You are here
Events
| Title | Date | Author | Time | Event | Body | Research Area | Topics | File attachments | Image |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IDSA Inter College Debate on "India's Major Security Challenges Lie Within" | November 10, 2009 | 0930 hrs | Other |
Venue: IDSA Auditorium To encourage greater awareness among the youth who will play a critical role in the future, IDSA is organising a debate for students of colleges located at Delhi on the topic: “India’s Major Security Challenges lie within”. The debate will be held at IDSA Auditorium at 1000h on 06 November 2009. The best college team in each category would be awarded the IDSA Rolling Trophy. The best speaker will receive a cash award of Rs. 25000/-, the 1st Runner-Up Rs. 15000 and 2nd Runner-Up Rs. 10000/-. Each college is requested to select two participants each for the debate, one each for and against the motion. The prizes would be distributed on IDSA’s Foundation Day, tentatively scheduled for the afternoon on 27th of November. Each college would be allowed an entry of two speakers. One would speak for the motion and the other against the motion. For any further enquiries, please contact: RULES AND REGULATIONS
|
|||||
| 3rd South Asia Conference: South Asia 2020: Towards Cooperation or Conflict? | November 04, 2009 to November 05, 2009 | Conference | South Asia | South Asia Conference | |||||
| National Seminar on Defence Acquisition | October 27, 2009 | 1000 hrs to 1630 hrs | Conference |
 ProgrammeInauguration (10.00-11.00 hrs) Session I: QR Formulation and Capability Definition (1100-1230 hrs)Chair: Air Marshal S. C. Mukul, PVSM, AVSM, VM, VSM
Session II: Technical and Commercial Evaluation Challenges: RFP format; Decision Matrix; and Negotiation (1230-1400 hrs)Chair: Shri Shilabhadra Banerjee, Former DG (Acq.) & Secretary (Tourism)
Lunch (1400 - 1500 hrs) Session III: Complex Project Management (1500-1630 hrs)Chair: Shri V.K. Misra, former Secretary, Defence Finance
Concept NoteWith the successive increase in India’s defence budget, the Capital Acquisition budget has also grown phenomenally over the years. During the last decade (1999-2000 to 2008-09), the defence capital acquisition budget has grown by nearly four-fold to little less than Rs. 37,500 crores, thus indicating the nation’s collective effort and commitment to modernise its armed forces. The increase in defence capital budget notwithstanding, acquisition of capabilities required by the defence forces within a stipulated time and at an optimal cost poses a major challenge before the defence establishment. Despite several reviews of Defence Procurement Procedure (Capital Procurement), undertaken in quick succession in the recent past by the Ministry of Defence, it is yet to fully ensure expeditious procurement within allocated budgetary resources. One indication of lack of expeditious procurement is the recurring underutilisation of resources earmarked under capital expenditure. As the new budget for 2009-10 reveals, nearly 15 per cent of the previous year’s capital budget remained underutilised at the stage of revised estimate. This together with an upward moving trend in surrender of funds, observed in the past few years, reveals inadequacies in the capital acquisition system which needs to be addressed to ensure that the armed forces are fully prepared. In a 2007 report, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India noticed a number of deficiencies plaguing India’s capital acquisition structure/procedure. The report observed inter alia deficiencies in acquisition planning and formulation of GSQRs (general staff qualitative requirements); inadequacies in vendor identification; lack of objectivity and fair play in technical evaluation; weaknesses in trial evaluation; lack of effective cost computation mechanism; and multiple agencies with dispersed centres of accountability. To overcome these inadequacies, the supreme auditor in turn recommended a number of measures which deserve serious consideration. One of the recommendations of the supreme auditor was to set up an integrated acquisition body encompassing “all the functional elements and specialisation involved under one head.” The Kelkar Committee Report of 2005 (Part-I) has also recommended in similar fashion and even gone to the extent of saying that a “body like DGA [of France] seems suitable in the Indian set up.” A DGA-like body in India however requires a major restructuring of the present set up. It is worth noting that besides France, other major developed countries, including the UK and Australia among others, have moved towards an integrated approach for defence acquisition. The idea behind such integrated approach is to ensure accountability under one head, provide “through life capability” while ensuring best value for money. The proposed run-up seminar on defence acquisition is the first of the three such seminars, aimed at examining the inadequacies in the Indian acquisition system. It will bring together practitioners, personnel from Armed Forces, R&D and Industry, and experts on the subject, on a common platform to discuss and debate with regard to streamlining India’s acquisition system. The run-up seminars will conclude with an international seminar involving, besides the Indian stakeholders, key functionaries from the MoD and armed forces of major developed counties and experts on the subject, to discuss the international best practices in defence acquisition. The major issues that will be discussed in these seminars include: QR formulation and capability definition; technical and commercial evaluation challenges; project management; empowering defence industrial and R&D base; efficient logistics management; responsibility and accountability of acquisition organisation/staff; and Life cycle cost. |
Defence Economics & Industry | ||||
| Copenhagen Summit: Climate Change Debate | November 13, 2009 | Uttam Kumar Sinha | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Amb. Rajagopalan chaired the session while Mr. Mukul Sanwal and Mr. V. Raghuraman were external discussants and Avinash Godbole and Antoine Levesques were internal discussants. Dr. Uttam Sinha highlighted the core points of the present state of the global Climate Change debate. Developed and developing countries have contrasting priorities about climate change and development. Therefore, until a common understanding of the framework on emission reductions is developed, it is difficult to reach an agreement that is acceptable to all. Equity is the key to reach a common action agenda on climate change. Climate change negotiations have lacked transparency, trust building and strong leadership. The grand deal will be about financial commitments and technology. However, there have been no firm commitments in this regard. The Obama initiative is unlikely to be approved by the US Senate due to business interests. In India, there is some opinion that favours mitigation in the national interest, but other sections favour a wait and watch policy. India has taken a stand on moral grounds and its negotiating position is based on per capita emissions which state that emissions will not cross the levels of the developed world. Various interest groups comprising nations with different interests have emerged leading to Copenhagen. The general response of various states to the climate change debate is based on their developmental objectives and security interests. Discussion
|
Non-Traditional Security | |||
| Mixed Messages: India's Use of Coercive Diplomacy in the 2001-02 Crisis | November 13, 2009 | Patrick Bratton | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Chairperson: V. G. Patankar |
||||
| Military Modernisation in Southeast Asia: China Factor or Interstate Conflicts? | October 30, 2009 | Pankaj K Jha | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Chairperson: Ramesh V Phadke |
East Asia | |||
| GCC - Iran Relations and its Strategic Implications for the Region | October 30, 2009 | Prasanta Kumar Pradhan | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Chairperson: Saeed Naqvi The uneasy relationship between the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Iran is one of the main reasons for the continuing conflict in the Persian Gulf region. Iran has difficult relations with both the GCC and its individual members. With the passage of time, several other contentious issues have emerged, including the Iranian nuclear programme, Iran’s island disputes with the UAE, Saudi-Iran tensions, ideological differences, and the strong military presence of the United States in the GCC countries. This paper examines the sources of conflict between the GCC and Iran and analyzes its strategic implications for the Gulf region. The presence of the United States in the region has been the primary source of tension between the GCC and Iran. Iran has been concerned about the presence of US forces in the region. Tehran accuses the GCC of allowing external powers like the US to maintain a military presence in the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, the GCC countries are dependent on the US for security. The ideological rivalry between the two and several clashes between Iranian pilgrims and Saudi security forces during the recent Hajj pilgrimage has added fuel to the conflict. That apart, Saudi support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, Iran’s nuclear programme, and regional competition have been major issues of conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia which has also affected the GCC-Iran relationship. GCC-Iran tensions are manifested in Iraq which is going through a major transition. Iran is seen as attempting to influence various sections of Iraqi society and polity to gain influence. In post-Saddam Iraq, Iran has moved from confrontation to cooperation. The GCC states are concerned that Sunni Arabs have been marginalized in the new Iraq and that Iran has come to exercise too much influence over the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad. There is also a worry that Iranians in Iraq may engage in subversive activities against GCC countries and that the civil war may actually spill over into their territories. The friction in GCC-Iran relations is leading to nuclear competition. In 2006 GCC announced its intention to establish a joint nuclear research programme which is primarily driven by their concern over the expanding Iranian nuclear programme. They are also concerned about Iran’s aggressive foreign policy posture in the whole of the West Asian region that includes Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Territories. Individual countries of the GCC have also started their own nuclear programmes. This has led to big nuclear powers strengthening their foothold in the region. Apart from that the interests of the external powers also lie in securing energy supplies, selling their weapons to GCC countries and establishing military bases in the Gulf. There have been some efforts at reconciliation between Iran and GCC countries though without any tangible results. The issues of contention between the two are serious. This makes the possibility of rapprochement look bleak in the near future. The clash of interests, the scramble for influence in the region, and the lack of mutual trust and goodwill have not allowed them to look for an amicable solution. Points raised in the Discussion:
Prepared by Dr. M. Mahtab Alam Rizvi, Research Assistant at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. |
Africa, Latin America, Caribbean & UN | |||
| Limitation in Nuclear War: Doctrinal Implication for India of Pakistani Nuclear Use | October 23, 2009 | Ali Ahmed | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Chairperson: Aditya Singh Aim and ScopeImplications of Pakistani nuclear use for India’s nuclear and conventional doctrine. This paper revisits the ‘Sundarji doctrine’ to assess its suitability for limitation and termination of nuclear war. In a nutshell, the ‘Sundarji doctrine’ calls for termination of a nuclear war at the lowest level of escalation. The paper then intends to recommend the institution of a standing strategic dialogue mechanism with Pakistan to enable limitation in conflict, even a nuclear one. The continuing imperative of limitation even in nuclear war compels a review of India’s conventional and nuclear doctrines. SummaryThe speaker validated the argument that nuclear initiation, in the context of a future India-Pakistan war, is with Pakistan. Therefore its implication on India’s nuclear and conventional doctrine would emerge. While validating such an argument the speaker put forth the following arguments.
Having put forth the context of future conflict dimensions between India and Pakistan, the speaker then described the “nuclear dimension of the conflict” and nuclear strike (first) options located within it. The speaker downplayed “decapitation strike” and “first strike” as viable options. Thereby arguing that nuclear use options of a lower order may appear more attractive. The speaker cited the advantages of late nuclear use as it would not be unambiguously illegitimate in case Pakistan is faced with extinction as a state. Pakistan would be resorting to it at a stage in the war when it is vulnerable, possibly having exhausted other military options. In essence the paper argued that late nuclear use could prove more dangerous and damaging to India than early use. External Discussant I (R. Dahiya)
External Discussant II (Gaurav Kampani)
Prepared by S.Rajasimman, Research Assistant at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. |
Military Affairs | |||
| Sky's no Limit: An Evaluation of Space-based Solar Power as the Next Major Step in the Indo-US Strategic Partnership | October 23, 2009 | Peter Garretson | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Chair: Jasjit Singh |
||||
| Maritime Security in the Gulf of Aden: Opportunities and Challenges for India | September 11, 2009 | Marie Christine Boilard | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Chair: N S Sisodia |
Africa, Latin America, Caribbean & UN |