You are here
Events
| Title | Date | Author | Time | Event | Body | Research Area | Topics | File attachments | Image |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internal Security Lecture Series - Manipur : The Way Out | September 26, 2011 | G.K. Pillai | Speeches and Lectures |
September 26, 2011 |
Terrorism & Internal Security | Video | |||
| US Nuclear Weapons Policy and Practice in the Shadow of 9/11 | August 26, 2011 | S. Samuel C. Rajiv | Fellows' Seminar |
Event: Fellows Seminar Chairperson: Ambassador Arundhati Ghose The paper is an attempt to explore US nuclear weapons policy and practice in the shadow of 9/11. In the first part of his presentation, Rajiv provided an examination of the major US national strategy and nuclear policy documents after 9/11 and their policy prescriptions regarding the ‘twin threats’ of proliferation and terrorism. Among the documents he examined included 2002 National Security Strategy, 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), 2006 US National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, 2006 National Military Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, 2008 National Security and Nuclear Weapons in 21st Century, QDR 2010, and NPR 2010. Citing pertinent portions of these documents, he stated that they reinforce the importance of nuclear deterrence in US grand strategy and the imperative need to fine-tune its defence capabilities to face the twin threats. He noted that new type of weaponry was sought be developed such as conventional-cum-nuclear ‘bunker-busters’ to tackle the challenges posed by underground facilities (UGF’s). Other strategic innovations included transforming nuclear weapon platforms like the 4 Ohio-class SSBN’s to perform conventional roles and Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) which envisages the use of ICBM’s tipped with conventional warheads to strike high-value “time-sensitive targets” as incoming Defence Secretary Panetta noted. Rajiv then points out that while the initial policy response to the twin challenges of proliferation and terrorism by US was to strengthen/fine-tune its deterrence postures, there has been a reduction in its arms control/disarmament obligations. In this context, Rajiv provided relevant details about BMD, FMCT and CTBT across US administrations since 9/11. The latter two have however been put on the front-burner as it were by the Obama administration but it remains to be seen what progress can be achieved. Subsequently, Rajiv provided an assessment of the reductions in US nuclear arsenals – including in warheads and strategic delivery vehicles (SDV’s). He pointed out the analyses by Hans Christensen and others about the role of negative security assurances (NSA’s) and nuclear targeting war plans on the size of the arsenal. In this context, he pointed out that the US for the first time in NPR 2010 pledged that it will “continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attack.” The document however states that “there remains a narrow range of contingencies in which US nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring a conventional or CBW attack against the United States or its allies and partners.” In the last part of his presentation, Rajiv discussed pertinent aspects relating to US policy initiatives at the bilateral and multi-lateral levels to deal with the ‘twin threats’, such as PSI, 2006 Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT), G8 Global Partnership Initiative, Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI), Obama’s chairing of the Special Session of the UN Security Council in September 2009 – the first by any American president that resulted in UNSC Resolution 1887, April 2010 Global Summit on Nuclear Security, and the entry into force of New START. Rajiv concluded his presentation by noting that despite significant reductions in the numbers of US nuclear warheads during the decade after 9/11, coupled with continuing successful bilateral and multilateral efforts to secure vulnerable material and prevent terrorists from acquiring WMD material/know-how, there has not been a concomitant reduction in the ‘role’ of nuclear weapons in US grand strategy and that there are limited prospects of any change in the foreseeable future. Points of discussion and suggestions
Report prepared by Sanjeev Kumar Shrivatsav, Researcher at IDSA. |
|||||
| Forum on Hi-Tech Defence Innovation | July 14, 2011 | Round Table |
 Programme0930-0945 hrs Opening remarks: Shri N.S. Sisodia, Director General, IDSA 0945-1130 hrs Panel 1: Government: MOD, Armed Forces & DRDOChair: Air Vice Marshal M. Matheswaran AVSM VM PhD. ACAS OPS (Space) Presentation: Dr. G. Balachandran, Distinguished Fellow, IDSA Panelists
Q & A 1130: Tea break 1145-1300 hrs Panel 2: IndustryChair: Shri Gyanesh Kumar, Joint Secretary (Shipyards), Ministry of Defence Panelists
1300-1330 hrs – Lunch break 1330-1430 hrs Panel 2: Industry (continued)Chair: Dr. Rajiv Kumar, Director General FICCI Q & A 1430-1530 hrs Panel 3: International comparisons Chair: Ambassador Prabhat Shukla, former Ambassador to Russia 1530-1630 hrs Panel 4: Education and Brainstorming on Final Recommendations and Action PlanChair: Ambassador Prabhat Shukla
Speakers:
1630 hrs Closing address: Dr. V. Bhujanga Rao, Ph.D., FNAE, FAEFCT, CC R & D (HR), DRDO |
||||||
| Oil Factor in India - Nigeria Relations | July 29, 2011 | Ruchita Beri | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar | Africa, Latin America, Caribbean & UN | ||||
| Reforming India’s Defence Acquisition Structure and Procedures | July 22, 2011 | Laxman Kumar Behera | Fellows' Seminar |
Chairperson: Shri N S Sisodia Laxman Kumar Behera’s paper examines the structural and procedural weaknesses afflicting India’s defence acquisition system. In particular the paper focuses on three issues: acquisition planning, ii) accountability in acquisition, and iii) formulation of features of weapons system. According to Behera these three crucial factors have received least or half-hearted reforms. In the paper, he argues that for expeditious acquisition, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) needs to overcome these weaknesses. In his presentation, he began with the Bofors controversy that according to him set the foundation of India’s defence acquisition system which was again got the boost by the recommendations of the Group of Ministers (GoM) and subsequent procedural reforms. He was of the view that the Bofors controversy was a watershed in the India’s procurement history not because it had significant political cost to the then Central government, but because it stimulated a massive public debate on defence acquisition issues. The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), which was instituted by the government under the Chairmanship of B Shankaranand, did an extensive inquiry into the then Army’s existing procedures for procurement and key decisions involved in Bofors purchase. Behera said that although the JPC did not point out any serious deviations from then existing procedures followed by the Army and other stake-holders, it nonetheless brought into open several practices which were prone to subjective interpretations, and subsequent charges and counter charges. One such practice was the non-requirement of formulation of General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQRs) for the weapons procured from abroad. Mr Behera noted that following the recommendations of the GoM, which was set up to review the national security in its entirety and the recommendations of the Kargil Review Committee (KRC) in particular, the government initiated the process which led to the creation of present procurement organisation, consisting of five main bodies such as i) Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), ii) Defence Procurement Board (DPB), iii) Defence Production Board, iv) Defence Research and Development Board, and v) Acquisition Wing. With the setting up of defence procurement organisation, the MoD has also undertaken periodic review of the procurement procedures. Till now the MoD has carried out six rounds of major revisions, with the Defence Procurement Procedures DPP-2011(DPP-2011) being the latest in the series. He held that the changes in the DPPs have created a streamlined system that is now much more methodical, objective and process-oriented. Behera argued that despite MoD’s reform measures undertaken so far, the acquisition process has not moved at the desired pace. This is evident from repeated surrender of funds under the capital head of defence budget, much of which is accounted for under the modernisation/acquisition head meant for procurement of ‘big-ticket’ items such as tanks, fighter, submarines, frigates, radars and missiles among others. Moreover, the delays and cost-over run is also a matter of concern to national security, especially when India’s adversaries are acquiring capability at a faster pace. In the presence dispensation, Mr Behera pointed out that the acquisition planning is a major handicap. The GoM’s idea behind creation of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) for a strong planning mechanism has been diluted in the set up of HQ IDS, which is constrained to force itself in articulating a truly integrated perspective plan for the three services, with due diligence towards capability development through inter-and intra-Service prioritisation, matching defence plan with available resources and hand-holding of domestic defence industry. Because of its lack of authority vis-à-vis COSC and due to the superiority of services chiefs over the CISC, the defence planning is constrained. The long term plan is also constrained in the absence of the resource commitment by the government. He said that in order to move towards a truly integrated perspective plan the creation of CDS is vital. The paper argued that Qualitative Requirement (QR) formulation is concerned, which is the most vital part of the acquisition cycle, has not given required attention through out DPP’s nearly two-decades of operational history. The vital element is continues to be performed by Services personnel who are not trained to so such a specialised job..Moreover, the oversight of the vital part of acquisition is not so strong enough. Given the vitality of a QR in choosing the most cost-efficient selection in a time-bound manner, it is necessary that the job be performed by specialised body, preferably by an external agency. Given that the HQ IDS is tri-service body it would seem most logical that the function is transferred to it. However, the efficacy of HQ IDS would comeby its strong positioning vis-à-vis Services, which would come by putting a CDS as head its head. Behera noted that contrary to the GoM’s recommendation for creation of “a separate and dedicated institutional structure to undertake the entire gamut of procurement function” what has been created is an Acquisition Wing which performs a part of acquisition functions. Several crucial functions having a strong bearing upon the cost and timeliness of procurement are being carried out beyond its command and control, thereby robbing the system of benefits of the single point of accountability. He pointed out that the organisational shortcoming in accountability has also not been compensated by the procedural means, both because of the professional shortcomings of acquisition functionaries and the lack of courage of the system to own up responsibility in cases which run into oversight problems. He stressed that given the importance of single-point accountability in the vital aspects of weapon procurement, it would be logical, as pointed out by GoM, to move towards an integrated procurement organisation. Major Points of Discussion and Suggestions:
Report prepared by Dr Saroj Bishoyi, Research Assistant, IDSA |
Defence Economics & Industry | ||||
| Global Nuclear Governance and India | July 08, 2011 | Rajiv Nayan | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar | Nuclear and Arms Control | ||||
| The Interactive Scenario of U.S.-India-China Triangular Relationship in Indian Ocean Region under New Circumstances | July 01, 2011 | Lou Chunhao | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar | |||||
| Regional Cooperation Mechanism in Central Asia: Future of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation | July 01, 2011 | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar | Eurasia & West Asia | |||||
| Defence Reforms, Civil-Military Relations and Military Effectiveness in India | May 30, 2011 | Anit Mukherjee | Round Table |
Presided over by: His Excellency Shri NN Vohra, Governor of Jammu and Kashmir
A roundtable discussion was held on 30 May 2011 to discuss the two papers on the subject written by Anit Mukherjee, Research Fellow IDSA;
The round table began with the author presenting the main aspects of both of his papers. He began his presentation by arguing that this was not a ‘blame game’ and instead the underlying presumption of his research has been that officials, both civilian and military, are hard working, competent and patriotic. Despite this, the structure of civil-military relations has had an adverse impact on the effectiveness of Indian military. In making this argument, Anit described in considerable detail, the unique characteristics of civil-military relations in India and how they shape four determinants of military effectiveness—weapons procurement, jointness, defence planning and officer education and promotions policies. Acknowledging these problems, the government has tried time and again to push through defence reforms, however as Anit’s Occasional Paper argues, these have ‘failed to deliver.’ The author concluded by making two recommendations. First the need to declassify and allow a proper study of all our national security institutions. This will allow us to ‘know more’ and hence translate directly into better informed policies. Second, the need to establish a committee that can, after an exhaustive study, recommend measures to prepare the Indian defence forces for future threats, challenges and opportunities. Necessarily it will have to examine the interaction between politicians, bureaucrats and soldiers and suitably re-engineer the relations between Ministry of Defence, Service Headquarters and other National Security Agencies. Discussion Points
Vote of thanksDr. Arvind Gupta thanked the governor for presiding over the discussion. He also thanked all other participants for sharing their views. He ended on a hopeful note that such discussions would spread an awareness on this issue and bring about the desired policy changes. List of participantsGeneral VP Malik (Retd), former Chief of Army Staff Further Reading“Defence Reforms shouldn’t wait for another ‘Kargil’ Times of India, March 27, 2011 |
Military Affairs | ||||
| Interaction with the South Africa National Defence College (SA NDC) | May 23, 2011 | Other |
Chairperson: Dr. Arvind Gupta A 40-member delegation of the South Africa National Defence College (SA NDC) undergoing Executive National Security Programme (ENSP), headed by Commandant of SA NDC, R Adm (JG) Laura Van Vuuren, visited IDSA on May 23, 2011. Welcoming the delegation, Dr. Arvind Gupta gave a briefing on IDSA and Indian foreign policy. He informed that IDSA has been an important part of national debates on security, especially nuclear issues; has been responsible for the growth of strategic community in India and also has strong linkages with strategic community abroad. On Indian foreign policy (IFP), Dr. Gupta outlined that it is guided by two primary objectives: one, securing development of the country, which is holistic and also includes national interest. The other is maintaining national security including human security. He explained that Indian foreign policy is shaped by the Indian struggle for independence from colonial powers. Leaders of the freedom movement were mostly Western educated and were familiar with virtues of Western democracy. Therefore, the Western values of rule of law, equality and justice and the Indian values of non-violence, universal brotherhood and tolerance find place in the independent India’s political system as well as foreign policy. At the same time, universal brotherhood helped in the formation of Afro-Asian solidarity starting with the Asian Relations Conference in 1947. Again, the idea of non-violence was transformed at the international level into Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) which is another cardinal principle of the IFP. A corollary to the NAM is the South-South cooperation which was strongly advocated by India among the developing countries of the South. The Cold War period witnessed many challenges to the country’s independent development and sovereignty in a period marked by blocs and alliances. Despite these drawbacks and uncertainties, India successfully managed its democracy and constitutionalism. It has also followed the mixed economy model wherein public and private sector were allowed to coexist. With the end of cold war and coping with new and contemporary developments, India liberalized its economy and undertook significant reforms starting 1991. This economic liberalization has also influenced the IFP in terms of its Look East Policy. The 1998 nuclear tests resulted in an array of sanctions against India; however, these sanctions did not deter India from pursuing its strategic policies. In 2005, India negotiated and signed a nuclear deal with the US on energy security. By this deal, India and the US came together and India began to get integrated with the international community. On the other hand, India has called for reform of the United Nations Security Council, as it does not reflect the changed realities. Simultaneously, India started rediscovering the continent of Africa with which its relationship is very ancient. At the same time, India’s engagement with the Southeast Asia was facilitated by its Look East Policy; its engagement with the Central Asia also materialized with regard to energy and naval security wherein Indian Navy’s role comes into play. All these countries have hugely benefited by India’s growth story in IT and service sectors. However, there are certain challenges for India’s security and its foreign policy. Its neighbourhood is presently unstable. Even in its extended neighbourhood like Africa, there is democratic upsurge. As a result, India is focusing on developing linkages. With China, there are certain disputes as well as areas of cooperation. Brig (retd) Rumel Dahiya remarked that India’s foreign policy and defence policy go hand in hand. He clarified that India wants stable world order and peaceful neighbourhood. But there are certain challenges: difficult neighbourhood, some among them nuclear; internal security situation—unequal growth and poverty right from independence; instability in the neighbourhood and the Gulf impacting energy security, trade and diaspora. There are certain international threats as well like piracy, drug trade, and proliferation; maritime security issue, and resource (energy) security. Brig Dahiya was confident that the Indian armed forces are well equipped to tackle these challenges. He clarified that the Indian defence forces are among the top five in the world in terms of numbers. Yet, its defence expenditure is well under control and its share in GDP is in single digit. Moreover, two-third of India’s defence equipment is imported and lot needs to be done to attain self-reliance. Most importantly, military in India is apolitical. It is the microcosm of Indian nation in terms of its character and composition. Equal chances have been given to all irrespective of their caste or community or sex in the armed forces. However, there are issues like shortage of staff and monetary support. Despite this, India never followed any offensive policy or expansionist policy. Its policy is basically a policy of defensive deterrence. Brig Dahiya also dwelled on the role of Indian armed forces in UN Peacekeeping Operations especially in Congo and Sudan in the recent times. In her presentation, Ms. Ruchita Beri argued that Africa as a continent brings lot of hope to India. There has been a strong legacy of colonial experience for both Africa and India. India was in the forefront of anti-apartheid struggle and was the first country to take the issue to the United Nations. At present, the relations between India and the African continent are very strong. At present, the trade between India and Africa is to the tune of $46 billion. In terms of engaging Africa, India has launched several initiatives in recent years. It began with the EXIM Bank’s Focus Africa policy in 2002. Other initiatives include TEAM. The relationship is not only bilateral between India and African nations, its regional and pan-African level as well. An example is the India-Africa Forum Summit that was inaugurated in 2008. The second summit of the Forum is currently in progress at Addis Ababa in Ethiopia wherein Indian Prime Minister is a participant. In terms of peacekeeping in Africa, India has been the largest contributor and its contribution has expanded to include training and capacity building. India is also trying to build common approaches with Africa. In response, the South African President announced that his country should be considered as a gateway to Africa. To conclude, India’s Africa Policy has an element of uniqueness. The policy is based on partnership and increased capacity building. However, in recent years there has been a return of new colonialism to Africa with external powers like China rigorously making efforts to acquire resources of the African region. The presentations were followed by a thorough Q&A Session in which questions were asked on various issues like whether China and India’s interests collide in Africa; caste system and its role in Indian polity; how to control brain drain and bring researchers back into country from abroad. It was clarified to the visiting delegation that no rivalry is perceived with China from Indian side with respect to Africa other than demand for resources. Moreover, the competition between these two countries for resources in Africa is a fair trade competition. Regarding the caste system, historical evolution of class-caste system was given to explain how the class system was degenerated into a caste system. Remedies were also suggested to break this barrier in terms of increased urbanization, qualitative education, employment opportunities, economic development, and more importantly inter-caste marriages. On brain drain, it was clarified that earlier many Indians moved to abroad in search of better employment opportunities because of a lack of such opportunities in India. However, the recent trend is that India is able to woo these NRIs and is taking effective measures to allow reverse brain drain into India. There were also questions on fast-growing economy versus haves and have-nots and its impact on national security. The visitors were informed that India’s growth model is inclusive growth wherein the benefits of growth are distributed to all sections as far as possible. Further, there are some centrally sponsored schemes like MNREGS which cater to benefit the poor and underdeveloped. To ensure its delivery and accountability, there are legal measures like Right to Information. At the same time, it is to be recalled here that the Gini-coefficient for India is less adverse than that of the US, Pakistan or China. On question related to human security and the role of Ministry of Defence in providing shelter to homeless, the visitors were informed about the plans for urban renewal within India. It was pointed out that this issue is the responsibility of the civil administration and military has no role to play. However, the Military has often supported the civil administration in disaster management i.e., rescue and rehabilitation missions during floods, earthquakes and cyclones etc. Towards the end, the session deliberated on the Indian perception of the reforms at the UN and BRICS. Report prepared by Mr. Babjee Pothuraju, Research Assistant, Institute Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. |
Africa, Latin America, Caribbean & UN |
