and Indo-German Partnership”.

The lecture will be chaired by Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA.

Monday Morning Meeting on Debates on US-China Science and Technology Agreements May 20, 2024 Monday Morning Meeting

Dr. Opangmeren Jamir, Research Analyst, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, will speak on “Debates on US-China Science and Technology Agreements” at the Monday Morning Meeting which will be held on 20 May 2024 at 10 AM. The venue is Seminar Hall I, Second Floor.

Dr. P. K. Singh, Research Fellow, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, will be the moderator.

Dr. Arnab Dasgupta, Research Analyst, will be the rapporteur.

East Asia
Enhancing MSME & Start-Up Engagement for Atmanirbharta May 13, 2024 Round Table

The Defence Economics and Industry Centre at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised a Roundtable on ‘Enhancing MSME & Startup Engagement for Atmanirbharta’ on 13 May 2024. The event was chaired by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, and was followed by an address by Shri Nalin Kohli, Member, Governing Council, Foundation for Innovation and Technology Transfer, IIT Delhi and President, Association of Small and Medium Knowledge Industries (ASMKI). Participants from Defence Accounts Departments, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Principal Scientific Advisor (PSA), Government e Marketplace (GeM), Armed Forces, Director General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) and Industry enriched the discussion.

Executive Summary

The Round Table highlighted key opportunities for MSMEs and Startups under the framework for capital acquisition i.e. Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) and for revenue procurement i.e. Defence Procurement Manual (DPM). It emphasised the core areas where policy intervention is needed from apex level, and where improvisation is required for generating ‘ease of doing business’ for MSMEs and Startups within the existing procedures. It called for effective implementation of the government’s initiatives for promoting their participation in the indigenous and global defence supply chain. The Round Table also deliberated upon functioning of platforms like Srijan, funding though iDEX and Technology Development Fund (TDF), audit issues and payments, collaboration with DRDO and Academia to support R&D and innovation, need for national level standards and quality assurance mechanisms at par with international practices. It also deliberated upon broader structural reforms needed for developing the nation as a manufacturing hub with a growth engine for innovation through enhanced participation of MSMEs and Startups.

Detailed Report

After the Welcome Address by Shri Arvind Khare, IDAS, Senior Fellow, Defence Economics and Industry Centre, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA delivered the Opening Remarks. Amb. Chinoy highlighted the opportunities for MSMEs under the present defence procurement and acquisition framework as well as the bottlenecks in the existing systems. He also highlighted interactive platforms like “Srijan” and initiatives such as TDF and iDEX through which MSMEs and Startups can contribute in R&D and technological innovation in the defence sector. Despite a significant contribution to the domestic production worth over one lakh crore, largely driven by DPSUs and private sector companies, MSMEs remain crucial yet reliant on larger entities for survival. He emphasised the need for a holistic vision and a structured approach from apex bodies to support the growth of MSMEs.

Amb. Chinoy stressed that for MSMEs to compete globally, they need to develop core defence and dual use technologies, secure adequate funding, and gain negotiating power within supply chains. The government should handhold their endeavours wherever required. Further, he emphasised that the MSMEs should strive to ensure their competitiveness and sustainability in both domestic and international markets. Amb. Chinoy stressed that the Roundtable should also address the barriers faced by MSMEs and Startups such as procedural complexities and the need to streamline existing processes, if any.

Shri Nalin Kohli, Member, Governing Council, Foundation for Innovation and Technology Transfer, IIT Delhi and President, Association of Small and Medium Knowledge Industries (ASMKI), began his remarks by elucidating that in the defence sector, MSMEs and Startups face unique challenges. While these smaller entities offer innovative solutions and fulfil a large demand for manufactured goods, their engagement in the defence sector remains suboptimal due to certain barriers and procedural complexities. Shri Kohli commented that as the major players in the Indian private sector involved in the defence sector came from automotive and IT industries, there is a lack of dedicated defence-focused companies.

He noted that MSMEs significantly contribute to India’s GDP and exports, and emphasised their importance in defence. Policy adjustments, including simplifying entry processes and procurement procedure, are crucial to bolster MSME participation. He further stated that addressing issues relating to Bank Guarantees, delayed payments and facilitating Transfer of Technologies (ToT) can further support MSMEs financially and technologically.

Shri Kohli stressed that defence projects often require specialised manufacturing capabilities, as they involve high-tech products. At the same time, defence sector involves low-volume production. To support MSMEs in the defence sector, it is essential to create a conducive ecosystem, which involves attracting capable and eligible MSMEs from various sectors into defence, and offering them opportunities to showcase their capabilities through paid pilot projects. Generating adequate business opportunities for multiple MSMEs by apportionment of large quantities of the products and a healthy competition by offering an equal level playing field to all prospective bidders in defence procurement is essential for financial stability and growth of MSMEs.

Shri Kohli stressed on the need to strengthen partnerships with academia which can provide crucial R&D support, foster innovation within MSMEs and enhance their role in the defence industry. Shri Kohli mentioned the need for treating MSMEs and Startups as business partners or development partners, not merely as vendors. He concluded by stating that the engagement of MSMEs and startups in the defence sector can be significantly enhanced, leading to a more innovative and resilient defence industry in India, by ensuring procedural flexibilities, financial support and technological handholding.

Director General, Amb. Chinoy thanked Shri Kohli for highlighting the broader concerns of MSMEs. Amb Chinoy highlighted the difference between those MSMEs who are involved in manufacturing as per the specifications of Army/Navy/Air Force Design Bureaus or similar agencies, and MSMEs who are capable of doing their own R&D. Amb. Chinoy stressed that our system should also focus on fostering innovative MSMEs rather than just those doing basic manufacturing. He suggested that both central and state governments should support defence MSME clusters across all states, not just in the Defence Corridors in Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. These clusters could offer plug-and-play facilities and subsidies to reduce costs.

Shri Kohli also called for reduced bureaucratic stresses and more generous funding for offering adequate ‘ease of doing business’ in case of MSMEs and Startups, and also mentioned the need for simplified procedures for funding through the 25 per cent of defence budget earmarked for funding private industries and academia for defence R&D and through the proposed Rs1 lakh crore Corpus for long term funding of R&D Projects including deep defence technologies.

Amb. Chinoy highlighted the need for establishing a Technology Council for planning and strategising futuristic technological requirements and reserving certain sectors especially for MSMEs, according to a thorough capability mapping. He also stressed the need to develop a robust ecosystem for guiding and supporting MSMEs, providing them with the freedom to innovate, make mistakes, and learn, supported by academic partnerships.

Shri Arvind Khare, Senior Fellow, MP-IDSA, remarked that the system of allocation of large tendered quantity of high tech defence products to multiple vendors based on their manufacturing capabilities, as well as the system of procurement through a single source on nomination basis or on PAC (Proprietary Article Certificate) basis and also in a resultant single vendor situation in exceptional circumstances, are already effectively established in the prescribed procedure as mentioned in GFRs. He emphasised the importance of generating healthy competition without restrictive and unnecessary conditions in pre-qualification criteria (in RFPs) in the name of security, with the objective of achieving wider vendor participation, reasonable pricing and fair vendor apportionment.

Shri Khare stressed on the need to encourage MSMEs to scale up and diversify their manufacturing capabilities, for keeping themselves competitive in the market of dual use technology based items. Additionally, MSMEs require techno-commercial support from DPSUs and DRDO. He also emphasised that making timely payments to MSMEs against their dues and streamlining processes across departments are crucial for ensuring availability of adequate financial support to MSMEs. These steps can create an enabling environment for MSMEs, which is essential for leveraging their innovative potential and contributing to India’s economic growth.

Shri Anurag Awasthi, Chief Manager (Social Impact and Inclusive Seller Growth) - Government e Marketplace (GeM), highlighted several key points regarding public procurement and the role of MSMEs and startups. He mentioned the significant value of orders facilitated through the online public commerce portal in 2023, with a substantial portion attributed to the Ministry of Defence’s involvement. Shri Awasthi urged MSMEs and Startups to meet defence industry needs. He cited examples of innovative responses during the COVID-19 Pandemic, such as a startup in Kanpur swiftly pivoting to produce ventilators. He proposed allocating a percentage of subcontracting opportunities to MSMEs, providing them with a voice and opportunities they might not otherwise access.

Additionally, Shri Awasthi advocated for greater outreach to MSMEs and Startups in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities, highlighting the challenge of information dissemination and the potential for untapped innovation in these areas. Finally, Shri Awasthi mentioned policy guidelines offering relaxation in eligibility criteria for Startups and MSMEs in public procurement.

Shri Vipin Gupta, IDAS, Joint Controller General of Defence Accounts O/o CGDA HQ,  emphasised that there is still a need for effective and pragmatic implementation of government policies and initiatives designed to support MSMEs. He highlighted that the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) has undergone multiple revisions and the Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) has evolved since it was first promulgated in 2020. The Defence Procurement Manual (DPM) 2009 however has not been revised so far despite changes in procurement procedure and processes. He noted that DPM 2009 needs to be revised to align with the General Financial Rules 2017 and Ministry of Finance Manuals for Procurement of Goods and Services. Shri Gupta also suggested that there should be a specific chapter dedicated to indigenisation and innovation in the DPM, which should be distinct from the standard procurement procedures.

Ms. Shipra Mishra, CEO, Delhi Research Implementation and Innovation (DRIIV), Flagship programme of the Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the GoI, highlighted their role in bridging the gap between industry, academia, and government bodies to facilitate innovation transfer from lab to market. While the cluster has primarily focused on thematic areas aligned with national sustainability goals, Ms. Mishra acknowledged the potential for addressing defence innovation challenges. She proposed leveraging their network of over 100 partners, including academic institutes, startups, and MSMEs, to create a sandbox environment for targeted innovation experiments. This approach may involve matchmaking between innovators and academia, incorporating pilot projects with the armed forces, and exploring financial instruments like bonds & insurance models and utilising CSR spending for extending financial support to MSMEs. She advocated for a structured R&D approach, suggesting that outcomes from the sandbox can inform future policy development.

Brig. Sandeep Acharya from DGQA HQrs urged the need to adhere to existing testing and certification standards to avoid issues while encouraging MSME participation in defence. He stated that the armed forces need to maintain stringent standards for testing and certification for MSMEs at par with international practices without compromising on the quality checks keeping in view the needs of national security. Brig. Acharya, however, emphasised on the need to tackle practical issues such as exorbitant delays in testing and certification, and suggested solutions like self-certification and accreditations by national and international testing agencies. Brig. Acharya also emphasised that maintaining a degree of stringency is crucial for national security and industry competitiveness. He stressed on making efforts towards streamlining and digitising the processes of integrating various labs throughout the country, and aiming to provide easy access to testing facilities for MSMEs.

Group Captain Ajay Kumar from Directorate of Procurement, Air HQrs, outlined several key points regarding the challenges and opportunities for MSMEs, particularly amidst the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and its impact on international supply chains, which has had significant implications worldwide and even for India. This has severely impacted defence procurement processes, but has provided ample opportunities for Indian industries. He called for comprehensive policy frameworks to address the specific challenges faced by Startups and MSMEs. He suggested relaxations and concessions in existing procurement procedures like DPM 2009 in order to streamline regulations and support their growth.

Gp.. Capt. Kumar also pointed out the significance of financial support to MSMEs as these enterprises often face substantial risks, especially with prototype failures. He then proposed some measures such as providing financial assistance for initial development costs and exploring reimbursement support even in NCNC (no-cost no-commitment) procurement. He also mentioned that greater collaboration between Service Headquarters and Startups/MSMEs is essential to leverage geopolitical situations and forecast procurement needs. Addressing legacy technology needs, rapidly evolving technology, and policy ambiguities through handholding and clearer policies can further support engagement of MSMEs & Startups. He emphasised on defence R&D and innovation, which are critical for future competitiveness, alongside considerations for GDP, employment generation, and training needs. He concluded that a holistic support mechanism encompassing policy reforms, financial assistance, and collaborative efforts is necessary to nurture and sustain the growth of startups and MSMEs in the defence sector amidst complex geopolitical scenarios.

Commodore Gokul Krishna Dutta, Cmdr. (Admin.), Naval HQrs, commented that the Indian Navy has significantly shifted from relying upon foreign platforms to manufacturing around 80 percent of its assets domestically, driving substantial progress in the Indian shipbuilding industry. This transition is underpinned by a strong commitment to indigenous innovation, supported by various efforts that identify items for domestic manufacturing and indigenous technology development. He stressed on the need to ensure the reliability of components given operational risks of failures at sea. MSMEs need support to meet defence quality standards, with calls for a regulatory framework to provide technological assistance. Quality assurance mechanisms, including vendor capability assessments, are proposed to maintain product standards.

Cmde. Krishnan advocated fair payment policies for domestic vendors to reduce their financial burdens and boost confidence. National-level standards and streamlined evaluation processes duly controlled and monitored by apex structures are needed to support MSMEs and ensure accountability in technology development, as well as to aid MSMEs with assured fund allocations. He stressed on the need to recognise the necessity for comprehensive structural changes to bolster indigenous manufacturing and innovation, and also proposed creating specialised commissions or organisations on those lines.

Shri Anmol Amar Singh, Senior Deputy IFA, O/o IFA (R&D), Delhi, spoke on supporting SMEs, fostering innovation, technology absorption and streamlining procedures to bolster the defence sector’s capabilities and promote economic growth. He stressed that flexibility in procedures, particularly regarding payments and technology transfer, is crucial to accommodate SME requirements. While efforts have been made to reduce entry barriers for SMEs by the Government, existing policies are not being fully utilised. Shri Singh emphasised that a structured approach, including self-certification processes and collaboration between DRDO and SMEs, is essential.

However, challenges such as funding constraints, stringent procedures, and differentiation between R&D procurement and normal procurement, persist. Despite these challenges, success stories highlight the capabilities and the potential of contribution of MSMEs to national security and innovation. Policy recommendations from Shri Singh included establishing a dedicated portal for grants, clarity in procurement rules, and a separate chapter in the GFR for R&D procurement and Grant-in-Aids for R&D purposes.

Shri Arjun Kumar, Additional Director and Scientist at DTDF, DRDO HQRs, underscored the government’s initiative for funding MSMEs for defence R&D and innovation in the form of TDF of DRDO, emphasising the government’s willingness to take risks in nurturing R&D culture in defence sector. Initially conceived in 2014, the scheme of TDF has awarded 70 projects till date, including the successful development of many innovative products of defence needs and their exports. Success stories, such as the development of a nuclear emergency drug, underscored the scheme’s role in fostering local innovation and bolstering national security. However, continued support and clear policies were deemed crucial for sustaining the scheme’s impact. Shri Kumar advocated for clearer policies and dedicated channels for R&D investment. He proposed the creation of a unified portal for government grants to enhance accessibility and emphasised the need to treat R&D grants different from procurement and to make necessary policy refinement in this regard.

Shri Shashi Mouli Choubey, IDAS, Deputy CDA, O/o PCDA New Delhi, underscored certain key points, viz.  importance of maintaining a balance between audit and payment processes, mentioning the successful endeavour for timely payment within seven working days. He mentioned that clarity in contract terms and delivery periods is essential, advocating clear definitions and explicit outlining of essential documents to avoid confusion and delays caused by missing or unspecified documents. Shri Chaubey further highlighted the challenge of stage payments in GeM contracts combining services and hardware, emphasising the necessity of clarity on payment breakdowns and terms even in online contracts. Additionally, adherence to Letter of Credit (LC) payments conditions as per the extant orders on the subject was mentioned, noting the cost implications and confidentiality concerns. He emphasised the significance of clear terms of contract, timely payments, and compliance with norms to facilitate smooth financial transactions and mitigate potential issues. He elaborated on the role of Buyers to adequately educate the vendor about contractual terms and conditions, to obviate future delays, penalties and audit complications.

Commodore Bunty Sethi (Retd.), UKIBC, spoke on three critical aspects of the defence industry. Firstly, he emphasised the paramount importance of quality standards, which are non-negotiable especially in aerospace and maritime sectors, where strict requirements for environmental and shock resilience are enforced. Although adherence to these standards is prioritised by few established companies, the approval process is lengthy, and only a few vendors are approved. Secondly, he highlighted the deficiency in R&D and design capabilities among many Indian firms, leading to reliance on foreign technology and hindering indigenous innovation despite substantial investment. Lastly, Shri Sethi stressed on the imperative for Indian companies to integrate into the global supply chain, adopt international standards, and learn from foreign counterparts to compete effectively in supplying to the Indian Armed Forces and beyond. By aligning with global practices, Indian firms can enhance their capabilities and position themselves for success in the defence sector.

Colonel (Dr.) Rajneesh Singh (Retd.), Research Fellow, Centre Coordinator, Defence Economics and Industry Centre, MP-IDSA, concluded the Roundtable discussions by summarising the key topics addressed and expressed optimism for future progress in the areas discussed. He emphasised the crucial role of MSMEs and Startups in the defence sector, stressing the need for ongoing support and guidance. Col. (Dr.) Singh underscored the necessity of establishing a supra-structure to coordinate activities among stakeholders and the industry effectively. He highlighted the Director General, Amb. Chinoy’s vision for MSMEs to enhance competitiveness and thrive in the defence industry's control-oriented environment. Moving forward, Col. (Dr.) Singh expressed hope for concerted efforts to foster the growth and sustainability of MSMEs and Startups in the defence industry, and extended sincere thanks to all the participants.

The report has been prepared by Dr. Shayesta Nishat Ahmed, Research Analyst, Defence Economics and Industry Centre, MP-IDSA.

Pages

Top