Events

Centre for Southeast Asia and Oceania organised a webinar discussion on India-Australia bilateral relations, where Col. Ravinder Pal Singh, Research Fellow at MP-IDSA, delivered a presentation on “Australia’s Strategic Posturing in Indo-Pacific: Imperatives for India”, on 10 February 2022 at 1500 hours (IST). Mr. Mahadevan Shankar, National Convenor for Defence and Security Working Group in the Australia-India Chamber of Commerce, joined as an external discussant while Cmde. Abhay K. Singh (Retd.), Research Fellow at MP-IDSA, joined as an internal discussant. Dr. Udai Bhanu Singh, Cluster Coordinator for Southeast Asia and Oceania Centre and Senior Research Associate at MP-IDSA, moderated the session. Ms. Shruti Pandalai, Associate Fellow at MP-IDSA, and Mr. Akash Sahu, Research Analyst at MP-IDSA, were also part of the discussion.  

Executive Summary

India and Australia have improved their bilateral relations in the past decades to reach an alignment of their foreign policies. Even though Canberra’s loyalties may be more firmly rooted in treaty alliances such as ANZUS, than the QUAD, there is an acute realisation that China’s aggressive actions can pose a threat to its national security. New Delhi and Canberra may work together to eliminate mutual suspicions, and boost bilateral ties for greater synergy on foreign policy issues.

Detailed Report

Dr. Udai Bhanu Singh began the session with an introduction on India-Australia relations, and traced major points of their engagement in the past few decades. He noted that the history of their relationship has been an important determinant of bilateral trust and political will to deepen relations. India and Australia may be at a point in time that changing global order could bring them closer in bilateral as well as multilateral forums like the Quad. It may be important in that case to address issues that can prevent a stronger and more comprehensive strategic partnership.

In his presentation, Col. R.P. Singh began with an overview of the strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific. He highlighted the great power rivalry between the US and China which can potentially shape diplomatic alliances among countries in the region. The rivalry is evident from policy documents coming out of Washington on defence as well as trade. The global influence of the US seems to be declining and the Biden administration has chosen to go along with Trump’s Indo-Pacific strategy. The rise of minilaterals in the region characterise fast-changing security dynamics. Increased focus on non-traditional security and ASEAN centrality have also been crucial areas of the regional security discourse. Col. Singh traced Australia’s deteriorating relations with China since after Canberra publicly supported calls for investigation on COVID-19. As a reaction, China ceased imports from Australia which has adversely impacted their bilateral equation. Australia shares India’s vision for freedom and rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific. It has also been part of a new trilateral AUKUS, under which it will receive critical technological support from the US for nuclear-powered submarines. The 2016 Defence White Paper and 2020 Defence Strategic Update coming out of Australia underlined its perspective on deterrence and response with a credible minimum force. Canberra’s strategy could be seen as recognising the threat, building a response, and developing capabilities accordingly.

On India’s engagement with Australia, Col. Singh highlighted the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the two countries, participation in the QUAD, Joint exercises like Malabar and AUSINDEX, and ASEAN forums like ADMM Plus, ASEAN Regional Forum, and East Asia Summit. Indian Ocean Naval Symposium, Indian Ocean Rim Association, and the MILAN exercise have also strengthened bilateral relations. India’s Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR) vision, the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative and Forum for India- Pacific Islands Cooperation indicate New Delhi’s focus on the Indo-Pacific. Col. Singh recommended joint defence manufacturing, joint training for interoperability of forces, and long-term reciprocal arrangements.

Mr. Mahadevan Shankar observed that Australia’s relations with India have been long impacted by colonial perceptions, but relations have improved particularly as Indo-US ties have strengthened. With the election of Trump in the US, security guarantees to Australia came under question, and Australians began to contemplate how they can independently tackle threats to their national security in the Indo-Pacific region. This can be seen as the underpinning for a substantial change in Canberra’s national security approach, which also precipitated the formation of AUKUS. On the question of Taiwan, Canberra is so firmly tied to the US alliance and security commitments that it can be expected to back the US if things go south between China and Taiwan. Thus, Australia looks to India as a potential partner in a volatile security environment of the region.

Cmde. Abhay K. Singh in his remarks noted that while the US influence may be perceived as declining, the absolute American naval power in the Pacific is formidable. This allows the US to be a major player in the regional security equation to balance China. He also cautioned that Australian ‘fickleness’ is a big challenge and suggested that India-Australia ‘strategic convergence needed to transform into ‘strategic interdependence’.  Ms. Shruti Pandalai posed a question on the differing meanings of interoperability of forces among like-minded Indo-Pacific partners. It was unanimously agreed that different military hardware may induce challenges for more streamlined joint training, but that may be overcome through regular exercises. Mr. Akash Sahu raised a question on Australia’s trade in the region, and how that may impact its diplomatic alliances. Mr. Shankar responded that even though China had been Australia’s prime destination for exports; a large portion of those have found alternative markets. For New Delhi, this is a sign of Canberra’s autonomy in pursuing its security and foreign policy. Dr. Udai Bhanu Singh summed up the discussion and expressed that greater dialogue between India and Australia may help them reach a deeper level of strategic partnership.

The report was prepared by Mr. Akash Sahu, Research Analyst at MP-IDSA.

Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Bhat, Research Analyst, Internal Security Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, spoke on “An Assessment of the Security Situation in Jammu & Kashmir”, at the Monday Morning Webinar held on 7 February 2022. The webinar was chaired by Dr. Pushpita Das, Centre Coordinator, Internal Security Centre. Director General, Ambassador Sujan R Chinoy, Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. Bipin Bakshi, Col. Vivek Chadha and other scholars of the institute participated in the webinar.

Executive Summary

With an overall decline in terrorist-related violence statistics, the security situation in Jammu and Kashmir has relatively improved over the last two years. More importantly, the security forces have succeeded in tapping the external influences in the Kashmir Valley. Although it is a positive indication, but this alone, cannot ensure long-term peace and stability in Jammu and Kashmir. To bring Jammu and Kashmir back on the path of normalcy, the decline in violence should pave the way for strengthening of democratic institutions at the grassroots level. The dominant counter-terrorism paradigms advocate promotion of democracy as the best method to decrease the political utility of terrorist violence.

Detailed Report

Dr. Pushpita Das initiated the webinar by recalling the apparent security apprehensions which were associated with the abrogation of Article 370 from the state of J&K on 5 August 2019. She underscored that the security situation in J&K, on the other hand, had remained largely under control as several militants were neutralised in the past two and a half years. She attributed the success to the intelligence-backed security operations, wherein, intelligence was provided by the locals. Dr. Das, however, expressed her concerns over the challenges due to the creation of new militant groups, the emergence of ‘hybrid militancy’, cross-border infiltration of terrorists; and, smuggling of narcotics & small arms etc.

Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Bhat began his presentation by giving an update on the security situation in J&K. Comparing the violence statistics (terrorist incidents, fatalities, cross-border infiltration, encounters between terrorists and SFs) for the two periods i.e. prior to and after the abrogation of Article 370; Dr. Bhat assessed that the militancy in J&K has registered a declining trend in the period following the abrogation of Article 370. 

With respect to cross-border infiltration, a similar declining trend was evident suggesting that the security forces in J&K have been relatively successful in controlling the external influences in Kashmir in the period following the abrogation of Article 370.

Dr. Bhat discussed the important developments which were relevant to the changed security situation in the post-abrogation period. The three districts- Baramula, Kupwara and Bandipora- which were the hot bed of militancy earlier, have largely remained peaceful for some time. Listing the region-wise contribution to the militant violence, Dr. Bhat stated that the four southern districts of Kashmir-Shopian, Pulwama, Kulgam and Anantnag-together accounted for 65 per cent of the total militant violence in 2021; followed by Central Kashmir (18 %); and North Kashmir (17 %). With respect to the district-wise percentage of the encounters between the militants and SFs, Shopian tops the list with 20 per cent of the total encounters, followed by Kulgam (19 per cent), Pulwama (16 per cent) and Srinagar (14 per cent). Rajouri and Poonch have remained relatively at peace and most of the encounters reported in these two districts were related to infiltration.

Dr. Bhat also expressed his views on the changing dynamics of militancy in the Kashmir Valley. The militant outfit- Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM), which had come into prominence during Burhan Wani’s leadership and after his death, has contributed relatively less as compared to the Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. According to him, the elimination of HM’s top leadership and its policy of giving room to freshly minted groups like The Resistance Front (TRF), Peoples Anti-Fascist Front (PAFF) etc. – were the possible explanations. He opined that the emergence of new ‘terrorist brands’ like TRF, the Ghaznavi Force, the Geelani Force, Kashmir Tigers etc., was mainly to ensure that the links of any big terrorist attack in J&K could not be traced back to Pakistan.

Another perceptible change/trend was the dip in the killing of Pakistani terrorists compared to local militants in J&K. Dr. Bhat attributed it to the killing of Burhan Wani, as during his time and after his killing, lot of Kashmiri youth had joined militancy in the state. He also added that the same could also be a reflection of the changed approach of Pakistan to militancy in Kashmir, driven by the pressure from FATF and its preoccupation with Afghanistan. In the wake of  the recent developments in J&K, Dr. Bhat argued that there was an increased attempt to “secularise the Jihad” in Kashmir as all the new organisations had consciously avoided religious symbolism in their titles. The intention, according to him, was to project it as a resistance movement, which is somewhat acceptable to the international community.

In order to explain the above-mentioned developments in the security situation in J&K, Dr. Bhat cited the ‘Strategic Model’ of terrorism that assumes terrorists as ‘rational actors’ and most importantly talks about ‘Political Utility’. Based on this model, reducing the political utility of terrorism is considered as the best counter-terrorism strategy. Dr. Bhat said that the recent changes in the Government’s policy with respect to J&K, and especially on terrorism in the Valley, have largely contributed to the improved security situation over the last two and a half years. The Government’s policy of non-appeasement and the resolve to directly deal with the sustaining factors of militancy etc., were a clear departure from the earlier period.

Dr. Bhat concluded his presentation by outlining the security threats and issues associated with the relatively new "hybrid" militants/militancy in J&K. He anticipated that the new militancy-framework could appeal to a large number of militants, particularly locals, due to the greater impunity and fewer risks it entails.

The following important points came up during the discussion.

The Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy expressed his disagreement on ‘secularisation of the Jihad’ in J&K. He said that militancy in J&K has been largely Kashmir-centric, and that the state as a whole is not participating in militancy. Even communities such as Buddhists, Bakarwals, Gujjars and Kashmiri Pandits, among others, are never involved in terrorism. He advised the speaker to revisit his opinion/ theory on the ‘secularisation of the Jihad’ in J&K. Ambassador Chinoy also sought the speaker’s thoughts on anticipated changes in Pakistan’s Kashmir policy if FATF pressure and its preoccupation with Afghanistan change. In response to the Director General’s comment, Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Bhat, clarified that his reference to “secularisation of the Jihad” was to mainly emphasise that the intention is to make it more of a resistance movement that can garner more international solidarity. He clarified that this is not meant to widen the net to include recruits from other communities.

Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. Bipin Bakshi spoke on the efficacy of the robust counter-infiltration grid as an important factor responsible for the improved security situation in J&K. He opined that this is a manifestation of robust border management. Another important factor, according to Maj. Gen. Bakshi, has been the reduced influence of separatist leaders.

Key Takeaways

1. Security forces in Jammu and Kashmir have managed to control external influence.
2. The Government has reduced the political utility of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir.
3. New terrorist outfits have propped up which avoid religious symbolism to garner international support.
4. Hybrid militancy can challenge the security forces for some time, but in the long run, it cannot be sustained without any organizational support.

The Report has been prepared by Ms. Rajbala Rana, Research Analyst, Internal Security Centre, MP-IDSA.

Event Report

Col. Guriqbal Singh Gill, spoke on the topic “Pakistan’s National Security Policy 2022-2026: An Assessment” at the Monday Morning Webinar held on 31 January 2022 at 10 AM. The session was chaired by Dr. Ashok K. Behuria and was attended by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi, Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, senior scholars & research analysts of MP-IDSA.

Executive Summary

On 14 January 2022 the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Imran Khan launched his nation’s first ever National Security Policy (NSP). The launch of this NSP comes at a time when Pakistan’s image in the international community has been deteriorating due to its support for terrorism and the economic crisis that it has been facing internally. This document however indicates a shift in Pakistan’s perception about national security as it focuses more on the non-traditional aspects of security like economic and human security than the traditional aspects of security like external aggression. Recent developments in the Af-Pak region including the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the internal security threats posed by Tehrik-i-Taliban (TTP) and Baloch separatists have influenced the drafting of the NSP. The document also focuses on aspects like improving national cohesion through the promotion of inclusive economic growth in the underdeveloped regions within Pakistan. The document reflects Pakistan’s insecurities with India’s superior military capabilities and India seeking the role of a Net Security Provider for South Asia and the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). The document classifies enhancing economic security as Pakistan’s medium term objective and ensuring comprehensive security as its long term objective. The document puts Pakistan’s relationship with China on a high pedestal and indicates Pakistan’s estrangement from its strategic partnership with the US.

The document despite adopting a comprehensive outlook towards national security ignores the practical realities and challenges that confront Pakistan. Although the document lays down certain policy objectives it fails to provide any mechanism for the implementation or execution of these objectives. As a result of this, the document appears to be more of a perception management exercise by Pakistan as it faces a negative image externally and economic uncertainties internally. The document does not adequately address the issue of terrorism due to which bilateral relations between India and Pakistan have been suffering for a long time. As a result, the document is unlikely to bring any significant change in Pakistan’s attitude towards India nor does it indicate Pakistan abandoning the use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy.

Detailed Report

Dr. Ashok K. Behuria, Senior Fellow, MP-IDSA commenced the session by giving a brief overview of the recently released “Pakistan’s National Security Policy 2022-2026.” He stated that the document puts a lot of emphasis on the economic and human security aspects of national security. Dr. Behuria described the document as containing a blend of realism and neo-liberalism oriented aspects like economic interdependence and hard security issues. He stated that although the document claims to focus on improving economic connectivity in the region it does not present any clear road map to achieve the same. He further commented that the anodyne pronouncements given in the document reveal the biases and disillusionment of Pakistan’s deep state. With these opening remarks, Dr. Behuria invited Col. Guriqbal Singh Gill to give his presentation on the Assessment of Pakistan’s NSP.

Col. Guriqbal Singh Gill began his presentation by defining the concept of National Security as a multifaceted concept that encompasses all aspects of security for a nation-state, its citizens, economic interests and institutions. He stated that an NSP document provides guidelines for the government to address the security needs of the people and the state. He stated such documents essentially reflect the views of the respective Government and its institutions.       Col. Gill pointed out the fact that the common traits of such documents comprise of three key elements that include a state’s vision of the international system, threat assessment and delegation of functional responsibilities of each implementing authority.

Col. Gill then gave a brief background of the various factors that prompted the Pakistani Government to release the draft of the NSP. He stated the most important factor was the developments in the Af-Pak region including the fall of the Western-backed Afghan government and Pakistan’s open support to the Taliban that has resulted in generating a negative image of Pakistan by the Western media. The second factor is the deteriorating relations with the US post its withdrawal from Afghanistan. Col. Gill mentioned the security issues threatening the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the struggling Pakistani economy that requires International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout as other contributing factors. Apart from this security factors like the external threat from India, internal threats from Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) & Baloch separatist movements and issues on the domestic political front are other aspects that have influenced the NSP.

Analysing the contents of the document Col. Gill stated the eight sections of the document focused on aspects like policy formulation, national security framework, national cohesion, economic issues, territorial integrity, internal security, foreign policy and human security. He pointed out that the second section on the national security framework is one of the most important sections as it reflects the challenges and changes in the strategic thinking of Pakistan. Col. Gill brought out the fact that economic security has been made the cornerstone of the national security framework and the document indicates a possible psychological shift in Pakistan’s national consciousness. The second section dwells upon the emerging non-traditional threats like terrorism and economic vulnerabilities. The document reveals that Pakistan views the enhancement of economic security as its medium-term objective and ensuring comprehensive security as its long-term objective. Col. Gill brought out that the third section on national cohesion is unique as it provides certain policy guidelines which the other sections lack. These policy guidelines focus on the need to achieve national cohesion through inclusive economic growth in the underdeveloped areas within Pakistan. He also stated that the details for execution of these policy guidelines have not been mentioned. Col. Gill explained that the fourth section deals with charting a roadmap towards securing the economic future of Pakistan. This section points out external imbalances, vertical and horizontal inequalities as the key challenges that threaten Pakistan’s economic future.

The fifth section on defence and territorial integrity focuses on aspects like border management and conventional military threats. Col. Gill stated that managing Pakistan’s border issues across the Line of Control (LOC) with India and the Durand Line with Afghanistan are the key issues of this section. He pointed out that although this section deals with important security aspects for Pakistan such as contestation in the Indian Ocean, India’s nuclear triad, space, information and cyber security threats, but it lacks a detailed assessment as it is covered within ninety words. Section six on internal security focuses on threats from terrorism to the development initiatives denoting threats to CPEC, hostile intelligence agencies, the role of extremism and sectarianism. He stated that although Pakistan has described internal security threats as its biggest challenge but those aspects have been already dealt in the 2016 national action plan published after the attack on the Peshawar Army School. Explaining the seventh section on foreign policy Col.Gill stated that Pakistan labels China, Iran and Afghanistan as friendly countries. Regarding India, there is a brief reference to Jammu & Kashmir and the revocation of article 370 in 2019.  He described the entire section as a PR exercise to project a positive image of Pakistan internationally. The final section dealing with human security aspects like population, healthcare, climate, water, food and gender security has been described by             Col. Gill as an attempt by the Pakistan government to give the document a comprehensive outlook.

Summarising his presentation Col.Gill described the NSP document as a perception management exercise as Pakistan’s image has taken a beating over the last couple of years. He stated that there has been some signalling towards India in terms of one step forward and one step back. Also, China has been put on a higher pedestal and US has been put along with the rest of the World citing cooperation beyond combating terrorism. He pointed out that the emphasis on the economy and internal issues indicate that Pakistan is looking inwards due to the extensive economic crisis it faces. Col.Gill stated that India should not lose sight of the fact that the Pakistan Military had sought a ceasefire last year and is reaping its benefits. He brought out the fact that the Indian Army Chief has spoken positively about the resolution of the Siachen Issue during his Army Day press conference and India has also recently asked for the scope to expand religious tourism in its communication to the Pakistani Government.

During the panel discussion Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy described the release of Pakistan’s NSP document as a window-dressing exercise due to the imprimatur of the academic styled document lacking any practitioner’s inputs on the practical realities and challenges. He stated when India and Pakistan became independent in 1947, there was a positive view that both nations would share a harmonious future but this view was short-lived with Pakistan’s invasion into Kashmir months after Independence. Recalling Ayub Khan’s offer for a no-war pact with India that had the conditionality for resolution of the Kashmir dispute and Indus Water sharing issue, the Director General pointed out that any attempt to establish enduring peace with Pakistan had been impeded by the Kashmir issue. He further stated that the policy document does not adequately address the issue of terrorism that India constantly faces in its relationship with Pakistan. The Director General brought out that the document reflects Pakistan’s drifting away from its strategic relations with the US and its increasing affinity with China. He also noted that the document did not sufficiently cover Afghanistan beyond referring to it as a gateway to Central Asia for Pakistan and did not dwell upon the strategic significance of the greater Af-Pak region in connecting South Asia with Central Asia. He stated that the document is more of an internal perception building effort taking into context the upcoming Pakistani General Elections in 2023.

Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi, stated that despite the criticism of the document for being more theoretical and lacking policy guidelines, the attempt to articulate Pakistan’s wider security interests and threat perception can be commended. He stated that Pakistan’s shift from focusing on traditional security issues to human security issues which has been reflected in the NSP is a positive development. The document’s mention of India’s nuclear triad and the technological advances is a reflection of Pakistan’s fear of India’s superior military capabilities. The Deputy Director General stated that the existing ceasefire benefits Pakistan as it has been able to facilitate infiltrations without the fear of Indian retaliation. Col. Vivek Chadha, Research Fellow, MP-IDSA stated that the document does not reflect the reality and is unlikely to bring about any major changes in Pakistan’s attitude towards India.

During the Q&A session responding to a question posed by the Deputy Director General on Pakistan gaining from the ceasefire along the LOC, Col. Gill said due to the overwhelming firepower of the Indian Army the Pakistani Military had been under severe stress. He agreed with the DDG that the ceasefire is detrimental to India as it has provided Pakistan with the impunity and freedom to push in infiltrators across the LOC without any counteractions from the Indian side. To a question on reactions of nations like the US, China, Turkey and Malaysia to Pakistan’s NSP, Col. Gill responded by saying that there has been no reaction from either the US or China and any other Islamic States including Malaysia and Turkey. Responding to a question on the necessity for India to draft an NSP, Col. Gill stated that it is necessary to have political consensus to identify a nation’s security challenges on paper and to have clarity on the military policy which will ensure the right allocation of resources towards national security.

Key Takeaways –

• The document reflects a shift in Pakistan’s focus from traditional security issues to non-traditional security issues like Economic and Human Security.
• Although the document provides some policy guidelines to achieve its stated objectives but it does not lay down any clear mechanism for its implementation or execution.
• The document reveals Pakistan’s insecurities against India’s superior military capability and at the same time lays emphasis on aspects of non-traditional security.
• The Document puts China on a higher pedestal and indicates Pakistan’s drifting away from its strategic partnership with the US.
• The release of the document can be considered as a perception management exercise due to the negative image of Pakistan in the International community.

Report prepared by Dr. R.Vignesh, Research Analyst, Military Affairs Centre, MP-IDSA

Ms. Ruchita Beri, Senior Research Associate and Coordinator, Africa, Latin America, Caribbean and United Nations Centre will speak on the theme.

Dr. Titli Basu, Associate Fellow, Manohar Parrikar IDSA will moderate the session.