Title | Date | Author | Time | Event | Body | Research Area | Topics | File attachments | Image |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lecture by Ishtiaq Ahmed on "India Pakistan Relations: Future Prospects" | February 27, 2013 | 1100 hrs | Other |
Venue: Room No. 105 Brief profile of Prof Ishtiaq AhmedProf Ahmed was born in Lahore, Pakistan, on 24 February 1947. He received my doctorate from the University of Stockholm in 1986 where he currently holds the position of a professor in the Department of Political Science. During the academic year 2008-2009 Ishtiaq Ahmed is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), National University of Singapore, on leave from Stockholm University. Some of his recent publications are:
|
South Asia | ||||
Special Address - Admiral D K Joshi on "Role of Indian Navy in Maintaining Peace in Indian Ocean Region" | March 05, 2013 | Speeches and Lectures |
Speaker: Chief of the Naval Staff (CNS), Admiral D K Joshi, PVSM, AVSM, YSM, NM, VSM, ADC Chairperson: Vice Admiral (Retd.) P S Das |
Military Affairs | |||||
Workshop on Kautilya: Creating Strategic Vocabulary | April 09, 2013 | Workshop |
The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) organised a workshop, “Kautilya: Creating Strategic Vocabulary” on April 9, 2013. This workshop was a part of the IDSA project on Indigenous Historical Knowledge. It followed an introductory workshop on Kautilya organised by IDSA on October 18, 2012, which discussed the relevance of Kautilya in Indian strategic thinking. Following is the YouTube hyperlink to the workshop presentations: The workshop on strategic vocabulary started from the point suggested by Mr. Shivshankar Menon, National Security Advisor, in the previous workshop, about developing an indigenous vocabulary to understand international relations. A total of six presentations were made relating the Kautilyan concepts and terms to the contemporary affairs of international relations. The presenters were Dr. Deepshikha Shahi, Asst. Prof. Janki Devi Memorial College, University of Delhi, Mr. Kota Mallikarjuna Gupta, Student, Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution, New Delhi, Mr. Satyam Malaviya, Student, Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution, New Delhi, Mr. Jean Langlois, from EHES Grande Ecole-School for Advanced Studies in Social Sciences, France, Group Captain Vinay Vittal, Air HQ and Col (retd) P K Gautam, Research Fellow, IDSA. Dr. Deepshikha Shahi spoke on “Arthasastra beyond Realpolitik: the ‘Eclectic’ face of Kautilya”. She said that we need to set Arthashastra free from the realist interpretation and look into it with other approaches as well. According to her, though the academic efforts towards establishing Arthasastra as a precursor to political realism has helped in evoking Arthasastra from its apparently dormant condition, it has simultaneously exercised a delimiting impact on the scope of this incredibly vast and profound script. A critical assessment of the realist interpretation of Arthasastra can create room for a broader and more useful way of reinventing Arthasastra. Although the realist elucidation of Arthasastra provides valuable insights into the Kautilyan vision of politics, it is marked with some ‘hermeneutical’ problems that can be diluted by demonstrating the eclectic character of Arthasastra that not only encompasses the features of political realism but also goes well with the insights of social constructivism. She also tried to find the traces of social constructivism in Arthasastra in the latter part of her paper. Mr. Kota Mallikarjuna presented on the “Aspects of Peace in Kautilya’s Arthasastra”. Contextualising with the conflicts in Asia, he listed Kautilya’s preferences for peace instead of war. He also talked about various kinds of samdhis (treaties) in Arthasastra. Mr. Satyam Malaviya presented how the tactical postures and policies adopted by Pakistan can be explained by the vocabulary of Arthasastra. He defined Pakistani foreign policy as SAB (Samdhayay yayat, Anarthinam, Bhuyo-yaceta) policy which he tried to explain with different instances of India-Pakistan and US-Pakistan relationship. Mr. Jean Langlois described the importance given to the element of power and troop solidarity by Kautilya. He said that Kautilya defined power as not just military might or economic strength, but also intellectual capacity that enables a king to conduct an objective analysis and make a correct judgment. The king’s power, for Kautilya, is mainly tied to the power and popular energy of the people. Here one of the key points Kutilya highlights is the importance of the population of the state one decides to attack. Kautilya even suggested that men of an army should know one another and that an army of friends fighting side by side is the most difficult to defeat. Group Captain Vinay Vittal elucidated elements of Kautilya’s grand strategy in Arthasastra. He said that Kautilya’s grand strategy emanated from the national policy and strength of the seven elements (prakrtis) of the state or national power and the grand strategy in turn guided the military strategy. According to him, Kautilya’s national policy was centred on the population. He also demonstrated, with the use of Kautilyan vocabulary (vigraha, prakash-yuddha, kuta-yuddha, tusnim-yuddha, dvaidhibhava, yana and asana) how Israel is able to gain a foothold among the Arab nations. Col. (Retd) P K Gautam deliberated on the concept of dharmavijay (just war) in Arthasastra. He explained how it is different from lobhavijay (conquest of greed) and asuravijay (conquest like demon). He further explained India’s role in the liberation war of Bangladesh as a dharmavijay. He elucidated vocabulary from the Arthasastra pertaining to winning peace and the laws of armed conflict. He also flagged how Kautilya emphasises on a war and victory without spilling blood. Discussing the papers presented, Dr. Kalyan Raman said that if calling for an Indian theory of physics or economics is absurd, so is the call for an Indian theory of International Relations (IR). It is possible that this call for an Indian theory of IR is the result of angst about Western scholarship’s hegemony in the field. We should avoid looking for an Indian IR theory in isolation from the Mainstream or the so called western IR knowledge body. We should rather integrate our indigenous knowledge body with the mainstream. The study of the text like Arthasastra is important not because they would provide us with the vocabulary and perspective for initiating an Indian theory of IR, but because it would enable the Indian scholars to introduce nuances that may be missing in the Western discourse on IR and thus provide the scope for integrating Indian IR scholarship with the international mainstream. Further, the study of these texts would also provide the inspiration to investigate and interrogate the diplomatic history of India’s various kingdoms and empires over the last 2500 years. This is precisely what is missing in Indian IR studies, which has been predominantly devoted to writing commentaries on current affairs. In his concluding remarks, Dr. Arvind Gupta, DG, IDSA said that India urgently needs an Indian discourse of International Relations than Indian International Relations Theory, and the workshop is a small step towards this goal. Col (retd) P K Gautam, who is steering the project, chaired the workshop. Report prepared by Saurabh Mishra, Research Assistant IDSA. |
Non-Traditional Security | |||||
IDSA-IISS workshop on Defence, Deterrence & the Use of Force | March 05, 2013 | 1415 hrs | Workshop | ||||||
Talk by Bertil Lintner on "Changes in Burma/Myanmar seen in a geopolitical context" | February 22, 2013 | 1030 to 1230 hrs | Other |
Venue: Room no 005, IDSA About Bertil Lintner He is currently Asia correspondent for the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet as well as a contributor to Asia Times Online, Hong Kong, and Jane’s Information Group in the UK. He has written twelve books on Asian politics and history, including Outrage: Burma’s Struggle for Democracy; Burma in Revolt: Opium and Insurgency Since 1948; Land of Jade: A Journey From India through Northern Burma to China; Blood brothers: Crime, Business and Politics in Asia; Merchants of Madness: the Methamphetamine Explosion in the Golden Triangle; Aung San Suu Kyi and Burma’s Struggle for Democracy; World.Wide.Web: Chinese Migration in the 21st Century; and Great Game East: India, China and the Struggle for Asia’s Most Volatile Frontier. Lintner is one of many blacklisted journalists who have not been allowed to enter Burma since 1985. Lintner has written numerous articles and books on Burma, and is considered to be one of the most knowledgeable foreign journalists on Burmese affairs. Lintner was the first foreign journalist to learn about Aung San Kyi’s release from house arrest in 1995. He had visited IDSA in the 1990s. |
South East Asia and Oceania | ||||
The State of Sri Lankan Tamil Politics in the Post LTTE Period | March 01, 2013 | Ashok K. Behuria | Fellows' Seminar |
Chairperson: Professor S D Muni Dr. Ashok K Behuria began the presentation by stating that this paper was largely based on the field visit to Sri Lanka. The paper studies the perceptions of a wide range of people to understand the Tamil mindset after the war. The Tamil speaking people constitute 24% of the population, of which the Sri Lankan Tamils comprise 11% while the Tamil Muslims and the Indian Tamils are 9% and 4% respectively. The paper focussed only on the Sri Lankan Tamil perspective and their expectations from India. There have not been many drastic changes in the Tamil demands since independence. The demands of the Tamil political parties ACTC and later ITAK were the following: a) federal Sri Lanka with one or more Tamil States with autonomous powers, b) parity of Tamil with Sinhala as official languages, c) repeal law disenfranchising Indian Tamils, and d) cessation of dryland colonization schemes. President Bandaranaike came out with the Sinhala Only Act in 1956. Immediately afterwards he made a pact with the Tamils in 1957, which is known as the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact. There was resistance from the majority community in a big way; UNP, a centralist party, staged a march from Colombo to Kandy. In the following years UNP leader Dudley Senanayake and Chelvanayakam had a pact but it could not be implemented due to massive resistance from the SLFP, which had earlier signed a similar pact with the same Tamil leader. Such competitive maximalist stance characterised the nature of ethnic politics in Sri Lanka. Thus, the pacts granting greater autonomy to the Tamils could not be implemented. From the 1950’s onwards there was increasing colonisation by the Sinhalese migrants in the Tamil areas. Further, the riots in 1958, 1961 and 1974 led to further alienation of the Tamil community. Ethnic outbidding was prevalent in the Sri Lankan Tamil parties as well and a similar pattern persists even today. Its nature transformed from a passive politics to a militant form in the 1970s. In 1972, the Tamil parties came together and formed the Tamil United Front (TUF). In1976 TUF renamed itself as Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF). There was the perception that the Tamils became militants because India was backing them. However, there is no evidence to prove this existed before the 1970s and 80s. In the 1980s India intervened in a big way resulting in the formulation of the 13th Amendment. Dr. Behuria points that Sri Lanka borrowed many things from the Indian federalism to envisage the devolution in Sri Lanka, but it was a mistake. Sri Lanka is different from the Indian experience and is not as diverse as India. Both the LTTE and Sri Lankan government wanted the Indian forces out of their state. None of the agreements could be implemented because it did not satisfy the maximalist expectations of the LTTE on one hand and the totalitarian aspirations of the Sinhalese chauvinist constituency on the other. In 2001, LTTE allowed the political front TNA to come up and it was almost a mouth piece of LTTE. From then on, the TNA began to dominate the North and also had a considerable presence in the East. There were 18 rounds of dialogue between TNA and the Government in 2011, but they could not reach a political settlement. The demands of the TNA included; 1. Resettlement and rehabilitation of the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), 2. Removal of High Security Zones (HSZs) and disarming of paramilitary forces operating in the North and East, 3. The issue of political prisoners and detainees being detained at various places under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and Emergency regulations, before May 2009. They agreed on the 13th Amendment as the starting point for the negotiations. Some sections of the Tamil community believe that this is not enough and at the same time parties like TNFP completely reject it. There is an opinion that it is an Act that will further lead to the domination of provinces by the centre. The talks were put on hold by Rajapaksa government and it stressed on seeking a political settlement through multi-party discussions in the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) Perception on IndiaIndia’s insistence for the 13th Amendment and Rajapaksa’s reservations about it is cited as instances of India’s inability to comprehend the changing realities in Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese and the Tamils have moved away from 13th amendment for different reasons. The former considers it as an ‘imposition from outside’, while the latter regards it as an ‘indecent compromise of Tamil interests.’ In Jaffna, the Tamils feel that India had used them for its own interest. They urge that India must ensure that they get their due from the Sri Lankan government. However, some of them also feel India will sooner than later stop due to Rajapaksa’s China blackmail. There is an open recognition of the dangers of militant politics and denunciation of LTTE’s policies vis-à-vis India. While concluding, Dr. Behuria opined that this dialogue is unlikely to lead to a solution. There exists a rightwing in the majority community. It was observed that the Sinhalese government delegates were highly unhappy while talking about the devolution of the police power and the land power. In such context, India must quietly play its role for finding a way for resolving the problem. Major points of discussion and suggestions to the author:
Report prepared by Ms Deepa Varughese |
South Asia | ||||
Land Locked and Transit Developing Countries: Nepal’s Transit Trade Negotiations with India | March 22, 2013 | Nihar R. Nayak | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Chairperson: Lt Gen Y M Bammi (Retd) Discussants: Dr Nisha Taneja and Dr Ram Upendra Das |
South Asia | |||
Mapping the Role of External Players in Pakistan occupied Kashmir | March 15, 2013 | Priyanka Singh | Fellows' Seminar |
Chairperson: Amb Phunchok Stobdan In her paper titled “Mapping the Role of External Players in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir” Dr Priyanka Singh examined the role of external actors in PoK – China, the US and the UK – post-2005 earthquake. Dr. Singh identified the following critical drivers for external interest in the PoK, i.e., the strategic location (PoK connects Central Asia with the Indian subcontinent and shares border with China); resources (hydel and minerals), expanding Chinese footprints; growing interests of the western countries (presence though international aid agencies, NGOs, etc.); developmental initiatives as opportunities for investment; and the emergence of diaspora interest. China in particular is involved in the construction of several hydropower projects in PoK – the Diamer-Bhasha Dam in Gilgit Baltistan, the Bunji Dam, the Neelum Jhelum project and raising the height of the Mangla Dam in the so called AJK. The Chinese involvement in PoK, as the paper highlighted, is long standing. China is in possession of Aksai Chin and the Trans Karakoram Tract, both of which are part of the erstwhile princely state of J&K. China also played a critical role in the construction of the Karakoram Highway that was completed in 1978. China also plans to build a railway to enhance connectivity to PoK. Citing sources, Dr. Singh said that there was a strong possibility that more than 10,000 PLA (Peoples’ Liberation Army) soldiers were present in PoK. Clearly, PoK is of significant strategic interest for China. Hydropower projects aside, it is opening banks and constructing road networks across PoK. The region also provides China access to Arabian Sea and a strategic communication link through Gwadar port of Balochistan (also built by China) to oil rich regions of west Asia, through which China can transport energy. Aware of the fact that the region borders its restive Xinjiang province, Beijing considers POK important to have a credible security presence so as to insulate its borders from the fundamentalist forces operative in Afghanistan-Pakistan region. It fears the percolation of such forces could fan the secessionist challenge in Xinjiang. In addition, China is also involved in activities like Widening/realignment of the Karakoram Highway, building a new 17 km stretch of the Karakoram Highway, a proposed road link between Jaglot in Gilgit and Skardu in Baltistan, Mangla dam raising project and investment of $300 million in housing and communications sector. Focusing on the US interests in the region, Dr Singh argued that its increasing interest in the region could be partly to monitor the use of funds granted by it for socio-economic development in the region, and partly to keep a close watch on the Chinese presence especially in Gilgit-Baltistan. This explains the US decision to provide financial assistance for Diamer-Bhasha dam. She also stated that this was well in line with its earlier policy to provide assistance for the Satpara dam near Skardu. Dwelling on the interest shown by the UK, she said that it could be due to the presence of PoK Diaspora community in UK. She also mentioned that Mirpuri was second largest spoken language in UK after English. About the involvement of France, she made the audience aware that France had extended Rs. 9 billion (68 million Euros) as soft loan for the extension of an existing dam in PoK. This project aims at building a new 48 MW run-of-river hydro-power project in the Jaggran valley of PoK. In addition to this, a French concern is also involved in a two-year capacity-building programme for government agencies in AJK such as the Hydro Electric Board, which is responsible for implementing the Jagran II project. France, like other countries, contributed substantially to the post 2005 earthquake reconstruction and rehabilitation work in PoK. Dr. Singh stated that the Russian interest in PoK was relatively new and that Russia had recently offered to take the contract for Diamer-Bhasha dam without bidding for it. She also discussed that role played by countries like Japan; even the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development (KFAED) has also expressed its keenness to participate in the building of the Diamer-Bhasha dam in PoK. Germany and Saudi Arabia were interested in the developmental sector— pertaining to education, health, housing etc. — especially after the 2005-earthquake. Even Indonesia, Like Japan, has expressed its willingness to offer expertise and extend “maximum co-operation” in the horticulture sector in Gilgit Baltistan. Considering that Gilgit Baltistan, even after the demographic tampering by Pakistan, has a substantial Shia population, Dr. Singh said that Iran had a natural interest in the region. The author then went on to suggest that that PoK could well turn into a geopolitical battleground given the renewed interest of western countries in the region to countervail China. Dr. Singh concluded by saying that the presence of important external players and their growing interest in PoK may provide tacit recognition to Pakistan’s illegal claim over the territory. Though there was not much that India could do about the growing Chinese footprints in PoK, the presence of countries like the US and Russia, it was hoped, could act as a balancer in the region. During the course of the discussion, the following points were raised to strengthen the paper:
Report prepared by Anwesha Ray Chaudhuri, Research Assistant, IDSA |
South Asia | ||||
Federalising India’s Neighbourhood Policy: Balancing the State Interest with the National | March 08, 2013 | Smruti S. Pattanaik | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Chairperson: Shri Rajiv Sikri |
South Asia | |||
Emerging Powers and Africa | March 01, 2013 | Ruchita Beri | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Chairperson: Ambassador Rajiv Bhatia |
Africa, Latin America, Caribbean & UN |