Events

Dr. Nihar R. Nayak, Research Fellow, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, will speak on “India-Nepal Hydro Energy Cooperation: Challenges and Prospects” at the Monday Morning Meeting which will be held on 04 September 2023 at 10 AM. The venue is Seminar Hall I, Second Floor.

Dr. Opangmeren Jamir, Research Analyst, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, will be the moderator.

Mr. Bipandeep Sharma, Research Analyst, will be the rapporteur.

Dr. Anand Kumar, Associate Fellow, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, spoke on “India-Bangladesh Trade Settlement in Indian Rupee” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 14 August 2023. The session was moderated by Dr. Ashish Shukla, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, the Director General of MP-IDSA and scholars of the Institute were in attendance.

Executive Summary

India's push to promote the use of the Indian Rupee (INR) in Bangladesh comes in response to Bangladesh's declining foreign exchange reserves. This shift aims to strengthen bilateral trade, reduce reliance on the US dollar, and enhance competitiveness by lowering trade costs. While the immediate impact on Bangladesh's dependence on the dollar might be limited given its substantial imports, the strategic move highlights the INR's rising importance in trade between the two nations, with both countries considering the introduction of a currency card to further facilitate transactions and cooperation.

Detailed Report

In his opening remarks, Dr. Ashish Shukla offered a brief overview of India’s initiative to conduct international trade in rupees. He quoted RBI’s annual report on “Currency and Finance,” which stated internationalisation of the rupee is inevitable. In July 2022, a deliberate effort to internationalise the rupee was also advised in the State Bank of India's ECOWRAP report in light of capital flight from emerging market nations, including India. He emphasised that India’s decision to promote INR as a global reserve witnessed a notable upsurge in the aftermath of the economic consequences resulting from the Russia-Ukraine conflict. At present, more than 19 countries have showed interest in opening Rupee Vostro accounts, essential for international trade settlement in INR. Finally, with the inclusion of Bangladesh into this new setting, he remarked how it has also sparked a de-dollarisation debate in South Asia.

Dr. Anand Kumar began his presentation by stating that Sheikh Hasina's appointment as Prime Minister in 2009 sparked a number of constructive developments between India and Bangladesh. Economically, Bangladesh's exports to India are valued at USD 2 billion, while its imports from India are USD 13.69 billion. Both countries have implemented innovative strategies to increase their bilateral trade in times of crisis. For example, during COVID-19, they investigated trading through railroads, which cut shipping costs and expedited commercial processes. They were able to maintain access to essential necessities thanks to this technique. In a similar vein, India has once again stepped in to save Bangladesh from a dollar shortage by offering to facilitate trade in Indian Rupees.

Dr. Kumar emphasised that there is no question about the US Dollar's dominance in world trade rapidly decreasing. He claimed that although 70 per cent of world trade was conducted in USD in 2001, by 2023, that percentage has fallen to 58 per cent. He added that when powerful economies like the US increase their interest rates, it triggers a chain reaction; wherein investors withdraw funds from developing nations, leading to currency depreciation across these countries. This depreciation fuels inflation due to elevated import costs for essentials like food and energy.

The speaker underscored how the situation becomes intricate as the affected countries struggle to balance their current accounts and afford crucial imports. The issue also extends to servicing external debts, exemplified by the challenges nations like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh face. As a response to these challenges, he analysed how there is a growing inclination among various countries to diminish their reliance on the US Dollar.

He gave the example of the members of the Asian Clearing Union having collectively agreed to reduce their dollar dependence and instead settle trade using local currencies. This sentiment is echoed by Asian Finance Ministers and policymakers, who are exploring ways to reduce their reliance on currencies like the Japanese Yen. China has taken advantage of this trend, aiming to position its currency as a global reserve.

He stated that at the same time, India is also trying to improve the global status of its currency. This strategic shift, implemented in July 2022, involved the inclusion of the Indian Rupee (INR) in a segment of international trade transactions.

Dr. Kumar mentioned that India has also authorised the use of INR for settling foreign trade deals. In a subsequent development, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has provided authorisation to banks from 18 different countries. Three banks from Bangladesh have also been permitted to establish Nostro accounts. This strategic move strengthens economic ties between India and Bangladesh and contributes to India's pursuit of greater global economic influence by establishing its currency's credibility.

The speaker talked about how over the past year, Bangladesh has experienced a significant decline in its foreign exchange reserves, dropping from US$48.41 billion to US$29.97 billion, marking a decrease of around 28%. This decline is primarily attributed to increased import spending, with moderate remittances and export earnings. The country is grappling with challenges in financing essential imports, particularly fuel, which is crucial for its operations. Hence, the switch to INR trade and commerce. The benefits for Bangladesh are manifold. The move is expected to foster closer diplomatic ties and relationships between the two nations. For businesses engaged in cross-border trade, significant advantages are anticipated. Lower trade costs will likely enhance competitiveness, opening doors to a broader customer base and potentially boosting exports from Bangladesh to India. Additionally, conducting transactions in Rupees can streamline trade processes, eliminating the need for currency conversion when opening Letters of Credit.

In conclusion, he underscored that the initiative might not lead to an immediate reduction in Bangladesh's reliance on the US Dollar, considering the substantial magnitude of its imports, which aggregated to approximately US$75.6 billion in the fiscal year 2021. Hence, Rupee transaction may not instantly augment the declining forex reserves in Bangladesh, however, it is an important step forward. Furthermore, both India and Bangladesh are currently deliberating on introducing a currency card to further streamline transactions, with plans for its launch scheduled for September 2023 or shortly thereafter.

Questions and Comments

The floor was opened for questions and comments. The Director General, MP-IDSA, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy congratulated the speaker and made a few comments. He underlined several key points regarding India's role in the global economy. He emphasised the significance of neighbouring countries accepting India's economic influence for better regional growth. Despite the inevitable rise of India's economy, he stressed that this growth should involve accommodating neighbouring countries and integrating them into the economic framework.

Amb. Chinoy remarked that the recent initiative of trading in Indian Rupees is seen as a positive step toward regional economic collaboration, potentially benefiting nations like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal.  He advised caution in expecting the Indian Rupee to replace the US Dollar internationally, pointing out the US Dollar's dominant role in global commodities and transactions. In sum, he suggested focusing on consolidating the Rupee's influence within the region rather than aiming for immediate global dominance.

The researchers from the Institute made valuable comments. The remarks underscored the potential for India to enhance the momentum of INR's trade settlement by advocating its use within multilateral institutions like BRICS. The discussion also touched upon Russia's reservations regarding the revival of Rupee-Rouble trade, concerns raised by both Indian and Bangladeshi traders, and the limitations observed in the SAFTA Agreements.

Report prepared by Ms. Sneha M., Research Analyst, South Asia Centre, MP-IDSA.

Ms. Mayuri Banerjee, Research Analyst, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, made a presentation on “The Status of Sino-US Relations: Assessing the Contemporary Trends of Sino-US Rivalry” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 31 July 2023. The session was moderated by Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Research Fellow, MP-IDSA. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, and scholars of the Institute were in attendance.

Executive Summary

Ms. Mayuri Banerjee's presentation highlighted the escalating rivalry between China and the US, marked by strained relations across economic, technological, geopolitical, and military domains. The trade war featured tariff battles and technology restrictions. The tech competition extended to AI and semiconductor exports. Geopolitical issues included tensions over Taiwan and power struggles over regional influence. Both nations employed initiatives to bolster their sway. The rivalry, reminiscent of Thucydidean dynamics, stems from a decline in cooperation, treating issues as security matters. The future looks uncertain, with both sides unlikely to ease stances, resulting in a conflicted coexistence.

Detailed Report

Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh initiated the discussion by highlighting the genesis of the Sino-US rivalry and then provided an overall overview of the Sino-US relationship. Additionally, he discussed the ongoing dynamics between the two nations, encompassing matters such as high-tech trade and concerns surrounding the Taiwan Strait.

Ms. Mayuri Banerjee began her presentation by giving a broad overview of the current situation of the Sino-US relationship. Ms. Banerjee explained that rivalry arises when two nations have hostile ties and there is potential for armed conflict. Recent events and behaviors indicate a shift towards major power rivalry. Sino-US relations are strained and historically low, marked by heightened economic, political, technological, and military competition. Further, disputes, disagreements and threats to use force persist, leading to frozen bilateral ties. Recent high-level meetings have failed to yield significant breakthroughs.

The speaker highlighted the fault lines of the Sino-US relationship in four different domains: trade war, geopolitical competition, high-tech war, and Taiwan.

In the trade war section, Ms. Banerjee highlighted that in 2018, the Trump administration launched the trade war. Thereafter, both US and China imposed tariffs on various goods sourced from each other. She explained that China's Huawei was restricted, and cotton imports from Xinjiang were banned by the US. During Trump's term, tariffs increased significantly across four rounds, reaching 21% from 3.1% in 2018. The following Biden administration maintained tariffs but with a more focused approach. By August 2022, about 660 Chinese companies faced US trade restrictions, and the sale of communication equipment from Chinese telecom firms was prohibited. In response, China created its Entity List in 2020 and introduced the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law in June 2021. In 2023, China excluded US chipmaker Micron from critical projects and passed the Foreign Relations Law in July, as a counter-measure to the US restrictions.

In addition to the trade war, she highlighted the Sino-US clash over high technology and artificial intelligence. She pointed out that Trump restricted semiconductor exports to China, putting key chip makers like Huawei and SMIC on the "Entity List." In September 2022, Nvidia and Advanced Micron Devices halted AI computing chip exports to China. The Biden administration then introduced comprehensive export controls, including limiting China's access to certain chips made with US equipment. By December 2022, the US had blacklisted China's YMTC (Yangtze Memory Technologies Corp) and other firms. In retaliation, China banned mergers between Chinese companies in the US market and their US counterparts. Recently, China announced export controls on critical minerals like germanium and gallium.

The tech rivalry between the US and China is closely linked to Taiwan. Ms. Banerjee explained that Sino-US bilateral relations took a major hit after Nancy Pelosi's visit in August 2022. China canceled and suspended eight bilateral dialogue mechanisms. Dangerous military encounters between the US and Chinese Navy in the Taiwan Straits were reported in June 2023.  With regard to Taiwan, both sides accuse each other of trying to change the status quo. The US claims that Chinese economic and military pressure on Taiwan, imposition of diplomatic isolation, and interference in Taiwan‘s election are aimed to coerce Taipei into China’s fold. On the other hand, Beijing asserts that US diplomatic and military support is aimed to strengthen Taiwan’s aspiration for independence.

Elaborating on the geopolitical competition, Ms. Banerjee highlighted that China and the US are locked in a competitive struggle, vying for control over political, military, and economic influence across different regions like Africa, Latin America, and South-East Asia. They're competing in sectors like infrastructure, healthcare management, technology, training, and capacity development. Both countries are trying to shape rules and institutions to enhance their sway over regional security and economic patterns. China is utilizing initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), AIIB, SCO, GSI, GCI, and GDI, among others. Meanwhile, the US has sought to counter through initiatives like Free and Open Indo-Pacific, Build Back Better World, Quad, IPEF, Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Development, AUKUS, Five-Eyes alliance, and NATO Plus Five.

She also highlighted that the current dynamics of rivalry between China and the United States can be interpreted through four frameworks; Thucydidean rivalry, power-maximisation and security competition, securitization, and erosion of pro-cooperation lobby in both countries.

Concluding her presentation, Ms. Banerjee highlighted the future of Sino-US Relations remains uncertain as neither side has shown signs of easing their foreign policy approach toward the other. The US is likely to focus on strengthening partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region to enhance deterrence. China, on the other hand, will further collaborate with Russia, enhance its military capabilities, and increase diplomatic engagement in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. For the foreseeable future, both countries are expected to continue a conflictual coexistence.  

Q&A Session

Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) in his remarks emphasised the significance of the US Defense Secretary’s visit to Papua New Guinea. He highlighted the US’ endeavor to enhance relations and establish a dual-use base, catering to both civilian and military purposes in the central Pacific region. In her reply, Ms. Banerjee mentioned the recent summit held in the US between US President Joe Biden and the leaders of the Pacific Island nations. She noted that independent research is required to understand the smaller nations' efforts to navigate the Sino-US rivalry.

Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Research Fellow, addressed the origins of the Sino-US rivalry, pointing out its roots in politics, history, geo-strategy, and China's commitment to the one-China policy. He made a query about the perspective of the US business lobby towards China within this rivalry's context.

Capt. Anurag Bisen, Research Fellow, posed a query regarding India's stance on the Sino-US rivalry.

J. Mohansakthivel, Research Analyst, brought up the use of the term "Cold War 2.0" to describe the current rivalry and questioned its appropriateness.

Mr. Anit Kumar, Research Intern, asked whether a similar competition existed between the two nations in Space.

Dr. Adil Rashid, Research Fellow, expressed concerns about the impact of Chinese currency devaluation on the US.

Mr. Harshit Sharma, Research Intern, posed a question about China's potential to reshape the world order.

Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh and Ms. Mayuri Banerjee gave a detailed explanation on the comments and questions raised by the participants.

Report prepared by Mr. Mohan Singh Dhangar, Research Intern, East Asia Centre, MP-IDSA, New Delhi.

An MP-IDSA Fellows Seminar presentation by Dr. Adil Rasheed, Research Fellow, on “Influence Operations: Winning Without Waging Wars in the 21st Century” was held on 20 July 2023. It was chaired by Lt. Gen. (Dr.) Rakesh Sharma (Retd.), Member, Executive Council, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA). The External Discussants were Maj. Gen. Roopesh Mehta, ADG CD (B) IHQ, and Mr. Vinit Goenka, Secretary, Centre for Knowledge Sovereignty (CKS). Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA; Lt. Gen. Akshat Upadhyay, Research Fellow, MP-IDSA; and Ms. Shruti Pandalai, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA were Internal Discussants.

Executive Summary

Influence Operations (IO), a battle of narratives, is considered a new and rapidly-evolving field of study. Russia, China, the US, and Pakistan have been at the forefront of using their strategy. It pertains to clandestine operations that can manipulate and influence individuals’ and governments’ perceptions, decisions, and cognition of individuals and governments. IO includes active measures carried out by the erstwhile Soviet Union and is a non-kinetic form of warfare. It also gives each country relying on this strategy plausible deniability while conducting its activities. Social media, big tech, and artificial intelligence are crucial in this regard.

Detailed Report

In his opening remarks, the Chair, Lt. Gen. (Dr.) Rakesh Sharma (Retd.) stated that Information Warfare (IW) is the future warfare strategy. He further stated that besides India’s victory in 1971, no wars have genuinely been won in the 21st century.

Dr. Adil Rasheed began by introducing the topic of his paper, Influence Operations (IO), a form of high-tech and hybrid warfare. One of the key definitions provided by the speaker was borrowed from Facebook, according to which IO refers to coordinated efforts to manipulate or corrupt public debate for a strategic goal. It was initially defined by RAND Corporation in 2009. IO could also be divided into three categories, i.e., political and economic, information, and psychological.

Dr. Rasheed clarified that his study encompasses the assessment of IO carried out by Russia, China, the United States (US), and Pakistan. He added that wars are now fought in the virtual space and cognitive domain. These operations include offline and online measures to infiltrate political institutions and processes of other countries, making them incapable of going to war. He elaborated on IO benefits, such as being highly adaptive and effective, low-cost, and sustainable in peacetime. Today, it is associated with a foreign and maligned sharp power technique, including subversive public diplomacy, crowd manipulations, engineering colour revolutions and agitations, and election meddling. In addition, social media has amplified IO’s impact through trolling, flaming, doxing, posting dark advertisements, presenting Potemkin villages of evidence, and participating in cognitive hacking.

He said that countries like China have relied on their diaspora based in foreign countries, such as the US, to act as spies and carry out industrial espionage. As per the Mueller Report, Russia was involved in elected meddling in the US in 2016, resulting in President Trump’s victory. 

At the same time, the US, despite referring to IO as a threat to democracy, has intervened in approximately 81 foreign elections, often accused by Russia and China of instigating colour revolutions and the Arab Spring. The speaker delved into ISI and ISPR’s (PR wing of ISI) role in spearheading and sustaining Pakistan’s IO, articulating that ISI engages in Soviet-styled active measures. Simultaneously, the role of diaspora and radicalisation through madrassas based in Jammu and Kashmir, Bangladesh, and Nepal have been essential to Pakistan’s IO strategy.

The speaker suggested that therefore, some key counter-measures India can adopt to address such threats include censorship of programmes aired on online streaming platforms, formulating a coherent and regulated social media policy and guidelines for protests and agitations, and reforming madrassas. 

Dr. Rasheed stated that digital and online tactics and techniques are associated with IO strategy, and some of the counter-measures involve capacity building, implementing effective and regulatory legal frameworks, and deterrence.

Maj. Gen. Roopesh Mehta spoke about the need to simplify IO as a term to counter these operations effectively. He also explained that Information Warfare (IW)/IO timeline is immaterial, regardless of whether it occurs in peacetime or war.

IO is a long-term strategy involving a battle of narratives. IO has two fundamental aims: turning a rival power into a modern vassal state or weakening it sufficiently to ensure it is neutralised as a threat. There are multiple layers of intervention concerning IO, which is not amenable to positive control. He also underscored how high-quality and appealing content must be disseminated swiftly in the IO/IW space as an antidote to misinformation and disinformation.

Furthermore, he presented his perspective on the Indian Army’s role in Kashmir and how ISI has been exploiting social media since 2014. Between 2015 and 2017, i.e., when Burhan Wani was active, there was immense synergy between the local media in the Kashmir Valley and developments in Pakistan. Therefore, India must draw lessons from this example. As far as China is concerned, its IO has proven more effective internally, while its impact externally remains debatable. Nevertheless, Indian leaders cannot rely on examples of authoritarian states such as Pakistan and China to establish IO-related institutions in the country. The US, however, has struggled to be effective in this domain and is a soft target since it has mainly relied on brute force to implement its agendas.

He talked about some key issues to be considered while discussing IO/OW. Firstly, ISIS successfully exploited social media to convince people worldwide to join its caliphate since 2014. Secondly, social media is an unfair terrain. Thirdly, India’s geography and diversity make the establishment of centralised control a challenging task. Fourthly, developments in IO are multiplying faster than legislative actions can be introduced to address them. Fifthly, information space is a reality. He said that therefore, these trends require a robust Indian response, an improved fact check and tech ban eco-system, collaboration with agencies such as Tech Against Terror, and sensitising the citizens towards challenges such as fake news and propaganda.

Mr. Vinit Goenka explained how colonisation by might in the erstwhile times has transformed into colonisation by big data today. Additionally, IO, a non-kinetic form of warfare, is not a time-bound strategy. He further presented three cases about IO potency. As per one of them, India’s western neighbour had used the local Marathi dialect online to stir up agitation against the development of a metro station near the Aarey colony in Mumbai. One of the other examples was a BBC documentary (1998) aired over 83 times in one year about AIDS-afflicted Indian truck drivers as a form of psychological warfare.

He recommended that the speaker examine the role of lone wolves who seek to gain notoriety through IO and are not beholden to an ideology or a country.

Maj. Gen (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) expounded on the multiple terminologies being used in this context, which he felt, need to be simplified, to make the paper more comprehensible. He went on to trace the terminology’s evolution over the past decades.

In the World War era, he explained that the only terms in use were psychological warfare and deception. With the advent of electronic and digital media, he mentioned the evolving terminologies of perception management, cyber warfare, information operations, and strategic communication. He further delved into the linkages between Arthashastra and IW and how the latter has always been a part of Chinese military strategy in Sun Tzu's writings, therefore the concepts are actually age-old. Moreover, he explained that information operations had been broadly segregated by the US military into two components, i.e., information technical operations and information and influence operations, an error according to him, given the Russian and Chinese integrated approach in this domain.

The discussant also spoke about how, in recent times, unverified bulk transmissions have been occurring with no editorial oversight, while assessing the differing components of perception management (PM) and the correlation between IW and PM. Additionally, the US Military Cyber Command Team’s role in training Ukrainians since 2014 against Russian IO, the inauguration of Singapore’s fourth military branch – Digital and Intelligence Service –, Chinese and Russian IO, the need to secure information space, India’s 2010 IW doctrine, and the November 2020 regulation about monitoring online streaming platforms was also discussed. In addition, he underlined the need for states to flood the information space with timely, credible data to avoid conjecture by uncontrolled media in an information vacuum. 

Regarding the disclaimer in the the paper wherein Non- State actors and terrorist organisations were not being covered, he suggested a greater focus on state response to this challenge, with particular reference to India. He outlined the various organisations working in this space in India and recommended the establishment of an HR vertical in IO/ IW domain.  He also underlined the need to synergise organisations working separately in Cyber, Cognitive and Physical dimensions, with a nominated lead agency to better coordinate the state response in the Information domain. He further recommended that we must generate an All of Nation response to this challenge, and integrate at two levels; Firstly the physical, cyber, and technical dimensions, and Secondly, Government, Military, Industry, Academia, and Civil Society.

Finally he suggested that the speaker may review if IO is actually a new constituent of hybrid warfare, and whether the cognitive domain is the sixth domain of warfare, as mentioned in the paper, or actually a part of the fifth domain- Information Domain, the first four being land, sea, air and space.

Lt. Col. Akshat Upadhyay stated that the speaker must introduce more clarity into his paper, modify its title and scope, and provide contextualisation for various terminologies mentioned. He also emphasised the need to expand the IO ambit as part of his research and expound on relevant statistical and anecdotal examples. There is also a need to examine the relationship between IO and truth, list sharp techniques associated with IO, and provide a more nuanced understanding of cognitive warfare.

At the same time, the speaker must account for how IO is not inherently malicious or positive and is merely a tool that state and non-state actors can use. It is also a battle of narratives. The discussant presented examples from the Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnam War) and humane treatment meted out by Indian officers to dead Pakistani soldiers during the Kargil War to support his argument. Lt. Col. Upadhyay delved into how the paper presented must re-orient from a West-centric approach and assess how Western countries have carried out IO elsewhere. Moreover, concrete examples are required to support assertions regarding US’ involvement in IO abroad.

He also suggested that Dr. Rasheed analyse how the Soviet Union (now Russia) earlier used active measures to weaken NATO and establish continuity between its cold war strategies and contemporary tactics in Ukraine. Furthermore, India must institutionalise IO instead of relying on reactive counter-measures since the recommendations suggested in the paper will increase countries’ vulnerabilities instead of reducing them.

Ms. Shruti Pandalai lauded that Dr. Rasheed has attempted to simplify a complex and evolving field, and it is improbable that one can distinguish between IW and IO. She said that there are divergences, convergences, and collaboration between Russian and Chinese IO, as visible in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Ukraine. An assertive China has increasingly adopted Russian tactics, which have ranged from controlling the diaspora and external and internal narratives in China’s favour.

According to her, the events in Ukraine demonstrate big tech and the West’s role in controlling and strengthening the narrative in Ukraine’s favour. She also pointed out that US’s Global Engagement Council, run by the US State Department, a grouping focused on combating disinformation, is inward-looking in its outlook.  

She pointed out that Dr. Rasheed needs to examine contemporary debates about IO, including artificial intelligence and big data, while being more cognisant of Western IO. At the same time, she emphasised that censorship of online streaming platforms, as suggested by the speaker, will be an ineffective deterrent in India. Finally, she believes it is necessary to focus on lessons learned.

Lt. Gen. Rakesh Sharma (Retd.) suggested modifications to the paper’s title to adequately capture the core arguments and for Dr. Rasheed to account for how states use non-state actors in the IO/IW domain and refrain from using disclaimers. At the same time, he urged caution in using terms such as hybrid warfare while he elaborated on Chinese IO in the US, the United Nations Human Rights Council and India, and Russia’s IO in the United Kingdom during the Brexit vote and differing interpretations about war. Furthermore, he emphasised the need to establish a national cognitive agency in India.

He also recommended that the speaker provide clarification about actors in India empowered to conduct cognitive warfare, India’s endgame regarding IO against China, and simplify terminologies used in the paper.

Q/A Session

Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy affirmed the need to examine all narratives concerning IO, including the insidious attempts by the West or current adversaries like Pakistan and China to prepare for the future adequately. He suggested that the paper look deeper into the role of IO/IW within India and the transboundary civil society actors’ involvement in these domains since their potency rivals big tech. At the same time, there is a requirement to assess if proposed Indian narratives are based on consensus and where challenges lie. Finally, an agnostic approach to values in IO/IW domain must be practiced.

Some of the other themes discussed in the Q/A session included strategic relevance behind IO/IW in fields of health and disease, for example, the anti-vaccine campaign in the West, the scope of visibility of Indian IO, the need to analyse vulnerabilities in each segment of the population for antidotes to be forged, lack of domestic consensus on responding to IO threats against India, the synergy between state and non-state actors, and quantification of influence.

Dr. Rasheed responded to the comments and questions raised.

This report was prepared by Ms. Saman Ayesha Kidwai, Research Analyst, Counter-Terrorism Centre, MP-IDSA.