Events

Chairman: Lt Gen Y M Bammi (Retd)
External Discussants: Ambassador Preet Mohan Singh Malik and Professor Man Mohini Kaul
Internal Discussants: Shri Vishal Chandra and Dr Rahul Mishra

Major Arguments of the Paper: The core argument of this paper is that a paradigm shift is necessary in order to take the defence relationship between Malaysia and India to a higher plane. The author has approached the subject from the Malaysian perspective, and her prescription about paradigm shift relates to the Malaysian state. By paradigm shift she means a change in the mindset of Malaysians in general and the government in particular. The change of mindset here implies that Malaysia should stop viewing India from the old prism of a developing or backward nation.

The author has traced the genesis of the defence relationship between the two countries to the pre-independence days, when the British Indian forces made important contributions in Malaya. However, Cold-War saw a drift in the relationship. End of the Cold War again brought important changes in the way Malaysia saw defence cooperation with India. Changed geopolitical realities made Malaysia cooperate with India. Malaysia regards its defense and security cooperation with India as vital and highest form of cooperation. The MoU on Defense Cooperation signed in 1993 is the most important mechanism to boost the bilateral cooperation in defence sector between the two countries.

The author then goes on to explain the depth of the military cooperation by giving details of the cooperation-service wise. The level of interaction is deepest between the navies of the two countries largely because cooperation in Andaman and Malacca Straits maritime area holds vital strategic importance for both Malaysia and India. However, the author has also attached importance to the contribution of the Indian Air Force in maintenance and tactical training of the RMAF. Moreover, Malaysia sees India as a stabilizer in the region.

The author analysed the discourse on defence cooperation between the two countries under two broad themes:
i Malaysia-India Defense cooperation is on the right track.
ii The relationships lacks substance and volume.

The author subscribes to the latter viewpoint and holds the Malaysian mindset primarily responsible for such a state of affairs. In conclusion she said that Defense MoU signed between the two countries was a major milestone as India was the first country outside the region with which Malaysia signed such an agreement. However, since then progress has been limited. Many items listed in the MoU have not been implemented. The volume of defence cooperation needs to be increased. Malaysia cannot ignore India’s rise and must utilize its capabilities. And for this, the author said, Malaysian perception about India must change.

Major Points of Discussion and Suggestions to the Author:

• It will be useful for the author to discuss the military doctrines of both India and Malaysia upfront to set the context for the study. It will also bring out clearly the points of convergence and divergence between the two, which will help in policy prescription.
• The Andaman Sea touches Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore. So, it is one of the potential areas of deeper cooperation between the navies of these countries and Indian Navy.
• One of the main irritants for India in the relationship is Malaysia’s policy of equating Pakistan with India. Equating India with China is admissible, but not Pakistan.
• The paper would be enriched if its takes into account the US rebalancing in Asia-Pacific. Since the rebalancing envisages major role for India, it will be worthwhile to dwell upon Malaysia’s stand on it and explore meeting grounds to further the defence cooperation.
• India’s Look East Policy and interaction with ASEAN led to better appreciation of each other’s position on security issues. For this reason, the Look East Policy merits some attention in the paper.
• Significantly, it was pointed out that cooperation between the two countries in the Andaman Sea and the Straits of Malacca should not become hostage to the apprehension or fear of the Malaysian authorities, as the need for cooperation on this issue is greater than any apprehension.
• Author should analyze the reasons for non-implementation of many of the items in the MoU.
• China is an unreliable partner of ASEAN. It first signs a code of conduct and then violates it. Its aggressive postures vis-à-vis Vietnam bears testimony to this fact.
• The defence cooperation between India and Malaysia is mainly in the maritime arena. However, it is a fact that the land forces dominate the Malaysian military. It is important therefore, that the cooperation between the two armies intensify.
• Malaysia’s apprehensions of India arise not because of either the Maldives Ops or the IPKF Ops, but because of the 1998 nuclear tests and the Theatre Command in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
• The China factor should be devoted sufficient attention. The asymmetry that exists between the two countries limits Malaysia’s options vis-à-vis China. It has therefore, adopted the policy of constructive engagement with China, notwithstanding the fact that China is not a natural choice for them. Malaysia’s engagement is mostly economic. However, the China factor also inhibits Malaysia in making faster moves in defence cooperation with India.

Report prepared by Amit Kumar, Research Assistant, IDSA

Venue: Board Room, IDSA

An expert in Indonesia and Islamic extremism, Professor Barton will look at the nature of the terrorist problem across the region- where, when, why and how. He will discuss ways to counter violent extremism, including community engagement, countering radicalisation, and rehabilitation. What has worked, and what has failed in South East Asia? The following discussion will allow for analysis of the linkages between South East Asian and South Asian terrorism - ideology, networks, tactics - as well as an assessment of counter-terrorism strategies and their global applicability.

Prof Greg Barton’s bio-note

Greg Barton is the Herb Feith Research Professor for the Study of Indonesia in the Faculty of Arts at Monash University. He is acting Director of the Centre for Islam and the Modern World (CIMOW), Deputy UNESCO Chair in Inter-religious and Intercultural Relations – Asia Pacific, and Deputy Head of the school of Political and Social Inquiry (International). He is an active member of the Global Terrorism Research Centre (GTReC) at Monash and continues to research Jemaah Islamiyah and other radical Islamist movements in Southeast Asia. Together with the Director of the Global Terrorism Research Centre (GTReC) Dr Peter Lentini he is leading a large ARC Linkage research project examining violent extremist radicalization and counter radicalization.

The Director General of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) and Dr. S Kalyanaraman, Research Fellow, IDSA, interacted with thirteen students from the Chanakya Institute for Public Leadership, University of Mumbai. The students visited the IDSA with their Directors Prof. Radhakrishnan Pillai and Dr. Ranjit Shetty. The visit was a part of the CIPL India tour programme to introduce its students to the diversity and complexity of the Indian nation. Their main interest in IDSA was to understand the role of IDSA in strategic thinking and policy making. They particularly focused on the project undertaken by IDSA to explore indigenous strategic thinking including Kautilya’s Arthasastra.

During the interaction, the students of CIPL explained how they are being inspired by Chanakya’s thought on Governance and strategy. Most of them reflected that Chanakya’s dispassionate and rational line of thought, added with his commitment to rajadharma, provides an ideal way of leadership. The students, from diverse educational backgrounds, converged on their special interest in the qualities of leadership required to lead the country and formulate and implement wise policies.

Dr Arvind Gupta, DG, IDSA, expressed his wish for more interaction and even academic collaboration, if possible, between the two institutes to explore and research on indigenous strategic thinking, which, though recognised, is latent and underexplored.

Dr. Kalyanaraman answered in detail the diverse queries of the students about the Kashmir issue, military modernisation, leadership, nuclear policy, international image, normative issues in governance and international relations, and many more.

The interaction was arranged by Col. (Retd.) P. K. Gautam. Research Fellow IDSA, who has initiated the IDSA project on indigenous strategic knowledge.

Venue: Room no 005, IDSA

The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, has constantly pushed the envelope on looking at matters of security and policy through a multi-dimensional prism. It is within this context that we are studying the role and rise of new actors like the media and its increasing relevance and profile in the realm of policy making. At a time when the country is witnessing challenges - political, social and moral, the role of the media is rising in perception as never before. But how much does 'prime time' in the era of 24 hour news coverage actually impact policy?

The IDSA monograph titled "Who Sets The Agenda? Does Prime Time Really Pace Policy? - The Indian Experience" by Ms Shruti Pandalai, attempts to address these questions looking at recent foreign policy debates which have been widely discussed. We are organising a round table discussion on the same.

Panel of Experts

Ambassador Nalin Surie
Ambassador Leela Ponappa
Dr. Sanjaya Baru
Mr. Nitin Gokhale
Ms. Mahrukh Inayet
Mr.Josy Joseph

Concept Note

Through the monograph “Who Sets the Agenda? Does Prime Time Really Pace Policy?” the author has tried to demonstrate the dynamics of the growing interface between diplomacy and the news media within the Indian case study. The focus has been broadcast media, specifically television and the change it has ushered in bureaucratic and political responses to crises. Television news coverage in India seems to have a higher impact in the realm of domestic policy vis-a-vis foreign policy. Its exponential growth in a competitive ratings driven market has given it an image of a pressure group which has not yet attained political maturity to be taken seriously by policymakers. However the ‘real-time response’ and accountability component introduced to the arena of diplomacy has been the vital pressure point in many foreign policy considerations.

This monograph has explored three basic questions: Does the Indian media influence and shape agendas in policy formulation? If it does, what is the role and the extent of this influence? Is the influence independent or contingent upon conditions?

The media’s agency has been versatile in the case studies examined. From a pressure group that almost seems to set the terms for talks with Pakistan in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, to acting as a back channel negotiator via a bilateral media track II peace initiative; to being the participant who created a sustained campaign on the highlighting the advantages of the Indo-US Nuclear deal and ensured that the government took a stand on the ‘Race Attacks’ targeting Indians in Australia; or being the critical observer who embarrassed the govt. for its alleged soft response to the incursions by China on the disputed border. The spectrum has been wide; at least in perception. Yet despite its multifaceted agency, this monograph argues that media’s influence on foreign policy formulation is negligible and restricted to short term changes and not long term policy.

So how do we take these deliberations and policy recommendations forward? The roundtable will aim to address :

1. The media's increasing profile as an actor in foreign policy formulation: is it constructive or otherwise?
2. What are the challenges on reporting on foreign policy in India?
3. Television vs. Print coverage of foreign affairs.
4. A critical assessment of government’s response to 24x7 media.
5. The Way forward.
6. New areas of research.