You are here
Events
| Title | Date | Author | Time | Event | Body | Research Area | Topics | File attachments | Image |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9th IDSA-IPIS Bilateral Dialogue on “Developments in West Asia: Indian and Iranian Perspectives” | December 12, 2012 | Bilateral |
Bilateral: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) and Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS) As part of the ongoing effort to bring together experts on security and economic issues of mutual interest, the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi and the Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS), Tehran, have held eight rounds of Track II India-Iran Dialogue since it was initiated in 1998. The Ninth bilateral meeting between IDSA-IPIS was organised at IDSA on December 12, 2012 on the theme “Developments in West Asia: Indian and Iranian Perspective”. The meeting focused on each other’s perspectives on varied issues of immediate mutual interest and long-term concern. It also provides the opportunity to exchange and enhance understanding of the emerging situation in West Asian region and regional security challenges. In addition, areas of future cooperation between India and Iran were discussed.
Report compiled by Meena Singh Roy with inputs from Rajorshi Roy and Kalathmika Natrajan. |
Eurasia & West Asia | |||||
| Defense Offsets: Promises and Problems | December 14, 2012 | Joanna Spear | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Chairperson: Shri Vinod Misra |
Defence Economics & Industry | |||
| Presentation on Tibet by Vijay Kranti, a noted journalist | December 10, 2012 | 1500 hrs | Other |
Venue: Room No. 005, IDSA The presentation would describe personal experiences of the speaker during his travels to the Tibetan inhabited areas of China. Imageries captured by the speaker himself would also be displayed providing a visual exposure to us on the subject. Vijay KrantiVijay Kranti is a senior media professional with a wide experience in Print Media, TV, Radio, Photography, Media Education, Corporate Communications and Corporate Social Responsibility. He has been on the staff of some leading media groups. This list includes India Today, BBC TV, Aaj Tak TV, Zee News TV, Deutsche Welle (German Radio) and Radio Voice of America. As a freelance journalist Vijay Kranti's writings have appeared in a wide range of English, Hindi and other publications which include Far Eastern Economic Review, Asia Week, Times of India, Indian Express, The Statesman, The Pioneer, AERA Asahi Shimbum of Japan, Border Affairs, Swagat, Discover India, Indian Perspective, Navbharat Times, Hindustan, Saptahik Hindustan, Dinman, Amar Ujala, Nai Dunia, Dainik Jagran, National Dunia and Tibbat Desh. His main subject of specialization is Tibet-China-India. For past four decades he has been keenly tracking and writing about political developments on Tibet and India-China relations. In past 40 years he has undertaken aesthetic photo documentation of Tibetan life and culture -- inside and outside Tibet. His photographic work on Tibet is considered as the largest one-man collection on this subject in the world today. Besides traveling extensively among various Tibetan refugee communities in India, Nepal and Europe, Vijay Kranti has undertaken many photo expeditions to almost every corner of Chinese controlled Tibet including TAR, Yunnan, Sichuan, Qinghai and Gansu. He has presented over a dozen solo photo exhibitions in India, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Spain. His photo based talk shows on various aspects of Tibet too have taken him to many places across the globe. Vijay Kranti has been a fellow of K.K. Birla Foundation for his work on Tibet as a journalist. He is the founding editor of monthly 'Tibbat-Desh', the only news magazine of its kind in Hindi from 1979 to 2010. He has eight books to his credit in English and Hindi. These include his famous coffee table book "DALAI LAMA - Nobel Peace Laureate - SPEAKS" and his Hindi language Style Book for Discovery Chanel. He played a pivotal role in the publication of auto-biography of PHOOLAN DEVI (FIXOT, Paris) as her interviewer. |
East Asia | ||||
| Interaction with a delegation from the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) | November 30, 2012 | Round Table |
The East Asia Centre of the IDSA organised a round table with a visiting delegation from the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR). The delegation was headed by CICIR’s Vice President Feng Zhongping and included Hu Shisheng and Han Liqun. In the meeting, scholars from CICIR and IDSA held prolonged deliberations on various issues of mutual interest and a free and frank exchange of views. The roundtable was held against the backdrop of the leadership transition in China at the recently concluded 18th Party Congress. Therefore, much of the discussion remained centred on the domestic context of China, although international strategic issues as well as China-India bilateral issues were also discussed. Chinese speakers said that China was at a new cross-roads given its ever-increasing international importance yet having to confront international, regional and domestic challenges. The speakers accepted that the maintenance of social stability and addressing urgent political reforms were the two most important issues that the new leadership will have to confront in times to come. The situation in 2012 was similar to 1982 when Deng Xiaoping successfully set the country up for an economic transformation. Today, China has to take up outstanding issues such as political reforms and address the problem of corruption. However, reforms cannot come overnight. The Chinese believe in gradual and progressive reforms, as highlighted during the course of the past decades. The Chinese side explained that political reform in China did not mean adopting a Western-style democratic system, but was about the legitimisation of power, with a more representative and transparent system. The Chinese side candidly acknowledged that China’s growing economic stature has forced China to respond to international opinion about its power ambitions. Both the world and China are still dealing with how fast China has developed. This undoubtedly gives rise to a deep strategic mistrust among the United States and its allies as well as among countries in China’s wide neighbourhood. The Chinese side reiterated that despite the US’s pivot to Asia-Pacific policy, China’s relationship with the United States continues to be very constructive. Further, China realizes that it cannot develop and grow without cooperatively engaging with the world; and the world similarly needed China. The Chinese speakers particularly highlighted the importance of China’s socio-economic and political relations with its ASEAN and South Asian neighbours. Managing them is another challenge. China’s neighbours at present include some of the world’s big powers. It has to deal with an assertive South Korea, Philippines and Japan. The Chinese speakers accepted that China’s territorial disputes in the South China Sea as well as the challenges of terrorism and maritime issues require an overhaul in its management of bilateral and multilateral relations. What is crucial for China presently is to deal with the trust deficit and accordingly utilise multilateral frameworks and strengthen its bilateral relations. On the issue of Sino-Japanese relations, the Chinese side opined that the fragmented scene in Japan’s domestic politics (the Chinese side gave the example of Japan witnessing six prime ministers in the past six years), the rise of the Right in Japan and the fact that US-Japan relations essentially shape Sino-Japan relations do not give any hope that negotiations between China and Japan will be easy. The Chinese speakers argued that Sino-Korean relations too have suffered due to deteriorating Sino-Japanese relations. The Chinese interlocutors believed that China’s insistence on the use of Yuan as currency in its trade with its Asia-Pacific neighbours is disturbing US policymakers since such a move could potentially challenge the US dollar’s supremacy in the long run. On the question of the situation in the South China Sea, the Chinese scholars expressed their confidence that neither does China want a war with Vietnam or Philippines nor do any of the ASEAN states or the United States want a war with China. They underscored the fact that the United States and China cannot afford another Cold War-like confrontation because of their deeply integrated economies. They acknowledged that China’s relations with Vietnam, Philippines, etc. had been disrupted and agreed that there is a need to address them. On the South China Sea issue, they said that China was in agreement on a consultative process to convert the Declaration of Conduct on South China Sea into a legally binding Code of Conduct on the South China Sea. According to them, China wants to engage with ASEAN and it supports mechanisms that promote regional economic integration. However, they rued the fact that there was an absence of a security arrangement in the Asia-Pacific. Interestingly, the Chinese side argued that China was the ‘victim’ of the South China Sea dispute, referring to an instance of China refusing to explore oil with a US company in the disputed region, only to have Vietnam instead take up the contract. On being asked to comment on the US rebalancing towards Asia, the Chinese scholars argued that the United States had economic and military reasons – the rise of Asian economies, strengthening of old alliances while cementing new ones and ensuring that it remains the dominant power in the region. Economically too, the United States fears exclusion from any regional economic arrangement that may develop in the Asia-Pacific. IDSA scholars put forward their views on the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They argued that the post-2014 transition in Afghanistan would depend on the nature of the leadership emerging through the 2014 elections. On the question of the pace of the withdrawal of Western forces from Afghanistan, Indian speakers preferred a more graduated process to ensure stability and continuity in the re-building of the Afghan state. India, they said, is also concerned about the capacities of the Afghan security forces, which, in their view, need massive and extended assistance for at least about eight years. Indian speakers are expressed concern about reviving a functional modern state in Afghanistan. In their view, the current negotiations in Afghanistan seem to be unwieldy, a case of everyone talking with everyone. All in all, Indian speakers argued that the absence of a functional Afghan state, weakness of institutions, absence of a pan-Afghan leadership and an increasingly fragmented polity, reconciling the notion of the state with the diversity of ethnic groups, political reconstruction on a non-ideological basis and the Taliban adopting a similar non-ideological stand are all critical for the stabilisation effort. IDSA scholars also pointed to the importance of the trans-border dimensions of the Afghan insurgency. In their view, a long-term international commitment, rebuilding of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and reconciliation with some elements of the Taliban are crucial for Afghanistan’s future. There is also a need to protect the existing political system, place emphasis on a multi-ethnic government and exert pressure on the Pakistani military establishment. It is in this overall context that Indian speakers argued that India must take a long-term view beyond 2014 as a development partner and continue to invest in Afghanistan, engage the next generation and encourage their vision of a ‘New Afghanistan’. Indian speakers also stressed the need to examine potential areas of cooperation between India and China in meeting the challenges in Afghanistan. On the issue of India-Pakistan relations, the IDSA speakers stressed that India has continued to engage with Pakistan even after the horrific 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. The Indian side welcomed Pakistan’s move towards granting India Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status and argued that the economic situation in Pakistan had compelled its military and political leadership to engage India through economic cooperation. It was underscored that while the Pakistani military establishment was taking a tactical retreat, the vernacular media in Pakistan, mostly controlled by the GHQ, was still spewing anti-India rhetoric. It was also pointed out that anti-China rhetoric is also increasing in media close to the Pakistani Taliban, with many reports calling for the need to ‘reclaim’ Xinjiang. The Indian side was of the opinion that radical Islamist ideology driving the Pakistani political discourse is bound to stay, especially since the Pakistani leadership viewed extremist elements as strategic assets against India. It was proposed that China should use its clout on Pakistan to deal with such extremists who were as much a threat to China as they are to India. Responding to the Indian concerns and views, the Chinese interlocutors pointed out that they shared concerns about the uncertainty of Afghanistan’s future. They put forward their views that US and NATO troops should postpone their withdrawal by a year to ensure security for elections in Afghanistan. According to them, non-Pashtun forces must be supported even as the Taliban is encouraged to become part of the reconciliation efforts. As economic prospects were bleak for Afghanistan, regional powers like India and China should help create jobs for Afghan youth. The need to ensure the success of mining projects that both India and China have undertaken in Afghanistan was necessary to boost investor confidence. Incidentally, the Chinese scholars acknowledged that China’s Afghan policy is linked to its Pakistan policy. A cautionary note regarding suggestions for India-China cooperation in Pakistan and Afghanistan was sounded since such a move might make Pakistani extremists more extreme. Therefore, India and China need to move in the same direction, although not jointly, in order to support moderate, social, civilian organisations in Pakistan. The two sides expressed their satisfaction on the healthy and mature state of Sino-Indian relations. However, the Chinese side was not optimistic about an early settlement of the border dispute. They instead suggested improving economic relations between the two Asian powers to make border issues irrelevant. As the year 2012 marks the 50th anniversary of the 1962 war, IDSA scholars presented Indian views of the war. It was underscored that a lack of mutual understanding eventually led to the war. It was emphatically stated that engaging China, be it through social contacts, cultural exchanges, increased trade or joint military exercises, will help reduce the trust deficit. About the US ‘rebalancing’ policy, Indian interlocutors pointed out that the US decision was neither welcomed nor condemned by India. The Indian side raised concerns about the gap between China’s rhetoric of peaceful rise and economic development on one hand and the opaqueness of its military modernisation and defence expenditure policies on the other. Referring to the controversy about China issuing passports with Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin marked as part of Chinese territory, it was stressed that it is hard to believe that this was just a ‘mistake’ and asked China to ensure that such pinpricks do not recur and hamper India-China relations. On the issue of nuclear cooperation between China and Pakistan, the Chinese side maintained that ever since China joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group, it has engaged only in civilian cooperation. However, Chinese scholars mentioned that China was in turn concerned about India’s nuclear cooperation with Vietnam. Prepared by Melissa M. Cyrill and Kalathmika Natarajan, Research Intern at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi. |
East Asia | |||||
| Net Security Provider: India’s Out of Area Contingency Operations | December 03, 2012 | Book Release |
Col. Vivek Chadha, Research Fellow, began the proceedings with a brief presentation of the Task Force Report. He stated that the rationale behind the exercise was to analyze an important subject matter that is rarely dealt with even by the Services. The report is more of a primer than an exhaustive study. The objective behind the exercise was to examine and evaluate the capabilities required for a range of Out of Area Contingencies including humanitarian relief, UN Peacekeeping Operations, and evacuation operations. One of the key findings of the report was that in the absence of declassification of official documents, an objective assessment of past UN and military operations becomes difficult if not impossible. This has had a negative impact in terms of the ability to learn the right lessons and formulate Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Secondly, despite years of experience in out of area operations, there is a lack of regional and area specialization in the Indian Armed Forces. Thirdly, there is a need for greater clarity on the role of the armed forces vis-à-vis the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) during preparation for disaster relief. Fourthly, robust contingency plans need to be created to be able to rapidly cope with changing political dynamics. Finally, in terms of military capability, the following are needed: deployment and lift capacities; better strategic communication, adequate training and preparation for contingencies, and improved logistics. The two key organizational changes suggested by the task force are: to set up an Out Of Area Contingencies (OOAC) Directorate at the Integrated Defence Staff (IDS) under a two star officer; and to set up an emergency division with a mix of civilian and military officers within the Ministry of External Affairs. Session 1: Key Note Address by Lt. Gen. N.C. Marwah PVSM, AVSM, CISCGeneral Marwah began his key note address by emphasizing the fact that India would be playing a vital role in maintaining the 21st century Asian order alongside China. At this crucial time, it is required of India’s strategic community to shed its continental mindset and look outwards. He highlighted the Prime Minister’s statement at the Combined Commanders’ Conference that India’s strategic horizon extends from the Strait of Hormuz to the Strait of Malacca. This frame of reference means that India needs to be well prepared for a range of military operations including peacekeeping, humanitarian relief and intervention operations at the invitation of host governments. General Marwah emphasized the importance of intra- and inter-governmental coordination as 22 government departments become involved during crises and emergencies overseas. Complimenting the task force for the report, he agreed with the recommendation that there is a need to improve standard operating procedures especially for evacuation operations. He also suggested that the crisis management group at Integrated Defence Staff could be involved at the earliest. As the armed forces will remain the first responder during crises, he underlined the need for clarity on the role of NDRF vis-à-vis the armed forces. On the oft ignored issue of strategic communication and perception management, he proposed embedding the media during out of area operations. In the discussion that followed, issues such as importance of intelligence, better capacities and the need for a pragmatic approach in formulating operating procedures were raised. General Marwah reiterated the need for an inter-ministerial group to prepare non-combat responses in a synergized manner. He also stressed that emergencies such as Libya require strengthening of concerned Indian missions for a short term. On capacity enhancement, he informed the audience that airlift capabilities have been improved and that the Government had better structures in place than before. He ended by emphasising some key recurrent lessons from India’s experience, namely the need for a clear political direction, better intelligence, strong command and control and improved logistics. The Director General of IDSA concluded the session by highlighting the fact that Out Of Area contingencies are broad spectrum and varied. Hence they require sustained discussion including at the political level. Session 2: Panel Discussion:Chair: Vice Admiral PS Das Discussants: Air Marshal M. Matheswaran, Ambassador (Retd.) Neelam D. Sabharwal, Professor C. Raja Mohan, Brigadier (Retd.) Rumel Dahiya
Air Marshal Matheswaran opined that to understand what out of area operations entail, the country must have clearly articulated national interests and strategic boundaries. The latter gets re-defined from time to time depending on the ability to define interests on a global scale. He lamented that for years, India has been boxed into what he called the South Asian syndrome. Now, with India’s economic interests expanding, strategic boundaries would have to be redefined. There are various types of Out Of Area Operations: Intervention, humanitarian relief, UN Peace Keeping, etc. In his opinion, India being a rising power cannot keep itself away from international military intervention. It is obvious that Out of Area Operations require jointness, which highlights the need for a decision making mechanism at the IDS and not with individual Services. On capabilities in terms of resources, it is only natural that the operations would be airpower intensive. The country will have significant airlift capacities once the C-17s are inducted beginning 2013. Besides capacities, he underscored the importance of the speed of deployment for successful operations. As time is of the essence, the decision making process has to be streamlined. Air Marshal Matheswaran stressed the need for capacity building in existing institutions including the IDS. He expressed dismay about the fact that the International Affairs Division at IDS is yet to be made functional. Finally, he pointed out the need for clarity at the political level. Alluding to the shortcomings during IPKF operations in Sri Lanka, he warned against repetition of such operations as they would have a long-lasting detrimental effect on India’s overall strategic capabilities. The Deputy Director General of IDSA, Brigadier Dahiya, began his presentation by stating that the purpose of undertaking the study was to initiate discussion on a topic that will become more and more important in the coming years. He reminded the audience that six million Indian citizens live in what could be considered the most unpredictable region in the world. In a pan-regional crisis situation, it is very likely that most of them would be trapped. In addition, many citizens from India’s neighbouring nations would also need to be evacuated. The onus will inevitably be on India to undertake evacuation operations. Ambassador Neelam Sabharwal began her remarks by stating that India’s out of area operations cover a wide range, and that they are in line with India’s profile as a proactive actor in the international system as well as in consonance with its national interests. Ambassador Sabharwal highlighted two challenges for India’s out of area operations. One set of challenges relate to hardware, i.e., capability and infrastructure. The other challenge is institutional software – mechanisms for decision making and coordination. On the latter, she expressed her skepticism about the ability of IDS to coordinate between different ministries and departments at New Delhi as well as with different State Governments. In her opinion, there is no other way but the establishment of a mechanism at the apex level headed by the Cabinet Secretary. She seconded the task force recommendation for a non-territorial emergency division at the Ministry of External Affairs. She concluded by driving home the need for an evaluation of both national and international best practices so that there is no reinvention of the wheel during crises. Dwelling on the changed economic profile of India, Professor Raja Mohan pointed out the fact that whereas annual trade was US $22 billion in 1980, the monthly trade deficit in 2012 comes close to this figure. The indisputable fact is that India’s sustained economic growth and even survivability is dependent on importing natural resources from abroad. At a conceptual level, this reality of existential interdependence poses serious questions about the relevance of strategic autonomy. On terminology, he said that Out Of Area Operations is a NATO term. There is another classical term in the military lexicon for such contingencies – expeditionary operations. There are reasons for which people inside the establishment are averse to using the phrase; but there is no reason why scholars outside the system have to be shy or be deterred in this regard. Professor Raja Mohan, while agreeing on the need for de-classification of official documents, questioned whether the information that is already available is being adequately processed. There appears to be a self-imposed bar on debating India’s pre-1947 military history, thereby refusing to acknowledge India’s seminal contribution towards furthering international security. While India continues to ignore its own contribution during World War I – a war that even the nationalist movement threw its weight behind, people in the West are studying the Indian Army’s operations in Afghanistan during the 19th Century. Even India’s post-1947 foreign policy, according to Professor Raja Mohan, has been misread and mislabeled. One of the significant decisions taken by Pandit Nehru was to sign three treaties with the objective of providing security to India’s smaller neighbours, viz. Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim. On UN Peace Keeping Operations, Professor Raja Mohan criticized the excessive focus on the subject without either attempting to understand the rationale or comprehend the change in scale and scope over the years. The fundamental question is whether peacekeeping is an end in itself or whether it is instrumental in securing broader interests and not necessarily a permanent seat at the Horse Shoe table. In other words, he would like the strategic community to break the intellectual straight jacket that UNPKO has imposed. A much larger question is about sending Indian troops without a mandate from the United Nations. In other words, will India wait for China’s assent at the UNSC to secure its own interests? Policy debates have not evolved on this critical issue. As its strategic space will inevitably expand, India might well have to participate in multi-national coalition operations in the future. Complimenting the task force for a very useful report, Professor Raja Mohan suggested complementing the report with a separate task force study carried out at the IDSA on issues related to military diplomacy (this report is in the process of publication). Report prepared by Dr. Sundar M.S., Research Assistant at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA). |
Military Affairs | |||||
| India's Foreign Policy: Coping with the Changing World by Prof Muchkund Dubey | November 26, 2012 | 1530-1730 hrs | Book Discussion Forum |
Venue: Room no 005, IDSA Panelists: |
|||||
| Impact of Local State Politics on Indo- Bangladesh Relations | December 21, 2012 | Anand Kumar | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Chairperson: Ambassador I P Khosla |
South Asia | |||
| Equilibrium in Higher Defence Organisation: Lessons for the Future | December 14, 2012 | Rajneesh Singh | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Chairperson: Dr. Manoj K Joshi |
Defence Economics & Industry | |||
| Effectiveness of Quality Assurance (QA) in Army Procurements | December 07, 2012 | Mahendra Prasad | Fellows' Seminar |
Chairperson: Brig Rumel Dahiya (Retd) Major Highlights of the Paper:This is second paper of a research project entitled “Synergising QA for Speedy Defence Procurement and Ensuring Quality.” The first paper studied various aspects of quality assurance (QA) in army procurements, from a point of view of efficiency. The current paper critically analyses the effectiveness of the QA in Army procurements and looks at the ways in which the failure data collected from the defects reported on newly acquired equipment during their warranty period can be used to strengthen the Quality of QA. The difficult and inhospitable terrains (from Thar to Siachen, the variation in temperature is more than 100 degrees) in which the Indian Army has to operate warrants that the soldier and equipment both have to be rugged enough to bear this variation in terrain and climate. One such instance of terrain difficulty was the high failure rates of INSAS (Indian Small Arms System) at Kargil, where the rifle encountered some reliability problems in the very cold climate. The paper therefore stresses the imperative that the equipment in the hands of soldiers must be of superb quality and ought to have a high in-built reliability, in addition to being rugged. The QA of the equipment must therefore be focused to ensure these aspects. Delving on the effectiveness or lack thereof of QA, the paper says that an effective QA of equipment will ensure that the equipments perform their intended function under given operating conditions, repeatedly, with the optimum maintenance when operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Effective QA in turn ensures that there are no or negligible complaints against the product that has been quality-assured. An ineffective QA on the other hand is evident from the numerous complaints of product failure, especially during its warranty period and for reasons attributable to the design, material and production process, once the product is put into service. The basic argument in the paper is that the well established system of defect reporting, which happens to be the most important feedback from the user, is not being fully exploited to trace back the causes that lead to occurrence of defects in field. A detailed analysis of the contemporary defect reporting practice and what ails it has been carried out. Some of the major findings of the study are:
To improve effectiveness of QA in Army procurements, the paper makes following important recommendations:
The paper concludes by saying that in order to ensure that for the Indian Army to perform its operational tasks efficiently and effectively, it is necessary that only high quality and reliable equipment and weapon system are provisioned. QA organisation responsible for ensuring quality and reliability of these equipment and weapon systems therefore needs to be empowered by the Department of Defence Production. The organisation too, needs to empower itself internally by continuously improving its ability and upgrading its skills. Creation of a Quality Assurance Information System (QAIS) based on the suggested model, wherein feedback from users is analysed to identify the root cause of the problems and their application to relevant activity of QA, coupled with expert judgement in the form of internal and external audit of the quality of QA, would prevent stagnation of these activities and result in a dynamically improving and evolving effectiveness of the organisation, which is highly desirable at the moment. Major Points of discussion and Suggestions to the Author:
Report prepared by Amit Kumar, RA, IDSA |
|||||
| Round Table Discussion on Post Leadership Transition Analyses in China | November 20, 2012 | Round Table |
IDSA organised a Round Table Discussion on the subject of Post Leadership Transition Analyses in China on 20 November. Amb (retd) TCA Rangachari chaired this discussion. Prof. Madhu Bhalla, Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli, Maj Gen SL Narsimhan, Cdr KK Agnihotri and Brig Mandip Singh presented their views on the leadership transition. A large number of scholars from inside and outside IDSA attended this discussion. Major Highlights of the Presentations:
Other Points of Discussion
Report prepared by Avinash Godbole, Research Assistant and Bijoy Das, Research Associate, IDSA. |
East Asia |
