Events

Dr. Rajeesh Kumar, Associate Fellow, ALACUN Centre, MP-IDSA presented his paper on “Indian and Chinese Approaches to United Nations Peacekeeping in Africa” at the MP-IDSA Fellows’ Seminar on 20 March, 2023, at 1430hrs in MP-IDSA Auditorium. The Seminar was chaired by Lieutenant General Satish Nambiar, PVSM, AVSM, VrC, (Retd.) former DGMO & First Force Cdr. and Head of Mission of UNPROFOR (former Yugoslavia), and former Director, United Service Institution of India. The external discussants for the Paper were Ambassador T.S. Tirumurti, Former Permanent Representative of India to the UN, New York and Professor Yeshi Choeden, CIPOD, SIS, Jawaharlal Nehru University. The internal discussants included Major General (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, Ms. Ruchita Beri, Senior Research Associate & Centre Coordinator, ALACUN Centre, and Colonel (Dr.) D.P.K Pillay (Retd.), Research Fellow, Non-Traditional Security Centre. The Seminar was attended by all MP-IDSA scholars and interns.

Executive Summary

In his paper presentation, Dr. Rajeesh Kumar compared and contrasted Indian and Chinese involvements in the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKOs) highlighting their troop deployment and rationale for participation, their involvement in UNPKOs in Africa and, the Indian and Chinese voting responses on United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) related to UNPK Missions in Africa. He concluded by presenting the findings of his paper followed by policy suggestions. According to the external and internal discussants, the paper was timely, good and well-researched on an important topic. They suggested that the paper could verify and update the data presented, distinctly bring out comparisons of Indian and Chinese involvement in UNPKOs, include historical contexts and add additional dimensions such features of India’s UNPKOs in Africa, additional motivations underlying India’s UNPK efforts in Africa among others. The discussants discussed every policy recommendation in the paper in great detail.

Detailed Report

Lt. Gen. General Satish Nambiar PVSM, AVSM, VrC, (Retd.) (former DGMO & First Force Commander and Head of Mission of UNPROFOR (former Yugoslavia), and former Director, United Service Institution of India) chaired the MP-IDSA Fellows’ Seminar. Introducing the panel, he invited Dr. Rajeesh to present his paper on “Indian and Chinese Approaches to United Nations Peacekeeping (UNPK) in Africa”. In his presentation, Dr. Rajeesh Kumar (Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA) compared and contrasted the Indian and Chinese involvements in the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKOs) highlighting their troop deployment and rationale for participation, their involvement in UNPKOs in Africa and, the Indian and Chinese voting responses on United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) related to UNPK Missions in Africa. He concluded by presenting the findings of his paper followed by policy suggestions. Detailing the limitations of his study, Dr. Rajeesh spoke on the huge disparities in availability of data especially on China’s troop deployment and insufficient official documents on the latest peacekeeping details of China.

In the first part of his presentation, Dr. Rajeesh explained the evolution of the Indian and Chinese approaches to UNPKOs. India is the largest troop contributor, has proactively participated in 75% of the UNPKOs globally since 1964, provided critical leadership roles, sustained the largest peacekeeping fatalities (177 peacekeepers) and has adopted a principled approach emphasising on the United Nations (UN) Charter principles such as sovereignty, consent of parties and impartiality. He stated that a primary characteristic of India’s approach is its peacebuilding activities and engagement with local communities. On the other hand, China had initially opposed all activities pertaining to peacekeeping including resolutions since it perceived UNPKO as a tool of superpowers to intervene in global south countries. The Speaker explained that China’s involvement in the UNPKO took a drastic shift in the 1980’s, it’s today the second largest contributor to UNPK budget, ranks tenth in troop contributing countries (TCCs), largest among the permanent five (P5), has adopted a principled approach emphasising UN Charter principles and has a selective approach since it uses peacekeeping as a tool to wield influence.

The second part of Dr. Rajeesh’s presentation focused on Indian and Chinese involvement in the UNPKOs in Africa highlighting their troop contribution, rationale for participation and criticisms. Providing an overview and trajectory of UNPKOs in Africa, he mentioned that the continent has hosted nearly 47% of peacekeeping operations (PKOs) in the world. India has participated in 22 missions in Africa, suffered most casualties (123 deaths) and consistently contributed at least more than 5,000 troops in all missions. The Speaker assessed that India’s participation in Operation Congo is a specimen of India’s robust PKO contribution, its involvement in Somalia illustrated the fundamentals of India’s peacekeeping in Africa, Sierra Leone validated India’s stellar contribution, deployment of an all women unit in Liberia and role in South Sudan exemplified the fundamental characteristics of UNPKO in Africa among many others. However, he added that India’s peacekeeping in Africa is not free of criticism and alluded to the lack of language proficiency, accusations of sexual abuse and inadequate training to face challenges in the African context. On the other hand, China has participated in 17 UNPKOs in Africa, recently become proactive in its participation and its important missions include Congo, Liberia, Sudan and South Sudan. He stated that Chinese involvement has been criticized for lack of transparency, failure to uphold human rights standards in peacekeeping, resource extraction, use of PKO forces for its security interest in Africa and support for authoritarian regimes. Discussing the rationale for both countries, the Speaker assessed that while India contributes troops as a display of its solidarity with developing countries, to strengthen bilateral ties, and due to its aspiration for the high table among other factors; China’s involvement is due to its growing ambitions, security and economic interests, to safeguard  Chinese infrastructure constructions, showcase  its military capabilities and building of a positive reputation in Africa.

In the next section of his presentation, Dr. Rajeesh briefly discussed the voting responses of India and China on UNSCR related to UNPKOs in the timeframe of 1991-92, 2011-12 and 2012-22. Stating the voting responses in each year to the UNPKOs, the Speaker summarised that the voting patterns displayed the proactive and aggressive approach of both countries. Dr. Rajeesh concluded his presentation with the key highlights of his findings and offered a few policy suggestions. Identifying the similarities of Indian and Chinese approaches, he pointed out their shared common interests in promoting peace and stability in Africa, support for regional development activity as emerging powers and demonstration of their growing influence and leadership. He discussed that India and China differ in their motivations for participation in UNPKOs in Africa, approaches to engaging with local community, and in their voting patterns. Dr. Rajeesh suggested that local language constraints of Indian peacekeepers could be improved; specialized training could be increased; and use of modern technologies in African UPKOs can be promoted.

Ambassador T.S. Tirumurti (Former Permanent Representative of India to the UN, New York) complimented Dr. Rajeesh for a timely paper on an important topic detailed in an analytical manner and researched well, bringing out important points. He shared some of his observations such as - besides India’s world renowned professionalism and contribution to shaping UNPK policies, India has left a stamp on every peacekeeping activity including peacebuilding, recognising importance of technology in peacekeeping and strengthening the regime to prevent impunity attacks against peacekeepers. He expressed agreement with the presenter’s opinion that India views UN as a critical element of its global vision for peaceful coexistence and PKOs help shape a country’s image positively as a responsible international actor. Stating that most conflicts in Africa are rooted in colonial struggle, Ambassador Tirumurti underlined that India’s participation in UNPKOs in Africa is an expression of its solidarity with developing countries. Underscoring the importance of historical dimensions with multiple examples, he assessed that India’s focus on UNPKOs in the African continent came as a natural extension of the close defence links established since 1950s. This makes India different from China and altruism must not be forgotten in the world of realpolitik.

Commending the author’s perspectives on the evolution of Indian and Chinese peacekeeping, Ambassador Tirumurti shed light on some points of convergences and divergences between the two such as – on risks taken, India has professionally evaluated risks cautiously and deployed its peacekeeping troops in high risk theatres unlike China which is hesitant; on military strategic capabilities, while India has less reserve capability and a long logistic link from India to Africa, China has the largest standby force for peacekeeping with 8,000 troops and its logistics base in Djibouti is an advantage which is pertinent as the distance and time for decision making costs India a few deployment opportunities; on mandates, while both the countries are concerned about the increasingly robust mandates, India views it as a means to address issues  with the national defence forces while China sees it as an attempt to erode host state authority; both countries pushback against pressures from the West; on senior leadership, India has contributed leadership at all levels since the beginning unlike China; on engagement with local communities, while India is known for building good engagement, China is criticized for the lack of it.

Agreeing with the author’s observation that India has a more principled approach of neutrality to UNPK, Ambassador Tirumurti sounded a note of caution to the author on certain aspects stating that – the sources criticising training of Indian peacekeepers must be verified for their credibility; re-consider correlation drawn between China’s peacekeeping deployments and its economic interests with inclusion of substantive data and statistics to explain the nexus; criticisms on Chinese support for authoritarian regimes must be justified with valid examples; important to compare only those UNSCRs votes where both countries expressed views on the mandate of UNPKOs since abstentions are often related to non-peacekeeping factors; and policy point four given by the author must be re-checked as one must not confuse India’s economic interests with its peacekeeping interests. Additionally, Ambassador Tirumurti offered valuable suggestions for enhancing the paper such as – China’s financial contribution to UNPK could be explained with a chart and comparison with P5 to understand how China uses its financial clout to bring about changes in some UNPK appointments; comparison of how diversified the UNPK pledges of China are vis-à-vis India’s pledges; highlight India’s contributions such as Unite Aware Initiative; closely examine gender mix in Indian and Chinese troops and finally, enhancing women deployment in Indian peacekeeping troops could be included in the policy recommendations. The discussant concluded by acknowledging the author for bringing out a valuable paper.

The next external discussant, Professor Yeshi Choeden (CIPOD, SIS, Jawaharlal Nehru University) began by appreciating the author’s worthy attempt to study the topic. She conveyed that peacekeeping is the most visible form to exist on the international stage and focus on the African continent of 54 countries is valid since India and China as emerging countries require support. One way to establish relations is by participating in the UNPKOs. Professor Choeden provided inputs on how to improve the paper further. At the outset, she expressed her concern that the while the paper has a parallel discussion on India and China in UNPKOs, the policy recommendation only focused on India which raises a query on the utility of comparing with China. She suggested that policy suggestions could perhaps include some lessons to learn from China such as its efficient publicity of its peacekeeping involvement. Policy recommendations in the paper must emerge out of the comparison discussed in the paper and even the title could include the word ‘comparison’. Mentioning that the paper highlights China’s budget contribution, she cautioned that budget contribution cannot be compared with troop contribution since budget contribution is a legal obligation unlike troop contribution. Additionally, while India has a reputation of paying consistently on time, it could be researched whether China also pays the full amount in time and since China’s budget contribution is discussed, India’s budget contribution must also be included.

Professor Choeden opined that India’s standby forces commitment must be included similar to how China’s is discussed and, recommendations could emerge from this comparison. She stressed on the importance of comparing not just uniformed personnel but also the contribution of non-uniformed personnel such as police personnel and experts. She underlined that gender must be discussed in greater detail since it’s an important topic at the UN. Professor Choeden candidly expressed her views elucidating that Indian peacekeepers are known as ‘initial peace builders’ because of their involvement in humanitarian assistance to local communities unlike China and, that China’s contribution until recently was limited and specialized in logistical support which is not risky while India’s UNPK contribution includes all aspects. Reflecting on India’s contribution in mainstreaming gender in UNPKOs, she recommended that the policy inputs must highlight the need to repeat the deployment of an Indian women police unit similar to Liberia. She also pointed out the need to update some of the data mentioned in the paper. Professor Choeden concluded by commending the author’s good attempt and stressing on the need for added research before its publication.

The first internal discussant, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) (Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA) began with appreciating the paper. He shared his insights on the TCC data. For instance, the paper states that China is the highest TCC among the P5, however, the total troop contribution of the P5 is half of India’s troop contribution. He opined that the paper must distinctly note that although China ranks 10th in TCC, it is 10th by a very large margin from India. Another interesting facet in the TCC data, according to Maj. Gen. Bakshi, is that only one NATO country features in the top 30 TCCs, i.e. Italy ranked 24th. In this context, the Speaker underscored the importance of the location of troops and the type of troops contributed by the countries. Informing the audience about his own field experiences with regard to troops deployed in UNPKOs, he pointed out that the paper had mismatching figures in the tables and remarked on the need to re-check and update the data. Noting that the paper does not list the names of the Special Representative to the Secretary General (SRSG), military advisors and force commanders in the section on India’s leadership contribution to UNPKOs, he underscored that India’s military advisors in UNPKOs, the names of SRSGs and Deputy SRSGs need to be mentioned and, India’s helicopter deployments including type of troops must be included.

Maj. Gen. Bakshi emphasised that China’s initial contribution was only in logistical support which is a well secured area with no risks and zero contact with hostiles; unlike India which has its troops deployed in all arenas. He proposed that the paper would benefit to compare and contrast India and China’s UNPK involvement in the same missions in Africa. Recognising that peacekeepers and police officials are important in an UNPKO, he elucidated on the significance of teamsites and the critical role played by unarmed military observers. Vouching that the success of a mission depends on how teamsites function, Maj. Gen. Bakshi conveyed that while unarmed military observers are the eyes, ears and smile of the UN; the peacekeepers are the hidden teeth. He highlighted that Indian peacekeepers besides being praised for professionalism, a friendly approach and reliability in crises, are well known for complete impartiality, highly ethical approaches and innovative ways of handling issues. Reflecting further on this, Maj. Gen. Bakshi shared some personal anecdotes.

The Speaker opined that language skills may not be as important for troops who would anyway have the support of interpreters and since most African countries are Anglophone. Asserting that Indian peacekeepers having inadequate training is not a substantive statement, he said that “Peacekeeping is not a Soldier’s job, but only a Soldier can do it”. Maj. Gen. Bakshi suggested that the huge training footprint of India’s Centre for United Nations Peacekeeping (CUNPK) could be included. Expressing agreement with the recommendation on technology in peacekeeping, he reflected on the restrictions caused by budget. He concluded by commenting on the need to reconsider the issue of addressing economic interests mentioned by the author in policy recommendations.

Col. (Dr.) D.P.K Pillay (Retd.) (Research Fellow, Non-Traditional Security Centre, MP-IDSA) congratulated Dr. Rajeesh for bringing out a timely paper on a topic that has limited material available. Reflecting on the importance of the historical context and influence of India’s role as founding member of the League of Nations and the UN, Col. Pillay detailed an overview of India’s neutral assistance and troop contribution to the war in Korea headed by Lt.  Gen. K S Thimmaya, its troop contribution during the Suez Canal crisis and participation in Yugoslavia. Discussing India’s refusal to participate in the UN Missions in Timor-Leste and others based on its principled approach, he suggested that these dimensions could also be mentioned in the paper. Noting that China never participated in UN Missions initially, he reflected on the reasons that led China to eventually involve itself in UNPKOs such as its approach of “cannot rip them, join them” and the impact of the war in Korea. He pointed out that China does not contribute to UNPKO budget out of charity.

Mentioning examples of Chinese activities in Sudan, Mali and Congo, Col. Pillay underlined that China’s UNPK deployment and resource allocation must be elaborated in detail in the paper. He asserted that humanitarian cause does not drive China’s agenda and it is instead a low cost PR exercise. He assessed that India has failed to capitalise on its UNPK efforts despite having contributed much more than China, qualitatively and quantitatively. On policy suggestions, he opined that language skills training was not feasible and rather, unessential.  Stating that ‘India was earlier what Africa is today’ and African nations like Mozambique aspire to be like India, he discussed the various fields that India could offer insights to Africa including college construction in conflict-prone zones, healthcare and others. Expressing that the paper is good, he suggested that strands driving both the countries participation in UNPKO and the differences could be built coherently in the paper.

Internal discussant Ms. Ruchita Beri (Senior Research Associate & Centre Coordinator, ALACUN Centre, MP-IDSA) began her remarks by stating the importance of the topic. She expressed concern that the paper has missed discussing the security situation in the African continent. Stating that the continent is not a monolith and has 54 countries, she noted that UNPK in Africa is challenging since peacekeepers face a tough and complex security climate. She analysed that further to the reasons discussed by the author for India’s rationale for participation in UNPKOs in Africa, a key motivation was keeping peace, a clear foremost objective in India-Africa cooperation. Quoting Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech which underscored the commitment of India and Africa towards peace, she stressed that India’s UNPK interests in Africa are driven by its genuine desire of peace commitment & solidarity with people of Africa. Mentioning the ten guiding principles of India-Africa engagement, she emphasised on principle seven that states India’s support to UN in advancing peace in the African continent. Sharing that there are several statements by the Government of India (GOI) on this issue, she suggested that this could be incorporated into the paper.

Taking cognizance that India’s peacekeeping in Africa is exemplary as drawn out in the paper, Ms. Beri shed light on other important features of India’s peacekeeping in Africa such as promoting gender equality, reflecting solidarity and enhancing bilateral cooperation. She added that examples could be provided to substantiate how India’s UNPK effort has helped in promoting relations. Ms. Beri shared her observations on the policy recommendations provided by the author. On language skills, she highlighted that Africa has multiple languages and brought out the issue of limited language training facilities available in India to provide such training. On Indian peacekeepers not receiving adequate training, she underlined that the sources of such criticism, whether African or western, must be verified especially since India is at the forefront of training African peacekeepers and peacekeepers from abroad. She suggested that the perception of African countries about India as a security partner in terms of its role in UNPKOs could also be explored in the paper.

Next, Ms. Beri shared her observations on China’s involvement in UNPKOs in Africa stating that writings by Chinese scholars could be referred to which highlight China’s great power ambition as a rationale for its UNPK involvement. She shed light on factors driving China’s Africa policy such as contestation of Taiwan. She mentioned that reports of incidents indicating that China has tested its weapons through UNPK could also be included in the paper. Ms. Beri concluded by quoting Nelson Mandela’s “dream of an Africa which is in peace with itself” and conveyed that India is trying to help its African counterparts achieve this dream.

In the Q/A session, Ambassador Tirumurti underscored that language skills of peacekeepers is not a common sense issue on which a conclusion could be made but rather, it is important to consider what the UN requires. Stating that the UN mandates language proficiency as one of its criteria in UNPKOs, he asserted that the author’s policy suggestion is credible. Additionally, on the gender ratio of troops, he added that India must fulfill the percentage mandated by UN. Further, explaining that countries do not invest in conflict areas which is where peacekeeping forces are deployed, he stressed on the need to exercise caution before linking economic interest with peacekeeping and underlined the importance of data for such a connection. The UN Mission in Mali was also briefly discussed in the Q/A session.

Next, Dr. Kumar shared his remarks on the comments and inputs received. He acknowledged the discussants for their valid inputs adding that he would incorporate the same.

In the final leg of the seminar, the Chair Lt. Gen. Satish Nambiar candidly shared his insights and observations on the theme of the paper. He suggested reframing the paper title and argued that India does not necessarily gain from the Chinese experience. He substantiated his observation by sharing insights from his own experience as a UN First Force Commander who spearheaded military personnel from 34 countries. He asserted with multiple explanations that since India has been engaged in UNPKOs much longer than the Chinese, China could learn from India’s experience. In his remarks, Lt. Gen. Nambiar outlined the various significant contributions of CUNPK and suggested that these could be incorporated into the paper.  Assessing that India has participated in every UN Mission in Africa, he contended that the Chinese were not able to match India’s intense contribution and commitment to UNPK. He advised that the paper could address these issues as well. He emphasized the importance of data being correct and suggested that since the first Military Advisor at UN was an Indian, this could be included in the paper.

According to Lt. Gen. Nambiar, the focus of the paper ought to be what the Chinese can learn from India. On the issue of India’s aspiration for permanent membership in the UNSC, he remarked that it would never come about unless all P5 agree and all representing countries get together. He argued that the focus of India’s effort for reconstitution of the UNSC must be to ensure inclusion of one of the 54 countries from the African continent and one from among the 27 countries in South America. In his opinion, as far as India is concerned, other countries would fight our case provided India gets its economic act together along with strong bilateral relations. He also shed light on the hypocrisy of western nations who occupy top leadership positions in the UN Mission rather than deploying troops on ground; efforts to securitise climate change and the issue of funding. In his concluding points, Lt. Gen. Nambiar remarked that the Indian Peacekeeper has a tremendous record and the onus lies on everyone to ensure that this reputation is not sullied.

The Fellows’ Seminar concluded with brief remarks by Ms. Beri stating the importance of presenting a researcher’s viewpoints, significance of constructive criticism to improve the paper and note of acknowledgment to the external discussants.

Key Takeaways on the Paper

• An important, worthy and timely paper on a significant theme.
• India has adopted a principled approach emphasising on the United Nations (UN) Charter principles such as sovereignty, consent of parties and impartiality. On the other hand, China has adopted a principled (emphasising UN Charter principles) but selective approach (since it uses peacekeeping as a tool to wield influence).
• While India contributes troops as a display of its solidarity with developing countries, to strengthen bilateral ties, its aspiration for a high table among other factors; China’s involvement is due to its growing ambitions, security and economic interests, to safeguard Chinese infrastructure constructions, to showcase its military capabilities and building of a positive reputation in Africa.
• The similarities of Indian and Chinese approaches include their shared common interests in promoting peace and stability in Africa, support for regional development activity as emerging powers and demonstration of their growing influence and leadership. On the other hand, India and China differ in their motivations for participation in UNPKOs in Africa, approaches to engaging with local community, and in their voting patterns.
• The paper suggested that local language constraints of Indian peacekeepers could be improved; specialized training could be increased; and use of modern technologies in African UPKOs can be promoted.

Inputs by External Discussants

• Historical dimensions portraying India’s UNPK efforts in Africa as a natural extension of the close defence links established since 1950s, India’s tryst with UNPKOs and sacrifice of Indian peacekeepers could be included.
• Sources criticising training of Indian peacekeepers must be verified for their credibility.
• Correlation drawn between China’s peacekeeping deployments and its economic interests must be substantiated with data and statistics to explain the nexus.
• Criticisms on Chinese support for authoritarian regimes must be justified with valid examples.
• It is important to compare only those UNSCRs votes where both countries expressed views on the mandate of UNPKOs since abstentions are often related to non-peacekeeping factors.
• China’s financial contribution to UNPK could be explained with a chart and comparison with P5 to understand how China uses its financial clout to bring about changes in some UNPK appointments.
• The need to repeat and enhance women’s deployment in Indian peacekeeping troops could be included in the policy recommendations.
• Policy recommendations in the paper must emerge out of the comparison discussed in the paper.
• Since India has been engaged in UNPKOs much longer than the Chinese, perhaps the focus of the paper ought to be on what China could learn from India’s experience.
• The efforts of CUNPK and its significant contributions could be incorporated.

Inputs by Internal Discussants

• India’s military advisors in UNPKOs, the names of SRSGs and Deputy SRSGs, India’s helicopter deployments including type of troops and the critical role played by unarmed military observers must be included.
• The paper would benefit to compare and contrast India and China’s UNPK involvement in the same missions in Africa.
• The huge training footprint of India’s CUNPK could be included.
• The issue of addressing economic interests mentioned in the policy recommendations must be reconsidered.
• The historical context and influence of India’s role as founding member of the League of Nations and the UN could be discussed in the paper.
• China’s UNPK deployment and resource allocation must be elaborated in detail in the paper.
• The paper has missed discussing the security situation in the African continent.
• Other key motivations for India’s UNPK efforts in Africa as brought out by GOI statements, and other important features of India’s peacekeeping in Africa could be included.
• Examples could be provided to substantiate how India’s UNPK effort has helped in promoting bilateral relations.
• The perception of African countries on India as a security partner in terms of role in UNPKOs could also be explored in the paper.
• Writings by Chinese scholars on China’s UNPKO participation could be referred.

Comdt. M. Srivastava, Research Fellow, MP-IDSA, spoke on ”Coastal Security Construct: The Indian Way” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 13 February 2023. Capt Anurag Bisen, Research Fellow, MP-IDSA, was the moderator. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi, the Deputy Director-General, MP-IDSA, and scholars attended the meeting.

Executive Summary

The Mumbai blasts in 1993 and the 26/11 attacks of 2008 shaped India's coastal security contours. The emergence of coastal security construct dates back to 1990 in the aftermath of IPKF’s withdrawal from Sri Lanka with the commencement of Operation Tasha. Subsequently, post 26/11, Phases one and two of the Coastal Security Scheme (CSS) were initiated to strengthen the coastal security mechanism. Phase three is envisaged to be underway soon. However, India needs those involved in coastal security to constantly train, equip, exercise, and keep reinventing the wheel and incorporate the lessons learnt.

Detailed Report

Capt. Anurag Bisen set the stage by introducing the audience to coastal security with some facts. India has 7,516.6 kilometres of coastline running through nine states and four union territories. The territorial waters of India are 1,55,889 square kilometres, and the exclusive economic zone is 20,30,490 square kilometres, nearly 60% of the land area. There are over 3,000 coastal villages and 1,382 island territories, with more than 120 million people involved in fishing activities who use nearly half a million boats. India shares its maritime boundary with the same number of countries with which it shares land boundaries. 90% of India’s trade by volume and 70% by value is conducted through the coast. Moreover, 70% of energy requirements are also met through the coast.

The Government of India raised the Indian Coast Guard on the recommendations of the K.F. Rustamji Committee. It started with two frigates and five patrol boats. Today, the Indian Coast Guard is the fourth largest in the world. Capt. Bisen said that the most significant terrorist attacks India has faced have come from the sea, demonstrating the importance of coastal security. The Indian Navy proposed setting up a Maritime Security Advisory Board in 2005. The National Committee for Strengthening Maritime and Coastal Security (NCSMCS) was set up in 2009 under the cabinet secretary in light of the 26/11 attacks. The Group of Ministers (GoM) report in 2001 recommended setting up a maritime security committee at the apex level, which the Government finally established in 2022 as a National Maritime Security Coordinator (NMSC). Capt. Bisen finally remarked that neither maritime nor coastal security mechanisms had reached finalisation, and an impregnable maritime border remains a work in progress. He then introduced Comdt. M. Srivastava and requested him to make his presentation.

Comdt. M. Srivastava began by observing that two events which shaped India's coastal security contours are the Mumbai blasts in 1993 and the 26/11 attacks of 2008. In both cases, the sea route was used, as Capt. Bisen mentioned earlier.

India’s Maritime Stakes

Comdt. M. Srivastava started by highlighting India’s maritime stakes. About 26 crore of India’s population lives within 50 km of the coastline, which also has numerous vital areas and points. Shipping is still the world’s most efficient and economical means of transportation. India has twelve major ports and around 200 non-major ports. The major ports handled a cargo of nearly 530 Million Tonnes during April-December 2021, a jump of nearly 11% from 2020 during the same period. The non-major ports also saw a considerable increase in traffic from 2017 to 2021. India’s maritime agenda was first published in 2011, emphasising port capacity enhancement, developing port infrastructure, promoting coastal shipping, etc. Presently, India seeks a maritime-led economic growth through its maritime vision-2030, which is set to bring an investment of Rs. 3 lakh crore and create twenty lakh jobs. India is also proto-testing offshore wind energy farms with a target of 30 GW from offshore wind energy by 2030. It has kick-started its deep sea mission for rare earth elements in the Central Indian Ocean Basin. Policies such as Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR), Sagarmala and Project Mausam align with a maritime-led development. India’s economic growth is intricately intertwined with the seas, so its focus on a blue economy is inescapable.

However, Comdt. M. Srivastava opined that in the contemporary era of global political and economic interdependence, the sea routes are increasingly facing safety and security concerns as they are vulnerable to maritime terrorism, piracy, illegal activities, Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, smuggling of arms and ammunitions and natural disasters such as sea-level rise and cyclones.

Maritime Terrorism

There is a growing nexus between maritime crime and terrorism. The sea’s vast expanse, its unregulatory nature, blurred jurisdiction and stealth nature makes it a preferred medium for  terrorists. There are frequent seizures of arms, drugs and narcotics consignments at sea, which indicates a disturbing trend. The nexus between drug traffickers, terror organisations and their financing is dangerous. The definition of maritime terrorism as per the Council for Security Cooperation in Asia Pacific (CSCAP) and offences in the maritime domain as laid in the Convention for Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation or SUA convention 1988 (amended 2005) were highlighted.

India’s Coastal Security Construct

The emergence of coastal security can be traced back to 1990, post the de-induction of IPKF from Sri Lanka, a low-intensity maritime operation (LIMO), Operation Tasha, commenced in Palk Bay. It was the first coastal security mechanism construct involving multiple agencies, including state police and administration. This multi-layered concept of patrolling laid the foundations for coastal security in India. Subsequently, in 1993 the Mumbai blasts happened, for which the RDX was smuggled through the sea route. Operation Swan was initiated in September 1993 to prevent the transit of arms and ammunition along the coasts of Gujarat and Maharashtra, but there were challenges in terms of workforce, resources and intelligence inputs etc. Post Kargil conflict in 1999, the Kargil Review Committee (KRC) made recommendations to improve border management. A GoM was formed, which had a dedicated task force for border management. Its report came out in 2001 and is known as the GoM report 2001. Intelligence efforts also gained momentum to enhance coastal security by establishing a Multi-Agency Centre (MAC). The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) was also implemented to enhance port security. The Department of Border Management was formed under the MHA in 2004. The Cabinet Committee of Security (CCS) approved the first phase of the CSS. The CSS was based on the perspective plans made by the coastal states and Union Territories, which was implemented in 2005 for five years. The scheme consisted of setting up coastal police stations, outposts, checkposts, etc. However, while this was underway, the 26/11 attacks again exposed the vulnerability of the Indian coastline and compelled India to revamp its coastal security mechanisms. Various duties were assigned to the Indian Navy and Coast Guard, and a strong need for electronic surveillance was also felt. Phase one of the Coastal Surveillance Network (CSN) project was implemented from 2011 onwards, and 46 coastal surveillance radar and electro-optic sensors were established. The currently underway CSN phase two includes the installation of 38 additional radar stations with eight mobile surveillance systems. These will be integrated with vessel traffic management wsystems (VTMS) of the Gulfs of Kutch and Khambat. Once in place, this will lead to 109 surveillance radars along the coastline, i.e. one radar per 74 km. The CSN provides real-time surface surveillance up to 25 nautical miles, and post-CSN phase two, a near gap-free electronic surveillance, is envisaged. The Directorate General of Lighthouses and Lightships (DGLL) also established a National Automatic Identification System (AIS) chain by installing AIS sensors and associated equipment at 87 existing lighthouses. The DG shipping also implemented a Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) system in 2009 in accordance with IMO regulations. The National Command Control Communication and Intelligence (NC3I) network correlates the data received from both Naval and Coast Guard nodes and disseminates the information to the networked stations. The CSS phase two was implemented from 2011 onwards, emphasising the strengthening of marine police. The NCSMCS was constituted in 2009 under the Cabinet Secretary for apex-level coordination. Similarly, the Steering Committee for Review of Coastal Security (SCRCS) under the Secretary, Border Management in MHA was constituted in 2013. The state and district-level committees in coastal states and UTs to monitor, manage and steer coastal security issues have been constituted post the coastal security review meeting held in 2016. The Marine Police training at the National Academy of Coastal Policing (NACP) was established at Okha in 2018. The Indian Navy, Coast Guard and BSF form the core of this academy. Further, the newly approved National Maritime Domain Awareness (NMDA) project is likely to facilitate seamless synergy and coordination amongst the stakeholders.

Additionally, measures such as issuing Identity biometric cards for fisherpeople, colour coding of boats and online registration for fishing vessels have been implemented nationally to strengthen the mechanism. Exercises such as Sagar Kavach, Sajak and Sea Vigil are conducted periodically. Post 26/11, community groups were also formed in various states. The Indian Coast Guard has also introduced community interaction which has now graduated to community integration programmes. Comdt. Srivastava said that the coastal communities are considered eyes and ears and are an integral part of a coastal security construct.

Challenges flagged and deliberated by Comdt. Srivastava were as follows:

• Long inundated and porous coastline
• Suitable identification and tracking devices for small fishing boats at sea.
• Maritime boundary issues and disputes
• The diverse topography of India’s coastline compounds the coastal security challenges.
• Coastal security is also connected to external factors such as political turmoil, economic collapse, internal conflicts, illegal migration and climate change.
• Those involved in fisheries related crime and crime associated with fisheries, piracy and armed robbery at sea can easily be lured into terrorist activities. 
• Private Maritime Security Companies (PMSCs) and floating armouries at sea pose serious security concerns.
• Marine Police is still struggling with basic impediments, and its capabilities need to be strengthened further.
• Security of minor ports and fish landing centres remains a grey area with a need for electronic surveillance.
• There is also a need for more elaborate legal provisions and fisheries regulation.

Recommendations given by Comdt. Srivastava were as follows:

• Analyse the gap areas and finalise a plan of action for implementing CSS phase three.
• Coastal security exercises, joint training, tabletop exercises and workshops are to be conducted regularly.
• Improvement in the existing infrastructure, jetties and assets for marine police.
• Checkposts and CCTVs at fish landing sites should be placed for access control.
• The institutionalisation of entry and exit reporting by Indian Dhows.
• Monitoring of unauthorised settlements along the coastline.
• Empower the fisheries department with an adequate workforce, sanctions, and legal provisions.
• Empower Marine Police with interceptor boats, equipment and training.
• Improvement of fisheries monitoring control and surveillance.
• Countermeasures to underwater and ariel threats should be developed.
• A mechanism for space-based monitoring needs to be developed.

Comdt. M. Srivastava concluded his presentation by saying that coastal security is a multi-agency construct, and efficient coordination amongst stakeholders is imperative. The recently constituted NMSC is part of the NSCS, which will provide momentum to coastal security initiatives. Coastal security has undergone a significant overhaul post-26/11, and presently excellent support from all stakeholders is experienced. However, those involved in this construct must train, equip and exercise continuously and keep reinventing the wheel to incorporate the lessons learnt.

Comments 

Capt. Bisen thanked Comdt. Srivastava for providing a comprehensive overview of the coastal security construct, activities of the Coast Guard, an assessment of the challenges faced and his recommendations for them. Given the Capt’s experience of coastal security with the NSCS, he provoked the discussion by asking if we needed reform at higher level of coastal security construct. He also asked if there shouldn’t be a single force for a single border as recommended by the GoM. He then requested the Deputy Director General for his comments, concluding that MP-IDSA could work on this given the available expertise.

Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) thanked the Comdt. for his presentation and Capt. Bisen  for his remarks. He began by saying that this subject requires at least a day’s or a two-hour seminar. He asserted that there is a clear need for recommendations on inter-agency cooperation. The questions he raised were as follows:

• The NMSC is primarily an advisor to the NSA, so is it possible to knit all agencies together?
• Are UAVs used for surveillance?
• Why are we not seeing a large number of seizures by the state marine police forces if they are being improved?

To Capt. Bisen’s remarks, the Comdt. said that the Steering Committee discusses issues pertaining to coastal security with the stakeholders and initiates necessary steps to strengthen the coastal security mechanism. Further, the issues, and measures to strengthen the CS construct are deliberated at NCSMCS, which is the apex body and where all the concerned stakeholders are present. Therefore, the needed reforms at higher levels are in place and much so after the recent appointment of NMSC. He then assured that all the government agencies are working day and night in any given condition towards a robust coastal security mechanism. He further explained in detail about the inherent security challenges and differences between land and security at sea. At sea, there is a blurred jurisdiction, with a different set of rules, legal provisions and jurisdiction in various zones such as territorial water, contiguous zones and EEZ. He then explained the advantages and necessity of a multi-agency mechanism. He added that unlike the US after 9/11, which merged stakeholders to form the Department of Homeland Security, India rightly preferred to go ahead with a multi-layered system as India faces a set of challenges at sea which are quite different from the US or Europe.

Comdt. Srivastava agreed with Maj. Gen. Bakshi that this subject needs at least a one-day seminar. In response to the latter’s questions, he affirmed that the Indian Navy provides training for ICG personnel at Naval training establishments, and there is a seamless synergy between IN and ICG. He flagged that identification devices such as transponders for sub 20 mt. boats are also being developed. He stressed that, however, along with technology, there will always be a need for physical presence at sea. The physical presence of ships and aircraft has no substitute and is imperative. Their efforts, however, must be supplemented by the use of technology. He briefly explained the current maritime domain awareness system and touched upon space-based monitoring. He emphasised that a holistic analysis and review of existing CS construct can be undertaken to identify the gaps that could be addressed in the CSS phase three. The Comdt. stated that marine police must be trained and equipped to meet their potential. The academy at Okha will provide suitable training and enhance their capability and seagoing skills. Various states are also taking administrative steps for cadre management, which will improve their operational capabilities. 

Ms. Sultana raised questions about environmental security along the coast.The Comdt. responded by stating how the Coast Guard helps the fisherpeople during natural disasters and takes measures to curb marine pollution. He highlighted that ICG conducts coastal clean-up exercises, which are widely acknowledged. Studies on climate change and challenges due to sea level rise or increased frequency of cyclones or more intense storms are also underway by various agencies. The ICG emphasises the concern for the marine environment and oil pollution at sea and undertakes operations to protect marine species such as the endangered Olive Ridley turtle.

In response to the queries of Mr. Oak and Dr. Sanur Sharma on an indigenous navigation and monitoring system, Comdt. M. Srivastava briefly stated that measures are in place, and scientific organisations are working on enhancing our space-based monitoring and surveillance capacity and capabilities.

Capt. Bisen thanked Comdt. M. Srivastava, wished everyone an exciting week ahead and concluded the meeting.

Report was prepared by Mr. Nikhil Guvvadi, Intern, Counter-Terrorism Centre.

Col. Manish Rana, SM, Research Fellow, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), spoke on “Capability Development Challenges in Indian Army” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 27 February 2023. The session was moderated by Col. Rajneesh Singh (Retd.), Research Fellow. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, and scholars of the Institute were in attendance.

Executive Summary

Capability development which is defined as a continuous process involving various stakeholders such as military planners, policymakers, procurement agencies, and industry planners holds great significance in the military domain, particularly in the context of the Indian Army's proposed acquisition of a Closed Quarter Combat (CQB) Carbine. However, impediments in the planning process and long-drawn procurement processes hamper capability development. Further, the missing collaboration and coordination among various stakeholders leads to lack of environment management and trust amongst multiple stakeholders.

The case study of CQB Carbine highlights the delays and challenges faced in its procurement due to environmental factors like a decade of defence procurement scam overdose, changes in defence procurement systems, and stakeholders' conflicting priorities. In this context, it is imperative to highlight the importance of effective collaboration and coordination among stakeholders and trust-building to expedite capability development.

Detailed Report

Colonel Rajneesh, Research Fellow, opened the session by bringing out the issues related to capability development and the budget availability for procuring new equipment for the Armed Forces. He brought out the dilemma of reduction of manpower to optimise the budget vis a vis higher allocations to Armed Forces. He also suggested alternatives like changes in doctrine, recruitment and retention, modernisation and operational responsibilities. He then  handed over the floor to the speaker, Colonel Manish Rana, Research Fellow.

First and foremost, the speaker defined capability development as the process of acquiring and improving the Military's capabilities to achieve strategic objectives. It involves the identification of needs and developing strategies to meet them, ultimately resulting in the acquisition and development of new technologies, weapons systems and training programs. It was emphasised that capability development is a continuous process that can only be accomplished over a period of time. Colonel Rana observed that capability development involves a range of stakeholders, such as military planners, policymakers, procurement agencies and industry planners.

A glance at numerous write-ups on the subject suggests a shortage of funds, non-availability of indigenous capabilities, flaws in the planning process and long-drawn procurement processes are significant challenges to capability development in the Military domain. However, what needs to be more present in the academic research domain is the missing collaboration and coordination amongst various stakeholders leading to non-tangible issues of lack of environment management and trust amongst multiple stakeholders. While structurally and intent-wise, all these stakeholders are brought together to ensure the desired capability is acquired in the most efficient and time-bound manner, in practice, these stakeholders have different, at times conflicting, priorities. There needs to be effective collaboration and coordination among these stakeholders. Especially for the Armed Forces management, not used to an organisational culture based on negotiation and compromise, the environment for executing capability development becomes challenging.

The speaker highlighted his assessment of capacity building through a case study, the proposed acquisition of a Closed Quarter Combat (CQB) Carbine for the Indian Army. A CQB Carbine has an effective range of around 200 metres. It is lightweight, manoeuvrable and has a high rate of fire while having less recoil. These attributes make a CQB Carbine ideal for close combat, such as urban warfare and counterinsurgency operations in dense jungles. They would go a long way to enhance the Army's capabilities. Indian Army used World War II vintage 9 mm SMG for close-quarter battle needs until the early 2000s. Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) produced the weapon, and production stopped in the early 2000s as the same was declared obsolete.

The INSAS program started in the 80s, in which modern assault rifles, light machine guns and CQB Carbine were to be developed indigenously and inducted into the Indian Army. Colonel Manish noted that India used to manufacture WW II vintage CQB Carbines at its ordinance factories until it was declared obsolete in the 1990s. When the INSAS family of weapons were introduced, the Carbine was not found suitable, and the search for a better alternative took off.

Despite knowing in 2000 that INSAS Carbine was not suiting the bill, the Request for Proposal for a fresh weapon was only initiated in 2008. Eight to ten years to initiate a case for a personal weapon is by no standards acceptable. Furthermore, the case could not be progressed as the Services Qualitative Requirements worked out were found to be too ambitious. One needs to look at the environmental realities of that time to understand why such a simple thing took so much time to get initiated. Firstly, it is obvious that despite the INSAS Carbine being found unsuitable, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) would have tried its best to continue pushing for its induction as a lot of time and money would have been invested in the program. The go-ahead for a separate procurement would only have come after DRDO efforts to continue would have convincingly exhausted. Secondly, the time being talked of coincides with an era of defence procurement scam overdose. The memory of the Kargil coffin scam, Tehelka scam and Scorpene deal scam even today gives goosebumps to people involved in defence procurement, what to say the paralysis they would have brought into the system at that time. Thirdly, the decade of 2000 to 2010 also is remembered for large-scale changes in the Defence procurement system. The Defence Procurement Procedure manual was first introduced in 2002 and underwent numerous amendments in 2005, 2006 and 2008. It is evident that the decade lost in progressing procurement of CQB Carbine (2000- 2010) was indeed a challenging decade for defence procurements in general. Hence, more than anything else, what delayed the CQB Carbines' induction in this decade was attributable primarily to environmental factors.

In 2010, a fresh Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued for the weapon. Trials took place from 2011-14, but the case hit another wall when one of the two vendors competing for the project failed the trials due to a minor issue. Therefore only a single vendor remained. Owing to the scam hangover of the previous decade, the officials were unenthusiastic about progressing with it due to the scrutiny that it may have generated due to a single vendor, and the case was stopped. This highlights the resistance amongst stakeholders to manage environmental issues and the need for more trust.

In 2014, the honourable Defence Minister directed that considering the operational necessity of the weapon, the Defence Ministry would opt for the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route from the US. Despite the Defence Minister himself taking a strong stand on the issue, the case did not progress. In 2018, a fast-track process was initiated. In this option, a weapon currently in use in another armed force can be inducted without extensive trials. Caracal, a UAE-based arms manufacturer, was chosen as the supplier, and the contract was planned to be signed in 2019, and weapons were to be delivered by 2020. However, it was again cancelled due to issues not being in the open domain, highlighting a lack of trust. One can presume that environmental factors again influenced the case. Two significant factors that could have affected the decision may be the coming of age of indigenous industry and DRDO. Indian industry, which had so far been more or less a silent spectator in the case, had started acquiring certain capabilities and, combined with the clarion call for Atmanirbhar Bharat by our Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, had got adequately vitalised to start raising the ante for indigenous procurement of CQB Carbine. DRDO also, after improving its earlier versions, started production of a Carbine, which had started getting inducted into paramilitary forces in some quantities. The speaker observed that the opacity in such procedures, as highlighted above, leads to the propagation of conspiracy theories which is not in the interest of establishment.

A fresh RFP has now been issued in 2022, and the chase for a CBQ Carbine continues, about four decades after the need for it was felt. The speaker highlighted that in capability development, more often than not, circumstances arise wherein the procurements get unduly delayed, and there seem to be no apparent reasons. As per him, the main challenge is managing environmental issues and building trust amongst various stakeholders to avoid such a situation. He highlighted that the issue, being intangible, finds little discussion in the academic field. In the end, he suggested using the Systems approach and study of Organisational Culture to avoid the recurrence of such issues in defence procurement to assist capability development.

Q&A Session

The floor was opened for questions and comments, wherein scholars from the Institute, including the Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), contributed to the discussion. He noted that the bureaucracy's insistence on following the book helps avoid misuse of authority but may delay the induction of critical capabilities in the Armed Forces. Colonel Rajneesh in his closing remarks highlighted the importance of both tangible and intangible aspects involved in the capability development process and thanked the speaker for an enlightening talk covering the complexities of procurement procedures.

Report prepared by Mr. Aayush Maniktalia, Intern, Defence Economics & Industry Centre, MP-IDSA.