EVENTS

You are here

Events

Title	Date	Author	Time	Event	Body	Research Area	Topics	File attachments	Image
Monday Morning Meeting on “Debates on US-China Science and Technology Agreement”	May 20, 2024			Monday Morning Meeting	On 20 May 2024, Dr. Opangmeren Jamir of the East Asia Centre delivered a talk during the Monday Morning Meeting on “Debates on US-China Science and Technology Agreement.” The meeting was moderated by Commodore Abhay Singh (Retd), Research Fellow at MP-IDSA. Scholars of the institute were in attendance. Executive Summary The United States-China relationship has gone through several ups and downs during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, impacted variously by the legacies of imperialism, world war and superpower competition between the Soviet Union and the US at a global scale. As China now emerges as a peer competitor of the US and attempts to surpass the latter in the field of science and technology (S&T), it is important to understand the historical and cognitive foundations underlying the Chinese conception of science, its application to collaboration with the US commencing from the 1970s and its continued relevance today under the rule of Xi Jinping. Dr. Opangmeren Jamir’s presentation attempts to address just such a lacuna in the understanding of China’s push to unleash the ‘new productive forces’ of science and technology so that it may outstrip the US in the quest to provide an alternative technology hub for emerging economies. Detailed Report The meeting was called to order by Cmde. Abhay Singh (Retd.), who introduced the Speaker and delivered short introductory remarks on the topic under discussion. He laid the groundwork for the Speaker’s remarks by articulating the challenge posed by China’s growth in technological prowess, and the apprehensions this has caused in Western strategic circles. He pointed out several pessimistic findings from Institutions of repute such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), whose work he cited to highlight how the Western powers face an imminent loss of their competitive edge in 33 of 44 key sectors where China already has or will have a strong lead in the near future. He also noted that in the current context, technological advancement in the form of an ‘innovation marathon’ will determine the course of our global future. He also briefly introduced the US-China Science and Technology Agreement of 1979, and outlined its current status. He then invited the Speaker to commence his remarks. Dr. Jamir began his talk by providing a background of the current state of the US-China Science and Technology Agreement, namely, that it has been extended for a short term of six months, so that the agreement is in force while negotiations continue, though a formal declaration of extension is pending. He then outlined the key features of his presentation, stating that the intention would be to focus on historical and technical background of US-China collaboration in S&T. He then took the audience through a theoretical overview of various normative understandings of S&T as a form of national power. In particular, he cited Adam Smith’s conception of a ‘division of labour’, Joseph Schumpeter’s conception of ‘creative destruction’ of industries and innovation and Susan Strange’s idea of ‘scientific knowledge as power’ whereby states with robust research and development (R&D) capacities are deemed to have the most power. Following this theoretical exposition, Dr. Jamir introduced the audience to the history of science policy in China before the takeover of the country by the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1949. Here he discussed in some detail the 1911 Revolution which toppled the declining Qing Empire, as well as the May Fourth Movement of 1919, which aimed to reform China into a modern, prosperous and democratic state free of the harmful impacts of Western imperialism. In order to achieve these goals, the leaders of the May Fourth Movement looked broadly to both ‘Mr. Democracy’ as well as ‘Mr. Science’ as fundamental pillars on which a strong China would be built. This led in 1928 to the formation of the setting up of premier academic societies such as the Academica Sinica, as well as the reform of the education system according to American models, as the Republic of China attempted to execute nation-building projects. He thus highlighted that the Chinese have always conceived of science instrumentally, that is, as a means to achieve a strong state, rather than as a noble pursuit in and of itself. As China fell to the Communists in 1949, this background led the CPC to proclaim that only science could ‘save China’. Dr. Jamir pointed to two pivotal events which shaped science policy after the CPC’s takeover, until the late 1970s: the replacement of the Soviet Union with the US as the preferred model of educational emulation, and the scars left by the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) when the regime itself unleashed a wave of suspicion and mistrust against scientific authorities. He spoke at length on the impact of Mao’s Cultural Revolution and the irreparable harm it caused to scientific progress in China for over two decades, as first he and then the Gang of Four encouraged students to revolt against their Western-educated teachers, condemned and persecuted them as ‘rightists’ and ‘capitalist roaders’ and fostered an environment of hostility against all practitioners of science. It was only after 1978 that the context for US-China scientific cooperation became clear, as Deng Xiaoping channelled China’s energies into the ‘Four Modernisations’, which removed Soviet influences from Chinese scientific education and restored the normative significance of Western models. The signing of the US-China Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement in 1979 thus marked a sea change in China’s scientific progress, as it firmly established the importance of science as an article of faith within the CPC’s worldview. Driven by a desire to not repeat the mistakes of the Cultural Revolution, Deng and his successors up to and including Xi Jinping continued to encourage scientific cooperation with US in order to develop China into the powerhouse it is today. Dr. Jamir concluded his lecture by pondering the question of whether the US and China would be better off collaborating or competing, especially as their trade frictions continue to intensify and cautious delinking seems the order of the day. In this regard, he cited Wang Huning, who in a 1992 publication pointed out that the US could only be ‘defeated’ by being surpassed in S&T. Thus, there is a need to be wary of sharing dual use, critical and emerging technologies, while maintaining robust cooperation on pressing issues such as climate change mitigation, space exploration and knowledge production. Questions and Answers Before opening the floor to the audience for Q&A, Cmde. Singh asked Dr. Jamir to elucidate the drivers of change in China’s S&T policy post-Cultural Revolution, and whether a specific point could be identified when imitation of Western models shifted to indigenous innovation. Dr. Jamir answered that the seeds of reform were already present in the late Qing empire, almost seven decades prior to the Cultural Revolution’s termination, but the cumulative effects of the ‘century of humiliation’ by Western powers as well as the disastrous policies adopted in the initial years of the People’s Republic led to a thorough rethinking of S&T policy. Dr. Swasti Rao asked about the sectors where the US-China Agreement currently being negotiated is deadlocked, and whether Xi Jinping’s leadership plays a role. Dr. Jamir answered that areas of deadlock were mainly confined to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing. As for Xi’s role, Dr. Jamir noted that each leader of China after Deng has attempted to put their own imprimatur on S&T policy, and Xi’s contribution, the ‘New Prosperity Theory’, essentially sets entrepreneurs free to innovate indigenously in order to break the deadlock faced due to geopolitical headwinds. This report was prepared by Dr. Arnab Dasgupta, Research Analyst, East Asia Centre.	Europe and Eurasia
Monday Morning Meeting on “Understanding Nepal’s Coalition Shift: Implications for Domestic Governance and India’s Interests”	May 16, 2024			Monday Morning Meeting	Ms. Sneha M, Research Analyst, Manohar Parrikar IDSA (MP-IDSA), made a presentation on “Understanding Nepal’s Coalition Shift: Implications for Domestic Governance and India’s Interests” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 6 May 2024. The session was moderated by Dr. Ashok Behuria, Senior Fellow, MP-IDSA. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA and scholars of the Institute attended the meeting. Executive Summary Dr. Ashok Behuria, in his opening remarks, provided a brief and insightful overview of Nepal’s political landscape, highlighting the frequent changes in the administration and the challenges leading to the failure of the previous coalition governments. He discussed Nepal’s two electoral methods - First Past the Post (FPTP) and Proportional Representation (PR) system. After giving a short overview of the 2022 Parliamentary Elections, he noted that no government has ever lasted in power for a full term, which indicates the instability in the Nepalese political system. He drew attention to the diversity in Nepal with almost 135 spoken languages and high representation level of Members of Parliament (MPs), with one MP representing a population of only one lakh. He further highlighted that with the increase in bilateral engagements between China and Nepal, there are concerns regarding China’s growing influence in the region. Detailed Report Ms. Sneha M. commenced her presentation with a comprehensive overview of Nepal’s tumultuous political history, marred by divisions in the successive governments. She traced Nepal’s trajectory towards democracy from the time of Absolute Monarchy in 1846 to the adoption of a new constitution in 2015, highlighting significant events such as the Partyless Panchayat system in 1960 and emergence of multiparty democracy in 1990. She highlighted the challenges posed by the emergence of the Maoist insurgency in 1996 which was largely driven by grievances related to poverty, inequality and corruption, and the subsequent transition to a Federal Democratic Republic in 2006-2008. While giving an overview of the 2022 Parliamentary Elections, Ms. Sneha noted that the Nepali Congress (NC) emerged as the single largest party. Due to differences among leaders for the post of Prime Minister, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, popularly known as “Prachanda”, of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-MC) broke the coalition and joined hands with the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) resulting in him becoming the Prime Minister. However, the coalition collapsed within two months, causing further instability in the country. Ms. Sneha pointed out the political shift in March 2024, when Prachanda formed a new coalition with “CPN-UML”, Rashtriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and Janata Samajwadi Party (JSP) after terminating the alliance with the Nepali Congress. She also noted that a country with such a small population of almost 3 crores, has 109 registered political parties due to the ease of securing just 3 per cent of the total vote share to achieve a PR seat and become a national party. Throwing light on the instability in the government alliances, she assessed some key factors which led to the fall of the coalition including clash of opinions between Prime Minister Dahal and NC Finance Minister, Prakash Sharan Mahat, personal interests of leaders, and external pressures. She emphasised how the coalition dynamics have been impacted by Nepal’s complex electoral system and the proliferation of political parties. She also analysed the implications on domestic governance, citing Nepal’s GDP growth having an average of about 4.2 per cent since 2008 which falls short of 7 per cent to qualify as an emerging economy. She elaborated on the escalation of the trade deficit from 14 per cent to over 50 per cent of the GDP since 2008. As a result, she observed that a significant number of young people have been departing the country in search of better opportunities abroad, citing the limited job prospects within Nepal. Assessing implications for India, Ms. Sneha acknowledged the robust ties between the two countries across economic, security, cultural and strategic domains. India has always engaged with Nepal over mutual interest irrespective of the party in power. She emphasised that China would any day prefer a left party rule in Nepal for its own political benefits. Highlighting recent developments, she emphasised that Nepal's balance is shifting towards China, which is evident in the increased bilateral exchanges and investments. Furthermore, she stated that the inclination of the current administration towards China is unlikely to impact the bilateral relationship between Kathmandu and New Delhi given that India is still the largest trade partner of Nepal, comprising two-third of Nepal’s merchandise trade and about one-third of trade in services. India is also the largest source of foreign investments in Nepal. However, she analysed that India might lose smooth cooperation with Nepal and experience delays in implementation of projects that India has invested in and funded, in the near future. Questions and Comments Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, commended Ms. Sneha for her comprehensive and engaging presentation. He pointed out the significance of the India-Nepal relationship and emphasised on adopting a strategy of aligning with Nepal on issues of mutual interests. Amb. Chinoy stated that allowing local dynamics to shape Nepal’s domestic politics is a better approach for India. However, he recognised the importance of closely observing regional developments and responding appropriately, as porous borders might be exploited by adversaries to undermine India’s security landscape. Scholars raised pertinent points such as Nepal's decision to print NPR 100 currency incorporating disputed territories and how it impacts Indo-Nepal relations, the relevance of anti-Indian sentiments propagated by political parties, the role of culture in International Relations. Additionally, concerns related to Nepal’s reconciliation with India’s Agniveer Scheme and the recruitment of Nepalese in the Gorkha regiment were also raised. Commenting on the same, Amb. Chinoy stated that there are enough Indian Gorkhas who could be recruited to continue the legacy of the Gorkha regiment. Ms. Sneha M. responded to the comments made by the Director General and the questions raised by MP-IDSA scholars. Report prepared by Ms. Puspa Kumari, Intern, South Asia Centre, MP-IDSA.
Report of Monday Morning Meeting on ‘iDEX: The Future of Defence Startups’	May 13, 2024			Monday Morning Meeting	Dr. Shayesta Nishat Ahmed, Research Analyst, Defence Economics and Industry Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), delivered a presentation on “iDEX: The Future of Defence Startups” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 13 May 2024. Mr. Arvind Khare, IDAS, Senior Fellow, Defence Economics and Industry Centre, MP-IDSA, moderated the session. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, Gp. Capt. (Dr.) Ajey V. Lele (Retd.), Deputy Director General and the scholars of MP-IDSA attended the meeting. Executive Summary Innovation for Defence Excellence (iDEX), is a flagship programme of Department of Defence Production (DDP) under the Ministry of Defence (MoD), in collaboration with Start Up India and Atal Innovation Mission (AIM), unveiled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in April 2018. The objective of iDEX is to further self-reliance and Atmanirbharta in Defence and Aerospace Sector by way of extending financial support to Startups and individual innovators for indigenous innovations in relation to technology projections and existing technology gaps. Detailed Report Mr. Arvind Khare, IDAS, Senior Fellow, initiated the meeting by providing a brief outline of iDEX. Dr. Shayesta Nishat Ahmed, Research Analyst, began her presentation by providing an introduction of what exactly iDEX is, as a Scheme for granting funds, its aim, the existing procedure and its performance so far. iDEX initiative aims at promoting India’s defence indigenisation and self-reliance by rapidly incorporating innovations in weapon technologies and systems procurement by startups and individual innovators. She brought out the rationale behind the quest for achieving indigenisation in the defence sector is reducing import dependency and achieving strategic autonomy. The iDEX framework was developed in collaboration with Start Up India, Atal Innovation Mission (AIM), and Make in India programs. Apart from the objectives of iDEX, the presentation also included the modus operandi of iDEX functioning to facilitate granting funds from the Defence Innovation Fund (DIF) for innovations. iDEX aims to foster the fast development of indigenous but innovative technologies for defence and aerospace by engaging with competent startups, and to empower a culture of technology co-creation and co-innovation in the Defence R&D ecosystem. The presentation highlighted the institutionalised structure of Defence Innovation Organization (DIO), which is a Section 8 company executing the iDEX scheme. The process of identification of a technology gap area, selection of competent startups, granting necessary funds, monitoring the execution of projects and assessment of fund utilisations by the startups under the iDEX scheme was elaborated. The presentation also covered the provisions of Defence Acquisition Programme (DAP) 2020 regarding iDEX and the Technology Development Fund (TDF) scheme of the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), and their differences in structure, budgeting, execution & monitoring of the projects and their funding mechanisms. Following that, Dr. Shayesta delineated the ‘Support for Prototype and Research Kickstart’ (SPARK) framework, through which iDEX provides grants to startups and MSMEs to develop functional prototypes for the required technologies. Various programmes that run under the iDEX set up such as the DISC Challenges, iDEX4Fauj, iDEX Prime (Space) for Mission DefSpace, iDEX Prime (Sprint) for Indian Navy, etc. and the amount of grants per project under different variants of iDEX were also discussed. Recent developments under iDEX umbrella, viz. INDUS–X and ADITI were also discussed. India-United States Defence Acceleration Ecosystem (INDUS-X) was launched in Washington DC, USA on 21 June 2023, in an event co-organised by iDEX (Ministry of Defence, Government of India) and US Department of Defense, and hosted by US-India Business Council (USIBC), for co-development and co-production of advanced technologies by Indian and US Startups by developing suitable mechanisms for future collaboration across industries, academia, and investors. ADITI (Acing Development of Innovative Technologies with iDEX) is an encouraging endeavour of iDEX, DIO, DDP for extending financial supports up to Rs. 25 Cr. per project relating to innovation in critical and strategic deep-tech technologies. Dr. Shayesta spoke on the role of partner incubators in iDEX, which provide mentorship and support to iDEX winners, and of the iDEX Investors Hub, which aims to accelerate the growth of the defence ecosystem by providing access to interested investors. The process of prototype development, commercial solicitation, and IPR management under iDEX was also discussed. She also highlighted in her presentation, challenges of the iDEX initiative, including difficulties in monitoring the development of critical defence technologies, lack of user involvement, less commercial proliferation of the developed technologies, IPR issues, accountability aspects, etc. Questions & Comments Before opening the floor for a Q&A session, Mr. Arvind Khare, IDAS noted that the concept of iDEX, i.e. involving small & focused teams for getting rapid technological solutions in the form of startups under a government funding mechanism, is not something new in the defence innovation ecosystem worldwide. He quoted the examples of the establishment of MIT Rad Lab by the US Department of Defense in the 1940s and the establishment of Defence Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx) in 2015, to involve the startups in defence innovations. He also mentioned the Maf’at, a joint administrative body of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) & Israel’s Ministry of Defence and touched on other similar frameworks in Israel such as ‘Yozma’, ‘Lotem’, ’Unit 8200’ of Israel. He also referred to the ‘European Defence Fund’ having sharp focus on engagement with and investment in SMEs, startups and midcaps for the defence industry. The Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy began his comments by complimenting Dr. Shayesta for a comprehensive presentation. He mentioned that during the 1950s the focus was on heavy industries in India and also there was reduction in defence budget. Later, there was a realisation within the country about the significance of prioritising defence R&D and innovation especially in critical supply chains, in order to attain strategic autonomy. Moreover, since defence production was solely dependent upon Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs) and due to lack of investment & interest in the Private Sector for R&D in the defence sector, there was a serious necessity for government funding to the private sector, particularly to MSMEs and Startups for encouraging them for innovations and R&D. Now the time has come where schemes like iDEX and TDF are doing wonderful work for involving MSMEs and Startups to become part of the defence supply chain. However, Amb. Chinoy also emphasised that more systemic and robust changes are required to make these funding schemes more accountable, responsible, target-oriented and business-focussed; and elaborated upon the need for removing bureaucratic hurdles and red-tapism in implementation of such initiatives. Amb. Chinoy also expressed the need for formation of a Technology Commission for steering futuristic technological developments involving all stakeholders like Armed Forces, DRDO, DPSUs, private industries (MSMEs & Startups) and strategic collaborations with foreign partners. During discussions, the issue of IPR, possibility of certain companies with inimical interests attempting to acquire startups, absence of any regulatory mechanisms for monitoring the performance of startups under iDEX funding, ways & approaches to enhance the participation and engagement of competent startups, and lack of information about cancellation of projects due to non-fulfilment of quality requirements and about lack of transparency in identification of incubation centres, along with the contributions of the project directors in the technology development milieu, were also discussed. The Report was prepared by Mr. D.S. Murugan Yadav, Intern, Military Affairs Centre, MP-IDSA.
Lecture by H. E. Dr Philipp Ackermann, Ambassador of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany on “Challenges in Europe and Indo-German Partnership”	May 22, 2024		1000 to 1100 hrs	Talk	The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) is organising a lecture by H. E. Dr Philipp Ackermann, Ambassador of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany under the Eminent Persons’ Lecture Series from 1000-1100 hours on 22 May 2024 in Room 005, Ground Floor. The topic of the lecture will be “Challenges in Europe and Indo-German Partnership”. The lecture will be chaired by Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA.
Monday Morning Meeting on Debates on US-China Science and Technology Agreements	May 20, 2024			Monday Morning Meeting	Dr. Opangmeren Jamir, Research Analyst, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, will speak on “Debates on US-China Science and Technology Agreements” at the Monday Morning Meeting which will be held on 20 May 2024 at 10 AM. The venue is Seminar Hall I, Second Floor. Dr. P. K. Singh, Research Fellow, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, will be the moderator. Dr. Arnab Dasgupta, Research Analyst, will be the rapporteur.	East Asia
Enhancing MSME & Start-Up Engagement for Atmanirbharta	May 13, 2024			Round Table	The Defence Economics and Industry Centre at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised a Roundtable on ‘Enhancing MSME & Startup Engagement for Atmanirbharta’ on 13 May 2024. The event was chaired by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, and was followed by an address by Shri Nalin Kohli, Member, Governing Council, Foundation for Innovation and Technology Transfer, IIT Delhi and President, Association of Small and Medium Knowledge Industries (ASMKI). Participants from Defence Accounts Departments, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Principal Scientific Advisor (PSA), Government e Marketplace (GeM), Armed Forces, Director General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) and Industry enriched the discussion. Executive Summary The Round Table highlighted key opportunities for MSMEs and Startups under the framework for capital acquisition i.e. Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) and for revenue procurement i.e. Defence Procurement Manual (DPM). It emphasised the core areas where policy intervention is needed from apex level, and where improvisation is required for generating ‘ease of doing business’ for MSMEs and Startups within the existing procedures. It called for effective implementation of the government’s initiatives for promoting their participation in the indigenous and global defence supply chain. The Round Table also deliberated upon functioning of platforms like Srijan, funding though iDEX and Technology Development Fund (TDF), audit issues and payments, collaboration with DRDO and Academia to support R&D and innovation, need for national level standards and quality assurance mechanisms at par with international practices. It also deliberated upon broader structural reforms needed for developing the nation as a manufacturing hub with a growth engine for innovation through enhanced participation of MSMEs and Startups. Detailed Report After the Welcome Address by Shri Arvind Khare, IDAS, Senior Fellow, Defence Economics and Industry Centre, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA delivered the Opening Remarks. Amb. Chinoy highlighted the opportunities for MSMEs under the present defence procurement and acquisition framework as well as the bottlenecks in the existing systems. He also highlighted interactive platforms like “Srijan” and initiatives such as TDF and iDEX through which MSMEs and Startups can contribute in R&D and technological innovation in the defence sector. Despite a significant contribution to the domestic production worth over one lakh crore, largely driven by DPSUs and private sector companies, MSMEs remain crucial yet reliant on larger entities for survival. He emphasised the need for a holistic vision and a structured approach from apex bodies to support the growth of MSMEs. Amb. Chinoy stressed that for MSMEs to compete globally, they need to develop core defence and dual use technologies, secure adequate funding, and gain negotiating power within supply chains. The government should handhold their endeavours wherever required. Further, he emphasised that the MSMEs should strive to ensure their competitiveness and sustainability in both domestic and international markets. Amb. Chinoy stressed that the Roundtable should also address the barriers faced by MSMEs and Startups such as procedural complexities and the need to streamline existing processes, if any. Shri Nalin Kohli, Member, Governing Council, Foundation for Innovation and Technology Transfer, IIT Delhi and President, Association of Small and Medium Knowledge Industries (ASMKI), began his remarks by elucidating that in the defence sector, MSMEs and Startups face unique challenges. While these smaller entities offer innovative solutions and fulfil a large demand for manufactured goods, their engagement in the defence sector remains suboptimal due to certain barriers and procedural complexities. Shri Kohli commented that as the major players in the Indian private sector involved in the defence sector came from automotive and IT industries, there is a lack of dedicated defence-focused companies. He noted that MSMEs significantly contribute to India’s GDP and exports, and emphasised their importance in defence. Policy adjustments, including simplifying entry processes and procurement procedure, are crucial to bolster MSME participation. He further stated that addressing issues relating to Bank Guarantees, delayed payments and facilitating Transfer of Technologies (ToT) can further support MSMEs financially and technologically. Shri Kohli stressed that defence projects often require specialised manufacturing capabilities, as they involve high-tech products. At the same time, defence sector involves low-volume production. To support MSMEs in the defence sector, it is essential to create a conducive ecosystem, which involves attracting capable and eligible MSMEs from various sectors into defence, and offering them opportunities to showcase their capabilities through paid pilot projects. Generating adequate business opportunities for multiple MSMEs by apportionment of large quantities of the products and a healthy competition by offering an equal level playing field to all prospective bidders in defence procurement is essential for financial stability and growth of MSMEs. Shri Kohli stressed on the need to strengthen partnerships with academia which can provide crucial R&D support, foster innovation within MSMEs and enhance their role in the defence industry. Shri Kohli mentioned the need for treating MSMEs and Startups as business partners or development partners, not merely as vendors. He concluded by stating that the engagement of MSMEs and startups in the defence sector can be significantly enhanced, leading to a more innovative and resilient defence industry in India, by ensuring procedural flexibilities, financial support and technological handholding. Director General, Amb. Chinoy thanked Shri Kohli for highlighting the broader concerns of MSMEs. Amb Chinoy highlighted the difference between those MSMEs who are involved in manufacturing as per the specifications of Army/Navy/Air Force Design Bureaus or similar agencies, and MSMEs who are capable of doing their own R&D. Amb. Chinoy stressed that our system should also focus on fostering innovative MSMEs rather than just those doing basic manufacturing. He suggested that both central and state governments should support defence MSME clusters across all states, not just in the Defence Corridors in Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. These clusters could offer plug-and-play facilities and subsidies to reduce costs. Shri Kohli also called for reduced bureaucratic stresses and more generous funding for offering adequate ‘ease of doing business’ in case of MSMEs and Startups, and also mentioned the need for simplified procedures for funding through the 25 per cent of defence budget earmarked for funding private industries and academia for defence R&D and through the proposed Rs1 lakh crore Corpus for long term funding of R&D Projects including deep defence technologies. Amb. Chinoy highlighted the need for establishing a Technology Council for planning and strategising futuristic technological requirements and reserving certain sectors especially for MSMEs, according to a thorough capability mapping. He also stressed the need to develop a robust ecosystem for guiding and supporting MSMEs, providing them with the freedom to innovate, make mistakes, and learn, supported by academic partnerships. Shri Arvind Khare, Senior Fellow, MP-IDSA, remarked that the system of allocation of large tendered quantity of high tech defence products to multiple vendors based on their manufacturing capabilities, as well as the system of procurement through a single source on nomination basis or on PAC (Proprietary Article Certificate) basis and also in a resultant single vendor situation in exceptional circumstances, are already effectively established in the prescribed procedure as mentioned in GFRs. He emphasised the importance of generating healthy competition without restrictive and unnecessary conditions in pre-qualification criteria (in RFPs) in the name of security, with the objective of achieving wider vendor participation, reasonable pricing and fair vendor apportionment. Shri Khare stressed on the need to encourage MSMEs to scale up and diversify their manufacturing capabilities, for keeping themselves competitive in the market of dual use technology based items. Additionally, MSMEs require techno-commercial support from DPSUs and DRDO. He also emphasised that making timely payments to MSMEs against their dues and streamlining processes across departments are crucial for ensuring availability of adequate financial support to MSMEs. These steps can create an enabling environment for MSMEs, which is essential for leveraging their innovative potential and contributing to India’s economic growth. Shri Anurag Awasthi, Chief Manager (Social Impact and Inclusive Seller Growth) - Government e Marketplace (GeM), highlighted several key points regarding public procurement and the role of MSMEs and startups. He mentioned the significant value of orders facilitated through the online public commerce portal in 2023, with a substantial portion attributed to the Ministry of Defence’s involvement. Shri Awasthi urged MSMEs and Startups to meet defence industry needs. He cited examples of innovative responses during the COVID-19 Pandemic, such as a startup in Kanpur swiftly pivoting to produce ventilators. He proposed allocating a percentage of subcontracting opportunities to MSMEs, providing them with a voice and opportunities they might not otherwise access. Additionally, Shri Awasthi advocated for greater outreach to MSMEs and Startups in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities, highlighting the challenge of information dissemination and the potential for untapped innovation in these areas. Finally, Shri Awasthi mentioned policy guidelines offering relaxation in eligibility criteria for Startups and MSMEs in public procurement. Shri Vipin Gupta, IDAS, Joint Controller General of Defence Accounts O/o CGDA HQ, emphasised that there is still a need for effective and pragmatic implementation of government policies and initiatives designed to support MSMEs. He highlighted that the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) has undergone multiple revisions and the Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) has evolved since it was first promulgated in 2020. The Defence Procurement Manual (DPM) 2009 however has not been revised so far despite changes in procurement procedure and processes. He noted that DPM 2009 needs to be revised to align with the General Financial Rules 2017 and Ministry of Finance Manuals for Procurement of Goods and Services. Shri Gupta also suggested that there should be a specific chapter dedicated to indigenisation and innovation in the DPM, which should be distinct from the standard procurement procedures. Ms. Shipra Mishra, CEO, Delhi Research Implementation and Innovation (DRIIV), Flagship programme of the Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the GoI, highlighted their role in bridging the gap between industry, academia, and government bodies to facilitate innovation transfer from lab to market. While the cluster has primarily focused on thematic areas aligned with national sustainability goals, Ms. Mishra acknowledged the potential for addressing defence innovation challenges. She proposed leveraging their network of over 100 partners, including academic institutes, startups, and MSMEs, to create a sandbox environment for targeted innovation experiments. This approach may involve matchmaking between innovators and academia, incorporating pilot projects with the armed forces, and exploring financial instruments like bonds & insurance models and utilising CSR spending for extending financial support to MSMEs. She advocated for a structured R&D approach, suggesting that outcomes from the sandbox can inform future policy development. Brig. Sandeep Acharya from DGQA HQrs urged the need to adhere to existing testing and certification standards to avoid issues while encouraging MSME participation in defence. He stated that the armed forces need to maintain stringent standards for testing and certification for MSMEs at par with international practices without compromising on the quality checks keeping in view the needs of national security. Brig. Acharya, however, emphasised on the need to tackle practical issues such as exorbitant delays in testing and certification, and suggested solutions like self-certification and accreditations by national and international testing agencies. Brig. Acharya also emphasised that maintaining a degree of stringency is crucial for national security and industry competitiveness. He stressed on making efforts towards streamlining and digitising the processes of integrating various labs throughout the country, and aiming to provide easy access to testing facilities for MSMEs. Group Captain Ajay Kumar from Directorate of Procurement, Air HQrs, outlined several key points regarding the challenges and opportunities for MSMEs, particularly amidst the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and its impact on international supply chains, which has had significant implications worldwide and even for India. This has severely impacted defence procurement processes, but has provided ample opportunities for Indian industries. He called for comprehensive policy frameworks to address the specific challenges faced by Startups and MSMEs. He suggested relaxations and concessions in existing procurement procedures like DPM 2009 in order to streamline regulations and support their growth. Gp.. Capt. Kumar also pointed out the significance of financial support to MSMEs as these enterprises often face substantial risks, especially with prototype failures. He then proposed some measures such as providing financial assistance for initial development costs and exploring reimbursement support even in NCNC (no-cost no-commitment) procurement. He also mentioned that greater collaboration between Service Headquarters and Startups/MSMEs is essential to leverage geopolitical situations and forecast procurement needs. Addressing legacy technology needs, rapidly evolving technology, and policy ambiguities through handholding and clearer policies can further support engagement of MSMEs & Startups. He emphasised on defence R&D and innovation, which are critical for future competitiveness, alongside considerations for GDP, employment generation, and training needs. He concluded that a holistic support mechanism encompassing policy reforms, financial assistance, and collaborative efforts is necessary to nurture and sustain the growth of startups and MSMEs in the defence sector amidst complex geopolitical scenarios. Commodore Gokul Krishna Dutta, Cmdr. (Admin.), Naval HQrs, commented that the Indian Navy has significantly shifted from relying upon foreign platforms to manufacturing around 80 percent of its assets domestically, driving substantial progress in the Indian shipbuilding industry. This transition is underpinned by a strong commitment to indigenous innovation, supported by various efforts that identify items for domestic manufacturing and indigenous technology development. He stressed on the need to ensure the reliability of components given operational risks of failures at sea. MSMEs need support to meet defence quality standards, with calls for a regulatory framework to provide technological assistance. Quality assurance mechanisms, including vendor capability assessments, are proposed to maintain product standards. Cmde. Krishnan advocated fair payment policies for domestic vendors to reduce their financial burdens and boost confidence. National-level standards and streamlined evaluation processes duly controlled and monitored by apex structures are needed to support MSMEs and ensure accountability in technology development, as well as to aid MSMEs with assured fund allocations. He stressed on the need to recognise the necessity for comprehensive structural changes to bolster indigenous manufacturing and innovation, and also proposed creating specialised commissions or organisations on those lines. Shri Anmol Amar Singh, Senior Deputy IFA, O/o IFA (R&D), Delhi, spoke on supporting SMEs, fostering innovation, technology absorption and streamlining procedures to bolster the defence sector’s capabilities and promote economic growth. He stressed that flexibility in procedures, particularly regarding payments and technology transfer, is crucial to accommodate SME requirements. While efforts have been made to reduce entry barriers for SMEs by the Government, existing policies are not being fully utilised. Shri Singh emphasised that a structured approach, including self-certification processes and collaboration between DRDO and SMEs, is essential. However, challenges such as funding constraints, stringent procedures, and differentiation between R&D procurement and normal procurement, persist. Despite these challenges, success stories highlight the capabilities and the potential of contribution of MSMEs to national security and innovation. Policy recommendations from Shri Singh included establishing a dedicated portal for grants, clarity in procurement rules, and a separate chapter in the GFR for R&D procurement and Grant-in-Aids for R&D purposes. Shri Arjun Kumar, Additional Director and Scientist at DTDF, DRDO HQRs, underscored the government’s initiative for funding MSMEs for defence R&D and innovation in the form of TDF of DRDO, emphasising the government’s willingness to take risks in nurturing R&D culture in defence sector. Initially conceived in 2014, the scheme of TDF has awarded 70 projects till date, including the successful development of many innovative products of defence needs and their exports. Success stories, such as the development of a nuclear emergency drug, underscored the scheme’s role in fostering local innovation and bolstering national security. However, continued support and clear policies were deemed crucial for sustaining the scheme’s impact. Shri Kumar advocated for clearer policies and dedicated channels for R&D investment. He proposed the creation of a unified portal for government grants to enhance accessibility and emphasised the need to treat R&D grants different from procurement and to make necessary policy refinement in this regard. Shri Shashi Mouli Choubey, IDAS, Deputy CDA, O/o PCDA New Delhi, underscored certain key points, viz. importance of maintaining a balance between audit and payment processes, mentioning the successful endeavour for timely payment within seven working days. He mentioned that clarity in contract terms and delivery periods is essential, advocating clear definitions and explicit outlining of essential documents to avoid confusion and delays caused by missing or unspecified documents. Shri Chaubey further highlighted the challenge of stage payments in GeM contracts combining services and hardware, emphasising the necessity of clarity on payment breakdowns and terms even in online contracts. Additionally, adherence to Letter of Credit (LC) payments conditions as per the extant orders on the subject was mentioned, noting the cost implications and confidentiality concerns. He emphasised the significance of clear terms of contract, timely payments, and compliance with norms to facilitate smooth financial transactions and mitigate potential issues. He elaborated on the role of Buyers to adequately educate the vendor about contractual terms and conditions, to obviate future delays, penalties and audit complications. Commodore Bunty Sethi (Retd.), UKIBC, spoke on three critical aspects of the defence industry. Firstly, he emphasised the paramount importance of quality standards, which are non-negotiable especially in aerospace and maritime sectors, where strict requirements for environmental and shock resilience are enforced. Although adherence to these standards is prioritised by few established companies, the approval process is lengthy, and only a few vendors are approved. Secondly, he highlighted the deficiency in R&D and design capabilities among many Indian firms, leading to reliance on foreign technology and hindering indigenous innovation despite substantial investment. Lastly, Shri Sethi stressed on the imperative for Indian companies to integrate into the global supply chain, adopt international standards, and learn from foreign counterparts to compete effectively in supplying to the Indian Armed Forces and beyond. By aligning with global practices, Indian firms can enhance their capabilities and position themselves for success in the defence sector. Colonel (Dr.) Rajneesh Singh (Retd.), Research Fellow, Centre Coordinator, Defence Economics and Industry Centre, MP-IDSA, concluded the Roundtable discussions by summarising the key topics addressed and expressed optimism for future progress in the areas discussed. He emphasised the crucial role of MSMEs and Startups in the defence sector, stressing the need for ongoing support and guidance. Col. (Dr.) Singh underscored the necessity of establishing a supra-structure to coordinate activities among stakeholders and the industry effectively. He highlighted the Director General, Amb. Chinoy’s vision for MSMEs to enhance competitiveness and thrive in the defence industry's control-oriented environment. Moving forward, Col. (Dr.) Singh expressed hope for concerted efforts to foster the growth and sustainability of MSMEs and Startups in the defence industry, and extended sincere thanks to all the participants. The report has been prepared by Dr. Shayesta Nishat Ahmed, Research Analyst, Defence Economics and Industry Centre, MP-IDSA.
MP-IDSA Fellow’s Seminar on Evolution of African Maritime Security: Imperatives, Governance and Challenges	May 06, 2024			Fellows' Seminar	The MP-IDSA Fellow’s Seminar presentation by Dr. Abhishek Mishra, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA, on “Evolution of African Maritime Security: Imperatives, Governance and Challenges” was held on 29 February 2024. It was chaired by Vice Admiral Satish Kumar Namdeo Ghormade, PVSM, AVSM, NM (Retd.), former Vice Chief of Naval Staff. The External Discussants for the paper were Commander Abhijit Singh, Head, Maritime Policy Initiative, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), and Dr. Pooja Bhatt, Consultant, Ministry of External Affairs and Researcher on Maritime Security and Governance. The Internal Discussants were Ms. Ruchita Beri, Consultant, Africa, Latin America, Caribbean, & UN (ALACUN) Centre, MP-IDSA, and Cmde. Abhay K. Singh, Research Fellow & Coordinator, Southeast Asia and Oceania Centre, MP-IDSA. Executive Summary The development of a maritime security agenda for African countries has been relatively new, despite the continent being completely surrounded by water. Following the emergence of the scourge of piracy off the coast of Somalia, African countries and international actors started to pay due attention to ensuring maritime security. Although armed robbery at sea has sensitised the countries of Africa and the international community to the threats in the African maritime domain (AMD), an overemphasis on piracy and armed robbery has skewed perceptions about the African maritime landscape. The challenges today are much broader, and the resultant strategies employed by African countries go beyond tackling piracy. Thus, in the present time, African maritime strategies tend to focus on the common interests of wealth creation and sustainable governance. Detailed Report Dr. Mishra’s research explored the potential of the "blue economy" or "blue growth" approach in mitigating maritime crime in African waters. He also examined the evolution of maritime security within the African context over the past two decades. Previously neglected, Dr. Mishra argued that Africa's colonial past fostered a "sea blindness," hindering a focus on maritime security. He emphasised the ambiguity of the term "maritime security," highlighting the varying interpretations by Till (2018) with hard and soft security distinctions, Bueger's (2015) constructivist approach with the Maritime Security Matrix, and Siebels' (2020) "Tale of Two Regions'' incorporating positive and negative definitions. He further underscored the criticality of Africa's maritime sector. Firstly, 38 out of 54 African territories are island nations or coastal states. Secondly, Africa boasts a vast coastline exceeding 26,000 nautical miles. Finally, the number and capabilities of actors threatening the African Maritime Domain (AMD) are continuously rising. These factors necessitate a commensurate response at national, regional, and continental levels. Moreover, while explaining the threats and vulnerabilities of the African Maritime Domain (AMD), he categorised them into three main areas. Governance issues encompass illicit fishing, marine pollution, illegal oil bunkering, and crude oil theft. Security concerns include armed robbery, piracy, and trafficking in weapons, drugs, and wildlife. Finally, humanitarian assistance needs encompass Search and Rescue (SAR), Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/DR), and out-of-area emergencies. He then highlighted the Stable Seas Maritime Security Index, which ranks nations based on nine criteria relevant to Africa, including global cooperation, legality, maritime safety, coastal well-being, the blue economy, fishing practices, piracy, illegal trade, and mixed migration via sea. However, Dr. Mishra acknowledged the ongoing debate surrounding maritime security (MS) in Africa. He said that scholars grapple with a unified definition within the African context. Since 2005, the African Union (AU), Regional Economic Communities (RECs), and the African Union Commission (AUC) have actively discussed the African Maritime Domain (AMD) primarily in relation to piracy. The initial discourse revealed diverse interests and a complex web of African-international relationships. Notably, African RECs have collaborated with the United Nations, International Maritime Organization, and other nations. He further emphasised Africa's pre-existing engagement in maritime governance. By 2000, 37 African nations were already members of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and the continent had a maritime transit charter established in 1993. Additionally, African countries ratified key agreements like the 1974 SOLAS Convention (safety of life at sea) and the 2004 ISPS Code (security of ships and port facilities). The 2000 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR) provided the foundation for the first pan-African initiatives to bolster SAR capabilities. Between 2007 and 2011, five Maritime Rescue Coordination Centers (MRCCs) and twenty-six sub-centers were established in strategic locations like Mombasa, Cape Town, Lagos, Monrovia, and Rabat. Dr. Mishra also highlighted the significance of informal gatherings and conferences fostering maritime cooperation since 2005. These include the IMO-sponsored Sea Power for Africa Symposium (SPAS), the U.S. Naval Command's East Africa and Southwest Indian Ocean Maritime Security Conference (EASWIO), and the Indian Navy's Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS), alongside regional meetings in Sana'a, Muscat, and Dar es Salaam. The establishment of the Djibouti Code of Conduct (DCoC) in January 2009 marked a further step towards regional cooperation. Moreover, Dr. Mishra made a distinction between the Yaoundé Code of Conduct (YCoC) and the Djibouti Code of Conduct (DCoC). Adopted in January 2009, the DCoC focuses on piracy and armed robbery suppression in the Western Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden. Its core objective is to facilitate international cooperation through information sharing, training nitiatives, national legislation updates, and counter-piracy measures. The DCoC+, established through the 2017 Jeddah Amendment, addresses additional threats like illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and human trafficking. On the other hand, the YCoC, ratified in 2013 by 25 West and Central African nations, targets a broader range of illicit maritime activities in the Gulf of Guinea, including piracy, armed robbery, and IUU fishing. Information sharing is a central pillar, achieved through two regional centers: (i) Regional Centre for Maritime Security in Central Africa (CRESMAC) under the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) and (ii) the West Africa Regional Maritime Security Centre (CRESMAO) under the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Dr. Mishra highlighted key differences. The DCoC, designed from the outset to combat piracy on the high seas, actively seeks international assistance. Conversely, the YCoC prioritizes preserving signatory sovereignty. Additionally, the YCoC incorporates measures absent from the DCoC, such as seizing assets linked to illicit activities, mitigating IUU fishing, and addressing pollution prevention (a broader maritime concern beyond traditional security). Finally, the YCoC uses the term "signatories," while the DCoC uses "participants." He moved on to explain Africa's Integrated Maritime Strategy (AIM 2050) as a unified effort to revitalize the maritime sector for the continent's development. AIM 2050 aims to leverage Africa's waterways and oceans for the benefit of its maritime industries. Additionally, the African Union (AU) is fostering a maritime security community tailored to Africa's unique needs, experiences, and practices. He discussed the Lomé Charter, formally known as the African Charter on Maritime Security, Safety, and Development in Africa, signed in October 2016. It builds upon the AIM 2050 Strategy by transitioning maritime security in Africa from a "soft law" approach (non-binding guidelines) to a "hard law" approach with a legally binding treaty. This shift is in contrast to earlier instruments like the DCoC or AIM 2050. Notably, while 25 nations signed the Lomé Charter, only Benin, Senegal, and Togo have ratified it thus far. In addition to that, he emphasised the AU's focus on promoting sustainable utilization of Africa's ocean resources. He terms the Blue Economy (BE) as the "new frontier for Africa's renaissance," highlighting its significance. The 2018 Sustainable Blue Economy Conference in Nairobi, Kenya, served as a key platform to discuss the applicability of the Blue Economy concept in Africa. In conclusion, Dr. Abhishek acknowledged the mixed success of various community-based and government-led Blue Economy initiatives in Africa. He argued that social equity and ecological sustainability haven't received the same level of attention as economic benefits. He emphasized that people are the foundation of any successful Blue Economy endeavour. For Africa's Blue Economy development to thrive, it must prioritise social fairness, environmental preservation, and a robust institutional governance framework. This was followed by Comments from the External Discussants. Comments and Questions Following Dr. Mishra’s presentation, the discussion shifted, with Cdr. Abhijit Singh emphasizing the value of the "sea blindness" concept in academic and policy circles. He linked national security postures to global commons management, highlighting how a state's sea blindness or sea consciousness can impact its ability to address global maritime challenges. He argued that fragmented perspectives and challenges to coordination among African nations hinder effective action. He identified poverty and poor governance (extending to maritime domains) as key issues. He also mentioned CRESMAC and CRESMAO as maritime information centers focused on West and Central Africa. He made the case that we have to identify the challenges facing Africa's marine sector and provide a targeted set of solutions. He stated that the lack of an Indian policy perspective in the study is the sole area of concern. Lastly, he said it is essential to assess each of the instruments mentioned above closely. Dr. Pooja Bhatt then offered insights on Africa's evolving maritime approach. She noted a shift from the basic needs (food, security, and resources) to complex issues like trade, the security of traditional and non-traditional rights, and the intricate legal and technical aspects of addressing these challenges. Moreover, she emphasised the importance of definitions in maritime security. Clear definitions help identify stakeholders and goals, facilitating collaboration. However, excessive focus on definitions can hinder progress. She commended the AU's approach as a valuable model for regional cooperation on maritime security. Dr. Bhatt concluded by urging India to take a leadership role in establishing a dedicated maritime security office within the United Nations, advocating a collective vision from the Global South on maritime security. This was followed by Comments from the Internal Discussants. Ms. Ruchita Beri highlighted the historical perception of land as a place to reside and the sea as a passage. This perspective shapes how power and security are traditionally viewed, often neglecting the maritime domain. She pointed to the Berlin Conference's impact on Africa, where colonial powers focused on land wealth and used the seas for resource extraction, neglecting maritime security concerns. She went on to point out the various narratives developed in maritime security, shaped by African think tanks and academics. She urged Dr. Mishra to delve into questions pertaining to the root causes of the conduct of the African nations and the persistence of the problems in the region. Cmde. Abhay Kumar Singh cautioned against a singular view of African maritime security. He identified two key schools of thought within Africa and argued that security is not solely about laws and standards. Power, strategy, and wealth are crucial elements for effective maritime security, and Africa's challenges in these areas contribute to its maritime insecurity. He asked Dr. Mishra to elaborate on a postmodernist viewpoint, focusing on the rationale for the existence of this information and the reasons behind the state of affairs. This was followed by Comments from the Floor. Director General, Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy stated that the whole issue is being explored without delving into the essential question of what it is about Africa's economic growth that genuinely shapes its marine environment. There is undoubtedly substantial economic hardship that exists in the littoral regions, which extends to the marine environment and vice versa. Furthermore, as an Indian researcher studying the topic, he asked Dr. Mishra to consider the Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) and expand on what specific aspect of the G20 proclamation seems to have been tailored specifically for today's theme. When the house was opened for questions, a question regarding Africa’s opposition to Western-led security formations was raised. The panelists responded by highlighting China's growing role in African security, noting the 2023 China-Africa Security Forum as a point of geopolitical interest to India. Vice Admiral Satishkumar Namdeo Ghormade concluded the discussion by emphasising the strategic significance of Africa's resources and location. He attributed the continent's vulnerability to a lack of technology, defensive forces, and the multitude of challenges it faces. The Report was prepared by Ms. Anusha Khurana, Intern, ALACUN Centre, MP-IDSA.
Lecture on Disaster Risk Management in 21st Century	May 02, 2024	Kamal Kishore		Talk	Shri Kamal Kishore, Member Secretary of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) visited the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), New Delhi, on 2 May 2024 and delivered a lecture on "Disaster Risk Management in 21st Century ". The Session was chaired by the Director General, MP-IDSA, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy. The Deputy Director General, Gp.Capt. (Dr.) Ajey Lele (Retd.) and scholars of the Institute participated in the discussion. Executive Summary Shri. Kamal Kishore in his lecture talked about three global trends in Disaster Risk Management and five implications of these on India from India’s development, strategic perspectives. In his lecture he emphasised that along with India’s development story, there is a need to prioritise Disaster Risk Management in the country. Detailed Report The Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy introduced Shri Kamal Kishore to the gathering and mentioned that Shri Kamal Kishore had worked on disaster risk reduction and recovery issues for over 22 years at the local, national, regional and global levels. He mentioned that prior to joining the National Disaster Management Authority, Shri Kishore worked with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for nearly 13 years in New Delhi, Geneva and New York. He further highlighted that at UNDP headquarters Shri Kishore has led global advocacy campaigns to address disaster risk reduction concerns in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda. Amb. Chinoy also congratulated Shri Kamal Kishore on his recent appointment as the Assistant Secretary General and Special Representative to the UN Secretary General for Disaster Risk Reduction. After introducing the Speaker, Amb. Chinoy highlighted in his opening remarks the importance of Disaster Risk Management in India. He mentioned that as climate change is leading to a greater risk of disasters, there is a need to develop suitable mechanisms to reduce the impacts of disasters. He mentioned that all this is also linked to larger salient initiatives of Prime Minister Modi’s Vision that include creating Pro-Planet People and initiatives such as LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment). He mentioned that all these reveal a deep sense of urgency even at the political level. Amb. Chinoy mentioned that despite all these ongoing initiatives in place, there is a need to develop more ‘Disaster Resilient Infrastructures’ around the country, which, in future, could be greatly beneficial in mitigating risks associated with disasters. With these initial remarks Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy, invited Shri Kamal Kishore to deliver his talk. Shri Kamal Kishore thanked Amb. Chinoy for his kind introduction. He highlighted that his lecture would focus on three global trends in Disaster Risk Management and five implications these have on India from India’s development and strategic perspectives. He mentioned that the first trend in global disaster risk management focuses on ‘disaster-related death’ over the last 60 years. Shri Kishore mentioned that if one analyses ‘the global total’ data over all these years, it can be concluded that there has been a significant decline in the total number of people (Global Total) dying from disasters. Shri Kishore mentioned that over the years India has done a tremendous job in handling disasters related from Cyclones. He mentioned that in last year’s cyclone ‘Biparjoy’ in Gujarat, India for the first time was able to achieve Zero mortality rate. Shri Kishore mentioned that the second trend in Disaster Risk Management suggests that in the 21st century, people dying from a single disaster-related event is exceptionally high (more than 100,000 people dying in a single event). Giving an example of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, Shri Kishore mentioned that it affected a total of 13 countries out of which 5 countries were very badly impacted and the total number of people that died as a result of this was very high. He mentioned that in the 2008 Cyclone Nargis, the 2005 Earthquake in Kashmir and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and the 2023 Earthquake in Türkiye, the number of people who died in each of these events was extremely high. He therefore concluded that while there is a global trend of decline in mortality due to disasters, there still exist pockets in parts of the world which have high concentration of risks due to disasters. The third trend highlighted by Shri Kishore was related to the ‘Economic Cost’ associated with the disasters. He mentioned that the overall economic losses as a result of disasters are increasing tremendously. Shri Kishore stressed that though states have become successful in reducing the mortality rate from disasters, the economic losses suffered by people as a result of these disasters in terms of their housing, livelihood, assets etc. have been huge. Shri Kishore mentioned that if India has to achieve its dream of ‘Viksit Bharat’ disaster risk management remains most important. In the second part of his lecture, Shri Kishore highlighted the 5 implications of rising disaster risks for India. He first discussed the ‘Strategic Aspect’ in which he mentioned that due to different geographical terrains in India, it becomes difficult to predict disasters. Giving an example of a disaster event in Sikkim, Shri Kishore mentioned that there is a need to enhance our abilities in predicting the effects of disasters in these areas. He further said that extra emphasis is needed to be given to those infrastructural development projects in such regions that are of strategic importance to India. Shri Kishore highlighted that similarly, the issue of rising sea levels is of great concern. He mentioned that any disaster occurring as a result of rising sea levels could have implications for India’s Naval strategic infrastructures. He highlighted that disasters occurring from rising sea levels in the future could also have implications for the functioning of India’s Naval forces. He then mentioned that climate change and increasing annual temperatures could have implications for transboundary river systems within India and the entire South Asia region. Any fluctuations in the flow of rivers to our neighbouring states could have strategic and geopolitical challenges in the future. He also emphasised that increasing heat waves have the potential to impact India’s agricultural outputs in the future which could have negative implications for the county’s food and economic security. Shri Kishore mentioned that the second implication is related to the ‘development of India’s own communities and people’. He explained this by giving the example of annual average losses emanating from disasters. He mentioned that the annual estimated losses as a result of disasters stand annually at an average of USD 3.8 billion. He mentioned that this comes to around 1 per cent of India’s GDP. He further emphasised that if we plan to spend 10 per cent of the GDP on developing infrastructures, roughly around 1 per cent is lost to disasters. Shri Kishore pointed out that the third aspect of Disaster Risk Management relates to ‘International Disaster Diplomacy’. He pointed out that India has performed significantly well as compared to other global states in its pursuits of International Disaster Diplomacy. He mentioned that India was the first responder in the 2023 Türkiye earthquake. India sent 3 teams of the National Disaster Response Force. Shri Kishore highlighted the important role played by the ‘60 Para Field Hospital’ from Agra (a unit of the Indian Army) in setting up the field hospital and treating the injured people. He highlighted that the Indian medical team also consisted of enough women staff of doctors and nurses who played a crucial role in treating women and children affected due to the earthquake. He mentioned this initiative attained global appreciation for India and the country is presently known for its credible role in international disaster diplomacy. Shri Kishore pointed out that there is a need to further systematise our efforts and approach in this direction. The fourth aspect highlighted by Shri Kishore relates to ‘Managing Risk’. He stressed that in order to manage risks associated with disasters, Indian institutions need to be agile and quick in terms of responding to disasters. He mentioned that this aspect requires deep thinking on which scholars at MP-IDSA can work on and contribute in the near future. Lastly, Shri Kishore mentioned that the fifth aspect of Disaster Risk Management relates to ‘Implications for India’s’ Infrastructures’ as a result of disasters. Shri Kishore pointed out that in the last 10 years, the length of the Metro in India has increased 6 times of its existing networks and the National Highways in the country have increased 1.5 times. He mentioned that all these infrastructures remain exposed to disasters. Shri Kishore mentioned that India’s developing infrastructure needs to be built disaster-resilient. Questions and Comments The Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy complimented the Speaker for his detailed talk on the subject. He asked the Speaker if NDMA brings out a Handbook of the technologies used in each of these disaster situations. He sought the Speaker’s response, particularly with regard to technologies used in making disaster resilient infrastructures. He further asked if such a handbook is available for the use of the common man. Secondly, Amb. Chinoy asked the Speaker to clarify whether NDMA also uses some kind of traditional construction technologies that the Indian ancient civilization used in the past to mitigate future natural disasters. The Deputy Director General, Gp. Capt. (Dr.) Ajey Lele (Retd.) asked the Speaker about India’s capabilities and NDMA’s practices in prevention and management of forest fires in India. Comdt. Manoranjan Srivastava asked the Speaker regarding the long-term perspective plans of NDMA with regard to future challenges like emerging cyclones and sea-level rise along the Indian coast. He also asked the Speaker to comment on the issue of climate migration (both internal and external) as a result of these challenges. Dr. Gulbin Sultana asked the Speaker about flood management and developing of flood resilient infrastructures in Assam. She further asked the Speaker to comment on the management of people in shelters during flood situations, with regard to their basic issues of food, water and sanitation. Mr. Arvind Khare while referring to India’s role in international disaster diplomacy, asked the Speaker if India’s economic and technological capacities and capabilities are as per international standards. Mr. D.S. Murugan Yadav, asked about the creation of State Disaster Response Forces. He asked the Speaker regarding the various types of agencies that would be pooled in for creation of such State Disaster Response Forces. Shri Kamal Kishore gave a detailed explanation to all the questions and the comments raised and the talk ended with the Director General thanking Shri Kishore for the opportunity to interact with him. Report prepared by Mr. Bipandeep Sharma, Research Analyst, NTS Centre, MP-IDSA, New Delhi.
Monday Morning Meeting Report on Ethiopia’s Maritime Aspirations and Regional Implications	April 29, 2024			Monday Morning Meeting	Mr. Mohanasakthivel J., Research Analyst, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) made a presentation on “Ethiopia’s Maritime Aspirations and Regional Implications” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 29 April 2024. The session was moderated by Dr. Abhishek Mishra, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA and the scholars of MP-IDSA attended and enriched the discussions. Executive Summary Tensions in the already volatile Horn of Africa have increased as a result of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Somaliland signed on 1st January 2024 that grants landlocked Ethiopia access to the Red Sea. Any international recognition of Somaliland is interpreted by Somalia as an affront to its sovereignty, because Somalia considers the autonomous region of Somaliland as an integral part of its territory. Consequently, Somalia rejected the Agreement and demanded that it be terminated. This declaration comes at a critical moment when attacks against commercial shipping by Houthi rebels in the Red Sea have increased, which has subsequently caused a severe reduction in marine traffic and commerce in the region. The Agreement is expected to impact Somalia's bilateral relations with Ethiopia and neighbouring Somaliland, but also the Horn of Africa region as a whole. Regional organisations such as the African Union, Arab League, and Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) have expressed concerns about the Agreement and the possibility of escalating tensions and regional instability. Detailed Report In his introductory remarks, Dr. Abhishek Mishra underlined that the Horn of Africa is on the verge of rising geopolitical tensions and realignment with a number of deals like the Ethiopia and Somaliland deal and the Somalia and Turkiye Agreement taking shape. Mr. Mohanasakthivel J. commenced his presentation by mentioning Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s address to the Ethiopian Parliament in October 2023 on Ethiopia's marine access. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed proclaimed that the Red Sea was Ethiopia's "natural boundary" and that its people could not live in a "geographic prison." He underlined the existential issues linked with access to the Red Sea region, which is becoming increasingly volatile and unpredictable, attracting more actors from far and near due to its strategic economic and political importance. Thus, the Speaker highlighted that being landlocked poses a risk to Ethiopia, as it relies on other littoral states for marine access, protecting its interests, and defending against any national security danger emanating from the Red Sea. Within a week after PM Ahmed’s speech, the Ethiopian Ministry of Peace issued an outline statement, declaring that Ethiopia will take all necessary steps to safeguard port access. Ethiopia's Prime Minister agreed with protecting port access peacefully but cautioned that force may be used if required. Subsequently, on 1 January 2024, Ethiopia and Somaliland signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), giving Addis Ababa direct access to the Gulf of Aden. This strategic Agreement cleared the way for Ethiopia to construct commercial and military sites along the coastline. Under this arrangement, Somaliland has leased to Ethiopia 20 kilometres of its coastal land for 50 years. Ethiopia has agreed to provide Somaliland an interest in one of its profitable state-owned firms, Ethiopian Airlines. It is also considering recognition of Somaliland as an independent state. However, neighbouring coastal governments of Somalia, Djibouti, and Eritrea, have raised concerns regarding the Agreement. The Speaker highlighted the history of Ethiopia's maritime quest by mentioning that since Eritrea's 1993 secession from Ethiopia, the latter has remained landlocked, thereby putting an end to the Ethiopian Navy which was started in 1950’s. At first, Ethiopia was compelled to transfer its maritime resources to ports in Yemen. However, Ethiopia's naval presence was completely disbanded by the mid-1990s due to its eventual ejection from Yemen and failure to uphold its leasing Agreement in Djibouti. Ethiopia remains reliant on the stability of its coastal neighbours due to a lack of its direct access to the sea. Since then, it has attempted a variety of methods to secure access to the ocean. It entered into an Agreement with Djibouti in 2002. As a result, over 95 per cent of its import-export traffic now passes through Djibouti's port via the Addis-Djibouti corridor. Ethiopia also purchased a 19 per cent share in Somaliland's Berbera Port in 2018 as a means of diversifying its maritime access points. Mr. Mohanasakthivel J. emphasised on the importance of ports for Ethiopia, stating that Ethiopia's trade is strongly dependent on access to ports for international commerce. This is owing to the bordering countries' insufficient capacity to absorb Ethiopian goods. Despite having several potential ports, logistical obstacles prevent their use. In his overview of potential ports for Ethiopia, he mentioned the Ports of Sudan, Djibouti, and Tadjourah, Eritrea's Massawa and Assab, Somaliland's Berbera, Somalia's Mogadishu and Kismayo, and Kenya's Mombasa and Lamu. Ethiopia relies on the Port of Djibouti for 95 per cent of its foreign trade, with the Ports of Berbera and Sudan accounting for the remaining 5 per cent. Ethiopia's principal economic channel has been the Red Sea port of Djibouti, giving Djibouti a virtual monopoly on Ethiopian trade. However, Djibouti costs Ethiopia over a billion dollars in port fees each year. This is a large sum considering that over one-fifth out of Ethiopia’s 120 million population relies on food aid. With respect to Somalia, the Speaker noted that the arrangement will have an impact on the dynamics of the country's relations with its two neighbours – Ethiopia and Somaliland, with whom it has a history of intra-regional disputes and conflicts. The Somali Government asserts that Somaliland is an autonomous state within Somalia, and that only the Somali Government has the authority to lease its land to foreign forces. Somalia considers the Agreement to be an infringement of its sovereignty, and in reaction it has expelled the Ethiopian Ambassador and recalled its Ambassador from Ethiopia. The Somali Administration also insists that there is no intention of negotiation with Ethiopia and has threatened serious escalation if Ethiopia proceeds with the Agreement. However, a clash between Ethiopia and Somalia seems unlikely. While discussing regional dynamics, the Speaker mentioned that Egypt has been critical of the transaction as an obvious infringement of Somalia's sovereignty. President Sisi emphasised that Egypt stands shoulder to shoulder with Somalia and has urged Ethiopia to seek benefits from seaports in Somalia and Djibouti through transitional measures rather than attempting to control another country's territory. Egypt's objection to Ethiopia's deal with Somaliland is partly affected by its ongoing dispute with Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Nile River. Furthermore, if this Agreement is implemented, Djibouti will experience a decrease in commercial transit as well as a loss of Ethiopian annual fees, as revenues from ports and foreign military bases are Djibouti's principal source of income. Djibouti's port handles more than 95 percent of Ethiopia's trade, contributing to about 75 per cent to its GDP. Djibouti is dissatisfied with the fact that Somaliland has become Ethiopia's preferred maritime and commercial partner. With regard to Eritrea, the Speaker mentioned that no other country felt the threat as much as the Eritreans did as both countries have a history of hostility. In 1998, both the countries went to war, which ended in 2000 with the signing of the Algiers Agreement. Nevertheless, tensions developed, as Ethiopia refused to abide by the Agreement, which required Ethiopia to cede territory to Eritrea. Between 2002 to 2018, both countries were in a state of no conflict or peace. Eventually, Abiy Ahmed and Isaias Afwerki met in 2018, this signified the end of the state of war, resuming diplomatic ties, trade, and travel between the two states. However, cooperation deteriorated as unsolved issues and antagonism persisted. Ethiopia's loss of the Red Sea coast to Eritrea fuels fear of encirclement by Arab powers as the Arab League members, including Egypt, Djibouti, and Sudan, control key ports. Potential Arab attacks from the Red Sea ports have seemed to heighten Ethiopia's security concerns. Moreover, Ethiopia has been consistently denied an observer status by the Council of Arab and African Littoral States of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. Since all the coastal countries have denied Ethiopia access to sea, the Speaker noted that the littoral states must develop a regional mechanism for the Red Sea rather than relying on their Arab neighbours, who may exploit the current rift. Although the Maritime Treaty may include certain concessions in favour of Ethiopia, the littoral states are unlikely to be interested in providing a naval base other than Somaliland. It is worth noting that Ethiopia is the security guarantee for Somaliland, although it is yet to recognise Somaliland since the Agreement was signed. Formal recognition could strengthen the UAE's relationship with Somaliland, potentially leading to increased investments and development projects in the region. Recognition by Ethiopia, Kenya, and the UAE may persuade other countries to consider Somaliland as a state. Lastly, the Speaker stated that there is no possibility of war in the near future because Ethiopia had lost many of its officers during the Tigray Battle. The country’s military is thinly scattered and faces numerous obstacles, particularly in the Amhara and Oromia areas. Its economy is still struggling to recover from a civil war in the northern Tigray region that ended in 2022. Moreover, it is facing a severe foreign-currency shortage. Questions and Comments Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy, congratulated Mr. Mohanasakthivel J. for providing a detailed picture of regional dynamics in the Horn of Africa, focusing on Ethiopia's maritime ambitions. He stated that, in theory, landlocked countries have the right to reach the sea under Article 126, Clause 10. However, this must be negotiated and transit states must be confident in their own security. As a result, the issue boils down to negotiating with neighbouring countries. Amb. Chinoy inquired about India's stance on the port, considering that the Agreement between Ethiopia and Somaliland has significant complications. Dr. Deepika Saraswat, observed that the UAE plays an important role in the changing dynamics of the region. Cmde. Abhay Singh explained the intricacies of the UNCLOS with respect to the status of the landlocked states and transit rights. In addition to that he further explained that Djibouti’s economic reliance on Ethiopia is 75% of its GDP. Dr. Abhishek Mishra inquired about the international response to the port arrangement. He further enquired about the position of Somalia and the Arab Council on the Agreement. He also inquired how the citizens of both Somalia and Somaliland have reacted to the port arrangement. Mr. Mohanasakhtivel J. provided insightful answers to the questions and comments raised by the Director General and the MP-IDSA scholars. The report was prepared by Ms. Anusha Khurana, Intern, ALACUN Centre, MP-IDSA.
Report of Monday Morning Meeting on Iran-Israel Confrontation: Escalation Amid the Gaza War	April 22, 2024			Monday Morning Meeting	Dr. Deepika Saraswat, Associate Fellow, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, presented on “Iran-Israel Confrontation: Escalation Amid the Gaza War” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 22 April 2024. Dr. S Samuel C Rajiv, Associate Fellow, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, moderated the session. Scholars of the Institute attended the meeting. Executive Summary The tit-for-tat exchanges between Israel and Iran starting 1 April 2024 have heightened tensions in the region. The presentation gave an overview of the escalation of the ‘Shadow War’ between the two countries. It provided an understanding of Iran’s strategies of the ‘Axis of Resistance’ and the ‘Unification of Arenas’ and Israel’s strategy of ‘Octopus Doctrine’ and threat perception of a ‘Ring of Fire’. The recent events have displayed that Iran is willing to take the risk of directly striking Israel, and this constitutes the new normal. Detailed Report Dr. Saraswat began the presentation by providing an understanding of Iran’s strategies from the ‘Axis of Resistance’ to the ‘Unification of Arenas’. The Iranian strategy of Axis of Resistance, an asymmetric strategy, emerged as a counter to the US designation of Iran as a member of the ‘Axis of Evil’. Iran has made the Israel-Palestine issue the centrepiece of its Axis of Resistance strategy, where it has supported groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad since the early 1990s, and Hezbollah since the 1980s. The Axis of Resistance allows Iran to expand its deterrence way beyond its geographical borders. Iran wants to fight threats even before they reach its borders. Iran also follows a strategy of war avoidance, where it wants to avoid any direct war with the US, but at the same time deter its adversaries from attacking. Dr. Saraswat noted the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) mobilisation of Shia militias in Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS, which posed a threat to Iran. The Speaker observed that in the absence of a proper air force, the Iranian missile program is a key pillar of its forward defence strategy. The IRGC’s missile force has emerged as a major branch over the years. Iran has focused more on enhancing the precision strike capabilities of its missiles. The missiles have a range of around 2000 km so as not to antagonise the Europeans, but the range covers the whole of the Middle East region thus placing the US military bases in the region within its strike capability. Dr. Saraswat noted that the Iranian strategy of the Unification of Arenas is more visible in the aftermath of the 7 October 2023 attacks by Hamas on Israel, which was followed by the integration of Hezbollah from Lebanon, the Shia militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen into the campaign against Israel. Iran has supplied precision missiles to Hezbollah, while Hamas has demonstrated its capacity to launch thousands of unguided rockets. The Speaker then highlighted Israel's ‘Octopus Doctrine’ and threat perception of a ‘Ring of Fire’. Israel’s Octopus Doctrine is based on the principle that Iran is the head of the octopus, while the proxy militias that it supports are its tentacles. This strategy has now evolved into directly attacking Iranian personnel in Syria and Iraq, and not just proxies like Hezbollah. Israel has opposed the Iranian nuclear program and has always portrayed Iran as a threat so as to keep the US involved in the region alongside Israel. The concept of Ring of Fire is based on the surrounding of Israel by Iranian-backed forces, with Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and foreign militias in Syria, and it is the Israeli counter to Iran’s Axis of Resistance. Dr. Saraswat spoke at length about the Shadow War tactics applied by Israel on Iran, which gathered pace in the wake of the US’s ‘Maximum Pressure’ campaign against Iran. She flagged the July 2020 explosion that hit a centrifuge assembly facility near the city of Natanz. Israel has also carried out targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists over the past decade. Israeli intelligence seems to have penetrated Iranian society as shown by attacks and assassinations of security figures inside Iran. Shadow war has been persistent in the cyber domain with tit-for-tat cyberattacks on civilian infrastructure. The shadow war has also played out in the sea where Israel has attacked Iranian oil tankers and also shipments of weapons to Syria and Hezbollah. Iran has also retaliated with attacks on Israeli-linked shipping companies like the Zodiac Maritime in the Gulf of Oman. Israel’s attack on the Iranian Consulate has set new rules of engagement, as per the Speaker. Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel have shown Iranian capability to directly strike Israel. The Israeli counter response has not majorly escalated the existing tensions, and has been seen as ‘de-escalatory’ in Iran. Dr. Saraswat concluded by stating that the situation remains de-escalatory as of now, as the US wants to avoid any regional war at this time. She stated that recent events have ensured that Iran’s asymmetric strategies seems to have run their course and in response to Israel’s direct targeting of Iranian soil, Iran is willing to take the risk of directly striking Israel, and this constitutes the new normal. Questions and Comments Dr. Rajiv Nayan in his remarks pointed out that the Iran-Israel conflict retains significant asymmetric contours given that non-state armed groups still constitute a critical element of Iran’s strategy to counter Israel. The Houthis and the Hezbollah were also involved in the direct coordinated attacks against Israel. A number of important queries and comments were made regarding Iran’s nuclear capability, its missile defence program and its aspiration for the leadership of the Islamic world. Questions were also raised about why Israel’s retaliatory attacks were non-escalatory and why it did not take the chance to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. The role of the US in the conflict and whether Israel wanted the involvement of the US in a larger way was also questioned. Dr. Deepika Saraswat gave comprehensive responses, addressing the comments and questions from the Institute’s scholars. She emphasised that the decision to develop a nuclear weapon is a political one and Iran might not be willing to take that risk easily. She also emphasised on how the Iranians have put their best bet on their missile defence systems for their security. She reiterated that the current situation displays the new normal and also points out that the US does not want to risk a regional war at the moment. After the Q&A session, the Chair gave his closing remarks and ended the meeting. Report was prepared by Mr. Farhan Khan, Intern, West Asia Centre, MP-IDSA.

Pages

Top