You are here
Events
| Title | Date | Author | Time | Event | Body | Research Area | Topics | File attachments | Image |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| International Conference on ‘Addressing the Challenge of International Terrorism and Radicalisation’ | November 23, 2016 | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Conference |
Venue: IDSA Auditorium (Second Floor) Concept NoteAs the foremost threat to international peace and security, global terrorism is an implacably complex, intractable and suigeneris phenomena. As the origins, scope and impact of the global menace extend beyond conventional security and military paradigms — covering religious, political, socio-economic, demographic and at times historical vectors — a purely militaristic and security-centeric response to the threat often lags behind the proverbial curve. Thus, even after decades of militarily defeating and destroying various bases and their human and material assets, the swamp of terrorism continues to spew new forms of violence on the global scene, ever more adept in unusual modes of asymmetric warfare and worldwide appeal. In addition, the increased ideological, military, logistical and financial support provided by certain states to non-state terrorist outfits as part of their covert, sub-conventional warfare directed against peace-loving nations remains a matter of serious international and humanitarian concern today. The time has come to universally reject the use of terrorism as state policy by any country, irrespective of real or perceived injustice. Terrorism must be denounced unequivocally and without any pre-conditions. The classification of ‘good terrorism’ vis-à-vis ‘bad terrorism’ also needs to be summarily dismissed. As terrorism threatens the unity and territorial integrity of various Asian countries — particularly those in West Asia, South Asia and Central Asia — the importance of reinformed efforts in the fight against radicalisation and terrorism both at the individual and regional levels cannot be overstated. It is noteworthy that several governments of these regions have already launched indigenous counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation campaigns that have achieved varying degrees of success. Clearly, there is room for greater effectiveness and cooperation among these countries inter and intra-regionally. We must also make an earnest endeavour to learn from eachothers’ experiences, especially given the evolutionary nature of both the threat and the ensuing responses. As the threat of terrorism metastasises into rapidly morphing and ever more virulent forms, there remain several blind spots and shades of confusion in counter-terrorism operations conducted by various agencies nationally and internationally. The situation underscores the importance of greater clarity, coordination and even collaboration of counter-terrorist campaigns among countries to combat global jihadism with transnational linkages. There is a need to properly define, identify, and effectively reverse the processes that produce and catalyse radicalisation, violent extremism and terrorism. To begin with, it is essential to unravel the character arc of a typical terrorist, from the time of the germination of radical thought to the person’s transition to violent action. In other words, there is a need to explore various theoretical models and frameworks that counterradicalisation experts of various countries have developed to explain the transition of an ordinary citizen into a radical and violent extremist or terrorist, in order to understand the motivations and circumstances that abet the transformation. The study has become all the more important with growing threats of home-grown terrorism in various countries and rising incidents of lone-wolf attacks. The institutions, forums and mediums required to facilitate constant exchange of experience and expertise among soldiers and counter-terrorism experts, thereby aiding each other with the latest updates, research and operational know-how at the inter-state, inter-regional and intra-regional levels is the need of the hour. Efforts are needed to build and nurture relevant mechanisms. The limitations of the international system in this regard need to be studied and effectively addressed. Another cardinal point is the constant monitoring and analyses of the constantly evolving extremist discourse and the changing objectives in order to develop effective counternarratives on a sustained basis, as part of comprehensive strategic communication programs. The irony of employing information technology and new media to effectively spread the contagion of atavistic discourse and the use of the most advanced psy-ops techniques, as well as hybridised fourth generation warfare, demands intensive study and analyses. The prospective threat of a CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear) attack, which is an increasingly disconcerting and imminent danger, remains a critical field for study. It is difficult to overemphasise the need for developing relevant legal, institutional and social structures, institutions and mechanisms that countervail the global outreach of terrorism. The role of civil society, moderate religious groups, and non-government organisations in dredging the morass of extremism through community outreach programs, public relation campaigns, educational courses, employment counselling sessions, interactive cultural and sports programs, etc. need to be explored to the fullest extent possible. Thus, it is by developing and deploying a diverse and comprehensive, and simultaneously, highly coherent and synergised intra-regional counter-terrorism policies − with the involvement of various countries, important think tanks, and relevant experts and influential leaders of all communities – that an effective counterpunch can be delivered to the growing monstrosity of jihadism so that the proverbial swamp of violent extremism could be effectively drained. Programme9:30 - 10:00 Registration10:00 -10:45 Inaugural Session
10:45 - 11:00 Tea Break11:00 - 13:00 Session I: The Ideological Frontier against Terror - Chairperson: Ambassador Chinmaya Gharekhan
13:00-14:00 Lunch Break14:00-15:30 Session II: Contours of Radicalisation in the “Heart of Asia” - Chairperson: Prof S D Muni, Distinguished Fellow, IDSA
15:30-15:45 Tea Break15:45-17:00 Session III: Country Studies of Counter-Terrorist Initiatives - Chairperson: Cmde C Uday Bhaskar (Retd)
Event Report [+]Press Release [+]Event photographs [+] |
Terrorism & Internal Security | ||||
| Seventh Y.B. Chavan Memorial Lecture: Decline of Internationalism | November 28, 2016 | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Speeches and Lectures |
Programme1600-1605: Welcome Address by Shri Jayant Prasad, DG, IDSA 1605-1610: Address by Dr RD Pradhan, Representative of Yashwantrao Chavan Pratishthan, Mumbai 1610-1640: Talk by Shri Shyam Saran 1640-1645: Remarks by Chair, Shri Jayant Prasad 1645-1715: Question and Answer Session 1715: Vote of Thanks by Col Vivek Chadha (Retd), Research Fellow, IDSA 1720: Refreshments |
|||||
| 18th Asian Security Conference - Securing Cyberspace: Asian and International Perspectives | February 09, 2016 to February 11, 2016 | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Conference | North America & Strategic Technologies | Asian Security Conference | ||||
| IFS-IDSA Seminar - India and the Great Powers: Continuity and Change | November 21, 2016 | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Conference |
Venue: Auditorium, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi Concept NoteIn the post-Cold War period, India is increasingly moving away from its previous non-aligned stance. China’s rise and India’s own economic growth and increased ambitions are all factors behind this changing outlook. Since taking up office in 2014, the current Modi government has showed that India is now willing to build more comprehensive relations with the great powers, which again may impact on the regional dynamic. The conference, India and the Great Powers, will examine India’s relations with the great powers, emphasising particularly the US, China, Russia and Japan, and analysing change and continuity under the current government. Today’s complex Sino-Indian relationship, combining economic co-operation with strategic rivalry, may be seen as an underlying factor in all of these, with the potential for wide-ranging effects. What are China’s strategic interests in Central and South Asia? How does India respond to China’s economic growth and increasing footprint in India’s neighborhood, both along its continental and maritime frontiers? How is China’s increased regional and global presence affecting India’s relations with great powers such as the US, Russia and Japan? Are we witnessing increased great power co-operation or great power rivalry in Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific theatre? The conference, India and the Great Powers, aims to produce new insights on India’s relations with the great powers, in light of the ongoing processes of change. Programme09:00 Registration 09:30 to 10:30AM: Inaugural SessionWelcome Remarks by Jayant Prasad 10:30 to 11:00 AM: High Tea 11:00 AM to 13:30 PM: Session 2: India and China’s RiseChair: S Kalyanraman 13:25 to 14:30 Lunch 14:30 to 16:00 PM: Session 3: India and the USAChair: Sunniva Engh 16:15-16:35 PM: Tea & Coffee break 16:35 to 18:05 PM: Session 4: India, Russia and JapanChair: Deputy National Security Advisor, Dr. Arvind Gupta 18:20 to 18:30 PM: Final remarks by Jo Inge Bekkevold and Jayant PrasadTea/Coffee |
Military Affairs | ||||
| 51st Foundation Day Address by Dr Arvind Panagariya, Vice Chairman, Niti Aayog, on ‘National Security and Development’ | November 17, 2016 | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Speeches and Lectures |
The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) is organising 51st Foundation Day Address by Dr Arvind Panagariya, Vice Chairman, Niti Aayog, on ‘National Security and Development’ on Thursday, November 17, 2016, in the IDSA Auditorium (Second Floor) at 1600 hours. Programme1545-1555hrs: Arrival of Guests and Registration 1556 hrs: Arrival of Dr Arvind Panagariya, Vice Chairman, Niti Aayog 1558 hrs: Arrival of Shri Manohar Parrikar 1600-1605 hrs: Welcome Remarks by Shri Jayant Prasad, DG, IDSA 1605-1610 hrs: Foundation Day Message by Shri Manohar Parrikar, Hon’ble Raksha Mantri & President, IDSA 1610-1655 hrs: Foundation Day Address by Dr Arvind Panagariya, Vice Chairman, Niti Aayog 1655-1700 hrs Vote of Thanks by Maj Gen Alok Deb, SM, VSM (Retd), DDG, IDSA 1700 hrs High Tea |
|||||
| Compressing politics on COIN: Implications for counterinsurgency theory with reference to India’s Northeast | October 19, 2016 | Alex Walterman | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Round Table |
Chair: Prof. Rajesh Rajagopalan Discussants: Brig. Narender Kumar, Col. Pradeep Singh Chhonkar, Col. Vikrant S. Deshpande Mr. Walterman elaborated on his paper about the theoretical debates of Counterinsurgency (COIN) and the growing complex challenges that have confronted the traditional theorization of COIN. The paper deals with the relationship between COIN and the complex aspects of latest insurgencies. Mr. Alex argued that the old theorization of COIN, which was conditioned by Cold War understanding and the traditional division of “duties into 80% political action and 20% military”, has almost become stagnant. He argued even the 21st century democracies have been adopting this mechanism for dealing with insurgencies. Mr Waterman noted there is a need to overcome this “conceptual inertia” in order to address the complexity of changed insurgencies and this paper is an attempt in that direction. Waterman argued that the continued theorisation and division of COIN into political and military are inadequate for dealing with insurgencies as these have evolved, grown complex and are sometimes thriving upon alternative political models. Defeating the political in the insurgencies remains challenge for any COIN rather than merely crushing its guerrilla tactics. That means in many ways that COIN has become 100% political. With regard to India, Waterman argued that in India the rebel groups were recognised from the beginning as “misguided citizens” by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the approach to deal with them has been overwhelmingly political with less use of military tactics. However, this approach has not paid off in the way the state would have liked it to. According to Waterman, the current notion of political embedded in COIN understanding fails to take into account the complexity of the political environment at the two levels: One is that counterinsurgents and insurgents are not the only actors that can have an overall political impact. There are other influential actors as well; strong local politicians, civil society or foreign intelligence agencies. Second is that the interactions within this environment may not reflect the traditional and complex political competition. Some elements of an insurgency may be seeking to carve out an ethnic exclusionary base to consolidate power while others may be seeking to control drug trafficking or likewise. Such vested interests are not uncommon in the latest insurgencies. Waterman argued that the Indian approach of a combination of political engagement and military coercion, has been successful in co-opting those groups who are willing to be part of the mainstream and empowering political actors to bring them to negotiations. Though this has been successful, for example, in Mizoram with the Mizo National Front (MNF), it, however, remains an exception. In other Northeast states like Nagaland, issues remains unsettled. In Bodoland, the Peace Accords of 1993 and 2003 created a new kind of identity politics within the Bodo society, fragmenting it, and creating new forms of violence that led to the emergence of “other armed groups” who are creating their own space. Insurgent groups tend to exploit vulnerable sections of a society and grey area to their interest. Many a times, insurgent groups react to a particular COIN approach differently based upon their political and social conditions. These different signals from different groups “produce complications” which the current political primacy in COIN fails to cover appropriately. Similarly, apart from the political, the force used in the COIN is meant to weaken the insurgent groups and bring them on the negotiating table. This, however, changes the political/power dynamics: apparently empowering one group and sidelining the others. Therefore, though the political primacy on COIN is rightly the main feature, but it is unable to capture increased complexity present in the latest insurgencies. For that we need to re-visit the old theory of COIN and attempt a new theorization for capturing the latest dynamics and actors involved. We need to revise the theory in order to successfully draw generalisations to cover diverse cases. Brig. Narender KumarBrig. Kumar in his comments argued that there are indeed complications in the process of COIN, as the paper argues. But these arise also from the geography, demography and relationship between ethnic groups as well, whose understanding may differ from the mainstream. As a case in point, in the Northeast, there was no concept of state as it is understood now. The effort from the centre to compress the local structures and traditions has created problems. For example, Assam was one of the most developed regions in India. Attempted reform of its structure without taking into account the local traditions led to the problems it is faced with today. In other places like Manipur, conflicts exist between the ethnic groups themselves rather than with the centre or state. Overall, Brig. Kumar argued, given the complexity, where is the space for the political? The situation demands closer to an 80% military and 20% political approach. Therefore, at best, it was more likely that the political and military will go hand in hand. In Nagaland, insurgency is an industry which provides jobs to the unemployed youth. This is because there are no economic opportunities for them. It’s fortunate that the people are forcing the insurgent groups to maintain the cease fire. There is a requirement for the northeast to be first integrated with itself, then with the main land. Col. Pradeep Singh ChhonkarCol. Chhonkar argued that the paper presented aptly analyzes the concept of political in COIN and dynamics involved in insurgencies. This complexity has grown mainly because of the vast number of actors involved in these insurgencies. These actors control economic, social and political power and use them to pursue their interests. Many Northeast insurgencies are complex because these are not insurgencies of traditional understanding and features but are used for controlling the drug market, fake currency and for extortions. He suggested that Nagaland could also be included as a case study for a situation in which, when one group is talked to, the others feel being sidelined. Col. Vikrant S. DeshpandeCol. Deshpande opined that the paper highlights two elements of COIN: political approach and utility of force. It argues that the existing theory doesn’t entail the complexity involved in insurgencies and for analyzing this Northeast is taken as case study. COIN practice precedes the theory and it is not that the practioners are not aware about the complications. The measures taken in Northeast were ineffective not because the design or intention were missing but because of the wrong execution. Col. Deshpande was of the opinion that the idea of utility of force in the paper can be further developed. Force is used to achieve tactical ends. It needs to be elaborated why the use of force should stop at getting a fighting group to the negotiating table. Prof. Rajesh RajagopalanCommenting on the paper, Prof. Rajagopalan argued that three points need to be taken into consideration: i)academic theorizing has practice behind it; , i.e., a theory’s premise is empirical data or/experience which informs the theorist’s understanding of an issue which he/she then tries to give a theoretical explanation. ii), the binary division of the COIN theory debate into the political and military doesn’t cover all the dimensions involved. Besides, the perspective of a theorist or practioner has a significant impact on this; and iii) As a corollary to the second point, therefore, for better or worse, there is politics involved in this division of the COIN into the political and military itself,. An academician or a practioner after all has his subjectivity involved in this process which influences his/her understanding of the COIN. Prof. Rajagopalan further argued that the concept of political in COIN is not applicable at the global level. India is fighting insurgencies internally and the issues of human rights, citizenship rights, democratic values and excessive use of force are factors in play while taking on the insurgent groups,; unlike in international counterinsurgency enterprises, of the type found in Afghanistan and Iraq. In an attempt of theorization, we also need to open the black box from the both sides, i.e., from the state and from the insurgent side as well. Prof. Rajagopalan noted that a major challenge for the paper would be to draw generalizations from the application of the (reformed) COIN theory in cases where there are complexities involved, like in the Northeast region of India. |
||||
| Talk by Shafick Osman on "Geopolitics of the Indian Ocean Region: An Overview" | November 11, 2016 | 1500 hrs | Other |
Venue: Boardroom #104, First Floor, IDSA Dr Shafick Osman is Director of Research and Studies Ltd and Former Head and Founder of School of Geopolitics, Université des Mascareignes, Mauritius. Shri Anup Kumar Mudgal, Former High Commissioner of India to Mauritius, will chair the meeting. |
Africa, Latin America, Caribbean & UN | ||||
| International Conference on ‘Russia in Global Affairs: Indian and Russian Perspectives’ | November 04, 2016 | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Conference |
Venue: Seminar Hall 1 (2nd Floor), IDSA The conference is being organized in the backdrop of the special edition of IDSA journal ‘Strategic Analysis’, entitled ‘Russia in Global Affairs’. Several leading Russian policy experts have contributed to the special edition, offering a comprehensive view on the structure of the new international order, major international tendencies and problems, and Russia’s place in this system. The articles discuss Russia’s approaches to international security, new factors of influence in the modern world, Russia and the system of global governance, Russia and the new economic order, Russia’s role in Eurasian integration and its policy of pivot to Asia within the context of similar policies by other major international players. It is in this context that the conference aims at deliberating on above themes and exploring areas of future cooperation between India and Russia. Programme10-1030h: Registration & Tea 1030-1100h: Inaugural SessionWelcome Remarks by Shri Jayant Prasad, Director General, IDSA Inaugural address by Ambassador Alexander M. Kadakin [tbc] Address by Dr. Alexander Lukin, Director, Center for East Asian and Shanghai Cooperation Organization Studies at Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Russian Foreign Ministry (MGIMO University) 1100-1300h: Session I: International Situation: Emerging Global OrderChair: Professor MadhavanPalat US–Russia Confrontation and a New Global Balance Andrei Skriba, Associate Professor, Department of International Relations, Associate Research Fellow at the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at National Research University Higher School of Economics. Russian Strategy towards the Post-Soviet Space in Europe: Searching for Balance between Economy, Security, and Great Power Attractiveness Maxim Bratersky, Professor, Department of International Relations, National Research University Higher School of Economics. The Evolution of National Security Thinking in Post-Soviet Russia Nandan Unnikrishnan, Vice President and Senior Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. 1300-1400h: Lunch 1400-1545h: Session II: Regional Situation: Greater EurasiaChair: Ambassador Ajai Malhotra Alexander Lukin, Director, Center for East Asian and Shanghai Cooperation Organization Studies at Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Russian Foreign Ministry (MGIMO University) Russia’s Pivot to Asia: Myth or Reality? Mark Entin, Professor, Department of European Law at Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Russian Foreign Ministry (MGIMO University), former Russian Ambassador to Luxemburg. The New Role of Russia in the Greater Eurasia Meena Singh Roy, Research Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. Analysing Connectivity Projects in Eurasia: “The New Integration Game” 1545-1600h: Tea 1600-1730h: Session III: India-Russia Relations: Strengthening the Economic FoundationChair:Dr. Alexander Lukin Phunchok Stobdan, Senior Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. Changing Nature of Indo-Russian Relations Leonid Grigoryev, Head, Department of World Economy, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Former Deputy Minister of Economics and Finances. Russia in the System of Global Economic Relations Arun Mohanty, Professor, Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Reflections on Indo-Russian Trade and Investment Press Release [+] |
Eurasia & West Asia | ||||
| 19th Asian Security Conference - Combating Terrorism: Evolving an Asian Response | March 06, 2017 to March 08, 2017 | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Conference | Terrorism & Internal Security | |||||
| Cyber Warfare | October 21, 2016 | Sanjeev Gupta | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar | North America & Strategic Technologies |