Events

Col. Deepak Kumar, Research Fellow, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, will speak on the topic "Understanding China's Growing Military Footprints in Central Asia” at the Monday Morning Webinar.

Mr. Vishal Chandra, Research Fellow, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, will moderate the Webinar.

Mr. Jason Wahlang, Research Analyst, will be the rapporteur for this webinar.

The online platform for the conduct of this meeting is Webex (Cisco).

Please find enclosed the link for Registration.

In case of any query kindly contact hr.idsa@nic.in.

Note for Participants:

Kindly note that registration is mandatory to gain access to the event.
The invitation is non-transferable.
Registration is on a first-come-first-served basis. Hence you are requested to register for the event well in advance.
You are requested to log in with your name.
Kindly join the webinar on time. Doors to the event will be closed after 10 minutes. The registration will become invalid thereafter.
During the Q&A session, please type in your questions/comments briefly and precisely in the ‘Q&A’ option after choosing the "Send to All Panellists" option to ensure that these are visible to all panellists, including the Speaker and the Moderator.

Col. (Dr.) Divakaran Padma Kumar Pillay, Research Fellow, Non-Traditional Security Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, spoke on the “Nagaland Incident: Background and Future Prospects” at the Monday Morning Webinar held on 20 December, 2021. The webinar was chaired by Ms. Ruchita Beri, Senior Research Associate and Coordinator, Africa, Latin America, Caribbean and United Nations Centre, MP-IDSA. Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, and the scholars of the institute participated in the webinar. Shri Shambhu Singh, former Special Secretary to Government of India also participated in the meeting as a special invitee.

Executive Summary

The recent incident that led to the killing of unarmed civilians which occurred on 4 December 2021 in Mon district, Nagaland raised multiple questions for the government and the security forces operating in the region. It has also brought into question the legitimacy of the existing Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA), which provides security forces with certain powers to undertake the counter-insurgency operations in the region. The tragic incident at the hands of one of the most elite forces allegedly killing unarmed coal mine workers (mistaken as militants), has led to anger among the common people against the Indian Security Forces operating in the region.  This anger manifested in further violence and deaths and has been simmering since then.

Detailed Report

Ms. Ruchita Beri, the chair, made opening remarks on the topic and introduced the audience to the recent Nagaland incident in which 14 civilians and one soldier died. She mentioned that this incident has opened the debate on the Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) in these areas, where some people say that the AFSPA should be repealed because the special powers are being misused. The chair after introducing the topic and the speakers, called upon Col. Pillay to deliver his talk for the day.

Col. DPK Pillay started his presentation by mentioning that the incident on 4 and 5 of December 2021 was deeply regrettable and most likely preventable as there were no reports of retaliatory firing from the occupants of the mini-truck. He highlighted that such errors of judgment and intelligence failures do not usually happen in forces, particularly when it is 21 SF – a highly accomplished, decorated and professional elite force. He mentioned that the exact reason that led to this incident is difficult to comment on at the moment. 

He said that the origins of the Naga insurgency lie in the British policy of divide and rule and where to establish control. They divided people on the lines of race, faith and other measures. They sowed discord and disturbed the harmony that existed in the region among the rulers and ruled in the various kingdoms. A pan Naga identity was non-existent before their arrival and they sought to demarcate and delineate people as and when they needed it as the tea estates spread across the North East region. The first international exposure to the Naga people came when they joined the auxiliary forces in World War-I that took Naga and Kuki tribes abroad which engraved a sense of nationalism in them. 

Moving on to the issue of the AFSPA, Col. (Dr.) Pillay mentioned that Article 352, Article 355 and Article 356 of the Indian constitution allows the Government of India to deploy the Armed Forces in disturbed areas. He highlighted that the implementation of AFSPA was necessitated in Northeastern states of India in the wake of disturbances caused by the Naga insurgency in these regions. He highlighted that for the implementation of AFSPA in a particular region, the area needs to be first declared as ‘disturbed’. Highlighting the provisions under AFSPA, Col. Pillay mentioned that the act provides armed forces with special powers:

1. To open fire or use force, even causing death, against any person in contravention of the law for carrying arms and ammunition;
2. To arrest any person without a warrant, based on “reasonable suspicion" that they have committed or are about to commit a cognisable offence;
3. To enter and search any premises without a warrant;
4. To destroy fortified positions, shelters, structures used as hide-outs, training camps or as a place from which attacks are or are likely to be launched.

These sweeping powers are augmented under Section 6 of the Act, which grants the personnel involved in such operations immunity from prosecution without sanction.

Col. Pillay also mentioned that such a law when used over several areas for decades is a bit draconian in a country like India which is a constitutional democracy, as it tends to violate Article 21 of the Indian constitution. He further mentioned that though such an act creates a sense of discord in the minds of common people, we still cannot say that the army is at fault for operating as per this act. Supporting this argument by giving the classical historical example of Pontious Pilate who at the trial for the crucifixion of Jesus, washed his hands off as the Governor of Judaea and passed on the burden of the Judgement of crucifixion of Jesus to the Jews. Col. Pillay mentioned the Army is only carrying out its duty at the request of the Union Government. He also mentioned that the state government well understands the importance of the Army in maintaining law and order situations under AFSPA in the states. The very fact that the Army was present in these areas indicated that the state law and order machinery has failed and has therefore requisitioned the services of the forces.

For a discussion on the second part of his presentation, Col. Pillay invited Mr. Shambhu Singh who was the Joint Secretary North-East and collaborated with the interlocutor for the 2015 framework agreement on behalf of the Government of India and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN).

Mr. Shambhu Singh started his talk by highlighting that it is only at the state’s request to the Central Government that the Armed Forces are deployed in addition to state police, to support civil administration. In the case of the insurgency areas which are beyond the state’s control, the armed forces require some kind of special powers to operate in the region, which otherwise they would be constrained to operate in. Mr. Singh did not comment on the recent Nagaland incident and said that we need to wait for the committee’s report on the incident. 

Mr. Singh in his talk mentioned that in May 2011 when he was Joint Secretary Northeast, they were successful in convincing NSCN-IM (National Socialist Council of Nagaland) leadership that there would neither be a separate flag nor a separate constitution. He also mentioned that there was even a small press release that said, that in the spirit of shared sovereignty, both the parties (Government of India and NSCN-IM) agree to carry forward the dialogue and to come to the conclusion of hostilities. He mentioned that the whole problem started when Muivah went back on his initial commitment and approach. Mr. Singh mentioned that Muivah came up with his own interpretation of the framework agreement brought forward by Shri RN Ravi, who was appointed as an interlocutor for Naga peace by the government. Mr. Singh also mentioned that Shri RN Ravi’s letter to the Chief Minister regarding the unlawful collection of taxes by NSCN-IM also led Muivah to harden his own stand in the region. Apart from this, he said that various other small things happened that led to the breakdown of ongoing talks between the representatives of the Government of India and NSCN-IM. Mr. Singh mentioned that from that very point Muivah rejected his previous stance of integration with India and also started his earlier demand of a separate constitution. Mr. Singh mentioned that with this we are again back to where things stood in 1997, and the net results of all the talks stand zero at the moment.

On the comment made by Dr. Pushpita Das regarding the endless extension of AFSPA in the Northeast, Mr. Singh commented that it is currently applicable in 8 police station areas in Arunachal Pradesh and in bordering areas of Assam and Arunachal which are disturbed. AFSPA continues in the states of Nagaland and Manipur, except for the Imphal Municipal area in Manipur, from which it has been removed as a result of the surrender of insurgent groups. 

Mr. Singh also highlighted that the Central Government has imposed AFSPA only in Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and J&K. Tripura has imposed AFSPA on its own and subsequently, AFSPA has been extended by states like Assam and Arunachal Pradesh on their own. Mr. Singh mentioned that it is therefore completely wrong to say that the AFSPA has been only imposed by the Central Government everywhere in the country.

Responding to an important comment made by Col. Pillay regarding the judgement of the Supreme Court on AFSPA in 2016, Mr. Singh pointed out that the Supreme Court in its 2016 order clearly mentions that AFSPA doesn’t allow unbridled authority to the Army, though the Act remains valid given the situation in the country. Mr. Singh further highlighted that the Supreme Court has also imposed certain additional restrictions on the Act that completely agree with the Do’s and Don’ts listed in the Act. He mentioned that since then AFSPA has never been the subject of controversy except for sporadic incidents which are more of an exception than the rule.

Questions and Comments

Following this extensive talk by both the speakers, Ms. Ruchita Beri, first called upon Director General, MP-IDSA, Amb. Sujan Chinoy for his comments. Ms. Beri later opened the floor for the panelists and participants for their comments and questions.

Director General, MP-IDSA, Ambassador Sujan Chinoy, thanked the chair and congratulated Col. DPK Pillay and Mr. Shambhu Singh for their extensive presentation and in-depth perspectives on the subject. Ambassador Chinoy asked the speakers to throw some light on the ‘way forward’ on this particular subject.

Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha, Centre Coordinator, Non-Traditional Security, MP-IDSA complemented Col. Pillay for his upfront approach in demystifying the Nagaland incident without really faulting the army. On the issue of stalemate in Nagaland Peace talks, Dr. Sinha asked Mr. Singh, “Do you think that negotiations do not work in the Northeast?’’ He also asked the speaker to share his comments on the ways for India to better deal with these groups operating in the region.

Col. Vivek Chadha, Research Fellow, Military Affairs Centre MP-IDSA, commented on the importance of 'Perception Management' while dealing with AFSPA. He also highlighted that the AFSPA provides armed forces with the flexibility of operations. Col. Chadha mentioned that if AFSPA would have been that bad, states would not have gone to impose it on their own in the disturbed areas. Lastly, he mentioned that the Nagaland incident that happened is deeply regrettable, but it has nothing to do with AFSPA.

Dr. Nihar R. Nayak, Research Fellow, Non-Traditional Security, MP-IDSA asked the speakers to comment on the Union Government’s plan to deal with the ongoing non-cooperation movement by civil society groups, student organisations and tribal groups in Nagaland. Dr. Nayak also asked the speakers about the role of external forces, especially Chinese and Pakistani agencies that support the Nagaland insurgency in the region.

Mr. Bipandeep Sharma, Research Analyst, Non-Traditional Security, MP-IDSA asked the speakers to share their views on the future of civil-military relations post this Mon incident. He also asked the speakers to comment on the way forward for developing positive civil-military relations post such incidents.

Col. DPK Pillay and Mr. Shambhu Singh 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 Bipandeep Sharma, Research Analyst, Non-Traditional Security Centre, MP-IDSA, New Delhi.

The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), New Delhi organised a discussion on the book Blinkers Off: How Will the World Counter China, authored by Ms Gaurie Dwivedi, on 15 December 2021. Conducted in an online format, the book discussion was chaired by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, and was attended by Maj Gen (Dr) Bipin Bakshi, Retd, Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA and members of the Institute’s East Asia Centre, who participated as discussants.

Summary: China’s constant aggressive foreign policy behaviour has taken the blinkers off its so-called peaceful rise, which is anything but peaceful. In this context, Gaurie Dwivedi’s book raises a pressing question: How will the world counter China? The author argues that just as contemporary engagement with China is multifaceted, likewise containment techniques too will have to be multi-pronged. In an engaging discussion, the author and the MP-IDSA scholars and members deliberated on different aspects of Chinese politics, foreign policy and ways to manage China’s rise.

Detailed Report

In his opening remarks, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy stated that the fractiousness of the geopolitical and geostrategic characteristics of the international situation suggests that it is a glove off moment. Further, the aggression demonstrated by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on multiple occasions has shattered the notion that China can do no wrong and has taken off the blinkers from the world’s eyes.

Referring to China’s White Paper titled “China: Democracy That Works”, Ambassador Chinoy contended that China is actively trying to demonstrate that the authoritarian system of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is a manifestation of the highest form of democracy, which the West has not really experienced. Moreover, the brazenness with which China is upholding its perception of democracy (a select group of people deciding the fate of the rest) exhibits their confidence in their narrative. He observed that the international community is descending into a situation where the trouble is not only with regard to trade, technology and territorial disputes but also with regard to tenets. The discourse now is about who practices a better model of economic and political governance.

Commending the book, Ambassador Chinoy observed that it is an intensely readable book and will be highly useful to even a layperson interested in China. In a few crisp chapters, the book has highlighted all the key issues and gives an extensive overview of where the international community stands today vis-à-vis China.

Speaking about the book, the author, Ms Gaurie Dwivedi, stated that the book fills an important gap in the literature on how China is viewed, and more importantly how policymakers view China. She contended that there are a lot of detailed scholarly works on China and on the history of India–China relations, however, there is a need to view China differently in the 21st century. As the book is future-driven and forward-looking, it does not mention much about the history of India–China engagement. Explaining the rationale behind the title of the book, the author stated that the book urges the policymakers to understand that countering China with a commensurate amount of military power is a uni-dimensional view and that it will not be enough. Blinkers Off suggests that the readers understand the significance of having a multi-pronged containment strategy as China can weaponise the different avenues of engagement like trade, technology and information, in an event of a conflict.

Referring to Beijing’s use of social media to demonise democratically elected governments and to manipulate institutions like the World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the author stated that the book attempts to initiate a discussion on these issues and also ways to respond to Chinese onslaughts. Also, the need to have a holistic and 360 degrees perspective about dealing with China.

Ms Dwivedi underscored some of the important questions addressed in the book, for instance, how China quickly rose to power and the popular narrative surrounding China’s rise and why it matters to the world. Elaborating on these questions, she contended that remnants of the Cold War played an important role in the United States’ (US) decision to choose the Chinese market for investment, which in turn played a major role in China’s initial economic growth. Further, since China is now economically powerful enough to infiltrate into the political fabric of any country, dictate terms of trade and influence global governance, China’s rise, therefore, matters to every country. The author further opined that in a few years, as China will become a bigger economy than the US, no single country will be capable enough to take on China. It is therefore important, to look at the set of countries that could play an important role in containing China.

Concluding her talk, Ms Dwivedi stated that China’s rise is concerning because it is not peaceful. Some of the aspects like Beijing’s willingness to weaponise non-military engagements between nations and President Xi Jinping’s ambitions of establishing himself as a permanent fixture in Chinese history through largely revisionist means demonstrate why China’s rise will not be peaceful. She contended that one of the possible strategies of managing China’s rise is through diversification of economic options. That is, instead of trading solely with China, countries need to adopt a ‘China plus one’ strategy that ensures enough economic exposure to other countries. Second, India can exploit the opportunity provided by China’s existing backwardness in the semiconductor industry and ramp up its domestic production. Control over semiconductor technology will force China to be more accommodative and limit its aggressive foreign policy conduct.

Following Ms Dwivedi’s presentation, Ambassador Chinoy commented that the Chinese culture is an important factor in understanding the party’s policies. Much of what the party is doing today is the legacy of Chinese civilisational attributes of conformity to group dynamics that supersedes the individual requirement. Similarly, various other policies like complete control and the system of meritocracy are part of the old mandarin system. He noted that although there are external influences like the Marxist-Leninist ideology, state capitalism and contemporary pop culture, Chinese civilisational attributes need to be understood while alluding to misconceptions regarding China.

Referring to the Sino-US competitive naval build-up, Ambassador Chinoy observed that the US might have fleets in lesser numbers but they are twice the size of Chinese ships in terms of tonnage. Further, the fact that the Chinese economy will overtake the US economy in size is unlikely to turn tables as the US economy has a tremendous capacity for innovation and R&D. He concluded by stating that when looking at the future of China, there is a three-factor frame—first is the leadership which comes and goes, second is the party which is a political structure, and third is China as a civilisational entity which will outlive everything else. Therefore, a deeper understanding of China as a civilisational entity constituted of its culture, language, agriculture, family planning and financing is necessary.

As the floor opened for discussion, the members of the East Asia Centre at MP-IDSA proffered their views on the book and about how the world will counter China. Dr Jagannath P. Panda, Research Fellow and Centre Coordinator, remarked that the work is highly relevant in the present scenario as India is debating hard on China and also a consensus is gradually emerging between India and other powers regarding the need to counter China. He agreed with the author that while discussing ways to counter China, countries will have to look beyond the conventional military method and develop a multi-pronged strategy instead. He also mentioned that the international community needs to make a distinction between China and the Communist Party of China (CPC) and talk about the latter as it has a global outreach and has been provocative in nature. At the end of his remarks, he posed two questions to the author—first, why China needs to be countered? And second, if China becomes aggressive and assertive in its own style, then how will the world deal with it?

Following Dr Panda’s observations, Dr Prashant Kumar Singh, Associate Fellow with East Asia Centre, offered his remarks. He complimented the author for enriching the Indian debate on China and stated that China has been more of a puzzle. He mentioned that the problem is how to define the CPC,  which has tried to move away from the transactional promise of delivering growth as a source of its legitimacy to cultural roots of China and has tried to make the CPC a part of China’s cultural common sense. The biggest challenge CPC poses to the world is ideological, as China is exporting its capacity-centric philosophy to many parts of the world. However, the brighter aspect is that China is playing by the terms of the democratic world and this is where the democratic countries can have an upper hand over China.

Offering her comments, Dr M.S. Prathibha, Associate Fellow with East Asia Centre, drew attention to the debates about China going on around the world and the need for an interdisciplinary discussion to introduce fresh perspectives in the debate. She noted that the issues of trade and technology that the book highlights are the two most important aspects with regard to China as Beijing is putting in a lot of effort to capture that spectrum. Also, the issues of trade and technology are dividing the world about ways to counter China. She asked the author about the advantages India could have if it follows the ‘China plus one’ strategy and also the possible stumbling blocks in achieving it. She also asked how the international community will counter the Chinese narrative of equating good governance with democracy.

Referring to the issue of raising the costs for China, Dr Titli Basu, Associate Fellow with East Asia Centre, asked about what realistic and practical potential multipolar solidarity holds in shaping Chinese behaviour. Also, with regard to domestic dynamics, she asked about the author’s assessment of the pressing challenges in front of China as it advances towards the 20th Party Congress.

Ms Mayuri Banerjee, Research Analyst with East Asia Centre, raised two questions—first, why China wants to change the international order from which it has benefitted hugely in the past; and second, how the world can manage the Chinese threat in ungoverned spaces like cyberspace and outer space where there are no defined norms of behaviour.

Maj Gen (Dr) Bipin Bakshi, Retd, Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, commented that the notion of China’s peaceful rise is a myth. For a long time, various countries have sidelined their political and military unease with China and kept doing business as usual. However, post-pandemic, the world has finally woken up to the threat China poses. He highlighted China’s disregard for international rules, their tendency to doublespeak and expressed the need to develop new negotiating techniques to deal with China.

During the Q&A session, Dr Anand Kumar, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA asked about the author’s view on the rising trade numbers with China, despite the blinkers being off after the Ladakh incident. Capt Anurag Bisen (IN), Research Fellow, also asked about the disconnect between the business and the strategic community in India with regard to how they see or view China.

Responding to the comments and remarks, Ms Dwivedi highlighted the various drawbacks and the exploitative nature of the Chinese infrastructural projects, which can be countered by initiatives like Build Back Better World (B3W) or the Blue Dot Network. She also emphasised the role of international agencies in managing Chinese behaviour in cyber and outer space. Furthermore, she contended that trade deficits can be strategically used as leverage against China to ensure favourable trading terms or for strategic gains.

Report prepared by Ms Mayuri Banerjee, Research Analyst, East Asia Centre, MP-IDSA.

The webinar was conducted by the Institute on Monday, 13 December 2021. Group Captain A. Karunakaran (Research Fellow, MP-IDSA) was the speaker and Commodore Abhay Singh (Research Fellow, MP-IDSA) moderated the session.

Executive Summary

The session underscored the historical context of UAS, their use beginning from the 18th century, Chinese and Pakistani UAS programmes, and the Indian industries’ perspective on the “Make in India” drive by the Government of India for robust UAS defence-based use.

Detailed Report

Commodore Abhay Singh introduced the topic by pointing how Unmanned Aircraft Systems or Drones are an area of strength and strategic opportunities, having implications for national security. Additionally, they have an increasingly significant role to play in varying areas including economy, mining, transportation, and mapping. In August 2021, the Government of India introduced a policy to realise the ambitions of India’s emergence as a Global Drone Hub. The growing significance attached to drones could be understood from the report unveiled by the BIS Research, highlighting how the Global Drone Market accounts for $28 billion this year. While drones are gaining popularity in India, most of them and their components are currently imported. The government is taking various initiatives and measures within India to overcome such challenges by encouraging Indian Industries.

Group Captain A. Karunakaran quoted a former American General Henry H. Arnold, who in the post-World War II era had predicted how the relevance of unmanned aircraft would overtake manned vehicles in the theatre of future war. He also explained how Unmanned Aircraft Systems have several nomenclatures such as Unmanned Aerial Systems, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA), Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPV), and Drones across industries in the world. However, he chose UAVs as the focal point of his presentation. UAVs are powered aerial vehicles, lack crew, can be piloted or operated remotely, carry objects that are lethal or non-lethal. He also elaborated about Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs). They are also UAVs with Artificial Intelligence, greater maneuverability and greater self-protection capability.

The speaker went on to delineate the history of the UAVs, beginning from the 18th century when Pilotless and Explosive-Laden Balloons came into the picture and were sent across territorial or maritime borders. He gave examples such as Austria using such devices against Italy, United States of America during its civil war in 1861 and Japan adopting a similar tactic in 1944 against the Americans. Kites were also relied upon as UAVs. During World War I &II radio-controlled target drones proved advantageous for anti-aircraft training purposes.

Although the use of target drones continued in the post-WWII era, it did not replace the heavy reliance or the focus of research and development on manned vehicles. During the 1960s, when an American pilot, Gary Powers was shot down and captured by the Soviets, the emphasis began to be shifted toward the use of UAVs. Between the 1960s-2013, the conversion of manned to unmanned drones began to occur for undertaking dull, dirty and dangerous reconnaissance missions. Apart from intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, UAVs can also be used in the form of armed UAVs. Some UAVs are designed to be destroyed after hitting the intended target (Kamikaze mode). Swarm Drones have achieved a lot of fame across the globe and are gaining importance for tactical purposes. Furthermore, a lot of countries have lately begun directing a lot of their research toward UCAVs. UAVs were extensively used in conflicts such as the Vietnam War, Yom Kippur War, Gulf War, Bekka Valley Operation, and the Balkans War.

The debate surrounding UAVs took on a new role beginning from the Global War on Terror in 2001. USA used predator drones to eliminate individual targets and the most recent example is the attack on an IS-K target in August 2021 in Afghanistan by use of the MQ9 Reaper UAV. In 2020, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict also witnessed extensive use of kamikaze drones.

Indian drones are subject to rules and regulations such as the Drone Rules- 2021 released in August 2021 by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Similarly, in the Defence arena the Technology Perspective and Capability Roadmap (2013) was released with the modified version given in 2018. The different categories of civil drones include Nano drones, Micro drones, Small, Medium drones and are used for matters such as police patrol, agriculture, and medical supplies. The defence-based drones are classified as (High Altitude Long Endurance) HALE, (Medium Altitude Long Endurance) MALE, Tactical, VTOL, Micro/mini, and UCAV. The latter is used for locating terrorists and combat-based purposes.

Group Captain Karunakaran spoke about the Chinese UAV Programme. He said it is also crucial to highlight how China has relied upon UAVs and built a robust aviation programme, beginning from 1950s. Government support, reliable infrastructure, quality education, research and development have collectively helped China in this domain. Collaboration and Joint Ventures with other countries and clandestine operations also aided China in its objectives. The three phases of China’s UAV programme include its Formative Phase (1949-1960), where Reverse Engineering of Soviet and American target drones gave huge momentum to their UAV Programme. The Chinese later converted manned aircraft to target drones. The second was the Consolidation Phase (1960-2001), where there were tie-ups with leading manufacturing companies to produce next-generation aircraft. Finally, the Exploratory Phase (since 2001) is where focus on enabling technology began. The organisational set-up headed by the Central Military Commission steered the UAV Programme as National Will. Aerospace Universities and the Aerospace Industries have supported the Chinese aviation programme and are instrumental in its reaching great heights. China has collaborated with other countries and hired individual experts, including those of Indian origin, to produce futuristic technology. Its aviation industry, having set up in 1950, has matured over the years. It has designed 40 and built 1500 types of UAVs. The origin of sub-parts procured by companies such as Boeing is often traced back to China. China has also procured the required technology through means of Deception, Espionage and Cyber-Attacks on American defence contractors to acquire Technologies.

Focusing on Pakistanis UAV Programme, the speaker stated that its UAV programme emerged after the US embargo was proposed under the Pressler Amendment Act in 1990. It owes the development of its programme to PSUs and aid extended by the Chinese. The private sector also had a significant role to play in this process. Pakistan has gone for an indigenous setup of its UAV programme to encourage industries. Americans are hesitant to supply UAVs to Pakistan, lest they fall into the Chinese hands. Earlier, Pakistan had to start from scratch in defence manufacturing since most of the Ordnance factories were in India before Partition. After partition in 1947, the country focused on medium and small-sized UAVS due to economic constraints. They have been used in the border areas patrol and for Intelligence Service and Reconnaissance (ISR) role; aiding terrorists to push across the borders.

While dwelling on the Indian UAV Programme, the speaker mentioned that India’s UAV indigenous development began at Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) around the year 2000. A number of UAVs were at varying stages of development. Meanwhile for strategic purposes India imported UAVs such as Harpy, Harop, Searcher, Heron UAVs. Purchase of armed MQ9 Reaper by India is in the pipeline. India has also gone for explosive-laden sky-striker drones, procuring them from Israel. India’s private sector is at a nascent stage. India’s progress in UAV development has certain challenges such as design and developmental challenges, technology denials by the Americans, lack of synergy between the government agencies and the private industry.

The roadmap for India’s successful UAV programme will center on facets such as self-reliance (Made in India programme), instituting time-bound action plans, synergising civil-military aviation manufacturing, investment in research and development, supporting indigenous projects, acceptance of failure, excellence in aeronautics education, and formulation of next-generation aviation traffic management systems etc. Overall, the survey on Private Industries conducted by the speaker shows a positive outlook trajectory and brings out certain amendments that need to be brought about in policy.
The Q/A session consisted of a discussion on varying facets including remarks and questions by the Director General Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, who referred to China making use of foreign experts to develop technologies, including through engagement with experts from Russia and Central Asia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He also highlighted how Indian experts have provided their expertise to China earlier and guidelines to curb such activities should be issued by the government to this effect and how the Sea Guardian drones have been acquired on lease from the Americans for the use of the Indian Navy. He raised questions about the future of the UAVs, primarily the loitering weapons, and if such weapons could be solar-powered for far-reaching endurance. His comment also highlighted one potential threat of the UAVs carrying human payload across borders. He emphasised that future airspace needs to be integrated with manned and unmanned aircraft, therefore traffic management will be a huge challenge.

Dr. Cherian Samuel raised pertinent points about the rationale behind extending the Border Security Force (BSF) jurisdiction; DRDO potentially monopolising the UAV domain since the private initiatives have failed. Captain Anurag Bisen referred to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, where the drones proved to be a game-changer. He also questioned if we would follow a similar pathway that Americans have (transitioning more toward unmanned aerial vehicles) to mitigate the shortage of personnel. Since 2010, the U.S. has commissioned more unmanned systems vis-à-vis manned systems. Furthermore, he talked about the need for instituting international laws to govern this domain.

Dr. Sanur Sharma had raised the issue of drone development, India’s current status, and Counter Drone Technology. Dr. Rajiv Nayan asked a question pertaining to the Armed Forces’ perspective regarding UAV-based challenges from Pakistan, China, and non-state actors, and underscored the role of academic institutions in studying this domain. The Deputy Director General, Major Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi emphasised that research on policy governing Unmanned Aircraft, Unmanned Ground Vehicles and Underwater Vehicles employability with International Law need to be carried out. He also referred to the policy paper circulated two months ago in this regard and encouraged the relevant Centre’s to produce a more in-depth study on the topic of discussion today.

Report prepared by Ms. Saman Ayesha Kidwai, Research Analyst, Counter Terrorism Centre, MP-IDSA.