Title | Date | Author | Time | Event | Body | Research Area | Topics | File attachments | Image |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exploring the Roots of India's Strategic Culture | October 05, 2017 | Conference |
Concept NoteDespite a debate about its relevance, strategic culture has become a commonly used and acknowledged term in the sense of a “shaping context” for strategic behaviour. The sources of the strategic culture of a nation-state are its geography, history, national culture, politics, economics, technology, etc. The nation-states may have distinct strategic cultures pertaining to the differences in the material and ideational dimensions of these factors. However, strategy is essentially linked with national policy and goal. It has an operational value as means to implement a policy and achieve a goal, both long-term and short-term, that are shaped and defined by collectively shared values, experiences, attitudes, habits and the needs of a nation. The strategic can be understood in many ways as it has become a multidisciplinary term due to its importance for achieving a goal. But, strategic in its traditional meaning in International Politics/Relations has been primarily related to the military goals of a nation-state. Therefore, strategy, in this realm, is specifically understood as the set of identification, acquisition, allocation and mobilisation of various components of the comprehensive national power and their alignment towards achieving the military goals set by the state. A nation-state’s strategic affairs have three dimensions – securing its existence (kśema), achievement (yoga) and promotion (vivardhana) of its national goals pertaining to various cultural and politico-economic factors. Culture is the set of behaviour, belief, values and symbols that have been developed retained and handed over to the next generations in history. Strategic culture, therefore, is the set of the same in the context of the state behaviour in the matters considered as strategic. Although we note that there is an ongoing debate about the deterministic and explanatory value of strategic culture regarding state behaviour and decision-making, we cannot ignore the scholarly agreement on the influence of strategic culture in the background of decision-making (strategic culture as context). Scholars agree on the fact that there is a need of exploring the strategic cultures of various states so that we could build a pool of data and literature useful for further research. India, as a nation-state, has a long civilisational history and experience of complex cultural exchanges that has contributed to the development of its national identity and behaviour, including the ideational and material (geographical) conceptualisation of the state. The nation as a geocultural space and a 70 years old independent state has a history of seeing many empires and wars that compelled it to remain in a perpetual strategic engagement (both thought and action). Thus, it is worthwhile to investigate the nuances of the strategic culture acting as a context to its strategic behaviour. As regards the debate about the existence of strategic culture in India, views are often rudimentary and impulsive rather than based on an objective definition and understanding. The main reason for this is a lack of research and availability of literature on these dimensions. Thus, this is important to lead the debate in an objective and useful direction basing it on rigorous research. An awareness of the distinction and essential relationship between strategic thinking (philosophical and intellectual discourse) and strategic culture (experience, action, attitude and habit) is also important in the process of this investigation. It is in this context that the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses intends to explore the roots of India’s Strategic Culture, elements that have been influential in shaping Indian attitude towards perceiving threats, use of force, diplomacy, war, understanding and acquisition of power, etc. Some Important Questions:
Programme0930 - 1000h Tea & Registration Session I: InaugurationChair: Prof Charan Wadhwa 1030 - 1045h Tea Break Session II: Roots in Language, Culture and Philosophy [1045 - 1230h]Chair: Amb A.N.D. Haksar 1230 - 1330h Lunch Session III: Intelligence and Strategic Culture [1330 - 1500h]Chair: Prof S.D. Muni 1500 - 1515h Tea Break Session IV: War – Practice and Theory [1515 - 1715 h]Chair: Sqn Ldr R.T.S. Chinna 1715 - 1720h Vote of Thanks by Col P.K. Gautam (Retd) |
Military Affairs | Strategic Thinking | ||||
Partial Accommodation without Conflict: India as a Rising Link Power | August 25, 2017 | Aseema Sinha | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Venue: Seminar Hall I , IDSA |
South Asia | |||
Turkey as a 'Model' for Arab World: Myth or Reality? | August 18, 2017 | Md. Muddassir Quamar | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Venue: Seminar Hall I (Second Floor) Chairperson: Shri Talmiz Ahmad |
Eurasia & West Asia | |||
India’s Strategic Security Cooperation with Israel: Scope and Analysis | July 13, 2017 | Amit Mukherjee | 1100 hrs | Fellows' Seminar | Eurasia & West Asia | ||||
India-Israel Relations at 25 | July 03, 2017 | 1100 hrs | Other |
IDSA is organising a discussion on ‘India-Israel Relations at 25’ on Monday, July 3, 2017 at 11 AM at Seminar Hall 1. The event will be chaired by Amb. Shyam Saran and will preview the agenda and possible outcomes of Prime Minister Mr. Modi’s upcoming visit to Israel. We hope you can join in the discussions and enrich the proceedings. ProgrammeOpening remarks: Shri Jayant Prasad, DG, IDSA Introductory remarks: Amb. Shyam Saran Remarks by panelists (5-10 minutes each)
Q and A (30-40 minutes) Closing remarks: Amb. Shyam Saran |
Eurasia & West Asia | ||||
Why China Supports Pakistan on Terrorism? | June 23, 2017 | Rajneesh Verma | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Venue: Seminar Hall I, IDSA |
East Asia, South Asia | |||
Securing Peace? Regime Types and Security Sector Reform in the Patani and Bangsamoro Peace Processes, 2011-2016 | June 09, 2017 | Dr. Janjira Sombatpoonsiri | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Venue: Seminar Hall I (Second Floor) |
||||
Peace Process in Nepal: Differences, Dialogue and Digression | June 01, 2017 | Nihar R. Nayak | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Venue: Seminar Hall I (Second Floor) |
||||
Regional Outlook in the Horn of Africa | May 22, 2017 | Andeab Ghebremeskel | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Round Table |
Chair: Shri Jayant Prasad, DG, IDSA Dr. Andeab Ghebremeskel, Director General of the Eritrean Centre for Strategic Studies (ECSS) visited IDSA on May 22, 2017. The ECSS is a small government funded think tank based in Asmara, Eritrea. They have a staff of around 12 researchers and are mostly involved in tracking and analyzing Eritrea’s foreign policy, the developments of the Horn of Africa and to a limited extent, the domestic developments in the country. The main purpose of Dr. Ghebremeskel’s visit to the institute was to speak on the topic Regional Outlook in the Horn of Africa, interact with IDSA scholars, and understand India’s perspective on China’s Belt-and-Road initiative (BRI). During the interaction the following issues were discussed: Horn of AfricaThe Horn of Africa consists of Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Somalia. The Greater Horn of Africa also includes Uganda, Kenya and Democratic Republic of Congo. The region is strategically important since it is close to the oil producing region of Middle East. Approximately 40 per cent of oil produced in Middle East crosses through the shipping lanes of Red Sea. Djibouti is the choke point on this shipping route. It is due to this reason that countries like United States, France and China have a military base in Djibouti. Saudi Arabia and Germany have also shown interest in establishing bases in the region. Countries in the Horn of Africa have similarities in terms of ethnicity and culture. The region is rich in minerals Gold, Zinc and Hydrocarbons. However, its mineral wealth has not been a blessing, rather it has been a curse since the oppressive regimes in the region have not utilised the wealth for the welfare of the citizens. The region has witnessed many famines. There is a lack of unity among the countries of the Horn of Africa. Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), which consists of Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Uganda, has been a weak sub-regional organisation due to disagreements among member-states. The conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia has been an enduring problem in the region. In 2000, there was a war between Eritrea and Ethiopia, the effects of which are being felt even now and constrained regional co-operation and development. Peace was brokered between Eritrea and Ethiopia by Algeria and a peace agreement was signed in presence of Algeria, Britain and Germany. While Eritrea has been following the terms of the agreement, Ethiopia has been violating them thereby escalating the conflict in the region. The other main conflict in the region is the dispute over the waters of Nile River among the riparian states of Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia and Djibouti. This conflict has the potential of bringing the region to war. Horn of Africa and extra-regional powersBeing strategically located on one of the busiest shipping routes, the Horn of Africa has seen the interest and interference by many external powers. The United States, France and China each have a military base in Djibouti. China had offered to establish a base in Eritrea but the Eritrean government rejected the offer. Due to its proximity to the Middle East, any conflict in the Middle East has an impact on the Horn of Africa region. Most recently, the civil war in Yemen has had an impact on the region with many GCC countries showing an interest in establishing bases in the region. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has established a base in Eritrea. UAE has long term commercial interests in the region and its military base is also a means of countering Chinese presence in the region. Al-Shabaab and ISISAl-Shabaab’s influence has been curtailed by the presence of the forces under AMISOM (African Union Mission in Somalia). The Al-Shabaab has resurfaced in some parts as a result of Ethiopia withdrawing its forces from Somalia. The ISIS is also prevalent in the region and there is a breakaway group of Al-Shabaab that has sought allegiance with ISIS. China’s Belt-and-Road initiative and AfricaIt is still too early for Africa to make up its mind on BRI. Due to the FOCAC (Forum on China-Africa Cooperation), Africa knows what China expects from Africa. Africa needs not only hard infrastructure, but also soft infrastructure. Piracy in the HornThe piracy in the Horn is unlikely to thrive again. The presence of multi-national naval force in the region will keep a check on piracy. India’s perspective on Belt-and-Road initiativeIndia was not opposed to Belt-and-Road initiative (BRI), its opposition is to the aspect of BRI that impacts the sovereignty of India. The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) impinges on India’s sovereignty. OBOR is a Sino-Centric initiative specifically targeted towards the development of China’s western provinces, to pull Chinese economy from the middle-income trap and to shift from low-tech to high-tech production. Belt-and-Road circumvents India and only touches its periphery. The Belt-and-Road is not only about geo-economics but it aims to transform the geopolitical balance by connecting Xinjian to Persian Gulf by Gwadar port and thereby giving China an ability to have two ocean navy. This dimension of BRI has to be carefully accessed. (Prepared by Nachiket Khadkiwala, Research Assistant) |
||||
Round Table on Developments in POK: Choices for India | February 22, 2016 | Round Table |
A roundtable discussion on “Developments in Pakistan occupied Kashmir: Choices for India” was held at IDSA on February 22, 2016. Eminent experts from cross section including former diplomats, academics and journalists were invited to share their views on the subject. Following experts participated in the discussion: Ambassador Satish Chandra, Ambassador Satinder K Lambah, Ambassador Virendra Gupta, Ambassador T. C. A Raghavan, Ambassador P. Stobdan, Shri Rana Banerji, Professor K. Warikoo, Professor Navnita Chadha Behera, Professor Mathew Joseph C., Dr Ashok K. Behuria and Shri Sushant Sareen. The meeting was attended by Shri Gopal Baglay (JS PAI), Ministry of External Affairs, two other officials from the PAI (Pakistan Afghanistan Iran) division and two officers serving at the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). The session was moderated by Shri Jayant Prasad, Director General, IDSA. Deputy Director General Brigadier Rumel Dahiya (retd.) and scholars within IDSA with expertise and interest in PoK also participated in the roundtable. Points for DiscussionThe roundtable was held in the backdrop of growing demand for Gilgit Baltistan’s (GB) constitutional upgradation as a separate province of Pakistan. The demand for absorption of GB into Pakistan as the fifth province has been doing the rounds since September 2012, when the GB Legislative Assembly passed a resolution to this effect. Following are some of the pertinent questions, which the participants in the roundtable discussion sought answers to.
Significant Takeaways & Recommendations
(Report prepared by Priyanka Singh and Manzoor Turabi) |