Events

Chairperson: R Adm (Retd) K Rajamenon
External Discussants: Professor Baladas Ghoshal, Dr. Vijay Sakhuja
Internal Discussant: Cmd SS Parmar

The paper focusses on the prospects of Maritime Security Cooperation in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) and India’s role in it. Maritime security has become a central issue for regional and extra-regional actors. Emerging traditional and non-traditional security challenges largely converge at sea as they impact economic, environmental, energy, human, food and national security. There are compelling drivers for enhancing maritime security cooperation in the IOR and considerable obstacles to be overcome.

The author argues that as the major regional power and an emerging Asian great power India’s willingness and capacity to provide strategic leadership is critical. However, in view of the alleged civil-military dissonance and the demonstrable lack of political will for reform raises questions about India’s strategic competence and influences perceptions of India’s prospects as a regional leader. Moreover, India’s strategic policy ambiguity undermines regional trust and confidence.

Notwithstanding India’s reluctance, the paper argues that regional actors will increasingly look to India to provide strong, proactive and coherent leadership; to engender a spirit of cooperation and shared destiny. The paper concludes that India’s strategic leadership presents a key regional security risk, and an opportunity.

Major Points of Discussion and Suggestions to the Author:

• The presence of a large no. of actors espousing different cultural values and strategic attitudes makes the leadership position very challenging and difficult to sustain. Lack of regional cooperation in the IOR is not as much the result of lack of political will as it is the result of lack of material capabilities and consensus. India is trying to evolve that eluding consensus. MILAN is an effort in that direction.
• It was argued that currently the priority of foreign policy of India is to maximise economic gains to internally stabilise and power-projection therefore, has been put on the backburner.
• To aspire for great power status without developing matching capabilities to fulfil the obligations that come along this status would fail us. India’ reluctance to engage in expeditionary activities or in security architectures can be partly explained thus.
• One reason for India’s reluctance to look beyond its borders is its troubled neighbourhood. Leadership role has to begin with neighbours and it was pointed out by discussants that India’s neighbours are not conducive to India playing an important role at the regional and global level. India is accused of nursing big brotherly attitude towards its neighbours. The China factor is also very important in India’s foreign policy and its quest for leadership role. China is both a determinant and constraint on India’s foreign policy.
• Significantly, it was brought up during the discussion that India has to play an important role I the IOR as abdicating its responsibility will allow China to take control of the situation to the detriment of India.
• The domestic compulsions of India also inhibits India’s leadership role. India’s Israel policy or West Asia policy has largely been hostage to the minority politics. Similarly, in recent times politics of federalism has acted as a constraint on our foreign policy particularly the neighbourhood policy.
• The absence of track II in IOR was lamented. It was argued that track I lacks the guidance and inputs of track II and it hampers cooperation among the IOR members.
• India does not have a written strategic doctrine and this does not instil confidence in the other countries. In the absence of a well-articulated strategic doctrine ulterior motives can be attributed.
• The issue of Civil-military relations was discussed in detail. It was agreed that contrary to the western writings on CMR, which portray as the situation has reached a dead end; the civil-military relations in India is not actually the problem between the civilian leadership and military establishment, rather it can be described best in terms of higher defence management.
• It was suggested to the author that an empathetic appreciation of the problems that constrain India’s foreign policy would present a more balanced view of the so called reluctant power. For instance, one of the primary reasons for this reluctance on part of India stems from its historical experience of the NAM days when India’s idea of Asia was not taken forward.
• On the question of CMR the author would benefit if he explores the reasons for its overarching presence in the system. One reason could be the role it played in the nation-building in the transitional phase of Indian democracy.
• India’s view of IOR should be dealt with in the paper in order to understand its position on the leadership issue. Moreover, who all support India’s leadership and who not should be listed out.
• The paper would enrich if it prepares two separate list of problems that India face; one under the heading internal problem and the other external problems.
• It was brought up during the discussion that multi polarity is the key in the region. In view of this the paper should bring forth India’s role as one of the key players in the region and not hegemon or dominant power.

Report prepared by Amit Kumar, Research Assistant, IDSA

0900 hrs Registration

1000 – 1045 hrs INAUGURAL SESSION

CHAIR: Shri Shivshankar Menon, NSA.

Welcome Remarks by Dr Arvind Gupta, Director-General, IDSA.

Remarks by Shri Shivshankar Menon, NSA.

Inaugural Address by Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India.

1045 – 1100 hrs Tea Break

1100 – 1300 hrs SESSION 1: ROLES AND DOCTRINES RELATED TO NUCLEAR
WEAPONS

CHAIR: Dr Sverre Lodgaard, Senior Research Fellow, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.

Theme I - Changes in Nuclear Arsenals and Evolution of Nuclear Doctrines

Dr Bruno Tertrais, Senior Research Fellow, Fondation Pour la Recherche Stratégique, France.

Prof Arvind Kumar, Department of Geopolitics and International Relations, Manipal University, India.

Prof Rajesh Rajagopalan, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Theme II - Reconciling the Moral and Security Imperatives

Ambassador Sheel Kant Sharma, Former Indian Ambassador to Austria and Governor on the IAEA Board of Governors.

Dr Rebecca E Johnson, Acronym Institute, UK.

1215 – 1300 hrs Q&A

1300 – 1400 hrs Lunch

1400 – 1545 hrs SESSION 2: NUCLEAR RISKS AND THREATS

CHAIR: Dr WPS Sidhu, Senior Fellow, Brookings India.

Theme I - Addressing Today’s Risks of Proliferation

Dr Patricia Lewis, Research Director for International Security at Chatham House, UK.

Dr Rajiv Nayan, Senior Research Associate, Institute for Defence and Analyses, New Delhi.

Theme II - Tackling the Challenge of Nuclear Terrorism

Dr William C. Potter, Director, James Martin Center for Non-proliferation Studies (CNS), Monterrey, USA.

Prof Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, Senior Fellow for South Asia, International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), UK.

Brigadier (Retd) Feroz H. Khan, Lecturer, Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey, USA.

1500 – 1545 hrs Q&A

1545 – 1600 hrs Tea Break

1600 – 1800 hrs SESSION 3: CHALLENGES OF A NUCLEAR WEAPON-FREE
WORLD

CHAIR: Dr Theresa Hitchens, Director, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, Geneva, Switzerland.

Theme I - Deterrence and Stability On The Road To Nuclear Zero

Dr Manpreet Sethi, Senior Fellow, Center for Air Power Studies, New Delhi.

Ambassador Bilahari Kausikan, Ambassador-At-Large for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore.

Theme II - Verification Challenges

Dr James Acton, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, USA.

Dr Arun Vishwanathan, Assistant Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore.

Dr K L Ramakumar, Director, RC&IG, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, Mumbai.

1715 – 1800 hrs Q&A

1900 hrs CULTURAL PROGRAMME FOLLOWED BY DINNER AT IDSA
(By Invitation)

0930 – 1230 hrs SESSION 4: PATHWAYS TO A NUCLEAR WEAPON-FREE WORLD

CHAIR: Ambassador Rakesh Sood, Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation

Theme I - Moving from Bilateral US-Russia Deep Cuts to Multilateralism

Dr Fan Jishe, Research Fellow of Institute of American Studies at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China.

Dr Anton V. Khlopkov, Director, Center for Energy and Security Studies, Moscow.

Theme II - Existing Treaty-based Regimes and Limitations

Prof Ramesh Thakur, Director, Centre for Nuclear Non-Proliferation & Disarmament, ANU, Australia.

Dr Mu Changlin, Senior Research Fellow, China Institute for International Studies, China.

Theme III - New Stakeholders and New Approaches

Mr Akira Kawasaki, Co-Chair of International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

Dr C Raja Mohan, Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.

Mr Alyn Ware, Global Coordinator of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (PNND).

1130 – 1230 hrs Q&A

1230 – 1400 hrs Lunch

1400 – 1545 hrs SESSION 5: CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAIR: Dr Arvind Gupta, Director General, IDSA

Reports by Session Chairpersons

Chair I: Dr Sverre Lodgaard
Chair II: Dr WPS Sidhu
Chair III: Dr Theresa Hitchens
Chair IV: Ambassador Rakesh Sood

1445 – 1545 hrs Exchange of Views on Reports and Follow-up. >

1545 – 1600 hrs Tea break

Event Photographs [+]

Speaker: Amb. Gillane Allam, Ambassador Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs

The army has been involved in counterinsurgency (CI) operations for almost six decades both within the country and in Sri Lanka. The causes of these uprisings are well known, as is the evolution of CI movements. However, as a key constituent of the government’s CI strategy, a study of the army’s ability to adapt to change deserves greater focus.

Change has been evident, however slow, in the pattern of India’s socioeconomic evolution. The country has also witnessed political empowerment, giving both voice and visibility to demands, thereby influencing the manner in which the country is governed. There is greater transparency in every facet of public life. The media on its part has further ensured greater accountability from government functionaries. The nature of threats, both internal and external have evolved, though with the Pakistan factor remaining a challenge and a key determinant for resolving existing issues in Jammu and Kashmir.

While each of these factors can be assessed in isolation, yet their impact on the conduct of CI operations by the army has been perceptible. These changes have taken place in the backdrop of over six decades of the army’s involvement in CI operations. Needless to say, some of the fac-tors enumerated, have influenced the manner in which the army deals with the challenge of CI op-erations. It has led to adaptation to change, either as a result of extraneous influences and at times because of internal evolutionary mechanisms.

Change takes place at a number of levels and depending upon its nature and pace, it can be both revolutionary and evolutionary. However, a test case of successful change is the ability to transform the manner in which assigned objectives are achieved. In a more conventional sense, it could be achieved by adapting designated goals, strategy or organisational structure. However, giv-en the nature of operations in a CI environment, operational level adaptation can also be instrumen-tal in bringing about major change.

With this as the backdrop, a roundtable discussion is being organised at IDSA on Feb 27, 2014, from 1430 to 1700 hours on how has the army adapted to change in CI operations. The proposed format of the discussion entails a brief introduction to the subject, which will be followed by a short presentation by nominated lead speakers amongst the invitees, on specific issues per-taining to the subject. After each presentation, the floor will be opened to the audience to invite comments and questions. The format has been adopted to ensure focused and deliberate discus-sion on specific areas. A brief summary of subjects that will be taken up for discussion and lead speakers for each are as follows:

• The Indian Army has been employed in CI operations in the Northeast, Sri Lanka, Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir. Did these operations witness a clear goal for the army? Can such a goal be assigned given the protracted nature of operations? Were there cases of shifting of goals, due to strategic over reach or changing conditions? How did this impact the conduct of successful oper-ations? Maj Gen Umong Sethi (Retd)
• Over a period of time the army has evolved its distinct method of fighting in CI operations. Has there been any major change in the strategy adopted by the army at the doctrinal level? If yes, what have been the drivers for this shift? How successful has been this adaptation to change? With specific reference to J&K, how has the army adapted to the external threat from Pakistan in addition to the internal threats of more conventional CI operations in the state. How does this ad-justment take place vis-a-vis other CI areas, which have a negligible external threat. Maj Gen Dipankar Banerjee (Retd)
• The army units have been involved in making local organisational changes at the unit level to adapt to CI operations. This includes creating an additional company from within the resources of Support and HQ Company. In addition to the experiment of ‘I’ Battalions in the Northeast, the Rashtriya Rifles concept has been the most prominent change in CI operations. Did the army adapt adequately in terms of organisational changes, given its employment in CI operations since the fifties? Has organisational change at the headquarter level also been accompanied by a man-power policy, which ensures posting specialists to appointments that deal with issues like infor-mation warfare, psychological warfare and cyber warfare? Did training for CI operations and specialist staff appointments create adequate capacities and in the right time frame? Maj Gen Umong Sethi (Retd)
• There have been distinct changes in the army’s operational conduct of CI operations over the years. What were the major changes witnessed in this regard? What was the reason for these changes to take place? How much of the change was forced by external factors? Did some in-ternal thought process lead to major changes? Have the changes merely been incremental, with limited ability to think out of the box? Maj Gen Dhruv Katoch (Retd)
• Does the army have a distinct strategic culture in relation to CI operations? How has the strategic culture of the army impacted its ability to adapt to change, as seen in the context of CI opera-tions? Has it been a limiting or supporting factor in the successful conduct of operations? Brig Rahul Bhonsle (Retd)
• Do civil-military relations have an impact on CI operations? If yes, what has been its impact on the process of change, its pace and quality? Dr Manoj Joshi
• India has witnessed coalition governments in the recent past. There has also been a trend of re-gional parties having serious differences on the CI policy. What has been the impact of a domes-tic politics on the conduct of CI operations and adapting to the changing environment? Maj Gen Dhruv Katoch(Retd)
• How well has the army employed technology to adapt to changing threats and emerging chal-lenges? Has the adoption of technology been ahead or behind the curve? Has the army played catchup with terrorists or incorporated technology proactively. Brig Rahul Bhonsle (Retd)