EVENTS

You are here

Events

Title Date Author Time Event Body Research Area Topics File attachments Image
Report of Monday Morning Meeting on “Political Instability in Sri Lanka” April 11, 2022 1000 hrs Monday Morning Meeting

The Monday morning meeting on “Political Instability in Sri Lanka” was held on 11 April 2022 at 10 AM in Seminar Hall I, Second Floor. Associate Fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), Dr. Gulbin Sultana spoke on the subject and elaborated on the causes and implications of the crisis in Sri Lanka. The session was chaired by Dr. Anand Kumar, Associate Fellow South Asia Centre, MP-IDSA. Director-General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy and Deputy Director-General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi shared their views. Coordinator South Asia Centre, Dr. Ashok K. Behuria also shared his views on the topic.

Executive Summary

Sri Lanka has been passing through a serious economic crisis that has also led to political uncertainty in the island nation. There have been peaceful protests for days and the protestors blame President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his government for the economic crisis and want him to go. Though the crisis continues and some countries have offered help, that doesn’t seem enough. Assessing the gravity of the situation, India has offered timely help of US$ 2.4 billion, although it has avoided commenting on the political crisis as it is Sri Lanka’s internal matter. The overall situation remains volatile and uncertain.  

Detailed Report

Dr. Gulbin Sultana started her presentation by saying that political instability in Sri Lanka has been caused by the economic crisis in the country. In the latest major political development, the whole Cabinet except the Prime Minister resigned with immediate effect late on Sunday night (3 April). Most of the Ministries since then are being run by Secretaries. The country has had no Finance Secretary for some time.

Dr. Sultana said that the people of Sri Lanka believe that the economic crisis was caused by incompetence of the Gotabaya Rajapaksa Government. Sri Lanka was mired in various crises like health crisis, farmers’ protests, amongst others for a long time. However, the major breaking point was an 8-9 hour long power cut on 30 March, after which people from a wide spectrum of society hit the roads. They started protesting against the government in various parts of the country. In the last week of March there were protests outside the President’s House which were condemned by the President saying that extremists were behind these protests. He, in fact, declared an emergency. However, people defied the emergency and curfew and came in large numbers on the streets from 2 April onward, demanding the resignation of the President. They also demanded a change in the political system in the country.

Apparently, it was the scale and nature of the protests across the country that forced the Ministers to resign on 3 April. Once the Cabinet resigned, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa appointed four new Cabinet Ministers on 4 April. The President then proposed the formation of an interim government with the opposition, which was an earlier demand of the 11 coalition partners of the ruling party. The opposition refused the offer.

Dr. Sultana said that the protests were widespread and not led by any political parties; the protesters came from all walks of life and appeared united. They included every ethnicity, class and professionals and therefore such protests were unprecedented.  

The opposition and the coalition partners (41 in number) who have decided to sit as independents in the parliament, are neither united nor consistent in their demands. The opposition agreed to the formation of an interim government but on certain conditions, which include: one, that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa would have to resign and two, no more than two of the Rajapaksas would be there in the interim government.  

Meanwhile, while debating the issues in parliament on 5 and 6 April, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) led ruling alliance asked that if the President resigns, what plan does the opposition have to deal with the situation. At the same time, the opposition seems to have realised that if it was unable to deal with the situation, it may also be blamed for the crisis. The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the other 11 coalition partners of the government have proposed the formation of the national executive council.

The main opposition is also saying that if the President decided not to resign, it would bring a no-confidence motion against the President. Several political parties have said that they would support a no-confidence motion against the government. There are a total of 225 members in parliament out of which the government had the support of 156 members. Out of that, 41 have withdrawn their support and are sitting as independent members. At the moment, the government has only 114 seats. However, though the government enjoys a simple majority at the moment, the opposition is not sure how many would vote in its support. What happens next will be known only on 19 April when parliament meets. The overall situation, according to Dr. Sultana, is dynamic and unfolding with new developments taking place.

Dr. Sultana stated that a few factors that need to be taken note of include: First, with regard to the protests, despite them being widespread, united and peaceful so far, it is not clear how sustainable they are going to be. Especially when the President has made it clear that he is not going to resign. Second, the role of SLFP is going to be important. Will the party support the government or will it decide to join the opposition needs to be seen. Third, the issue of legitimacy is important. Some people in Sri Lanka say that the problem is with the Presidential form of government in the country, not only with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Therefore, perhaps the political system needs to be changed in order to address the issues. However, the change needs to be constitutional.

There are some issues with these demands. Even if the President resigns, any interim government cannot continue for too long. That is a problem especially because new elections will cost money and it is a difficult proposition at a time when the economy is doing badly and even foreign reserves of the country have come down to $1.9 billion in the month of March. The newly appointed Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka has said that he has already tightened the country’s monetary policy. The country is also mulling over whether to go to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for bail out packages. The Governor has said that it would take 8- months to bring about some kind of stability in the economy.

Given all these factors, Dr. Sultana concluded that it is difficult to predict how the political and economic crises in Sri Lanka are going to unfold in the coming days. 

Discussion

The Director General, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy in his remarks started by pointing out that it is not a good sign for India to have two of its neighbouring countries, Sri Lanka and Pakistan facing political crises. Ambassador Chinoy said that any kind of turmoil in our neighbourhood essentially spells trouble for India. India must pose broad questions- whether such turmoil pushes Sri Lanka closer to China? Will they now rethink and open up to other possibilities other than China? Other than India? Will they also welcome the Millennium Challenge Corporation of the US? Or will it be viewed with the same kind of suspicion as it was seen as a zero-sum game or something that is a tactic against China or in more neutral terms, Ambassador Chinoy added.

Ambassador Chinoy said that to focus merely on political structure, like a change in the presidential system is like jumping out of a frying pan into the fire because in case of Sri Lanka no matter who is brought in, it is going to be an acolyte of the Rajapaksa family. That doesn’t address their fundamental issue which remains the economy.

Ambassador Chinoy said that there are three main prongs in the Sri Lankan economy. One, tourism which has dried up because of the COVID Pandemic. Instead of earning money, Colombo is spending money on stranded tourists in the country, especially from Russia and Ukraine. Second, because of the pandemic, remittances have dried up. This is important because Sri Lanka relies on remittances a lot. Third is the agriculture sector in which the country seems to have made some fundamental mistakes by putting bans on some fertilizers and is trying to form some half-baked notion of organic farming because agriculture has spiralled into a non-performing sector. The country can’t grow food for the country’s population, let alone for exports. Fourth is the undue reliance on external commercial borrowings to fuel the infrastructure spree. In this case borrowing from China and then unable to service the usurious rates of interest which puts Sri Lanka in debt, to the extent that the country has interest payments to the tune of $7.28 billion/year, an amount impossible for the country to pay. The only option here, Ambassador Chinoy pointed out, seems to be to turn to a country like India. India is doing what it can. India also has to make sure that it can’t open up too much just because the neighbouring country is in trouble. There have to be some conditionalities that India will also attach. There were some issues that troubled India. Some decisions taken by Sri Lanka were unfair in India’s view. There must be a review on all those matters.

But more broadly speaking Sri Lanka is turning to the IMF which raises some questions, Amb. Chinoy pointed out. Sri Lanka has been under scrutiny from the West on account of alleged war crimes and so-called human rights violations. Pressure on these matters is likely to increase if the country goes to the IMF because conditionalities that they attach for lending loans, like democracy, transparency, good governance, human rights, etc. will reflect those very same interests that had earlier tried to put Sri Lanka on the mat.   

Dr. Gulbin Sultana agreed with the issues raised by the Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy. She said that the option of the interim government that was being discussed, if it comes about, would only be for a short period of time. What happens after that? The main problem is how to deal with the economic crisis? The Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka has said that it would take 6-9 months to achieve some kind of economic stability. That means even if the new government is formed, it would have very little time to address various issues. But people are demanding change in the political system because they think the system has failed to address the issues.  On remittances, Dr. Sultana said that Sri Lankan expatriates are also protesting in many countries and they have said that they would not remit dollars to Sri Lanka until and unless the current government resigns. As far as undue commercial borrowing is concerned, it is a major problem but it seems that Sri Lanka doesn’t have much of an option but to go for loans. Though India is helping, how much assistance can it provide? Given the amount that Sri Lanka needs, one or two countries can’t help. Dr. Sultana said that some people say China was not as proactive as expected. But it would be wrong to say that Sri Lanka would move away from China. Finally, Sri Lanka is going to the IMF for help which is criticised by some sections in the country, as it would come with many conditionalities.  

Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi said that one needs to follow the crises in the two neighbouring countries carefully. Some observers are raising a question that there is a possibility of interference from the US. Both the countries are facing economic crises and have huge foreign debts because of mismanagement of the economy. Has the situation been engineered in a manner so as to create political instability is a question that needs to be looked into? Both countries have seen some unprecedented political developments. In this backdrop, how should India respond? Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bakshi said that if Beijing was to play an active role by helping Sri Lanka that would push it further into a debt-trap. One needs to find ways so that India can establish long term economic relations with Sri Lanka while keeping China at bay. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bakshi said that the idea of imposing organic farming without proper data and any trial is a function of a centralised decision making system. Power in Sri Lanka is centralised in one individual which may not be good for the nation.

Dr. Ashok K Behuria said that the issue of the executive presidency has been there for a long time in Sri Lanka. They have been trying to remove it, though that necessarily may not address the situation on the ground. The concentration of power in one person is proving detrimental for the country. As far as India's role is concerned, Dr. Behuria said that India has its limitations. India cannot pump in millions of dollars every year into the Sri Lankan economy to bring it out of crisis. At the same time, over the last 10 years, India’s influence in Sri Lanka has decreased. Other countries are securing their interests in Sri Lanka. India needs to look after its interests and act accordingly in the current situation. On the ethnic issue, Dr. Behuria said that India can join the international community and persuade the Government in Sri Lanka to go soft on the Tamil minority. But at the same time, it shouldn’t come at the cost of India’s reputation and influence. Some in Sri Lanka are mulling over bringing about a no-confidence motion against the present government. That would not remove the President, as according to the constitution, that would require 2/3rd majority in the parliament, Dr. Behuria added.  

Ms. Mayuri Banerjee asked that given the political instability in Sri Lanka, is it going to create a refugee crisis. If that is directed at India, how would India resist its interference?

Dr. Gulbin Sultana responded by saying that some people have come to India but only a few. Due to the conflict in Sri Lanka, people from Sri Lanka have come to India in the past as well. But it may not be like the situation in the 1980s when thousands came to India. But in any case if it happens, that would be a major crisis.

Ms. Saman Ayesah Kidwai asked whether the political and economic crisis in Sri Lanka is going to create a political vacuum that can be over taken by non-state actors. Is there a possibility of an armed conflict? 

Dr. Gulbin Sultana in response stated that Sri Lanka has been caught in armed conflicts for a long time. However, the current protests are unprecedented as they include every ethnicity and class. In fact the protests and the government response have united them. However, the ethnic problem remains unresolved. It can crop up again anytime.      

The report was prepared by Dr. Nazir Ahmad Mir, Research Assistant, MP-IDSA.

South Asia Sri Lanka, Financial Crisis
Report of Monday Morning Webinar on “The Ukraine Crisis” February 28, 2022 Monday Morning Meeting

Dr. Swasti Rao, Associate Fellow, Europe and Eurasia CentreMP-IDSA spoke on the topic “The Ukraine Crisis” at the Monday Morning Webinar held on 28 February 2022. The webinar was moderated by Col. Deepak Kumar, Research Fellow, Centre Coordinator, Europe and Eurasia Centre, MP-IDSA. 

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) Deputy Director General MP-IDSA, the panellists, scholars and members of the Institute participated in the webinar.

Executive Summary

The recent crisis unfolding in Ukraine has shaken the international arena, with Russian military might being displayed across the border with Ukraine. There has been strong and quick reactions from the West and Europe against Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO). Though the conflict continues, the Russian incursion into Kyiv and the Western responses through sanctions and military aid will have major impact on the global world order. The debates regarding the Russian game plan and the Ukrainian resistance to preserve their national sovereignty have been reverberating across the globe. The discussion of a probable peace plan does provide hope for a solution to the conflict.

Detailed Report

The Monday morning Webinar began with Col. Deepak Kumar, the moderator referring to troops’ amassment by Russia across the Ukrainian border since 2021. After months of military build-up, Russia invaded its Soviet neighbor from various fronts. The military operation signifies the failure of diplomatic efforts like the Normandy Format and has trigged the greatest security crisis in Europe since the Cold War. It has led to a dangerous escalation between NATO and Russia. Various questions were highlighted by the moderator ranging from sanctions on Russia, regime change to deliberating upon the Chinese game plan and the delicate balancing act of India.

Dr. Swasti Rao, the speaker, began her presentation with a detailed description of the two heads of states involved in the crisis. The speaker provided the background information of the conflict, including amassment of troops and Russia’s recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions just before the Special Military Operation (SMO) was announced by Russia on 24 February 2022. She provided an update on the current crisis including the situation in Kharkov and Kyiv. Peace talks proposed by Vladimir Putin were supposed to be held in Minsk but were rejected by Volodymyr Zelensky. However, an agreement was reached by both heads of states to have peace talks on the Belarus border.

She highlighted that Putin stated that the objectives of the SMO are Demilitarization and Denazification of Ukraine. This might also include a regime change and establishing a pro-Russian leader in power similar to Belarusian leadership. She suggested that there could be a division of Ukraine into two parts separating the East and the West along the River Dnieper. According to the speaker, the objective of Russia tightening the noose around Kyiv is not to capture the city but to pressurize Zelensky to either flee or surrender or to give in to Russian demands.

Putin’s plan for Ukraine could be summarised as the three ‘D’s-Division, Demilitarisation and Denazification. While division of Ukraine may or may not be on the cards, but Putin definitely wants to demilitarise Ukraine as the West has been pumping defence aid and weaponry into the country since 2014. The speaker explained that Putin uses Denazification, both as a euphemism for any Pro-West forces within Ukraine and to designate an array of neo- Nazi groups in Ukraine that have been at the forefront of receiving military training from the West after the Annexation of Crimea in 2014 and have also been instrumental in fighting the Russian backed separatists in the Donbass region.

The speaker then highlighted the apparent loopholes in Putin's plan. Even in the initial days of the SMO, there seems to be a sense of frustration concerning Russia’s military advancement in Ukraine, mainly due to the rapid rise in costs owing to delays caused by strong Ukrainian resistance. There also seems to be a failure on the part of the Russians to gain air dominance. The pro-Russian sentiment seems to be misjudged by Putin because present-day Ukraine seems different from the Ukraine of 2014.

The delays are providing leverage to the West and Ukraine. New weaponry is coming from the West through Poland. The United States has approved an extra $350 million in aid and the European Union has announced funding the Ukraine military including purchases and delivery of weapons worth 500 million euros. Germany has made a historic change in its post-war weapons policy. The West, in a coordinated manner, has imposed hard-hitting sanctions on Russia including cutting targeted Russian banks off the SWIFT transaction system.

Putin, on the other hand seems to be upping the ante of tough posturing against NATO and its allies. He recently gave directions to Russia’s Defence Minister to keep Russia’s nuclear weapons on alert. Belarus, a key Russian ally, has revoked its non-nuclear status and has allowed Russia to keep nuclear weapons within Belarusian territory.

The speaker then highlighted that Putin does not regard Ukraine as a separate sovereign country. He sees Kyiv as the cradle of Russian civilization and asserts the close cultural proximity that the two countries share.  Putin has time and again stated that the breakup of USSR was an unfortunate accident of history. His recent speeches have invoked the past glory of the Russian Empire. He dismisses the post-war and cold war map of Europe. He does not believe in the sovereignty of most of the East European states, particularly the erstwhile Soviet states and specially Ukraine. While Putin’s official stand remains seeking guarantees for Ukraine’s neutrality and against NATO’s eastward expansion, his misgivings about Ukraine’s sovereignty hinges from a different narrative of the glory of the Russian empire.  However, Putin’s rationale for launching the SMO is a pushback against NATO’s eastward expansion that he saw threatening to Russian security.

The speaker then focused on NATO’s eastward expansion that started in the 1990s.  She stated that the problem began from Czech Republic (an erstwhile Warsaw Pact member) joining NATO in 1999. This was followed by other erstwhile members of the Warsaw pact like Hungary and Poland joining the NATO.  The major jolt came in 2004 when the three Baltic States (that were erstwhile Soviet states) joined NATO. This eastward expansion continued until 2020 with North Macedonia in the Balkans being the last country in East Europe to join the NATO.

The speaker then discussed the inconsistencies within the argument that Russia’s SMO is a reaction against NATO's further Eastward Expansion with Ukraine becoming a likely member. Ukraine had applied to join NATO in 2008 in the backdrop of Russia’s operations in Georgia. However, its request was rejected by the NATO then. Ukraine would not have been able to join the NATO after 2014 as the NATO does not accept members with disputed borders.

In the 1990s, NATO- Russia relations seemed to be in the positive space and Russia had joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace Programme. In 1997, the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed.  In 1991, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council was set up. In 2002, the NATO- Russia Council was set up which held its last meeting just a few days before the SMO was launched on 24 February 2022.

The speaker mentioned the Visegrad group formed in the 1990s comprising Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungry which pushed for greater cooperation with Europe and later, after the division within Czechoslovakia, both Czechia and Slovakia became part of the Visegrad group that pushed for NATO’s membership, eventually joining the NATO in 1997.

The speaker also deconstructed the big jolt that came with the Baltic States joining NATO in 2004. She highlighted that Russia and Lithuania had an unstable border in 1998 which was settled with Russian assistance. Russia formed the Commonwealth of Independent States in order to lure the East European countries to remain under the Russian influence, which the Baltic States refused to join. She also mentioned the GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova) group which was formed by smaller East European countries to have more bargaining power against Russia. The bottom line, according to the speaker, is that it is the East European countries themselves which have been trying to join the NATO worried for their security concerns at the hands of Russia and not the other way round as Russia would like to project it.

The speaker then elaborated on sanctions especially the unprecedented SWIFT sanctions imposed on Russia’s Central Bank that is likely to offset the safety valve effect of Russia’s large foreign reserves.  Russia has the fourth largest foreign reserves in the world but cutting off the Central bank from Swift transaction system would mean Russia will not be able to access almost half of the foreign reserves that are held overseas.  As a result, the Central Bank of Russia would not be able to intervene with required capital and financial controls to stabilise the devaluation of ruble and control inflation. The sanctions are not likely to deter Putin but are aimed at bleeding the Russian economy in the long run.

The speaker also highlighted the limitation of China’s ability to support Russia. While China will buy more gas from Russia but even that will come with riders. The current pipelines from Siberia that are taking gas into China are already working at their optimum capacity and sending more gas to China would mean readying more pipelines that will at take at least three years. The Chinese are also known to demand cheaper prices from Russia which would not be to Russia’s advantage. Two major Chinese banks have also put restrictions on Russian transactions for the fear of secondary sanctions by the West. What this means is that while China would like to help Russia against the West but at the same time China is not willing to jeopardize its own embedded supply chains in the world and specially its large trade with the US and the EU.

The speaker concluded by highlighting the responses from Europe. She described that the Russian SMO against Ukraine has made non- NATO European states worry for their safety. Kosovo has requested a permanent US military base and a NATO membership. Germany is not only supporting sanctions and has halted the certification of the Nord Steam-2 but it also announced a special defence budget and it has been stated that its defence budget will be raised by 2 percent every year. Sweden and Finland are worried and arming their islands in the Baltic Sea and the public opinion in these two is swinging in the favour of joining NATO for the first time after the end of the Cold War.

Questions and Comments

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA commended the speaker for a detailed presentation. He stated that the resistance from the Ukrainian forces is not unexpected. Minsk II Agreement also failed partly because there was no consensus on the two breakaway provinces and the role of the parties involved. Regarding Zelensky’s decision to not flee, he drew parallels with Ashraf Ghani fleeing Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover. He said that Regime changes do not work and that they are doomed to failure. Changes have to be organic and a generic product from the contending forces. He further said that neutrality is a fig leaf and hypocritical in the context of Sweden and Finland.  In Germany’s case, one has to take note of the increased defence budget and flip over in providing some hard core defence hardware. Sanctions do not work beyond a point as evident in the case of Iran. He concluded his remarks by stating that the Chinese would try to seek advantages from both parties.

Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA said that this is one of the most significant events of the century so far. We are moving through a rapidly changing geostrategic landscape. There is an emergence of EU powers moving away from the US and United Kingdom’s way of thinking. There is a re-emergence of World War II allies (AUKUS) and the US and UK are always apprehensive of seeing any other power dominating Europe. The continued relevance of hard power emerges as a key element of state power. The importance of nuclear deterrence emerges and deterrence of conventional forces has also come up.

The question, he said, is about India's stand. Can we sustain this position which we have taken by abstaining from the vote and not condemning Russia, if the war continues and civilian causalities mount including Indian civilians?

Dr. Swasti Rao, the speaker, gave detailed and insightful replies in response to comments and questions received from the panellists and participants.

Report prepared by Mr. Jason Wahlang, Research Analyst, Europe and Eurasia Centre, MP-IDSA.

Europe and Eurasia Russia-Ukraine Relations, Ukraine
Report of Monday Morning Webinar on “India’s Recently Enunciated Arctic Policy: An Assessment” April 04, 2022 Monday Morning Meeting

Capt. Anurag Bisen (Indian Navy) spoke on “India’s Recently Enunciated Arctic Policy: An Assessment” at the Monday Morning Webinar held on April 4, 2022. The webinar was chaired by Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha, Centre Coordinator, Non-Traditional Security Centre. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi, Deputy Director General, Centre members and scholars attended the webinar.

Executive Summary

India released its official Arctic Policy Document which highlights that India’s interests in the region are scientific, environmental, commercial and strategic. It is for this reason that India’s engagement with the Arctic region over the decades has been consistent and multi-dimensional. This policy document sets a clear roadmap for India’s holistic engagement in the region.

Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha gave a brief overview of India’s Arctic Policy that was released by the Ministry of Earth Sciences on March 17, 2022. He highlighted that the process of policymaking in India is witnessing a new and enlightened trend that includes having public discussion and taking inputs. Making a reference to Mikhail Gorbachev’s Murmansk speech in 1987 in which the Soviet leader called the Arctic as a ‘Zone of Peace’, Dr. Sinha raised issues over the emerging power rivalry and geopolitics of the region.

Capt. Anurag Bisen (Indian Navy) highlighted the long-standing need for India’s Arctic Policy. He mentioned that the Arctic region is warming three-times faster than the rest of the world, which is leading to accelerated melting of the Arctic sea-ice and consequently increased availability of mineral and hydrocarbon resources. He summarised the six pillars of India’s Arctic: 1. Science and Research 2. Economic and Human Development Cooperation 3. Climate and Environmental Protection 4. Transportation and Connectivity 5. Governance and International Cooperation 6. National Capacity Building.

Capt. Bisen further observed that the policy document sets a broad-base and holistic roadmap for India’s engagement in the Arctic region. He outlined the scientific interconnectivities between the Arctic and the Himalayas (also known as the Third Pole), especially the crucial link between the Arctic sea-ice melt and the Indian monsoons. Speaking on the mineral and energy resources potential, Capt. Bisen mentioned that the Arctic accounts for 30 per cent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 13 per cent of the world’s undiscovered oil. He asserted that India’s future engagement with the Arctic region can potentially address its energy security and rare earth minerals resource needs.

In the final part of his presentation, Capt. Bisen mentioned that India’s Arctic Policy calls for a dedicated polar research vessel, a need to develop indigenous capabilities in polar ship construction and to establish institutional funding for Arctic research at the national level. He suggested that India should also increase scientific participation in the working groups of the Arctic Council. On the issues related to economic and human development, the speaker mentioned that India is keen to explore opportunities for responsible exploration of natural resources and as per the sustainable development goals. On transport and connectivity, the document articulates India’s interest in seeking partnerships for shipbuilding and promoting opportunities for Indian seafarers. Referring to governance and international cooperation, he noted that the policy document focuses on understanding the Arctic related mechanisms at the national and sub-national legislation levels. On national capacity building, Capt. Bisen mentioned that India’s Artic Policy articulates developing Indian scholarship on the Polar Regions. Finally, he suggested that MP-IDSA could become a knowledge centre in this.

Questions and Comments

Following the presentation, Dr. Sinha invited the Director General, Deputy Director General and all the panel members to give comments and ask questions.

Director General, MP-IDSA, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy thanked the chair and complimented Capt. Bisen for his presentation. Acknowledging the reference made by Dr. Sinha to a paper authored by the Director General himself in 2012, Ambassador Chinoy highlighted that the write-up served as an important base paper for the preparation of India’s Arctic Policy. He further highlighted the importance of India developing infrastructure capabilities in the Polar Regions in terms of shipbuilding, deep seabed research and other related domains to fulfil its interests in the Arctic. Highlighting the military importance of the Northern Sea Route (NSR), Ambassador Chinoy asked the speaker to share his views on the same.

Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi, complimented Capt. Bisen for his presentation and highlighted the importance of linking the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) with the Northern Sea Route as it will have long-term economic and connectivity benefits.

Answering a question by Dr. Nihar R. Nayak on the Arctic interconnections with the Himalayas, Capt. Bisen mentioned that climate change in the region has direct implications on the Indian monsoons, which have a cataclysmic impact on Indian agriculture. It is therefore, extremely important for Indian scientists to understand these interlinkages.

Responding to a question by Mr. Bipandeep Sharma on the current suspension of the Arctic Council and its implication on ‘Observer States’, Capt. Bisen responded by saying that the observer states have no influence in the Council. All decisions in the Council are taken by its member states.

Dr. Uttam K. Sinha in his concluding remarks recommended that the participants should read India’s recently released Arctic Policy.

Report prepared by Mr. Bipandeep Sharma, Research Analyst, NTS Centre, MP-IDSA, New Delhi.

Report of Monday Morning Webinar on “India-Australia Relations: Recent Virtual Summit and the Way Ahead” March 28, 2022 Monday Morning Meeting

The Monday morning meeting on “India-Australia Relations: Recent Virtual Summit and the Way Forward” was held on 28 March, 2022. Research Fellow at MP-IDSA Col. Ravinder Pal Singh spoke on the subject and elaborated on the outcomes of the summit. The session was chaired by Dr. Udai Bhanu Singh, Centre Coordinator and Senior Research Associate at MP-IDSA. The Director-General Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy and Deputy Director-General Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi shared their views. Associate Fellow Ms. Shruti Pandalai and Research Analyst Mr. Akash Sahu were panelists for the session.

Executive Summary

The discussion outlined evolving India-Australia relations, particularly in the fast changing global security environment. Both countries have come closer with bilateral initiatives on a number of areas including defence, technology, and people-to-people ties. Their relations can be further strengthened by addressing elements of distrust, and by aligning more with each other’s worldview. India-Australia relationship is critical for a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific.

Detailed Report

Col. Singh began his presentation by providing a background on India-Australia relations, which have broadened after 2014 culminating into a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the two countries in June 2021, as compared to very limited economic cooperation and people-to-people exchange before 2000. At the virtual summit, the two leaders reiterated their commitment to shared values of democracy and a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific. Col. Singh highlighted the leaders’ discussion on the current Ukraine crisis, Afghanistan, Myanmar and also the South China Sea. They also reaffirmed ASEAN centrality in the Indo-Pacific. Many new developments were announced at the summit like opening up of Australia’s new Consulate-General in Bengaluru, and setting up of a A$ 17.2 million Australia-India Strategic Fund, Australia India Infrastructure Forum, India Australia Centre of Excellence for Critical and Emerging Technology Policy, and Centre for Australia-India Relations. Additionally, General Rawat India-Australia Young Defence Officers’ Exchange Program will be helpful in strengthening military relations between the two nations. Australia has committed A$ 25.2 million for the Australian Space Agency to deepen space cooperation with India, and will support India’s manned mission to space Gaganyaan. A full Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) is expected to be realised by end of the year between the two nations. They have also collaborated in the area of critical minerals with Australia’s Critical Minerals Facilitation Office and India’s Khanij Bidesh Ltd. signing a Memorandum of Understanding.

Col. Singh underscored that the convergence between New Delhi and Canberra is reflected by frequent Quad summits, pushback against China, 2+2 ministerial dialogue in September 2021, cooperation in ASEAN-led forums like East Asia Summit, ASEAN Regional Forum etc. and engagement with emerging minilaterals in the Indo-Pacific such as with Japan, Indonesia and France. Australia has supported India’s membership into the Nuclear Suppliers Group and both countries have robust cooperation on counterterrorism, apart from a number of military exercises like Malabar and AUSINDEX. India will be participating in Australia’s Indo-Pacific Endeavour exercise later this year. India’s Security and Growth for All (SAGAR), Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI), and Forum for India-Pacific Island Cooperation (FIPIC) underline New Delhi’s commitment to the Indo-Pacific, while Australia’s Pacific Step-Up and Indo-Pacific Approach in its 2020 Defence Strategic Update reflect Canberra’s similar outlook.

There are some divergences in the India-Australia relationship as well. Concerns over duty-free import of coal, increasing trade deficit, and delay in the conclusion of CECA are some current problems. Also, India is not a part of any free trade blocs in the region such as Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) or Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). This may affect their trade relationship negatively. However, on the crisis in Ukraine New Delhi and Canberra seem to have a good understanding. Despite India abstaining to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the UN, Australia has expressed that it acknowledges India’s historic relationship with Russia. Col. Singh recommended that Track-2 dialogues may strengthen bilateral relations and MP-IDSA can possibly take a lead on that. Close cooperation in emerging technologies, counterterrorism, and space will be fruitful. The issues with regard to CECA must be resolved with a priority to ensure that both sides are on the same page regarding trade.

Ambassador Chinoy complimented the speaker for a comprehensive presentation and observed that India-Australia relations have grown tremendously. Earlier the bilateral relations would be ascribed to three Cs namely, Cricket, Curry and Commonwealth, but lately relations have expanded to include much more areas of cooperation, so to say involving more Cs like Connectivity, Communication, Coal and China.  While there has been substantial upgrade in relations from the pre India-US nuclear deal period, when Canberra seemed particularly hostile to India; bilateral relations even today may be seen as a function of India-US relations and India-UK relations. Australia’s unique relationship with China, especially in the context of large bilateral trade in essential minerals, further complicates the equation. Additionally, Australia’s historically close relations with Pakistan from the time that it helped set up Pakistani intelligence apparatus must also not be forgotten completely. Ambassador Chinoy cautioned that Canberra’s involvement with Pakistan in the past does not mean that it shares a worldview with Islamabad. Concluding his comments, he stressed that India and Australia collaboration has immense opportunity in the field of innovation and technology. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bakshi opined that the pandemic seems to have unified the divergent views on China within Australia. After the pandemic, Canberra has retaliated to China’s economic coercion in a more explicit way, most notably as it constituted the AUKUS with the US and the UK. It may be helpful to examine India’s stakes in the evolving transatlantic relations.

Ms. Pandalai observed that Australia’s positive reaction to India’s posture on the Ukraine crisis is of significant value to bilateral relations. She asked the speaker about the possibilities of a reciprocal access agreement between India and Australia. Some questions from the audience also focused on whether India and Australia can reach an intelligence sharing arrangement, especially since India has close relations with Russia. Mr. Sahu observed that the presentation has advanced the conversation on India-Australia relations, and asked the speaker for his opinion on whether India and Australia, in their engagement with ASEAN nations, may emerge as collaborators or rivals. He noted that Australia may view itself as closer to the ASEAN nations due to proximity and strategic utility. Col. Singh responded that both countries will pursue their independent policy of engagement with Southeast Asia, and while India’s outreach will have significant elements of cultural and historical linkages, Australia’s approach will be more related to economic and strategic cooperation. He added that India and Australia need not be averse to deeper cooperation on intelligence especially since India has foundational agreements of intelligence sharing and logistics with the US. India’s military relationship with Russia is limited to hardware and shall not discourage Australia from pursuing stronger logistics and intelligence cooperation with India.

Dr. Udai Bhanu Singh underscored the importance of the India-Australia-Indonesia trilateral given Indonesia’s strategic landscape and leadership within the ASEAN. He also pointed out that India’s cooperation with the pacific islands will help engage them for an inclusive Indo-Pacific agenda of development. He concluded the session by expressing hope for betterment of India-Australia relations that may help regional stability.   

Prepared by Mr. Akash Sahu, Research Analyst, Southeast Asia and Oceania Centre.

South East Asia and Oceania India-Australia Relations
Talk by Ms. Nomita Drall on "Developing Skills for Effective Writing" March 25, 2022 1030 to 1300 hrs Talk

A talk by Ms. Nomita Drall, freelance copyeditor, on "Developing Skills for Effective Writing", is scheduled for Friday, 25 March 2022 at 11.30 am in Seminar Hall 2.

Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha, Research Fellow and Coordinator, Non-Traditional Security Centre, will moderate the discussion.

Non-Traditional Security
5th West Asia Conference - India’s Approach to West Asia: Trends, Challenges and Possibilities March 29, 2022 to March 30, 2022 Conference

Live Streaming : DAY TWO


Live Streaming : DAY ONE


Executive Summary

The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), New Delhi, organised its 5th biennial West Asia Conference on March 29-30, 2022, in virtual mode. Speakers from India and abroad participated in the Conference and shared their perspectives on the changing contours of India’s growing engagement with the West Asian region, response of the countries of the region towards India’s policy, geopolitics and security situation in West Asia, challenges for the Indian community in the Gulf during Covid-19 pandemic, issues of energy security, and strategic and security cooperation between India and the region.

The West Asian region continues to remain in a state of flux even after a decade of the Arab unrest. The situation in Syria, Yemen and Libya remains fluid. A number of terrorist organisations and non-state actors continue to challenge the security and stability in West Asia. The recent Houthi attacks on the critical infrastructures in Saudi Arabia and the UAE are a major cause of insecurity in the Gulf region. The uncertainty over the ongoing Vienna talks to revive the Iranian nuclear deal, Israel’s growing engagement with the Arab countries after the signing of the Abraham Accords and perceived weakening of US presence in the region are some of the key geopolitical dynamics which will have severe implications for the region.

In such critical circumstances, India faces a number of challenges to engage with the countries of the region. India shares historical relations with West Asia; and has huge economic, energy, political, security and strategic stakes in the region. In recent years India has strengthened defence, security and strategic ties with a number of countries in the region. India’s security relations with the Gulf countries go beyond energy and diaspora security and there is an interest from both sides in expanding defence relations. While, during the last decade, the Arab unrest brought considerable challenges to India’s policy in the region, India has persevered in its engagements, successfully navigating the turbulence in the Arab world. While the COVID-19 pandemic severely affected the nine million strong Indian community in the Gulf, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reached out to the Gulf leaders appealing to them to look after the Indians who are affected by the pandemic. Finally, it was suggested by the participants that, amid the changing regional and great-power geopolitics, India needs to enhance its engagement as a reliable partner for the key regional actors in West Asia.


Conference Coordinator:

Dr. Prasanta Kumar Pradhan
Associate Fellow, IDSA
pk.prasanta@gmail.com

Eurasia & West Asia
Defence & Security Module Level I for BSF Commandant March 21, 2022 to April 01, 2022 Training Capsules

Programme

DAY 1

21 March, Monday
Time Topic Speaker
09:45 - 10:00 Briefing by OIC Training  
10.00 - 11:15 Illegal Financing in India : Challenges and Way Ahead Mr. Pradeep S. Gautam
11:30 - 12:45 India and Global Governance Amb. Manjeev S. Puri
13.00 - 14.00 Lunch Break
 
 
 
14.00 - 15.15 Contours of India-Pakistan relations post

US withdrawal from Afghanistan
Dr. Ashok K Behuria
15.30 - 16.45 Political options for Bangladesh post Sheikh Hasina and its impact on relations with India Dr. Smruti S. Pattanaik
DAY 2

22 March, Tuesday
10.00 - 11:15 National Security Strategy with respect to the Emerging Security Scenario  Maj Gen (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi(Retd.)
DDG MP-IDSA
11:30 - 12:45 Understanding Political Islam and the

rise of Global Jihad  
Dr. Adil Rasheed
13.00 - 14.00 Lunch Break  
14.00 - 15.15 Theatre Commands : Concept, Structure and

Way Ahead 
Col. Vivek Chadha (Retd.)
15.30 - 16.45 Managing India’s Land Borders  Dr. Pushpita Das
DAY 3

23 March, Wednesday
10.00 - 11:15 Emerging World Order Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA
11:30 - 12:45 Human Rights, Refugee Law and International Humanitarian Laws: Relevance in 21st Century Col. (Dr.) DPK Pillay, SC (Retd.)
13.00 - 14.00 Lunch Break  
14.00 - 15.15 China’s Security and Military Structure 

Dr. MS Prathibha
15.30 - 16.45 India-China-Nepal triangle : The Himalayan Kingdom’s Strategic options Dr. Nihar R. Nayak
Report of Monday Morning Webinar on Quad and Ukraine Crisis March 14, 2022 Monday Morning Meeting

Mr. Niranjan Chandrashekhar Oak, Research Analyst, Nuclear and Arms Control Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, spoke on the topic ‘Quad and Ukraine Crisis’ at the Monday Morning Webinar held on 14 March 2022. The session was chaired by Dr. Rajiv Nayan and was attended by Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, Cmde. Abhay K. Singh, Col. Deepak Kumar, senior scholars and research analysts of MP-IDSA.

Executive Summary

At the United Nations (UN), three of the four Quad members—the United States (US), Japan, and Australia—have adopted an outspokenly hostile stance toward Russia, while India abstained on all UN resolutions denouncing Russia. This action has set India apart from the other members of the Quad, raising the issue of whether it may cause fissures in the minilateral organization. In light of this, the webinar by Mr. Oak critically examined the Quad Joint Readout's key aspects and the impact of the Ukraine situation on the Quad. It investigated the belief that there are significant differences within the Quad. Should India be considered the Quad's weak link? Will the Quad be weakened by conflicting viewpoints on the Ukrainian crisis? The webinar concluded that the Quad has little role in the Ukrainian issue and events that occur outside of the Quad's geographic and functional scope should have no bearing on the grouping's operations.

Detailed Report

Dr. Rajiv Nayan, Senior Research Associate, Nuclear and Arms Control Centre, MP-IDSA, New Delhi, the chair, made opening remarks on the topic and introduced the audience to the concept of hybrid warfare and Russia’s military action in Ukraine. Further, he highlighted the history and nationalism of Ukraine. He said that there were divergent views among Quad members in the midst of the Ukraine crisis. The chair, after introducing the topic and the speaker, called upon Mr. Niranjan Oak to deliver his talk for the day.

Mr. Niranjan Oak started his talk by highlighting that the Quad met virtually on 3 March 2022 and issued a joint statement. The tone and tenor of the statement was sober without harsh criticism of Russian actions in Ukraine. Three of four members had taken a critical stand against Russia.  India abstained on all UN resolutions denouncing Russia. Mr. Oak also threw some light on the salient features of the Quad joint read out and the impact of the Ukraine Crisis on Quad. He also briefly explained the structural contours of the Quad.

Further, he spoke on the several minilateral co-operations such as the Japan-South Korea-China trilateral and their importance in the Indo-Pacific region during post-cold war years till the recent times. Further, he stated that minilateral cooperation, depending on the nature of the threat, can be intensified horizontally as well as vertically. The Quad has proved to be nimble in expanding both horizontally and vertically. The gradual progression from assistant secretary level meetings to summit meetings had been the testimony of its vertical expansion. Moreover, the issues of infrastructure development, sustainability, technology, cyber domain and provision of global commons goods such as vaccine partnership show horizontal expansion of the Quad. It must be underlined that the very genesis of the Quad was attributed to the challenges emanating out of the region and the need to keep the regional order stable. The Quad group was formally rooted in the Indo-Pacific.

Moving on to the issue of the Ukraine crisis, Mr. Oak also commented on the impact of the Ukraine crisis on the Quad. Despite divergent views, the Quad met and discussed the Ukraine crisis and came out with a joint read out. The joint statement was a testimony to the fact that Quad members respected each other's sensitivities, understood the purpose of minilaterals and were unlikely to mix regional issues with that of extra-regional developments. There have been many issues where individual Quad nations have different ways of responding such as Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) waiver to the COVID vaccines or the Myanmar crisis. In the case of the Myanmar crisis, India and Japan dealt with the junta differently than the remaining two countries of the Quad. India has always stood for a normative order. Further, the Quad has clearly expressed its commitments to the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity in the Indo-Pacific. Beyond that the Quad had little agency to impact events in the faraway conflict zones.

He mentioned that the Ukraine crisis is unlikely to weaken the Quad. However, if the US decided to impose sanctions on India over its defense ties with Russia that will likely have unwarranted effects on the Quad. He also mentioned that the very genesis of the Quad was attributed to the challenges emanating out of the Indo-Pacific. Despite divergent views, the Quad met and discussed the Ukraine crisis and released the joint read out accommodating views of all parties. Lastly, the Ukraine crisis is a test of the Quad’s resilience. If far flung events negatively impacted the functioning of the Quad, it would create serious questions about the longevity of the minilateral. If Quad comes out unscathed, it has a long way to go.

Responding to a comment made by Mr. Oak, Dr. Nayan raised a question regarding the use of the term neutrality. Should we use this term or avoid this term? If we go into the history of Non-Aligned Movement, theorists deliberately avoided the using of this term. In fact, India had not condemned the Russian operation but it did not mean that it had been approved. One has to realise the difference.

On the comment made by Mr. Niranjan Oak, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bakshi (Retd.) commented on the legitimacy of voices that are criticising the Ukraine Crisis. For instance, India had launched a multi-pronged offensive into East-Pakistan in a similar manner from many directions including heli-borne and air-borne forces. We brought about a regime change which was stable and successful for the last fifty years. On the other hand, some powers launched massive military operations, justified regime change in Afghanistan, removed the Taliban and twenty years later put the Taliban back. What is the success of those regime changes vis-a-vis the regime India had changed? So, the question is not whether regime change is legitimate or not. The question is the legitimacy of voices which are protesting against a war for regime change vis-a-vis their own history in this regard. Further, he also raised some concerns about the relevance of the minilaterals and the relevance of a strategic partnership which does not include a military alliance. He also raised a concern about the relevance of hard power.

On the relevance of the hard power, Dr. Nayan commented that hard power and hybrid warfare are very much important. In the age of cyber security and drones, these conventional methods of war are still relevant. He also made a comment on the understanding of the concept of alliances that are still evolving. There is no single definition of alliance. Alliance is not what we generally perceive. Many times, alliance members are not protected. Even if you are not an alliance member, you are protected. There is no such thing as collective security emanating from the Quad. He stated how you structure your alliances, how you construct your alliances, how you write the script of your alliance matters, not the generally preconceived notions about alliances. Responding to the comment made by Dr. Nayan regarding the understanding of alliances, Mr. Oak commented that the concept of alignment is a broader concept. An alliance is a part of alignment. Depending upon the degree of convergence of security policies, alignment can be defined as either alliances or partnerships or virtual alliances or quasi alliances.

Cmde. Abhay Singh, Research Fellow, Military Affairs Centre, MP-IDSA fully endorsed the major analytical takeaways by Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bakshi. He added that Russian action in Ukraine should be seen in context of power behavior. However, Mr. Oak’s presentation rightly focused on how a minilateralism should respond to a crisis beyond its specified geographical span. Further, he commented on the effectiveness of alliances such as North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). He said that even in cases of alliances, there exist divergent views among the constituents. E.g., in case of NATO, some times the French view differs vis-à-vis the position of the other members of NATO.

Col. Deepak Kumar, Research Fellow, Europe and Eurasia Centre, MP-IDSA commented on the Russia-Ukrainian crisis that had highlighted the fallacy of the international rules-based order about which the western democracies have been speaking for a very long time. Further, he stated that the facade of international rules supported the power of the powerful more than the powerless. He also commented on Atmanirbharta – self-sufficiency in the economic and military domains. Moreover, he said that the Quad is a means to promote interests in the Indo-Pacific region and may not be focused specifically on the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). Talking about the Quad and the Malabar Naval Exercise, he mentioned that Quad and the Malabar are two separate entities, and we should not mix one with the other. He also commented on the Galwan crisis. None of the Quad countries have spoken or are likely to speak in India’s favor in the future, at best they will abstain. Mr. Oak responded to these concerns by saying that although the Quad and the Malabar Exercise is not the same thing, the participants of Malabar are the same countries that constitute the Quad. Theoretically they are separate but practically they are the same.

Responding to Col. Deepak Kumar, Dr. Nayan commented that we should debate about whether we should get involved in the South China Sea (SCS) or not, whether we should restrict ourselves to the IOR. Lastly, Dr. Nayan posed a concern on the role of western powers on the Taiwan issue because the West (NATO countries) is running away from the Ukraine Crisis by saying that Ukraine is not a NATO member and thus they are not obliged to fight the battle. But if it happens to Taiwan, it raises a question mark on the West, especially the US which is a party to ‘the 1979 Taiwan relations act’.

Responding to the concern raised by Dr. Nayan on the IOR and SCS, Mr. Niranjan Oak commented that according to Indian Naval Doctrine, the IOR is India’s primary area of interest and the SCS is a secondary one. So, the whole purpose of the Quad is to keep an informal authority over IOR region. In the Indo-Pacific, the other three countries of the Quad would expect India to play a major role in the IOR. While in the SCS, India would expect the other three countries which are resident powers in that region to play a more active role.

Moreover, with reference to Galwan and Taiwan, Mr. Oak commented that the world has seen what the Quad did in case of Chinese territorial breach of the Galwan region. We have a major template for what Quad is going to do. Every country has to fight its own war. No other countries will come to rescue other countries. Hypothetically, in the case of Taiwan, there is an agreement between the US and Taiwan. Therefore, the US is likely get involved physically in Taiwan. It is better to look differently at what is happening in Ukraine and what will happen to Taiwan. Moreover, the Quad should be restricted to the Indo-Pacific region since every institution has a particular mandate on a particular agenda. If the Quad started taking roles in all the issues, its agenda would be diluted and not focused. It will not be as focused to deal with specific issues as it is today.

Questions and Comments

Following the extensive talk by the speaker, Dr. Rajiv Nayan first called upon Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi for his comments. Dr. Nayan later opened the floor to the panelists and participants for their comments and questions.

Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) thanked the chair and Mr. Niranjan Oak for his extensive presentation. He also thanked them for their in-depth perspectives on the subject. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bakshi asked the speaker to throw some light on the relevance of hard power.

Col. Deepak Kumar, raised two questions to the speaker. First, what in his view would be Quad’s position in the hypothetical case of Chinese aggression against Taiwan or India? His second question was whether Quad partnership has affected India's relations with Russia and China in the Indo-Pacific and Central Asian region? He also commented on China's cartographic aggression against India.

On the recent Quad summit, Lt. Gen. (Dr.) Rakesh Sharma asked whether this was a way to pressurise India to take a stand on the crisis? He also asked whether we have reputational damage globally on our principled stand?

Dr. Rajiv Nayan and Mr. Niranjan Oak gave extensive and insightful remarks and a detailed discussion was held on all the comments and questions raised by the panelists and the participants.

 Report prepared by Mr. Pintu Kumar Mahla, Research Intern, Non-Traditional Security Centre, MP-IDSA, New Delhi.

Nuclear and Arms Control Ukraine, Japan, India, Australia, United States of America (USA)
Webinar Report: India’s Approach to Cooperation with Africa February 24, 2022 1030 to 1300 hrs Other

On 24 February 2022, the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised an international webinar on “India’s Approach to Cooperation with Africa”. Panelists included eminent speakers from India and Africa. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA delivered the opening remarks and the Keynote Address was delivered by Shri Dammu Ravi, Secretary (ER), Ministry of External Affairs. Ambassador Rajiv Bhatia chaired the first Session on “India-Africa Development Cooperation” and the second session on “India-Africa Security Cooperation” was chaired by Ambassador Gurjit Singh. The speakers in the first session included Mr. David Rasquinha, Dr. Philani Mthembu, Dr. Roberto J. Tibana and Dr. Hoseana Bohela Lunogelo; while Ms. Ruchita Beri, Prof. Hussein Solomon and Ms. Harriet Njoki Mboce, HSC were speakers of the second session. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) delivered the concluding remarks and the vote of thanks. The webinar was attended by scholars from MP-IDSA, guests from Gusau Institute, Nigeria and other invitees from various think-tanks.

Executive Summary

The webinar shed light on all salient aspects of India-Africa Development and Security Cooperation. The distinguished panelists drew from their long on-ground experiences and scholarly expertise to suggest the way forward in diversifying and strengthening the India-Africa relationship. The importance of African Union’s Vision 2063 for India’s approach to cooperation with Africa was highlighted. India-Africa partnership is truly multidimensional and India is a reliable partner for Africa.

Underscoring the mutual importance of India and Africa to each other, it was agreed that successful initiatives like India-Africa Forum Summit (IAFS) and India Africa Defence Ministers Conclave (IADMC) need to be regularised. The gaining traction of Indo-Pacific creates scope for strengthening India-Africa maritime cooperation. Acknowledging the existing mechanisms for cooperation with Africa, the need to explore potential new ideas like innovative financing, Public-Private Partnership (PPP) based models of development projects and creation of multidimensional institutions in Africa to create local value and capacities was emphasised.

Session I drew attention to the future prospects and avenues to strengthen India-Africa development cooperation. Exploring new areas to enhance India-Africa cooperation must build on existing strengths. It was underlined that India through setting up manufacturing hubs in Africa will play an important role in the economic transformation of Africa. The session pointed out that India could focus on supporting Africa in the industrial and manufacturing domain as well as healthcare sector. Furthermore, there was positive convergence on both sides about the partnership and a need to do more was underscored.

Session II delineated India-Africa security cooperation in traditional and non-traditional security domains. It also deconstructed Africa’s security architecture and the pervasive need to address challenges and concerns wholly from an African perspective. Furthermore, it also addressed how India could engage more proactively with its African partners to ensure continental security.

Detailed Report

Inaugural Session

The Webinar began with Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA welcoming all the distinguished panelists and esteemed guests. He acknowledged the diversity of expertise in the panel which included strategic thinkers, practitioners, former ambassadors and scholars. He shed light on events like Africa Day Round Table, India-Africa Strategic Dialogue and others that are regularly organised by MP-IDSA. Underscoring that India and Africa were mutually important for each other, he delivered the opening remarks of the webinar. Ambassador Chinoy highlighted the historical close ties and maritime trade links particularly between coastal regions of Gujarat and eastern Africa. He stated that the vast Indian diaspora in Africa helps promote ties. Reiterating India’s sustained support to Africa’s liberation from colonialism before and after Independence, he drew attention to the challenges of building consensus in a world inflicted with rising tensions, fractured power and weakened multilateralism in the context of United Nations (UN).

Ambassador Chinoy observed that the world has become flatter with the emergence of non-state actors, gray-zone tactics, disruptive technologies and cyber capabilities. Recognising the disruptive effect of the pandemic particularly on African economies, he indicated that there was scope for India and Africa to work together in dealing with these challenges. He stated that India is a reliable partner of Africa for capacity building programmes, promoting health care and medical assistance amongst others including its rich contributions to the United Nations Peace Keeping Operations (UNPKO). Emphasising successful initiatives like IAFS, he shared that MP-IDSA was the knowledge partner for the upcoming India-Africa Defence Dialogue (IADD). Stating the principles of equality, mutual respect and benefits underlying India-Africa partnership, he suggested potential areas for strengthening cooperation. India could consider collaborating with other countries like Japan, US, UAE for building capacity and developing infrastructure in Africa. He observed that the problem of piracy was shifting to Gulf of Guinea and suggested that perhaps India could work together with countries like France for ensuring maritime security in the region. Remarking on the gaining traction of the Indo-Pacific, he highlighted the scope for improving maritime cooperation between India and Africa as they are welded together by shared oceanic spaces.

On this note, Ambassador Chinoy introduced and welcomed Shri Dammu Ravi, Secretary (ER), Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), to deliver the keynote address. Shri Ravi began by acknowledging the panel. Drawing from his own experiences, he shared innovative new ideas for furthering the mutually beneficial India-Africa relationship to a much stronger partnership. He drew attention to efforts made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in bringing India-Africa closer. These include the announcements to open 18 new missions in Africa of which nine are already open, continued India-Africa summits and increased exchange of bilateral visits at various levels. He shed light on the PM’s address to the Ugandan Parliament which brought out the ten principles of India’s partnership with African countries. Observing that the logic of sharing was part of the cultural ethos of both regions, he asserted that more could be done by India besides the existing USD12 billion project commitment, Lines of Credits (LOCs) and grant assistance, capacity building under Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC), infrastructure projects of roads, bridges, ports and airports.

Recognising that lengthy processes take a toll on patience, he remarked that India must focus on being nimble footed in its cooperation with Africa and be sharper in its delivery timelines. Stating that it is unfair to compare India’s cooperation efforts with China, he underscored the need for ‘value creation’ as a measure to approach Africa. He assessed that Africa is no longer just a mineral rich continent but rather is itself changing, is highly aspirational and India’s priority must be to create value with the minerals within Africa instead of extracting them. Shri Ravi appreciated the far-sightedness of African Union’s Vision 2063 and stated that India through its industries could tap into the huge potential created by the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). With this background, he put forth multiple future prospects of India’s cooperation with Africa. In terms of trade, he proposed that manufacturing hubs must be created in the African continent with Indian support and joint venture with African locals. He shed light on underlying benefits of creating as well as sustaining employment along with multiplying revenue generation locally. This would be in spirit of India’s Aatamanirbhar Bharat which the PM made clear was for the world markets.

Emphasising that the government could not do everything, he underscored the potential of innovative financing and opening partnerships in the banking sector for executing projects in Africa. Referring to ITEC, he stressed on creation of multidimensional institutions on the African continent to create value locally and capacities to support Vision 2063. This could include the agriculture sector for Africa to become food self-sufficient; medical & healthcare sector to set-up medical colleges and nursing homes in a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model; enhancing technical education by exploring cooperation with USA, UK, France, Japan and others to create local technical skills to take advantage of new technologies. Shri Ravi proposed the idea of replicating India’s own successful and inexpensive flagship programmes in Africa by altering them to suit local conditions. In this context, he mentioned Aadhar, Ayushman Bharat, Har Ghar Jal and Saubhagya. Recognizing the need for prior study and pilot projects, he presented the benefits of implementing them gradually as this would create value in the relationship. He remarked on the shared diaspora and suggested creation of support mechanisms to strengthen people-to-people contacts. He concluded by reiterating the need to explore these ideas to further India’s cooperation with Africa.

Session I

Ambassador Rajiv Bhatia, Distinguished Fellow, Gateway House and Former High Commissioner of India to South Africa and Kenya, chaired the first session of the webinar on the theme “India-Africa Economic Cooperation”. He began by paying tribute to the sterling work being done by MP-IDSA to promote India-Africa relationship. Greeting the diverse eminent panelists, he remarked on the truly multidimensional partnership of India-Africa and asserted the need for seizing every opportunity to listen to African voices. Ambassador Bhatia acknowledged the speakers who had joined from various African countries and shared his delight in being part of listening to experts from Africa. Expressing hope that the analysis and suggestions by the speakers would improve India’s policy approach to Africa, he moderated the first session.

Mr. David Rasquinha, Member, Advisory Board on Banking and Financial Frauds and Former Managing Director at Export-Import Bank of India, drew inputs from his rich on-ground experiences and shared valuable suggestions for strengthening India-Africa development cooperation. He began by reflecting on financial assistance as central to development cooperation. In this context, he highlighted the unintended consequences and challenges of categorisation of developing countries to provide assistance. In order to cope with it, he suggested that India must focus on simplifying processes and legal documents as well as ensure uniform terms for all developing countries. Speeding up processes in inter-ministerial consultations, enhancing the ability of Indian companies to meet international standards as well as avoiding multiple ministerial consultations could be India’s priorities. Addressing the usually raised issues of Indian content, Mr. Rasquinha explained that considering India is itself a developing country and furthermore, a democracy dealing with issues like poverty, India’s conditionality of Indian content in offering technical assistance and financial aid is justified so as to ensure support of its population for such initiatives.

Mr. Rasquinha proposed three distinct ideas focusing on healthcare, investments and funding of projects. On healthcare, he referred to EXIM Bank’s “Madiba-Mahatma Initiative” and influx of Africans in medical tourism to India. He underscored that setting up a network of hospitals in Africa initially operated by well-established Indian hospitals and eventually handed over to locals would transform healthcare in Africa. Noting the transactional nature of development projects, he suggested building a lasting investment driven India-Africa relationship. Citing the example of Suzuki operations in India; he proposed developing lasting commercial relations between Indian companies and the partner company in Africa. In terms of funding, Mr. Rasquinha shed light on the need to expand EXIM Bank’s branches in Africa and encourage Indian banks to establish corresponding banking networks in Africa that could generate local savings and supplement development finance.

Dr. Philani Mthembu, Executive Director, Institute for Global Dialogue, South Africa, emphasised that efforts to explore new areas to enhance India-Africa cooperation must build on the existing strengths. Some of these include people-to-people ties, private sector partnerships and reforms in development partnership administration. He assessed that ITEC, deputation of Indian experts abroad and extending loans were part of the growing multiplicity of tools that India has used in cooperating with the African continent. He shed light on the lessons of the pandemic, increase in African stakeholders in India, strengthening of norm entrepreneurs in changing international landscapes, the crisis of multilateralism, problems within World Health Organisation (WHO) and the convergence of India-African countries on intellectual property rights. He underscored that for India-Africa development cooperation to move forward, India must draw from the developmental challenges and opportunities identified by Africa in its Agenda 2063.

Dr. Mthembu identified the AfCFTA as a key element of Agenda 2063 and opined that India could play an important role in operationalizing the AfCFTA as well as developing regional value chains. Reflecting on the growing population dominated by the youth, he underlined the opportunities it presents as a growing market for Indian enterprises. He indicated that the role played by Indian private sector in countries with weak diplomatic ties was an advantage for India. He explained that by establishing regional value chains, India could provide the cooperation that Africa needs in order to play a greater role in a multipolar world. However, Dr. Mthembu cautioned that India’s leverage of its advantages and approach to Africa must be motivated by underlying shared historical ties rather than be driven due to increased engagement by EU or US with the continent. He concluded by highlighting the plethora of services like education, jobs, healthcare required by the African continent that India could provide and focus on working with African stakeholders.

Dr. Roberto J. Tibana, Director of Research, African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET), Ghana, began by sharing the conclusions of a group of experts gathered by ACET in 2014 - “Africa is growing but was not transforming.” He shared insightful remarks on avenues for India to support the economic transformation of Africa and highlighted the convergences of opinions between the Indian and African speakers as a positive sign of improving the partnership. Dr. Tibana presented the five dimensional aspects of economic transformation – diversification of economies, export competitiveness, increase in productivity, technological upgrading and human well-being. He appreciated that Secretary (ER)’s keynote address focused on the operationalisation of all these aspects. Remarking on the challenge of job creation for the youth, he stated the need for companies developed by Africans and by foreigners in Africa and indicated India as among as the key players. He expressed that setting up manufacturing hubs in Africa was the need of the hour and is well in tune with Africa’s vision.

Dr. Tibana explained that growth with transformation would require Africa to focus on technology and trade linkages with the Rest of the World (ROW) as well as within itself in a versatile manner. India could assist in the same as there is cohesiveness and intersection in the Indian and African thinking. He stated that partnership between India and Japan was welcome in policy making and would energize Asia-Africa cooperation. On the issue of energy transition, he opined that India’s investments in Gas and Oil in Mozambique were welcome inspite of the controversies of energy sources as Africa particularly is currently in need of investments in Gas and Oil to facilitate eventual transition of energy, promote foreign exchange and feed into domestic industry. Pointing out that India was shifting gears in terms of its economic outlook for cooperation with Africa, he stressed on the need for enhancing skills in all sectors of economic activity in Africa. Dr. Tibana concluded by reiterating the agenda to be pursued by India as “produce in Africa and invest in Africa”.

Dr. Hoseana Bohela Lunogelo, Principal Research Associate, Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF), Tanzania, expressed his appreciation of Secretary (ER)’s address which seemed like that of a special ambassador to Africa. Sharing about the collaboration between think-tanks in Africa, he remarked that they all opine India of all countries has a special and unique relationship with Africa. This is evidenced by the presence of Indian diaspora in Africa and trade between the two regions particularly of minerals exports like gold. He acknowledged the need for India to invest in local manufacturing of minerals instead of extracting. Referring to ITEC programmes, he stated that countries like Tanzania had benefitted in terms of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and training of irrigation engineers. He suggested that centers of excellence set up by ITEC must consider expanding to other sectors like medical, agricultural, etc.

Dr. Lunogelo drew attention to the opportunities for Indian companies to invest in Green Clean energy and cited examples of efforts made by Rwanda to use green energy. Mentioning the popular presence of Indian motorcycle company Bajaj, he stated that reserves in natural gas in Mozambique and India presented opportunities for both of them. Emphasising that India and Africa could improve trade in agriculture and commodities, he briefly remarked on the challenges faced by Tanzania in exports to India. He presented the contours of improvement for India-Tanzania development cooperation. Dr. Lunogelo proposed that India could invest in the creation of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in Tanzania through a PPP based model. He concluded by acknowledging India as Africa’s key partner with comprehensive advantages.

In the Q/A session, questions pertaining to cyber security and India-Africa synergy in practice to drive growth in both continents was raised. Panelists observed that cyber security was an important pillar of India-Africa cooperation and India has the potential to play a leading role in the cyber domain. It was noted that balance between citizen concerns and government prerogatives would be important. Furthermore, it was noted with particular emphasis that cyber-attacks affect small scale enterprises more severely and India through its ITEC could focus on skill transfer to create robustness in cyber architecture of small scale companies. On India-Africa synergy, the need for investment and creation of manufacturing hubs in Africa to utilise the growing demographic dividend was highlighted. It was reiterated that setting up manufacturing hubs would be mutually beneficial as labour is cheaper in Africa.

Ambassador Bhatia concluded the first session by reiterating the key highlights of the first session. India-Africa cooperation must focus on economic transformation, move beyond trade and investment by prioritizing industrial and manufacturing domain. Healthcare is another priority sector. Furthermore, Ambassador Bhatia called for the need to recapture the momentum of India-Africa ties by regularly convening the India-Africa Forum Summits.

Session II

Ambassador Gurjit Singh, Chairman, CII Task Force on Trilateral Partnerships in Africa and Former Ambassador of India to AU and Ethiopia, opened the second session for discussion by expressing his gratitude to MP-IDSA and highlighted its role as a knowledge partner for the IADD. Echoing the remarks made by the chair of the previous session, Ambassador Bhatia, he reiterated that India and Africa need to re-engage institutionally, including on security cooperation. He also explained that India and Africa built their relationship by establishing military academies in Ethiopia and Nigeria, training personnel, and participation in the UNPKO. Today, the focus has shifted towards non-traditional security domains, such as counter-terrorism, piracy, and climate change. However, he asserted that these threats are not evenly attended to, with anti-piracy operations assuming primacy.

Furthermore, Ambassador Singh added that India became one of the first countries to incorporate Eastern and Southern African seaboards within its Indo-Pacific Ocean context. Therefore, India can be a security provider and support base for African countries. He also underlined that, unlike other African countries’ partners, India engages with Africa through capacity building instead of dictating its internal matters.

Ms. Ruchita Beri, Senior Research Associate & Coordinator, Africa, LAC & UN Centre, MP-IDSA, underscored how India has prioritised its foreign policy towards Africa and how India–Africa partnership is driven by African priorities. She delineated how India’s engagement with Africa spans different levels, including pan-Africa, regional, and bi-lateral levels. India’s SAGAR doctrine – Security and Growth for All in the Region – initially flagged in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech in Mauritius in 2014, drives India’s security cooperation with the African continent. There is recognition within India that development and security are intertwined and how underdevelopment, directly and indirectly, undermines African security. Moreover, she highlighted how security enables and protects the fruit of development and discussed three pillars of India’s engagement with Africa, such as training, UNPKO, and maritime security. Training has served as India’s main focus of its Africa policy, with emphasis being placed on enhancing skills, training military officers, including the Nigerian President Mohammadu Buhari, a notable alumni of the Defence Services Staff College (Wellington).

Ms. Beri also emphasised how India has actively participated in promoting peace through the UNPKO and deployed women peacekeepers, including in Liberia. This has helped in enhancing the role of women in security and peace operations. Indian women peacekeepers were hailed as role models for gender equality and an inspiration for women in local communities to enter the security domain. India has also cooperated in the maritime sphere through the deployment of its navy in anti-piracy operations and delivery of humanitarian aid on request of African countries due to its shared interests in the Indian Ocean. Furthermore, she pointed out that India has sought to enhance its cooperation with Africa by hosting the biennial Defence Ministers Conclave in February 2020 and will do so again in March 2022. Moreover, she recommended that it is crucial to understand African priorities and challenges to enhance India–Africa cooperation.

Additionally, Ms. Beri highlighted further how the African continent had been mired with conflicts over the years; however, it has also witnessed economic growth and political reforms over the last two decades. Like India, Africa has also confronted non-traditional security challenges, including climate change, directly impacting its food and energy security issues. Furthermore, health-based concerns have become securitised, as the discussions surrounding the outbreak of the Ebola Virus and COVID-19 pandemic have found a place on the international agenda, and have become national security priorities. On the other hand, she claimed that terrorism has also served as a critical area of concern for India and Africa. Therefore, India must engage with Africa on these issues. According to the speaker, it is essential to learn from each other’s experiences and construct a common discourse on issues of mutual interest. India’s contribution to peacekeeping has served to promote peace in Africa, while its forces have also learned from African conflict resolution mechanisms. However, India must ensure its policies address diversity since Africa is not a monolithic entity.

Professor Hussein Solomon, Senior Professor, Security Studies and Conflict Resolution, Department of Political Science, University of Free State, South Africa, explained that India and Africa have common interests in the reform of the global multilateral system, including the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Peacebuilding Committee. The speaker also affirmed that the critical juncture the world has found itself in amid great uncertainty and rupture has provided fertile ground for India and Africa security cooperation. However, security has deteriorated in Africa, more so in the Sahel region, over the years, despite foreign troops’ presence and financial assistance, and France recently announced its decision to exit from Mali. He provided statistics, beginning from 1989, for validating his claims. Such challenges have emerged from Africa’s post-colonial legacy, dysfunctional state security apparatus, arms and narco-trafficking, food insecurity, and the youth bulge with increasing demands to address unemployment. Consequently, alternative power centres have come to the fore.

Professor Solomon also added that over the years, living standards have also worsened. It is worrisome that some of Africa’s most powerful states, including Nigeria and South Africa, are experiencing turmoil as deteriorating socio-economic conditions have resulted in ethnic secessionism, political agitation, and electoral violence. Africa’s standby forces and regional economic communities have failed to address these growing challenges. He also underlined that given India’s growing interest in Africa, it needs to move away from viewing its security policy through a state-centric lens to reflect current reality. India also needs to be more proactive in engaging with Africa’s private sector and community-based organisations to ensure African security. These non-state actors are playing an increasingly important role as the state's power declines since it has proved incapable of securing the continent on its terms.

Professor Solomon also pointed out that the military might remain insufficient to eliminate the proliferation of terrorists across the continent. As indicated by the Global Terrorism Index, governance determines the size, longevity, and success of terrorist groups. Therefore, India needs to prioritise good governance in its security relations with Africa. Currently, India mainly imitates a Western approach in its security cooperation with the African continent. Therefore, he recommended that it develop an indigenous approach in this regard.

While underscoring that privatisation of security is a new trend, Ambassador Singh added that India is not ready to directly step into any internal African matters. Indian contribution remains limited to the traditional security support it provides for capacity building to African countries. He also appreciated Professor Solomon’s point about how the African security architecture leaves much to be desired.

Ms. Harriet Njoki Mboce, HSC, Consultant and Policy Advisor, Faculty, School of Law, University of Nairobi and Advocate, High Court of Kenya, acknowledged MP-IDSA’s role in bringing together an African-centric panel for the webinar. She reiterated Shri Dammu Ravi’s point about the strong ties between India and Kenya, how Indians are referred to as the “44th tribe” in Kenya, and how India has greatly absorbed African students. She emphasised a need to look at cooperation from an African perspective. According to her, maritime security is a critical domain of security collaboration, and the newly instituted Kenyan Security Guard Service can play a role in this regard. Some of the areas of collaboration include pollution control, maritime security and safety, trafficking of drugs, arms, ammunition, and illegal goods, sanitation, prosecution of maritime offenders, and search and rescue.

Ms. Mboce also called for collaboration between coastal guards, research, and academic institutions. The speaker also emphasised the need for software and hardware search and rescue capacity building as part of Indian and Kenyan Coast Guards’ joint initiative. She also introduced the idea of exchange programmes for students to get a hands-on approach in dealing with maritime security issues.

During the Q/A session, Ambassador Singh refuted one of the comments about the lack of cooperation between India and Africa in peace and security architecture and mentioned how African countries prefer Western partners in the security and peace domain and India on development issues. India is a country that will accommodate proposals emanating from the African continent and not thrust its proposals on the African states. However, India has contributed funds to the upkeep of the African Mission in Somalia and for operations in the Sahel through the African Union’s Peace and Security Architecture Peace Fund.

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, expressed his gratitude to the Chair for moderating the session and highlighted how the Kenyan Coast Guard’s capacity building proposal must emanate from within Kenya and must be driven by Kenyan priorities. He also highlighted the spillover of terrorism from countries in the Sahel region, including Mali, the effects of which are already visible.

Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, concluded the webinar by speaking about the wonderful intellectual African Safari that this session had provided. He highlighted his experience in Africa as a UN Peacekeeper in Angola between 1995 and 1996. He expressed his appreciation of the historically rich cooperation between India and Africa, as was mentioned by the eminent panelists. He underscored the long-standing presence of Indian diaspora, technology, Indian teachers and military trainers in Africa. He also highlighted the importance of looking at the concept of Make in Africa for Africa and the World since greater cooperation and an Exclusive Economic Zone approach were also discussed in today’s webinar. It is equally significant to expand skilling efforts in healthcare, engineering, IT training, counter-terrorism, cyber security, and maritime security cooperation.

He proposed the vote of thanks on behalf of team MP-IDSA and expressed his profound gratitude to the eminent speakers for sparing time from their busy schedules to share their thoughts and participate in the discussions. He also expressed his special thanks to the Chairpersons, Ambassador Singh and Ambassador Bhatia who skilfully guided the discussions and showered generous praise on the Institute and the Africa team in their opening remarks. He also expressed his profound gratitude to Ambassador Chinoy for guiding the preparations for the webinar and illuminating the discussion with his introductory remarks, the Africa centre scholars, and the web team for setting up and conducting an excellent webinar. He looks forward to similar engagements in the future. Finally, he thanked the participants for patiently engaging and listening to the discussions and bade everyone a good evening.

Report prepared by Ms. Sindhu Dinesh, Research Analyst, ALACUN Centre, MP-IDSA (Inaugural session & Session I) and Ms. Saman Ayesha Kidwai, Research Analyst, Counter Terrorism Centre, MP-IDSA (Session II and Concluding remarks).

Event Report of Monday Morning Webinar on Economic Crisis in Sri Lanka: An Assessment February 14, 2022 Monday Morning Meeting

Dr. Gulbin Sultana, Research Analyst, South Asia Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, spoke on “Economic Crisis in Sri Lanka: An Assessment” at the Monday Morning Webinar held on 14 February 2022. The Webinar was moderated by Dr. Anand Kumar, Associate Fellow, South Asia Centre. The Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi and other scholars of the Institute participated in the Webinar.

Executive Summary

The focus of the webinar was on the ongoing economic crisis in Sri Lanka and the efforts initiated by the government to deal with the crisis. The reasons for the forex reserves crisis in Sri Lanka due to the global pandemic and debt servicing commitments of the government were discussed. The Webinar also dealt with the impact of the crisis on tourism, exports and remittances.  External assistance, India’s role in mitigating the crisis and its impact on India-Sri Lanka relations was also discussed.

Detailed Report

Introducing the topic, Dr. Anand Kumar pointed out that the pandemic has created a financial crisis for a large number of countries, especially in small Island nations in South Asia like Sri Lanka and the Maldives. He informed that both these countries are heavily dependent on the tourism sector and added that Sri Lanka faced a decline both in terms of proceeds from tourism and foreign remittances, and now it is facing a serious shortage of foreign exchange. The tourism industry that contributes more than ten percent to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product was badly hit and there was a cascading effect. He added that Sri Lanka is also under heavy foreign debt and there are fears that the country could go bankrupt this year. The economic crisis in Sri Lanka is deepening and the country appears to be staring at a “humanitarian crisis”.

Dr. Gulbin Sultana, pointed out that the present economic crisis was largely due to the depletion in the forex reserves since September 2020. But the crisis became worse when in November 2021, there was a sharp decline in forex reserves. Pointing out that Sri Lanka is an import-dependent country both for essential and non-essential commodities, she held that the importers were finding it difficult to get letters of credit issued in the banks to settle their import payments. Due to the shortage of fuel in the country, many power plants in the country have had to be kept shut for many days which has created a severe power crisis in Sri Lanka. The pandemic has mainly impacted the tourism, export and remittance sector. The number of tourist arrivals dropped drastically adversely impacting the revenue generated due to tourism.  During the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, adequate foreign currency was not coming into the country but a huge amount was going out of the country as the government had to settle the debt, and on top of it, the government had to pay for its daily requirements. 

According to the current government in Sri Lanka, there are inherent problems in the economy because all the previous governments have spent more money than they have earned. So the government is trying to reduce expenditure. Import restrictions on some non-essential items have also been introduced by the government. There is a ban on chemical fertilizers in the country and there is a sudden change from chemical fertilizers to organic farming, which is likely to have a disastrous impact on agricultural production.  There is already a huge protest in the country against this ban. Enlisting the other measures the government has taken to deal with the crisis, she said that the government is relying on bilateral partners, particularly for loans and currency swap facilities while also working out ways to boost investors’ confidence and attract external investment.  Interestingly, the government is not ready for any IMF bailout fearing conditions, which will be difficult for the government to meet, even though experts, economists and even the opposition in the country are suggesting that it approaches the IMF. The government is looking for homegrown solutions not taking into consideration the declining economic situation, according to the opposition and economists. What the country needs now is a long-term, low-interest bail-out, as this crisis is likely to continue for at least the next two years.

Talking about foreign assistance to help the Sri Lankan Government weather the current crisis, the speaker informed the audience that India has committed US$ 2.4 billion and China has extended a US $1.5 billion swap facility. Negotiations are on with China for a fresh loan to repay the Chinese debt. However, so far, there is no commitment from the Chinese side to this effect. There has been an interesting development in Sri Lanka-Bangladesh relations as Bangladesh has committed a US$200 million swap facility which has increased the forex reserve. Reportedly, Pakistan has also agreed to extend a US$200 million loan for the purchase of rice and cement. Negotiations are on with Qatar to facilitate a US $ 1 billion currency swap facility.

Dwelling on India’s assistance to Sri Lanka, the speaker said that India and Sri Lanka signed a four-point package of cooperation in December 2021 which includes, a US$ 1billion credit line to import food and medicine, a line of credit of $500 million for fuel import from India, deferral of two months on Sri Lanka’s dues to the Asian Clearing Union, worth $500 million, and a US$ 400 million swap facility. There are talks about increasing Indian investment in Sri Lanka under the four-point package. Whenever there is a crisis in Sri Lanka, India has always stepped in and this time too, India has extended help, putting aside the strains in India-Sri Lanka relations in 2020-21 following the cancellation of the East Container Terminal Project (ECT). The recent signing of the MoUs on the Trincomalee Oil farm project suggests that relations are back on track.

Despite these positive developments, there are still concerns in India about Sri Lankan behaviour. Sri Lanka has tried to address India’s concerns only when the former has been in crisis, to gain favour from India, but as soon as the crisis is over, it takes India for granted. Indian policymakers must be alive to these issues so as to avoid any unpleasant situation in bilateral relations in the future. 

Discussion

The Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy pointed out that the pandemic has no doubt affected Sri Lanka, more than India, perhaps, given the nature of its economy which depends a great deal on tourism. The tourism industry in Sri Lanka ground to a halt and the expatriate workers who came back home badly impacted the remittance sector. Because China has a zero-COVID policy, the movement of people from China was restricted. As a result, Chinese outbound tourism is virtually nonexistent right now. This provides an opportunity for India to try and replace the undue reliance of Sri Lanka on Chinese tourists. It is inevitable that smaller neighbors will continue to have an element of discomfort in terms of dependence on the Indian economy as it is counterproductive for them. 

The Deputy Director, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi, while referring to the speaker’s concluding observation that Sri Lanka looks towards India only in times of crisis, underlined the points of apprehension of the Island nation towards India in the past. He mentioned that India-Sri Lanka had a very strong security and defense relationship but once the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) pulled out, they always felt that India has not done enough in those years to stem the LTTE. The latest economic crisis in Sri Lanka was mostly averted by the Chinese bail-out, India has also helped but it is not publicized much. He stressed that India’s capability to execute projects well needs to be looked into in order to address the issue of Sri Lanka’s dependence on China. 

Dr. Smruti S. Pattanaik, Research Fellow observed that India is a factor in Sri Lanka's domestic politics, especially because of persisting relevance of issues concerning Tamil politics. Since Sinhala-Buddhists are in a majority, the government tries to pander to their sentiments. Moreover, since the end of the war in 2009, the government has been promoting a Sinhala-Buddhist nationalist agenda. She pointed out that India has always argued for the implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan constitution. In fact, when the Sri Lankan Government made attempts to repeal it, India's Foreign Secretary visited Sri Lanka to convey India's stand on the issue. She underlined that the approach of the Sri Lankan government to the Tamil issue would continue to be an important factor in India-Sri Lanka relations. In spite of India's help to Sri Lanka in dealing with the economic crisis, Sri Lanka’s approach to India would be determined by domestic politics.

Talking about Sri Lanka’s approach towards Indian investment, she added that it has always been political. For example, it scrapped the MoU on East ECT terming ECT as a national asset but now Chinese companies are engaged in the same project. This same approach is visible in the project on Trincomalee Oil tanks. Moreover, those business houses and trade unions that have protested against India's investment in ECT or against the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) and Economic and Technology Cooperation Agreement (ETCA) are close to the ruling regime.  She added that India's economic engagement has always been politicised in Sri Lanka. She argued that it will be difficult for Sri Lanka to expand its market and increase its exports because its top export destinations are the US and EU and both these countries have hardened their stance on human rights issues. There has been an attempt not to extend the Generalized System of Preferences to Sri Lanka to put pressure on Sri Lanka on the human rights issue.

During the Q&A, responding to various queries from the participants the speaker observed that there is hope that the situation will improve once COVID conditions improve but she underlined that it was important to understand that Sri Lanka had a debt-service commitment amounting to US$25 during 2021-2025. There is a need to take a proactive approach so the inflow of money does not create further debt. She also emphasised that loan re-structuring will not resolve the issue, but it will give Sri Lanka breathing space at a moment when there is depletion in forex reserves. Talking about US-Sri Lanka relations, the speaker pointed out that India-Sri Lanka relations at the moment were better than US-Sri Lanka relations. Sri Lanka refused to take the Millennium cooperation grant from the US, and ultimately the US canceled the grant. Sri Lanka is also not ready to go to the IMF for a bail-out and it only seeks technical assistance from IMF. Talking about the European Union (EU), the speaker pointed out that the EU is the biggest market for Sri Lankan products but there is a lot of pressure from the EU on Sri Lanka over the human rights issue. 

The report has been prepared by Dr. Zainab Akhter, RA.

South Asia Sri Lanka, Economic Crisis

Pages

Top