Events

In the Monday Morning Webinar held on November 22, 2021, Col. Manish Rana, Research Fellow, Defense Economics & Industry Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) spoke on the topic “Systems Approach to Procurement – An Historical Perspective". Col. Vivek Chadha, Research Fellow, MP-IDSA, moderated the session. The Webinar aimed to draw certain lessons from the patterns which were emerging through study of the history of defence procurement in India and also try to understand the complexities by adopting a Systems Approach. The webinar also attempted to identify the fixes that have failed due to interaction of various elements and sub-systems within the defence procurement system in India, to enable guide the decision makers in formulating better and enduring Defence Procurement Policy.

The speaker gave a brief introduction to the Systems Approach to explain what it means and how it works, as also how we can utilize it in our Defence procurement system as such. He brought out that any organization is created with some objective in mind based on a felt need and it consists of various sub-systems and elements which interact with each other to provide the desired outcome. However, over a period of time these relations start affecting each other’s way of working and outcome leading to reduction in efficiency and problems start surfacing. When the problem is identified, the aim is to get the feedback from the environment as to what is happening and why it is happening and based on that feedback the changes in the interaction of the sub elements /sub systems are introduced to make the organization behave in a particular way or come out with a outcome which is desired.

Col. Manish Rana brought out that Systems Approach focuses on a problem which emerges with the interaction among the elements in society, enterprises, and the environment. When we see a problem, we don’t see a problem in isolation we see the genesis of that problem in the interaction with the other sub-systems and sub-elements within that system and accordingly we consider various responses to come out with the solution. As told by Albert Einstein “The significant problems we face today cannot be solved at the same level of thinking at which they were created”.  That is the thought process behind analyzing a problem from a different perspective from a different point of view and from a different level of thinking. The crux remains that complete system is more than the simple sum of the elements which are existing in it (“Whole is greater than sum of the parts”). And for the organizational problem solving the systems thinking approach offers a higher level of thinking.

The speaker talked about Defence procurement as a system.  Major sub-system/elements which come into play into this system are Service Headquarters, MoD, Industry and external factors. Service headquarters in itself is a kind of system which have various sub-systems within itself (Operations, Perspective planners, procurement sections, maintenance sections). MoD also is a smaller system or a sub-system having various departments under it. Further we have Industry as another major element which forms part of procurement system. Industry includes Indian entities, Foreign OEMs, Start-ups, MSMEs, DPSUs. Another major factor which needs consideration is the external environment. The procurement system directly or indirectly interacts with the external environment through MEA policies, PMO directives, Ministries relating to Industries and MSMEs etc. All these elements can be brought together under one system to be able to define the system of defence procurement and there interactions amongst each other and its effect on the outcome if studied objectively will give us leverage points to ensure system continues to produce the desired outcome.

Concept of causal loops as a tool for systems analysis was explained and “Fixes that Fail ‘Archetypes was discussed by the speaker. This behavioral pattern suggests that to fulfil a particular need or gap whatever action you take that may give you certain results in the short run, however, it may also happen that over a long term this particular action causes some unintended consequence which over a period come back to haunt us and keep increasing the problem further. Aim of adopting a Sytems approach is to identify such possibilities by study of behavioral patterns in history to avoid introducing a fix which may fail again.

Col. Manish Rana discussed the Historical Perspective of Procurement in India and highlighted that modern Defence industry which was setup in India before 1947 was essentially to meet the colonial interests. They had created a particular system towards which small mills, gun powder factories, gun carriages production facilities etc were set up for whatever limited requirement they had. The British rulers were not inclined towards making bigger weapon systems or undertaking major defence projects in India as the cost of producing those systems in India was appreciated to be higher as compared to procuring them from England. The initial infrastructure that was set up at that time was very limited in scope for various reasons which were suiting the colonial power at that time and was able to at best meet the Indian Armed Forces requirement of so called Quartermaster stores only.

Speaker mentioned about the Industrial policy of 1956 and its impact on defence procurement and production. It was a major turning point in the Indian Defence Production system. The 1956 Industrial Policy was in accordance with the national objective of socialist pattern of society at that time, towards which the public sector was given a push. Government had recognised and realised that the planned and rapid development is the need of the day. However, the industrial base in India at that time was not able to give the results that were required and not able to put in the required capital in major sectors like defence. Hence, the basic sectors and some strategically important sectors were put directly under the control of the government. The State assumed direct responsibility for the future development of industries over a wide area. Like exclusive responsibility of Railways and Air transport, arms and ammunition and atomic energy.

Research and development in various fields was also realized to be an important aspect and towards this the DRDO was established in 1958. Prof. PMS Blackett played a major role to guide the government and helped government to take the policies forward. Unfortunately, as per PMS Blackett the threat perception of India which was very limited and he suggested that India needs to procure weapons system to cater for their internal turmoil and limited external threat only. In one of his documents, it is also mentioned that he had advised the government to take a holistic threat perspective and come out with likely future scenarios and based on that decide what defence equipment factories and projects should be established by the Government of India. Which somehow did not happen, and we kept on struggling with the limited resources. Whereas the future of science was realised in other sectors and developments happened accordingly. Col. Manish Rana emphasized that the crux of the matter remains that we rightly pushed for the public sector units but we did not realise at that time was the need for gestation period in procurement and the production of defence equipment as also necessity of comprehensive threat assessment based requirements in defence.

Col. Manish Rana linked India’s dependence on Russia to the geopolitical realities of 60’s and 70’s when China-Pakistan and USA were coming closer. At that time, we went for a treaty with Russia in 1971 i.e., Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation and focus shifted to import of defence equipment through Govt to Govt negotiations and single vendor contracts. Though we did not lose sight of indigenous capacity enhancement, towards which licensed production contracts were introduced. But the desired aim was not met as there was limited transfer of technology. Over a period of time we went into comfort zone and got used to single vendor procurements. However, in 1990s as industrial capacities started improving and economy got liberalised, defense production started opening up to private sector and we also started diversifying our import of defence products from other countries as well. Since multi-vendor acquisitions are complex and time consuming the institutional deficiencies started coming to fore. India realised that it needs to formalise the procedures and reduce discretion amongst decision makers involved in defence procurements. The Public Accounts Committee of Parliament in its 187th Report in 1989 recommended that Government should draw up comprehensive guidelines relating to defence purchases and contracts. Later the Kargil War and consequent recommendations from Group of Ministers ensured we started working on policy aspects with a renewed purpose of strengthening our system. Director General of Defence Acquisition was created in MoD and detailed procedural guidelines called Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) were promulgated in 2002 (revised in 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2016 and 2020). Offsets were also introduced in 2005.

Col. Manish Rana presented a causal loop with capability gaps as the main focus and steps taken to cover them since independence. How the various factors like indigenous solutions, public sector units, Global purchases etc affected our overall process were discussed in detail. He concluded that crux of the systems approach is to have a simple solution and gaining maximum advantage by identifying historical patterns and leverage points in causal loops. He highlighted that historically it has been seen that encouraging Research and Development and striking a balance between import and indigenous development may be the key to success of Defence Procurement as a System. Constant threat evaluation is required so that we don’t end up splurging on the things that we don’t require. Also he left the audience with the thought of what should be our focus, should we ‘Indigenise the past or learn lessons from past and try to indigenise the Future’.

Thanking the speaker for a comprehensive analysis and the valuable insights, the Chair Col. Vivek Chadha called on Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy, DG, MP-IDSA, to share his remarks on the theme. Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy congratulated the presenter for the insightful presentation and mentioned instances where India has done well in indigenizing defence systems. However, he raised the question of the barriers that have impeded India’s beginning in the realm of indigenised defence systems. Amb. Chinoy also mentioned that “Whenever India has decided to make something in India, it has done very good” and gave examples of the recently unveiled INS Vishakhapatnam as India’s success story.

Maj. Gen. (Dr) Bipin Bakshi (Retd) DDG, MP-IDSA highlighted that our services have been reluctant to go for indigenous weapons till recently. Maj. Gen. Bakshi said that one of the reasons is that technological gaps are still there. He mentioned that Covid-19 has given fillip to indigenisation by exposing dependencies on global supply chains. He also emphasized that we need to strike a balance between foreign and indigenous sources.

The Panelist Samuel Rajiv, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA commented that there is a need for a re-emphasis on Atmanirbhar Bharat. He said that the whole point of indigenisation is to reduce the capacity gap so we need to measure how much of capacity gap can be filled. However, the speaker Col. Manish Rana disagreed that there is a reluctance in the Indian armed forces to adopt Indian weapons. The floor was then opened for the Q&A session which emphasised on the need to improve processes, and barriers to these improvements.

Report prepared by Richa Tokas, Research Intern, Defence Economics & Industry Centre, MP-IDSA, New Delhi.

Event Report

Dr Udai Bhanu Singh, Centre for Southeast Asia and Oceania made a presentation on “ASEAN-India Summit: Outcomes and Prospects” on 8 November, 2021. The session was moderated by Dr Arpita Anant. The panelists included Director-General Amb. Sujan Chinoy, Deputy Director-General Dr Bipin Bakshi, Col RP Singh and Mr Akash Sahu. It was attended by MP-IDSA faculty and other invitees.

Executive Summary

The session outlined the significance of ASEAN as a regional organization in the Indo-Pacific and its continued relevance despite emergence of newer security structures such as the QUAD or AUKUS. India and ASEAN align on the policy of rules-based order in the region and already cooperate on a number of areas including supply chains, energy, climate, disaster management and skill development. There is a need to strengthen these engagements and focus on economic and business ties between the two regions by providing a boost to infrastructure on both sides and connectivity. The shared values between India and ASEAN may be complemented with shared growth and development, which may be useful in maintaining regional balance of power.

Dr Singh spoke on India’s relations with ASEAN and the recently concluded ASEAN-India summit. He explained India’s position of commitment to ASEAN centrality in the Indo-Pacific. Given the uncertainty that has arisen due to ASEAN’s inability to take prompt action on the Myanmar crisis, many have been skeptical of ASEAN’s relevance as a formidable regional organization. However, India’s policy of engaging with ASEAN must not be driven by such skepticism since despite a lack of consensus on certain issues, ASEAN nations think alike on number of other fronts such as economy, trade, tourism, industry etc. India may continue to engage with ASEAN to enhance cooperation on these issues.

The world has changed significantly from the times when ASEAN was formed in 1967, and today, the global order is being challenged by the aggressive rise of China. The Southeast Asian nations are closely interconnected with China economically and the gap in their military capacities in comparison to China is huge. Hence, the collective ASEAN identity has assumed much more importance than ever in successfully resisting China’s attempts to coerce member nations into ceding claims in the conflicted South China Sea territory. Maintaining good relations with India will also be favourable for ASEAN with a view to sustaining balance of power in the region. India and ASEAN can continue to build partnerships on the basis of their shared history, cultural linkages and political willingness from both sides.

PM Modi’s speech at the recent summit was indicative of India’s interest in deepening engagements with ASEAN, especially in vaccine production. He also laid focus on the shared values between the two regions and cooperative efforts in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. Security for All and Growth in the Region (SAGAR) and Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI) are India-led initiatives aimed at improving regional maritime security. It has considerable scope for ASEAN to be involved for comprehensive joint efforts. There is also much scope for strategic alignment for India and ASEAN. The ASEAN Outlook on Indo-Pacific, released in 2019, is the organization’s major step to realizing a common vision for Indo-Pacific with a rules-based order and freedom of navigation. India and ASEAN can work to reduce the gaps in development and cooperate in areas such as pharmaceuticals. India is part of many forums with ASEAN like East Asia Summit (EAS) and ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus (ADMM+), which has allowed it to better understand the region’s security issues.

India is also engaged with ASEAN on areas of non-traditional security such as fast-changing climate and protection of the region’s rich biodiversity. The year 2022 will be ASEAN-India year of friendship. It will also be the year for Cambodia’s chairmanship of the organization. Cambodia has developed close relations with China over the years and in the year of its last chairmanship of ASEAN in 2012, had pushed Beijing’s agenda in context to South China Sea issue. India’s engagement with ASEAN, and particularly Cambodia, may be observed carefully with regard to developments on the South China Sea conflict. Summarizing the presentation, Dr Anant underlined the increasing importance of minilateralism in the Indo-Pacific and the need for India and ASEAN to maintain a robust relationship.

The DG complimented Dr Singh for the presentation and shared his views on India-ASEAN relations. He pointed out that economics and infrastructure is where the competition lies when it comes to Southeast Asia. There has been a tendency in India to focus on civilizational linkages with the ASEAN region at the cost of developing business and trade connectivity. This may be problematic given the fast pace of Beijing’s ingress into the region with grand plans like BRI. Despite India’s cultural and religious linkages with countries in Southeast Asia, there has been less than expected convergence on issues of strategic importance due to overarching economic influence of China. India should consider strengthening ties with ASEAN by allocating much greater resources for development of infrastructure between the two regions. The DDG observed that role of ASEAN has come under speculation due to its lack of effectiveness in dealing with some contentions issues, but nevertheless it remains one of the central pillars of stability in the region. He stressed that ASEAN centrality may continue to be the rule of thumb for multilateral forums in the Indo-Pacific region. He raised a query about India’s connectivity projects in its northeastern region with Myanmar, and the progress of the Kaladan Multimodal transport route.

Dr Singh clarified that challenges remain for India’s two flagship projects. One is the ambitious Kaladan multi-modal connectivity project which links Zorinpui in Mizoram with Myanmar’s Sittwe port in the Rakhine state, and the other is the Trilateral Highway between Moreh (in Manipur, India) and Mae Sot in Thailand via Myanmar. One predominant challenge is the lack of infrastructural development within India’s northeast and within the border regions of Myanmar. For the project to gain pace, it is crucial that connectivity within Northeast is strengthened speedily. Another reason is instability in the Rakhine state due to the Rohingya issue. It may be difficult to register progress as long as violence continues in areas of Rakhine critical to the Kaladan project.

Some concerns were raised on India’s approach to ASEAN, especially as member states themselves are of varying opinions on recent security developments such as AUKUS. It was discussed that this may be primarily due to differing relationships with China. Vietnam has taken a softer approach to AUKUS while Indonesia and Malaysia have expressed concerns. It was also agreed that India may carefully observe role of large powers in the region such as Russia and the US. On RCEP, it was acknowledged that not signing the agreement in the first go was being seen internationally as a missed opportunity for India as it would be excluded from a vast free trade zone. Given some domestic restraints and pressure, India could not sign the agreement and may revisit if some of its reservations could be addressed. A beginning has to be made by revisiting the terms of the ASEAN-India FTA. India must also continue to increase cooperation with ASEAN on supply chains resilience as the COVID-19 has exposed the vulnerabilities of the present logistics. Such cooperation may be extended to areas such as energy, given India’s vast potential for solar energy production.

Report prepared by Akash Sahu, Research Analyst, Centre for Southeast Asia and Oceania, MP-IDSA

November 01, 2021

In the Monday Morning Webinar held on November 01, 2021, Ms. Ruchita Beri, Senior Research Associate and Coordinator Africa, Latin America, Caribbean and United Nations Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) spoke on the topical “Coup in Sudan and Fallout”.  Dr. M. S. Prathibha, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA, moderated the session. Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, and scholars of the institute attended the webinar.

Executive Summary

The webinar shed light on the conditions triggering the Coup in Sudan, its internal as well as regional impact and provided an insight on the likely implications it holds for India. It was assessed that the coup would worsen the domestic situation, reverse all the gains made by Sudan over the last two years and tensions may flare up in the region. The close ties shared between Sudan and India; and the role played by other external powers in the country was also highlighted. The importance of restoring civilian rule in Sudan in the near future was underscored by the Speaker.

Detailed Report

The Chair, Dr. M. S. Prathibha, began the webinar by sharing introductory details about the coup in Sudan. On October 25, 2021, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the military chief and head of Transitional Sovereignty Council, dismissed the government and declared a state of emergency. The Sudanese Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok was temporarily detained and is currently under house arrest. The Chair stated that these events had quashed hopes for a peaceful transition of power. She invited the Speaker to further discuss in detail the conditions that enabled the coup and explore prospects for a democratic transition in Sudan.

At the outset, Ms. Ruchita Beri highlighted that General al-Burhan, the military chief has seized the power in the government, dissolved the transitional council, declared a state of emergency and imprisoned the civilian leaders. Referring to the previous failed coup attempt in September 2021, she emphasised that the current move by the military had sparked widespread protests in the country and condemnation across the world. She stated that African Union (AU) had suspended Sudan until it restored civil rule, and shed light on the responses of the United Nations, Arab League and some of the neighbouring countries. Ms. Beri assessed that the political crisis in Sudan would lead to worsening of the situation internally and externally.

The speaker stated that the transitional authorities in Sudan consisted of members from the military and civilians from the Forces of Freedom and Change party (FFC). Identifying that tough economic reforms had led to deepening of differences within the FFC; she highlighted that tensions had been brewing in the political circles, pro-military protestors had held demonstrations and the Port of Sudan had been blocked by a tribal group with the help of the military. The speaker observed that economic crisis as well as acute shortage of food, currency and fuel was one of the reasons triggering the coup. Stating that the military leadership of the sovereign transitional council was slated to shift to a civilian leadership in November, she analysed that key items on the civilian agenda in the agreement also could have caused the military to act. She underscored that other causes for the coup could have been the civilian agenda of ensuring accountability on violation of Human Rights during the rule of President Bashir, vocal criticism of the army by Prime Minister Hamdok, the strict economic reforms and fear that Army might lose their control in the commercial sector.

With regard to internal impact Ms. Beri remarked that the coup had reversed all progress that Sudan had made. Owing to its efforts to transition to a democracy, the country had recently begun to receive international financial assistance; all of which had been paused following the coup. The speaker underlined that the coup threatens Sudan’s fragile peace and would worsen the shattered economy leading to rise in unemployment. Referring to the external regional impact, Ms. Beri stated that tensions may flare up in the region. She assessed that the coup would inflame existing boundary and territorial disputes, influence the political dynamics surrounding the ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Project’, affect the Tigray crisis and increase the security concerns of the region.

Ms. Beri shed light on the close historical ties shared between Sudan and India. She mentioned that India is invested in the energy sector of the country, has provided Lines of Credit, is a key development partner for Sudan, Sudan was a beneficiary under India’s Vaccine Maitri initiative and India was at the forefront of providing food aid to Sudan in November 2020. Stating the value of bilateral trade and that major brands like Tata and Mahindra are some of the companies present in Sudan, she said Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) withdrew its operations in 2020 owing to disagreements. The speaker observed that the Minister of State for External Affairs Shri. V Muraleedharan’s visit to Sudan on 18-19th October 2021 implies that India exercises leverage in the country.

She shared that United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia are close external partners to Sudan as they have business interests and are strategically linked in the war against Terrorism. Furthermore, Sudan has helped in fighting against the Houthi rebels and UAE is invested in the ports in Sudan. Ms. Beri underlined that although previously China shared close military relations with Sudan, it has in recent years diluted its economic partnership. Expressing concern about the future in Sudan, Ms. Beri stated that the coup could potentially increase internal chaos and regional conflicts would flare up. She concluded by underscoring the importance of restoring civilian rule in Sudan in the near future.

Thanking the speaker for a comprehensive analysis and the valuable insights, the Chair called on Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy, DG, MP-IDSA, to share his remarks on the theme. Amb. Chinoy drew attention to and raised queries on the long term implications of the coup on India’s trading community and the possibility of the internal chaos in Sudan descending into a graver humanitarian crisis. He reflected on the likely scope of attention the international community would extend considering it is currently focused on the situation in Afghanistan. Amb. Sujan stated that security and drug consignments particularly at ports could be misused during times of chaos and collapsing government structure. He enquired about the likelihood of the Port of Sudan being used as staging point for arms and drugs. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), DDG, MP-IDSA, made a reference to the Sudanese military chief’s announcement on the appointment of a technocrat instead of an elected politician to lead the council. He remarked on the importance of countries evolving its own system of governance and stated the examples of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. Comparing international response to the coup in Myanmar and underscoring the need for homegrown evolved system of governance, Maj. Gen. Bakshi asked the Speaker to share views on how the situation in Sudan would play out.

In her response, Ms. Beri reiterated the security concerns and strategic importance of Sudan which is strategically located connecting the Sahel, Horn of Africa and the North of Africa. She emphasised that worsening situation in Sudan would impact the region as a whole. Regarding the Indian trading community in Sudan, she mentioned that Indian Embassy had issued a safety advisory to all Indians in Sudan and recalled earlier missions by India to evacuate Indians stuck in the conflict. The speaker stated that the Port of Sudan is currently blocked which would increase illegal trade in the future. Mentioning about India’s past defence cooperation with Sudan, she remarked that India may revive its diplomatic parlays with Sudan to help with the transition. To explain the reasons for appointment of a technocrat, Ms. Beri shed light on the commercial and political entrenchment of the military in Sudan and their fear of losing the existing control under a civilian rule. She mentioned about international and regional negotiation processes underway regarding Sudan.

The webinar concluded with a vibrant and an engaging Q/A session which raised some interesting themes. Key highlights of the Q/A session were the inputs shared on the status of the civilian society in Sudan which is not a monolith and it’s potential to influence the politics; global opinion against the coup; failure of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to produce a presidential statement on the situation in Sudan due to opposition by Russia and China which could cause frictions in international response to the coup; the increasing magnitude of the protests by Sudanese nationals against the coup; implications of the coup on the larger regional geopolitics; the role of AU in bringing stability as Sudan and Ethiopia have become a theatre for geopolitical competition between West Asian powers like Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and UAE; potential of a military governed Sudan becoming a partner of the Sunni bloc against Iran; implication of the coup on the agreement signed between Russia and Sudan to establish a naval base near the port of Sudan; future trajectory of Sudan-Israel ties and the likely flaring up of issues on the dynamics of Nile river water sharing.

Report prepared by Ms. Sindhu Dinesh, Research Analyst, ALACUN Centre, MP-IDSA.

The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) in collaboration with the US-India Business Council (USIBC), Delhi, is organising a Round Table Meet.

Venue: Room No. 005, Ground Floor, MP-IDSA

Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General MP-IDSA will deliver the welcome address.

Download Programme Details [PDF]