You are here
Events
| Title | Date | Author | Time | Event | Body | Research Area | Topics | File attachments | Image |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MP-IDSA Fellows Seminar : India's Pacific Islands' Outreach: Understanding Regional Narratives, Geopolitics and Opportunities - An Introduction. | August 17, 2023 | Fellows' Seminar |
An MP-IDSA Fellows Seminar presentation by Ms. Shruti Pandalai, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA, on “India’s Pacific Islands’ Outreach: Understanding Regional Narratives, Geopolitics and Opportunities – An Introduction” was held on 17 August 2023. It was Chaired by Amb. Sujan Chinoy, Director General, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA). The External Discussants were Dr. Stuti Banerjee, Senior Research Fellow, Indian Council of World Affairs and Mr. Constantino Xavier, Fellow in Foreign Policy and Security Studies at the Centre for Social and Economic Progress (CSEP) in New Delhi. Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Research Fellow, MP-IDSA and Dr. Tenjemeren Ao, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA were Internal Discussants. Executive SummaryThe narrative of “the return of geopolitics” to the Pacific Island Countries (PICs) has been gaining traction in the larger discourse in the Indo-Pacific, primarily driven by the anxiety over the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC’s) expanding engagement in the region. The aggravation of international tensions are amplified by Sino-US rivalry, even as the Islands navigate intra-regional frictions, economic development challenges, illegal fishing, climate change, and issues related to self-determination and decolonisation. The presentation tried to introduce the relevance of this contested geography to regional and extra-regional players, unpack the internal dynamics of regional tensions, and examine the agency of PICs. It reflected on how China's actions are redefining geopolitics in the region and discussed these contested narratives. Within this backdrop, it also explored how Indian engagement has been perceived in the region and concluded with prescriptive options of steps India could take, including with regional partners, to anchor a meaningful presence. Detailed ReportThe seminar began with the Chair and Director–General of MP-IDSA, Amb. Sujan Chinoy – introducing the topic, panel and giving his insight on the theme of the paper. This was followed by a presentation by Ms. Shruti Pandalai. After this, the external and internal commentators gave their respective insights, followed by a round of questions and answers. Ambassador Sujan Chinoy In his opening remarks, the Chair, Amb. Sujan Chinoy gave extensive insights on this topic and made a critical analysis of the paper. He mentioned that China’s growing footprint in the region in regard to regional connect and infrastructural development must be examined. He said that the paper was timely and more importantly it not only introduced the region but also how this region is significant for India’s interests. It also broadly covered many important aspects of this region and sub–regions – Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia. The Chair began by focusing on Micronesia, emphasising how this region in particular was a key theatre of World War II, and how this region today carries a baggage of history, particularly in the context of nuclear testing. He used the example of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. It was occupied by the Japanese first, and afterwards by the Americans. The Chair further highlighted the fact that this region has been at the forefront of negotiations on the problem of climate change. He also mentioned how these countries have filed a case to stop nuclear testing, an issue with historical baggage for the nations here and the PICs have a prominent voice at the United Nations. Next, the Chair focused on Melanesia, which lies to the south of Micronesia. Many countries like the US, Germany and France, according to him have a deep interest in the region. Australia and New Zealand have traditionally enjoyed a prominent foothold here. There’s also a newfound concern about the Chinese presence here after the existence of a geopolitical vacuum here. About Polynesia, the Chair reflected that it is a huge region and, France is a big player in the region, as it has its colonies there. At this juncture, the Chair talked about the compulsions that drive the major players in this region. The main reasons these countries propagate their relevance in the region is that they have had a presence there for a very long time. Countries like France and Britain were able to dismiss extra-regional claims due to their colonial history, as well as France holding some land (like New Caledonia and French Polynesia) that grants them an extensive maritime territory in the region. As a geopolitical player, Japan has fought key conflicts in the region and cannot be overlooked. This is especially significant in light of Japan's transformation from a coloniser to a major power investing heavily in infrastructure. New Zealand, is a smaller player, unlike Australia and has a presence in the immediate neighbourhood. Today, Island nations do not accept patronizing historical dynamics. China is not a new presence in the region. Chinese people have had their presence there through migration. For instance, there are Chinese shopkeepers and businessmen in many Pacific Island nations for long. As a result, China also enjoys the diaspora advantage in the region which it seeks to exploit to its benefit. China meets the impulse for infrastructural development of island nations, while they view American, Australian and New Zealand’s presence as being at a lower pitch. China has a range of interests in the region. This region is mineral-rich, and countries here have signed up for the Chinese initiative, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The access to this area is also significant for security and geopolitical purposes for China, like satellite tracking and countering Taiwan – since some of the few remaining countries which recognize Taiwan are PICs. A critical strategic importance of this area is “breaking out in the Pacific”, since it is the only area where China can actually potentially contain and monitor American presence in its periphery. Russia was also present in the region but had limited itself only to the Kurile Islands. As for India, the Chair said that he agreed with the presenter that India is vocal as a voice of the Global South and thus PICs come under the purview of India’s outreach to the Global South. There are drivers for engagement with the PICs. India has taken initiatives like the Infrastructure for Resilient Island States (IRIS), which showcase India’s capacity to sympathise with PICs through several iterations since 2014, which is followed by the 2017 visit of Gen. VK Singh to Fiji and PM Modi’s visit to Papua New Guinea in 2021. The Chair also cautioned about the potentiality of outreach that India can have in the region. Its lack of ground presence, and the distance between India and the PICs are major limitations. Also, India has a limited presence also due to third party partnership and our lack of ability to deliver projects we have committed to in time. Better delivery on projects and better focus, like we have been doing in Africa, can ensure that we do better in the Pacific region if that is what we want to do. There is a major logistical problem when it comes to trying to establish and maintain diplomatic presence in the region, and there are also issues relating to security, transparency and accountability. According to the Chair, while it is true that India has good relations with the US, France, Australia and New Zealand, it does not mean that it can guarantee a better presence for India in the region. But, despite limitations, what plays to India’s advantage is that it is perceived as an alternative to the binary of US–China rivalry and that it is also viewed in a favourable light by the US, Australia, and New Zealand. The Chair stated that the scope of India expanding its presence in the region needs to be examined by scholars. And, at the end of the day, India’s primary region and interests lie in the Indian Ocean Region, while balancing the naval and continental sphere. The Pacific is not a natural sphere for India, but equally, India has interests there. Ms. Shruti Pandalai Ms. Pandalai started her presentation by thanking the Director General for Chairing the session and giving some valuable insights from a practitioner’s lens and as someone who has served in the Pacific region. She also thanked Dr. Xavier and Dr. Banerjee for being External Discussants and Dr. Kumar and Dr. Ao for being Internal Discussants for her Fellow Seminar. She stated that her paper is aimed at being a beginner’s guide to understand the new geostrategic space of the Pacific Island region and India’s outreach – in the context of developing geopolitical contestations in the larger Indo-Pacific region. According to Ms. Pandalai, this region does not only come in focus because of US-China rivalry but also because of its deeply contested past and colonial legacy, as also pointed out by the Chair. It has often displayed the strength of its regionalism with several moments of unparalleled agency in multilateral forums. It is also grappling with existential crisis with the emergence of issues like climate change while navigating through the very complicated superpower competition in the region. From her perspective, this larger narrative started with many scholars focusing on this region in the larger context of Indo-Pacific geopolitics following Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to Solomon Islands in 2022 which was concluded with signing of a defence pact between China and Solomon Islands. On the other end of the narrative for her, lie the visuals of Prime Minister Modi’s successful visit to the Pacific Islands for the Forum of India and Pacific Cooperation (FIPIC) Summit. She stated that between these two significant events, a lot has happened in the region – which is paramount to analyse and understand, and which she has attempted to do in this paper. Following this, she briefly explained the structure of her paper, where she analysed the narrative of ‘return of geopolitics’ to the Pacific Islands and why it gained traction, which for her is the rising anxiety in people while witnessing increasing prominence of China in this geopolitical space. She also remarked that we have been observing exacerbation of international tensions which are further amplified by Sino – US rivalry, even as these islands navigate intra-regional frictions, challenges of economic development, illegal fishing, climate change, and issues related to self – determination and decolonisation. According to Ms. Pandalai, India’s renewed outreach to the region under the leadership of PM Modi has found a wide appeal as also seen in his recent visit. Thus, in her presentation she first introduced the relevance of this strategic geography, followed by looking into the regional tensions and what the existing narratives there are. She was to then expand on how China’s presence has redefined the geopolitics of the region and how it brought more contested narratives. With this backdrop, she would also investigate the scope of India’s engagement with the region. Ms. Pandalai then introduced the geography of PICs and their location in the map and the sub-regions of Melanesia, Polynesia, and Micronesia. She highlighted how this region has a complicated geopolitical arrangement. This region is often seen as the backyard of Australia due to its geographical location. She also talked about the spheres of influence in the region which are highly contested and overlapping in nature. She then showed a historical chart which showcased the full historical trajectory of these island nations and their people. Ms. Pandalai specifically focused on the beginning of colonial history of the region with the arrival of explorers like James Cook in the Pacific Islands. She then talked about the 19th century, when the island nations were occupied by different European powers, USA and Japan, followed by the Pacific Wars during the years of World War II. She mentioned that from an American perspective, this region has been like an “American Lake” where Australia and New Zealand are deputy sheriffs for the US. The region has remained majorly neglected and Chinese military presence in the region is feared by the West. In terms of its economic imperative, Ms. Pandalai stated that there is acute poverty in the region while it is rich in resources. The PICs are dependent on western countries and have poor infrastructure. Entry of China in the region gave these countries options other than the West. On the other hand, in terms of its strategic imperative, this region is a theatre of showcasing of US-China rivalry, and while the US views the region as a part of its concept of ‘Island Chains’ as a defensive parameter, China sees the region as a springboard and an integral part of its “Blue Water Navy” capacities. She stated that the major actors in this region are the US, France, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and China and analysed their respective spheres of influence in the region. She further stated that the US has 11 controlled territories in the region. It has amplified its outreach to the region under the Biden administration which includes the Pacific Island Summit and Blue Pacific Programme under which the US gives aid to the PICs especially in the domain of climate change. There are many unresolved undercurrent issues between the US and PICs. France, on the other hand, has an Exclusive Economic Zone in the region via French Polynesia and New Caledonia. New Caledonia also has 25% of the world’s nickel deposits. There is also significant focus on PICs in the French Strategy on Indo-Pacific. It has also invested 60 million Euros for mitigating climate change and is also cooperating in the areas of science and technology. France is also relevant because of its colonial footprint in the region. For Japan, this region is an important strategic region due to fisheries and maritime routes. The presence of Japan in the region is also important for its own security. Japan’s aid to the region has been focused on infrastructure. Nuclear waste is a major area of contestation between the PICs and Japan. New Zealand and Australia are regional powers here. New Zealand poses itself as a nation which is “in and of the Pacific” especially because of its significant Māori population. The Pacific is an important component of New Zealand’s security documents, like defence papers, especially concerning the maritime domain. New Zealand provides PICs with massive aid because of Chinese presence and it is not comfortable with the approach of the US and Australia of militarisation in the region to counter Chinese presence. On the other hand, Australia is seen as a ‘big brother’ by the PICs, a hegemon in the region and thus Australia has testy relations with the PICs. Even though Australia has done a lot of work in the region, it fails to translate into influence with respect to the PICs. Wang Yi’s visit to Solomon Islands was a deal breaker for Australia, which turned out to be a really bad idea. According to Ms. Pandalai, China has crafted a narrative when it comes to the region which highlights and criticises the actions of the West and historical crimes committed by them. This narrative also banks on the fact the oldest Chinese trading house still exists in the region. For China, the Pacific is an important region because it wants to diminish the influence of and further isolate Taiwan, given that the majority of its diplomatic partners are the PICs. Other than that, it also seeks to limit the US presence at its maritime periphery. The PICs are also an important part of China’s BRI project and are significant beneficiaries of Chinese investments and security agreements. Further, the Speaker talked about the Pacific Islands’ Forum which expanded the concept of security in 2018 and in 2022 launched the ‘2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific’. This highlights that PICs have agency especially in the domain of Climate Change, and that for the PICs climate change is a more important issue than geopolitics. She highlighted that China’s increasing engagement with the region is waking up other regional powers and thus there is a renewed focus especially in areas of cooperation like 5G and climate finance. Ms. Pandalai also talked about India’s relations with the PICs. She mentioned that India has historical and cultural ties with Fiji and PICs’ relations with India have always functioned under the framework of South – South Cooperation. The region started to matter more to India from the prism of Indo-Pacific at least normatively. India has also developed its presence as a development partner in the region. It sent aid to Tonga in 1973 for the first time and since 2006, the approach towards aid and developmental projects has been government-centric. India has a multi-sectoral approach covering areas from education, cybersecurity, climate change and others when cooperating with the PICs. For India, according to Ms. Pandalai, the drivers of engagement with the PICs are India’s rising role as a development partner of choice, beyond the binary of US and China, especially as the President of G20, their support in organisations like the UN, availability of rich resources in the PICs and checking Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean Region and the Pacific. India is gaining a more meaningful presence in the region via multilateral forums like the International Solar Alliance (ISA), Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI), Infrastructure for Resilient Island States (IRIS) and others. She also mentioned the Indian investments in the region and the status of projects in areas like skill development, space technologies that India is working on with the PICs, and the limitations on delivering on those projects. She then deliberated upon ideas for further cooperation, which is the usage of third party resources, in other words, trilateral cooperation – which can be the solution to ‘India’s Delivery Deficit’. Some of the examples that she gave to substantiate this include trilateral cooperation with PICs and Japan in many areas, the US in food sector and cooperation with Australia and New Zealand in high-technologies and France in climate change and other areas. In conclusion, Ms. Pandalai stated that meaningful presence is not equivalent to strategic overreach, and as an observer one should be careful about that when it comes to India’s outreach to the Pacific Islands. India needs to channel its efforts and resources in areas where PICs actually need assistance for. She also mentioned that climate change and renewable energy are important areas for cooperation for India and the PICs. Dr. Constantino Xavier Dr. Xavier complimented the paper, for its timeliness and the way it was presented. He also highlighted that India’s Indo–Pacific strategy does not focus enough on the Pacific region, which is why there is a need to see the best way for India to be present in the region. At this juncture, therefore, a very important and fundamental question to investigate is what is the best way for India to be present there and is this region really important for India? Dr. Xavier held the opinion that India should do less and not try to be everywhere all the time. He also pointed out that we need to understand why would India be needed in the region from the perspective of Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the US. While trilateral cooperation is an effective tool for now, he highlights that it is important for India to find a niche in the long run and work upon it. Dr. Xavier suggested that Russia could probably be added and that more attention should be paid to the EU and the UK as geopolitical actors in the region. He stated that the section on China was longer than needed since everyone has an understanding concerning Chinese presence in the region. Dr. Xavier also said that India needs to maintain a more consistent diplomatic presence in the region and it is important to analyse how that can be achieved. He emphasised on the need of having Indian missions on ground and not just having one Embassy in charge of many countries. And, by observing the actions and presence of PICs in multilateral and regional forums, and by engaging with them, India can learn from the PICs and other actors there and apply those lessons in the Indian Ocean Region. Lastly, he said that India has a rising profile but its credibility of what it is doing, in terms of the delivery of their commitment is at stake, and sometimes it is rather better to not do anything than to do something badly. Dr. Stuti Banerjee Dr. Banerjee congratulated Ms. Pandalai on the presentation of her paper. She suggested that the material of her paper be split into two parts, one focusing on the larger geopolitics of the Pacific Islands Region and the other on India’s outreach and engagement with the PICs. She remarked upon the timely nature of this paper. According to her, this region is not well known and thus it is important to talk about this, and this paper is a nice way to begin research on this region, which is important to understand. She drew everyone’s attention to the fact that there are differing visions of Indo-Pacific for different countries, and China rejects the notion of Indo-Pacific altogether. Unlike for other powers that have been discussed, for China, the PICs are an independent region of their own, are not a part of a larger geopolitical narrative, thus it has a different strategy for the region. India, on the other hand has advantage in the region due to two factors, its non-threatening image and the Indian diaspora. Despite the distance, the PICs are important for India because of economic reasons – financial assistance, developmental projects and so on. She suggested that we should also look into how this region is important from a political and security angle and have a holistic strategic vision. She also brought out the crucial question of why there was a vacuum created in this region until recently, due to the pull-out and lack of engagement of the US, Australia and New Zealand since the end of Cold War. Dr. Banerjee also emphasised the need to investigate New Zealand’s outlook to the PICs – since that will highlight the differences in approach within the allied nations. At this juncture, she also mentioned the contribution of Indian diaspora in the region, and the role played by soft power aspects like people-to-people engagement and cultural relations in India’s outreach to the region. She then suggested that we also should look into the way PICs are responding to the attention they are receiving and how they plan to leverage that, what do they want and finally what do they expect from India? She highlighted that it is important to note that there are differences between the PICs themselves and they have different perspectives. Responses of civil society in the PICs to BRI/Chinese presence and actions of other countries is another aspect that needs to be investigated, according to Dr. Banerjee. Lastly, she wanted to know how India is leveraging this strategic focus and its contributions made in multiple sectors in the region? She also asked about India’s underlying interests for being part of these developmental projects – and whether this could eventually lead to PICs collaborating with India in the Indian Ocean Region. Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh Dr. Singh congratulated Ms. Pandalai and commented that it was a good paper with a good topic. He suggested that the paper should not be split and should be made into a monograph. He also suggested that there should be a more sharp and in-depth focus on the historical part, especially on patterns of colonialism. According to him, when talking about ‘return to geopolitics’ in the region, we need to focus first on security, economics, environmental issues and debates; the PICs’ interests and demands, like the case of nuclear weapons and then we should come to geopolitics. He thought that there could have been more investigation done on analysing ways in which India could possibly expand its presence, rather than getting restricted to the difficulties and challenges. Dr. Tenjemeren Ao Dr. Ao congratulated Ms. Pandalai for her crisp paper. He thought that the paper could be divided into different sections and the last section had a lot of scope. For him, this paper could be seen as a primer towards understanding India’s evolving engagement with the PICs. He also commended the way Ms. Pandalai analysed the role played by internal and external actors in shaping the region’s geopolitical landscape, in the larger Indo-Pacific. Dr. Ao brought out two major points. First, he commended the realistic approach taken in acknowledging India’s limitations and expectations from the PICs, while the priority for India is its extended neighbourhood. So therefore, it is paramount for India to come up with innovative ways to navigate its resources between the PICs and its extended neighbourhood. He concluded his remarks by highlighting that this region has a complex history and its internal political, economic, strategic imperatives are intertwined and are shaping PICs’ external engagement. The special focus on challenges faced by these countries like climate change and health can help us understand why these countries are engaging with specific powers. He also mentioned that the Pacific Islands’ Forum (PIF) has also identified climate change as the greatest threat for PICs and not geopolitical contestation. And that the PIF could derive some lessons from ASEAN in terms of managing to limit jostling of major powers. Questions and Comments There were some comments from the audience. One important comment, highlighted that from the naval side, the Pacific Islands are an important region for protecting the Sea Lines of Communication and the location of the Pacific makes it critical for both Australia and the US and Chinese control can severely restrict their movement. Another comment was focused on the recent elections in New Caledonia and the speculation about French interference. Questions centred around the reasons for India to engage with PICs and what would be the optimal strategy for India to engage with the region. Ms. Shruti Pandalai thanked the Chair, the Discussants and the audience for their valuable feedback. She responded to the comments and mentioned that her objective was to understand this region through strategic narratives and what India as a leader of the Global South has done and can do with respect to this region. Report prepared by Ms. Yukti Panwar, Research Intern, Southeast Asia and Oceania Centre, MP-IDSA. |
||||||
| Developments in Pakistan: The Pre-election Scenario | January 01, 2024 | Monday Morning Meeting |
Dr. Ashok Behuria, Senior Fellow and Coordinator, South Asia Centre delivered a talk on “Developments in Pakistan: The Pre-election Scenario” in the weekly Morning Meeting held on 1 January 2024. The meeting was moderated by Ms. Sneha M., Research Analyst, South Asia Centre. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA and Scholars of the Institute attended the event. Executive SummaryPakistan has witnessed extraordinary political turbulence for the last two years, ever since Imran Khan lost his premiership in April 2022. In the past almost two years, there has been political turmoil occasioned by aggressively partisan positions taken by the civilian political leadership, the military establishment and the judiciary of Pakistan. In the midst of this turmoil, the Election Commission of Pakistan has announced the date of General elections in Pakistan as 8 February 2024. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) are three major parties which are participating in the elections and none of these is likely to muster up a majority unless the votes are rigged. Among these, PTI appears more popular than the rest. However, the nomination papers of PTI’s top leadership including that of Imran Khan have been rejected and the party has challenged such rejection in the courts of law. Nawaz Sharif remains ineligible for contesting the polls even if his nomination has been accepted. PPP’s influence is largely limited to Sindh. Amidst all this it appears that post-elections, whatever be the results, the country is headed for political uncertainty. . Detailed ReportIn her opening remarks, Ms. Sneha offered a brief overview of the upcoming General Elections in Pakistan and said that political turmoil in Pakistan was not new. She said that the current state of affairs was due to the intensity with which the establishment has targeted Imran Khan. Dr. Ashok Behuria started the presentation by elaborating on the role of democracy in Pakistan’s politics. He said that since the creation of Pakistan, it never had real democracy and there was always a clear stamp of the army on politics in the country. The upcoming elections seem to have been politically engineered by the army to lead the country to a state where the winning dispensation would not be anti-establishment. The army has created all kinds of obstacles for Imran Khan and allowed Nawaz Sharif to come back to Pakistan and campaign for his party, PML-N, which is now being touted as the King’s party. Imran Khan’s nomination has been rejected by the Election Commission of Pakistan and many of the top leaders of the PTI have been arrested and their nominations rejected. Despite all this and circulation of facts in the media casting aspersions on his character and integrity, Imran remains very popular among the people, he said. Dr. Behuria suggested three possible scenarios: (i) Nawaz Sharif’s party would manage to form and lead a coalition; (ii) a hung house with parties pulling in different directions; and (iii) Imran Khan’s PTI would win a majority. In the first two cases, he said the army will be assured of its continued hegemony while Imran Khan is unlikely to stay quiet and, in all likelihood, demonstrate his nuisance potential on the streets. In the third scenario, he said, if the army finds it difficult to stop Imran, and fails to split his party and stitch together a coalition, it may either stage a coup or continue with a caretaker government or a neutral government of experts. In all these three cases, he concluded Pakistan was heading for political uncertainly. Throwing light on the way the elections were being seen by Pakistan watchers outside, he said that the US, which was very critical of the process of upcoming elections in Bangladesh, did not appear too bothered about the way the elections were being curated by the army in Pakistan. China, he said, had distanced itself from the process and was watching it unfold in its own way. China may be more comfortable with a system where the army and civilian government would work together and it may be more comfortable with Nawaz’s party rather than with Imran Khan, who had in the past raised his voice against opacity in Chinese contracts with Pakistan. Chronic political instability and a worsening internal security situation might provide further fuel to the army’s ongoing tactic to use terror as an instrument to push up terrorism in Kashmir and divert popular attention towards India. Dr. Behuria pointed out that the army leadership had not so far reacted to Nawaz Sharif’s statements that Pakistan should seek normalisation and reconciliation with India, which suggested that if Nawaz’s party were to return to power, there was a possibility of restarting of engagement between the two countries. However, it was counter-intuitive to find the army encouraging Nawaz to make such conciliatory statements, while it was orchestrating attacks in Rajouri and Poonch sector, which is creating bad blood between the two countries. According to him, the army, the judiciary, and the political leadership were clearly divided on domestic and foreign policy issues. Dr. Behuria stated that at the internal level there was a clear division between pro- and anti-Imran forces, which was likely to add to political uncertainty in the days to come. It was interesting to see the Pakistani diaspora participating in the political campaign in the social media in favour of Imran Khan, he noted. Questions and CommentsAmbassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA began his remarks by complimenting Dr. Behuria and commenting on his observations that the army would continue with its policy of orchestrating terror in India, even if there would be stability in Pakistan. He also said that it was unlikely that the army would go for a coup when it continues to retain its dominance in Pakistani politics. After the remarks of the Director General a series of questions were asked about the role of women in leadership in Pakistan, the religious right wing, significance of the Kashmir issue, the role of United States in Pakistan elections, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Baluchistan. Dr. Ashok Behuria responded to the comments made by the Director General and questions raised by MP- IDSA scholars. The Report has been prepared by Mr. Shailendra, Intern, South Asia Centre, MP-IDSA. |
||||||
| Monday Morning Meeting on “Developments in Pakistan: The Pre-election Scenario” | January 01, 2024 | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Monday Morning Meeting |
Dr. Ashok K. Behuria, Senior Fellow, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, will speak on “Developments in Pakistan: The Pre-election Scenario” at the Monday Morning Meeting which will be held on 1 January 2024 at 10 AM. The venue is Seminar Hall I, Second Floor. Ms. Sneha M, Research Analyst, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, will be the moderator. Mr. Shailendra, Intern, will be the rapporteur. |
|||||
| Fellow Seminar on “How Dharma Shapes Strategic Thought in the Mahabharata” | December 20, 2023 | Fellows' Seminar |
Col. Vivek Chadha (Retd.), Senior Fellow & Coordinator Military Affairs Centre, MP-IDSA presented his paper titled “How Dharma Shapes Strategic Thought in the Mahabharata”. The Seminar was chaired by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, the Director General, MP-IDSA. The External Discussants for the Paper were Lt. Gen. (Dr.) Rakesh Sharma PVSM, UYSM, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member, Executive Council, MP-IDSA and Dr. Saurabh Mishra, Associate Professor, Amity Institute of Defence & Strategic Studies. The Internal Discussants were Dr. Ashok K. Behuria, Senior Fellow & Coordinator, South Asia Centre and Dr. Adil Rasheed, Research Fellow & Coordinator, Counter Terrorism Centre, MP-IDSA. The Seminar was attended by all scholars and interns of MP-IDSA. Executive SummaryThe paper proposes a framework for analysing the idea of war through the prism of dharma. The paper co-relates the concept of dharma to the principles of righteousness, duty, responsibility or ethos. Dharma essentially aims to uphold prescribed norms of action and behaviour at the level of a state, society and an individual. Under the larger idea of Dharma is the concept of Yoga Kshema, which refers to prosperity and protection. The concept lays the key strategic framework for how states must be governed and protected. The two distinct elements through which this is achieved include war avoidance and war in the pursuit of dharma (Just War). The paper cites several quotes from key characters from Mahabharata including Lord Krishna, Bhishma and Yudhisthira rejecting the idea of war. The paper derives key instruments such as deterrence, stratagem and diplomacy for avoiding war. Detailed ReportAmbassador Sujan R. Chinoy started the Seminar by introducing the External and Internal Discussants in the panel. He also spoke about the increasing relevance of Indian Strategic Culture. Amb. Chinoy invited Col. Chadha to give his presentation. Col. Vivek Chadha began his presentation by highlighting that his paper has been written from a practitioner’s perspective rather than a theoretical perspective. He brought out that like Arthashastra, the Mahabharata too has two distinct elements to the text that includes the descriptive and prescriptive aspects. Col. Chadha stated that he deliberately chose to write the paper on the basis of the descriptive elements of Mahabharata. He described that the interpretation of the Mahabharata can differ from reader to reader as the epic acts like a reflection of one’s own unique thoughts and beliefs. He stated that his paper explores two key elements of the Mahabharata which include the concept of ‘Dharma’ and ‘Strategic Thought’. He also highlighted that the paper would focus on the conceptualisation and the idea of war as described in the Mahabharata. Col. Chadha informed the audience that his research was based on the analysis of the critical edition of the Mahabharata text translated by Bibek Debroy. He stated that this edition of Mahabharata has three different perspectives including the narrative, dharmic/ethical and philosophical perspective. He brought out that his paper exclusively focuses on the dharmic perceptive of the epic. In his paper, the concept of dharma has been attributed to the principles of righteousness, duty, responsibility or ethos. He stated that Dharma essentially aims to uphold prescribed norms of action and behavior at the level of a state, society and an individual. He also described the meaning of dharma as differs according to context. It operates at the level of a state through Raja Dharma which is attributed to the virtues of a king. Dharma defines an individual’s roles, responsibility and duties for a society. In the case of soldiers, the guidance is provided through the Kshatriya Dharam that refers to the virtues of the warrior. Col. Chadha elucidated the key critical aspects of Mahabharata that his paper focuses on which are as follows:
Lt. Gen. (Dr.) Rakesh Sharma began his observations on the paper by citing that the Pandavas won the Kurukshetra War by employing means of gross Adharma (Deceitful Tactics). He also illustrated the example of Prithviraj Chauhan who was an adherent follower of Dharma as a result of which he spared Muhammad Ghori after the first battle of Tarain. The sparing of the enemy eventually led to the defeat and death of Prithviraj Chauhan in the second battle of Tarain. Through this illustration, Gen. Sharma implied that the principle of warfare fundamentally contradicts the principles of Dharma. He opined that the definition of Dharma goes beyond just protection and prosperity and refers to the concept of good governance. He substantiated this with Hon’ble Finance Minister Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman’s speech in the parliament while presenting the budget in 2022. Gen. Sharma pointed out that the paper limits the definition of Dharama to only as the quest for righteousness. He recommended that the paper also explore the concept of Swadharma (Duties to Self) as the actions of many characters in Mahabharata are shaped by it. He pointed out that while Dharma talks about ensuring victory in war, in the present context the definition of victory itself has become very ambiguous. Also, Gen. Sharma recommended that the paper explore the concept of Just Peace for understanding Just War. He highlighted that the concept of deterrence as mentioned in the paper has also become less effective by citing examples like the Russian attack on Ukraine and attack on Israel by Hamas. Gen. Sharma concluded his observations by stating that deterrence is an instrument for the weak to say that they are not preparing for War. Dr. Saurabh Mishra in his observations recommended that in the paper the link between the concepts of dharma and strategic thought must be further strengthened. He stated that the paper must explore to a limited extent the theoretical aspects of Mahabharata to make the arguments rigorous and robust. Dr. Mishra also brought out that nature can be regarded as a key element of the concept of Dharma, apart from the three aspects like righteousness, duty and responsibility. He also recommended that the author may consider rearranging the structure of the paper in a manner in which some of the assumptions made in the introduction can be placed in the conclusion. Dr. Mishra stated that the paper must also bring out the definitions of certain concepts like preparedness and capability development as presented in the text of Mahabharata. He also questioned why Danda (Threat to use of force) has been put within the ambit of diplomacy in the paper. Also, he recommended substantiating the avoidance of war principle in Mahabharata, and inclusion of more details in the paper apart from the conversations between the key characters. Dr. Mishra stated that the paper requires contemporary parameters to test the strategic formulations of Mahabharata. He ended his observations with a suggestion that the paper must establish the link between the strategic thought espoused in Mahabharata with contemporary times. Dr. Adil Rasheed began his discussion by reaffirming Dr. Mishra’s recommendation that the concept of Dharma can be explained more comprehensively and holistically in the paper. He suggested that the paper should also look into the moral objectives of war, which is amply illustrated in the text of Mahabharata. He highlighted that Krishna’s Dharma in the Mahabharata is vedantic and brings out solutions that are out of the box. Dr. Rasheed commended the paper for presenting in detail the concepts of jus in bello and jus ad bellum in the context of Mahabharata. He suggested that the author could incorporate in his paper the rules of engagement as explained in the Mahabharata. Dr. Ashok K. Behuria pointed out that the paper can also explore how strategic thought has shaped Dharma in Mahabharata. He suggested that the paper can also focus upon the larger societal ecosystem which has influenced events in Mahabharata. Dr. Behuria stated that it is important to ascertain whether there were civilian casualties involved in the Kurukshetra war through the analysis of the Mahabharata text. He recommended that the author should elaborate on the aspects of alliance building in Mahabharata that has been very briefly mentioned in the paper. Dr. Behuria concluded his observations by saying that the analysis of Dharma and Strategic Thought from Mahabharata should not only be restricted to the final Kurukshetra war but also the many smaller wars that preceded, within the epic. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy during his observations raised a question about whether the paper draws any distinction between the concepts of strategic thought and strategic culture. He stated that while strategic culture is broad-based, strategic thought refers to certain key assumptions about security and polity. In this context, Amb. Chinoy encouraged scholars to conduct research on whether civilisational states like India and China are influenced by strategic culture or strategic thought. He brought out that in India, the study of India’s strategic culture only attained prominence in the Twentieth Century. In this context, Amb. Chinoy questioned why India’s rich strategic heritage remained sidelined in the intervening centuries. He also suggested that Col. Chadha consider examining the similarities between the Mandala system mentioned in the Arthashastra and contemporary spheres of influence in geopolitics. Amb. Chinoy concluded his remarks by stating that territorial expansionism remains a constant trait of state behaviour from the era of the Mahabharata to the present times. The Seminar came to a close after Col. Chadha addressed the Discussant’s queries and an insightful Q&A Session. Key Takeaways -
Report prepared by Dr. R. Vignesh, Research Analyst, Military Affairs Centre, MP-IDSA. |
||||||
| Visit of the Military Delegation from Joint Command and Staff College, Oman, led by Col. Mohammed Al-Mashaikhi to MP-IDSA | November 21, 2023 | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Monday Morning Meeting |
A military delegation from the Joint Command and Staff College of Oman, led by Col. Mohammed Al-Mashaikhi, visited the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) on November 21, 2023. During this engagement, Director General Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy provided an insightful presentation detailing the establishment and structure of the Institute. Established in 1965, MP-IDSA operates as an independent entity supported by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. Its governance is overseen by the Executive Council, traditionally presided over by the Defence Minister of India. Amb. Chinoy highlighted the diverse spectrum of research initiatives undertaken by the Institute's various Centres, shedding light on key issues and areas of research by the scholars. Emphasising MP-IDSA's contributions, he mentioned significant publications, specifying two esteemed peer-reviewed research journals: Strategic Analysis and Journal of Defence Studies. Amb. Chinoy also briefed the delegation about the multifaceted bilateral relationship between India and Oman including defence, security, infrastructure, education, energy and power sectors. He stated that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the Sultanate of Oman in 2018 has contributed to further strengthening the bilateral relationship between the two countries. The special friendship of India with Oman was also visible through the Indian invitation to Oman as a Guest Country in India’s G20 Summit. Amb. Chinoy also emphasised the strategic importance of Oman for India. Both countries have conducted several joint military exercises such as the Air exercise “Eastern Bridge” and the joint Army exercise called Al Najah. He mentioned that Oman is one of the few countries with which India conducts joint military exercises with all the three wings of the defence forces. He also highlighted the participation of Omani officers in the ITEC programme with 125 slots in India and the presence of a large Indian diaspora community in Oman among others. Amb. Chinoy noted that India is among Oman’s top trading partners. Bilateral trade between the two countries stands at around US$ 12. 38 billion in 2022-23. It has more than doubled in the last few years. In 2020-21 total trade was US$ 5.44 billion. India remained the 2nd largest market for Oman’s crude oil in 2022. DiscussionThe following key issues and suggestions were discussed by the members of the Omani delegation and scholars of MP-IDSA during the meeting:
Report was prepared by Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Research Analyst, MP-IDSA. |
|||||
| Report of Monday Morning Meeting on Mahabharata: A Strategic Overview | November 20, 2023 | Monday Morning Meeting |
Col. Vivek Chadha (Retd.), Senior Fellow, MP-IDSA, delivered a presentation on “Mahabharata: A Strategic Overview” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 20 November 2023, at 10 a.m. The venue was Seminar Hall I, Second Floor. Dr. Adil Rasheed, Research Fellow and Coordinator of the Counter Terrorism Centre, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, moderated the session. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, and scholars of the Institute attended the meeting. Executive SummaryThe Mahabharata is not a prescriptive text nor is it a myth or a tale, nor is it merely a story about war and warfighting. The epic is guided by the overarching principle of idealism and its functional implementation through realism. It focuses on the concept of dharma as guidance for force application. The presentation provided an essential overview of the Mahabharata and what it is and what it is not. He delved deep into certain characteristic features and elements of Mahabharata, what is Dharma and its nuances. He touched upon various concepts such as war and laws of war; the elements of diplomacy; tools of negotiations for realising political objectives and ends. Detailed ReportDr. Adil Rasheed began with his opening remarks, in which he emphasised that Vedanta, in a way, helps to develop our consciousness and self-awareness to a higher level so that we appreciate and understand our realities in our own way and arrive at our solutions. He underscored that this is the time for India and other nations to develop their strategic outlook and their intellectual heritage. According to Dr. Rasheed, the Mahabharata is a comprehensive compendium of ancient Indian thought that one needs to study and explore to enlighten and realise wisdom. Col Vivek Chadha commenced his presentation with a question, ‘Is the Study of Ancient Indian Texts Questionable?’ and provided a compact backdrop into what the text of Mahabharata is. Additionally, he highlighted MP-IDSA’s efforts towards understanding and unveiling the potential of the ancient Indian texts for strategic thought and culture. Col. Chadha also noted that historical texts such as Mahabharata somehow have not been part of the focus area, despite the wider public desire to know and learn more about the past through historical Indian texts. He emphasised the paramount significance of Mahabharata to strategic thought by quoting the inclusion of Mahabharata as a part of the syllabus at the US War College, which teaches certain ancient texts to its officers to better understand the nature, character, and strategy of war. Furthermore, he listed out some of the scholars and their works that were included in that syllabus list, such as Kautilya and Sun Tzu. According to Col. Vivek Chadha, the logic behind Mahabharata’s inclusion in the US War College syllabus is due to the fact that these theories and concepts from these historic texts are the foundation for the study of war, strategy, and statecraft. Indeed, these concepts continue to resonate in contemporary international security. He underscored that Alastair Iain Johnston is the foremost forerunner in the study of this field and mentioned his work, “Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History.” He elaborated on the relevance of ancient texts and introduced the audience to certain features of Mahabharata—what it is and what it is not. According to Col. Chadha, Mahabharata is not a history, prescriptive text, myth or tale, religious text, recent obsession, discovery, or re-discovery, only war and warfighting, nor one single text. Mahabharata is a multitude of texts. It is an Itihaas (it indeed was) based on certain factual elements based on historical realities. It is believed to have been composed from around 800 BCE to 400 BCE. He enumerated its multiple editions and how it evolved from what was known as Jaya (8800 verses) to Bharat (24,000 verses) and from Bharat to Mahabharata with one lakh verses. He also noted that there are some inconsistencies and changes in the writing of the texts due to their evolution. Col. Chadha added that at present the final authentic edition is the critical edition, which was compiled in Sanskrit with little less than eighty thousand verses by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, and whose compilation commenced in 1919 and was successfully completed in 1966. The only English edition of that, composed by Bibek Debroy in 2010, is available in 10 volumes. He then went on to briefly enumerate the core characteristics of how the Mahabharata operates. According to Col. Chadha, the Mahabharata operates through an understanding of decisions and dilemmas. It is a text that can be seen and perceived by different people in many different ways. There are different means through which these decisions and dilemmas are being resolved for every possible human emotion, such as deceit, righteousness, realism, and idealism. Additionally, he noted that every possible human emotion is applied to arrive at an answer through these decisions and dilemmas, and there are no right answers to the situations as one comes to the answers through his or her own perception. According to Col. Chadha, in a broad sense, this could be better visualised as a strategic gaming exercise (SGE), where, when given a situation, a policymaker, general, or diplomat tends to arrive at a solution based on their own perception. To make this happen, find solutions to problems or situations. Hence, the Mahabharata, in a way, coaches one on how to look at the situation and how to take certain decisions in that given situation in a more proactive way. He emphasised that the Mahabharata is essentially a text about Dharma and highlighted the concepts of Dharama and Arth. He said there is no black-and-white definition of what exactly is Dharma by quoting some examples from the Mahabharata. Consequently, there is doubt, debate, and deliberation in the Mahabharata to arrive at Dharma. Arth draws its inspiration from Dharma, and Arth requires certain functional requirements. Hence, the core driver for guidance for one’s action comes from the idea of dharma, and in a way, it guides one to find the ends, means, and ways of a strategy. According to Col. Vivek Chadha, the main purpose of all negotiations and interactions that happened in Mahabharata are directed towards war avoidance. So, the idea of Dharma as far as war is concerned is not prosecution of war but war avoidance. He also touched upon various other concepts of war and laws of war, elements of diplomacy, and tools for negotiation used for realising political objectives and ends. He also spoke on war, conceptualising war and the application of force and diplomacy in war. According to him, a good way to make sense of the present and prepare for the future is to understand the past. His concluding remarks and the crux of his presentation were that the Mahabharata is of humongous importance to the nation and its strategic culture, as the principles of warfighting remain the same even as its context changes. The nature of war itself remains the same, even as its character changes. The collective psyche of a nation follows a protracted cycle that emerges from the ancient and has already stepped into the future. Therefore, unless we can make sense of our past, a reasoned understanding of the future may at best remain murky. In a nutshell, Col. Vivek Chadha presented an essential overview of the Mahabharata and how it would contribute to strategic thought and culture, and he also noted that this presentation is a precept for his upcoming fellow paper, which he is currently working on. Q & AAmbassador Sujan R. Chinoy, during his comments, observed that the West has always been preoccupied only with Chinese classics and to an extent the Arthashastra. China is at a greater advantage since over the years, Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” has been studied systematically as part of Chinese curriculum. He elaborated by indicating that ancient literature is included as part of the syllabus for children even in kindergarten. He said Dharma and Adharma are all based on sensory perception of information and the distinction between what is right (Dharma) and what is not (Adharma) is getting diminished or becoming unpredictable. In the context of deepfakes and artificial intelligence (AI), it becomes relevant to contextualise this and safeguard the potential for its exploitation. He asked Col. Chadha to rethink on how the concepts of Mahabharata can be put into place and navigate the implications posed by deepfakes, AI, and other such futuristic technological advancements. Key Takeaways
The report is prepared by D. S. Murugan Yadav, Research Intern, Military Affairs Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies (MP-IDSA). |
||||||
| Monday Morning Meeting on America’s Strategic Posture: An Analysis (Report of the US Congressional Commission Released in October 2023) | November 13, 2023 | Monday Morning Meeting |
On 13 November 2023, Dr. Rajiv Nayan of the Nuclear and Arms Control Centre delivered a talk during the Monday Morning Meeting on ““America’s Strategic Posture”: An Analysis (Report of the US Congressional Commission Released in October 2023)”. The meeting was chaired by Gp. Capt. (Dr.) R K Narang, VM (Retd), Senior Fellow at MP-IDSA. Scholars of the Institute were in attendance. Executive SummaryThe Report on “America’s Strategic Posture” is intended to provide a bipartisan assessment of the United States strategic posture, and offers a glimpse of its nuclear strategy, even though its recommendations are not binding on the US Government and armed forces. The current report (issued October 2023) is especially significant, as it not only elevates China to the level of a peer competitor, but also envisages a tripolar deterrence scheme where the US and its allies may have to deter (or combat) two nuclear-armed states in the form of China and Russia. The report is also significant because it seems to abandon the US’ diplomatic commitments to nuclear disarmament and arms control, while strongly suggesting a build-up of US nuclear forces and arms in response to perceived threats from the two powers mentioned above. Dr. Rajiv Nayan’s talk shines a light on the evolution of the US’ nuclear doctrine contained within the report, and discusses its implications for regional and global security. Detailed ReportThe meeting was called to order by the Chair, Gp. Capt. Narang, who introduced the Speaker and delivered short introductory remarks on the topic under discussion. He introduced to the audience the structure of the United States Congressional Commission that drafted the report, the nodal agencies involved in its formulation as well as the wide scope of the commission’s deliberations. He then invited the Speaker to address the audience. Dr. Nayan commenced his talk by providing an overview of the report entitled “America’s Strategic Structure”, the second edition of which was issued in October 2023 after a hiatus of 14 years. He informed the audience that the report aims to provide bipartisan assessments on the US’ long-term strategic posture, and gave a brief overview of the 131 findings and 81 recommendations mentioned in the 2023 report. He then compared the table of contents of both the 2009 and 2023 editions in order to give a bird’s-eye view of the key issues taken up in the report. Dr. Nayan proceeded to give a brief introduction to the rationale of the report, which according to him entailed reviewing existing policy, assessing factors affecting strategic stability and offering non-partisan assessment of the overall scenario. To accomplish this, the Commission adopted a methodology of meetings with US policymakers, allies and partners and non-governmental experts, classified presentations by members of the intelligence community, field trips to classified locations and referencing from public-domain documents issued by the Pentagon and others. Next, the Speaker introduced some of the definitions the study provides in order to clarify the subject. He discussed in some detail the concepts of strategy, strategic posture and strategic stability in particular, and questioned the meanings and significance of these, given that some terms, especially strategic stability are contested in nature. He then moved to the definition of what the report refers to as the “US-led international order”, and how it defines military conflict and disruption by “authoritarian” regimes such as China and Russia as the key external variables impacting US vital interests. The Speaker then discussed the findings of the report, which he assessed as being quite pessimistic in nature. In particular, he called attention to the touting of a “whole-of-government” approach to strategic security, as well as the recognition that major power conflict in today’s era can easily lead to nuclear conflict, which will be a catastrophic outcome. He further noted the report’s recognition that future wars are likely to be very expensive for all parties involved. Next, the Speaker discussed the report’s discussion of Russia’s nuclear modernisation. The report assessed that Russia would retain the world’s largest nuclear arsenal till 2035, and remained pessimistic on bilateral arms control agreements as it blamed Russia for violation of several agreements such as New START. The report also discussed the conventional capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces, and noted their willingness to take huge losses as seen in Ukraine. After Russia, Dr. Nayan discussed the report’s treatment of China. Here he urged the audience to pay particular attention to the upgradation of the China ‘threat’ to that of a ‘peer’, marking a significant escalation. The report assessed China’s nuclear arsenal as on track to achieve quantitative parity with the US by the 2030s, and rated highly, the conventional capacity of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Dr. Nayan also drew attention to the report’s claim that a new nuclear test in China’s Lop Nor testing facility could be in the offing. Thus, the report concluded, the cost of inaction over Taiwan may weigh heavily on the US, as it would become easier for the Chinese to take and keep Taiwan with such nuclear cover as its expanded arsenal could provide. Dr. Nayan also introduced briefly the report’s discussion of “non-peer” nuclear powers such as North Korea and Iran, before introducing the geopolitical outlook. Here he introduced one of the key takeaways of the report, its vision of a “tripolar deterrence” mechanism, by which the US and its allies may have to deter two peer competitors (China and Russia) at the same time, as well as non-peer actors such as North Korea and Iran. This, the report argues, is something the US and its allies are not yet prepared for, and thus there is a need to adjust the US’ strategic posture. The Commission’s majority-proposed solution, as reflected in the report, is to increase the nuclear stockpile across the board while adapting the nuclear doctrine to what is called the “modern triad”. This is envisaged as having a dedicated sea, air and land leg each, which is necessary to “ride-out” (i.e. survive) a pre-emptive enemy strike while “launching under attack” (i.e. firing nuclear weapons before they are destroyed). The commission also recommends in the report that the President be given “low-yield” (i.e. tactical/theatre nuclear weapons) options in case of an attack. After this Dr. Nayan introduced the report’s critical view of the state of nuclear industries in the US, and the recommendation for a top-to-bottom overhaul of said industries in order to prevent technological leakage while preserving optimum performance. He also noted the report’s silence on India and several other countries in the report, as well as the relative de-emphasising of strategic risk reduction and disarmament. He finally offered his own assessment, in which he noted that the report seemed to point to the concern of many lawmakers within the US regarding its vulnerability to strategic surprises (for example, Pearl Harbour, 9/11 and the end of the Cold War), which led to the report’s dismissal of disarmament as a realistic policy, ramping up of a security-centric narrative where peer states again become a core focus, the re-introduction of theatre nuclear weapons, and the provision of doctrinal clarity. After the conclusion of the Speaker’s talk, the Chair made a few remarks in summary and opened the floor for questions. Questions and AnswersMr. Arvind Khare, Research Fellow, Defence Economics and Industry Centre asked whether the US reflection on its role in Afghanistan and Vietnam informed the report’s emphasis on ‘viable opportunities’ to engage US forces, and whether the report had a tutelary function. To the first question, the Speaker replied that the report was not reflecting on Afghanistan and terror in general, as the latter has been completely neglected. To the latter point, he replied that the report is intended not to educate, but to generate debate among the strategic community, while signalling to other countries the US’ vital interests as well. Capt. Anurag Bisen, Research Fellow, Non-Traditional Security Centre, asked whether the report envisaged dismantling the US’ land-based stockpile of obsolete missiles, and whether the US strategy emphasised counter-base or counter-population strikes more. To this the Speaker replied that the current report does not intend to dismantle the triad, but rather to upgrade them. To the latter question, he noted that the report explicitly is against counter-value strikes for its targeting strategy, though in a nuclear conflict it may be difficult to differentiate civilians and military personnel. Ms. Shayesta Nishat Ahmed, Research Analyst, Defence Economics and Industry Centre, inquired about tripolar deterrence and its redressal. The Speaker answered by affirming that the fear of tripolar deterrence (with two peers in China and Russia and a non-peer power such as North Korea and Iran) existed throughout the report, but dismissed Iran’s significance as a nuclear threat, while also denying North Korea’s seriousness in actually seeking nuclear conflict with the US. Thus the focus was more on the peer rivals. With the conclusion of Q&A, the chair gave his closing remarks and brought an end to the meeting. This report was prepared by Dr. Arnab Dasgupta, Research Analyst, East Asia Centre. |
||||||
| MP- IDSA Fellows Seminar on “Understanding Nepal’s Foreign Aid and Investment Partnerships with India, China and the US since 2015” | December 05, 2023 | Fellows' Seminar |
A presentation at the MP-IDSA Fellows Seminar by Mr. Saurav Raj Pant, Visiting Fellow, South Asia Centre, on “Understanding Nepal’s Foreign Aid and Investment Partnerships with India, China and the US since 2015” was held on 5 December 2023. It was chaired by Dr. Ashok K Behuria, Senior Fellow and Coordinator of South Asia Centre, MP-DSA. The Internal Discussants were Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha, Senior Fellow, Non-Traditional Security Centre, MP-IDSA and Dr. Nihar R. Nayak, Fellow, Non- Traditional Security Centre & Expert on Nepal, MP-IDSA. Executive SummaryNepal's economic relations with India, the United States, and China are multifaceted and driven by trade agreements, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) deals, and Official Development Assistance (ODA). The above countries play prominent roles as development partners, export destinations, and sources of imports and foreign investments for Nepal. The significant reliance on foreign aid and investment partnerships, constituting a substantial portion of the government budget, underscores its importance for Nepal’s development. To ensure effective utilisation of foreign aid, prioritizing transparency and efficiency, coupled with efforts to improve the investment climate, becomes crucial. The reestablishment of Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (BIPPA) and adopting a multi-alignment approach in foreign policy is imperative to safeguard national interests amid the evolving global dynamics. Detailed ReportIn his opening remarks, Dr. Ashok K Behuria provided insights into Nepal's relations with India, China, and the United States. These engagements are influenced by historical, cultural, and geographical factors and play a crucial role in shaping Nepal's political and economic landscape. He assessed that ties with India, rooted in affinities, face challenges related to sovereignty and integration. With China, Nepal navigates political implications arising from its expanding role and regional influence. The United States' involvement emphasises democratic principles, impacting internal politics. He iterated that balancing these dynamics is vital for Nepal's foreign policy to safeguard national interests, maintain stability, and contribute to regional dynamics. Mr. Saurav Raj Pant commenced his presentation by providing a brief overview of the strategic importance of Nepal in world politics. In his presentation he delved into the intricate geopolitical dynamics shaping Nepal's foreign affairs, drawing from King Prithvi Narayan Shah's metaphorical characterisation of the nation as a yam between India and China. He underscored that Nepal as a buffer state between two major powers and marked by a relatively lower level of governance efficiency and societal development, garners notable interest from influential power centres. This interest, he claimed, contributes to the thriving foreign aid industry within the country. Mr. Pant explained that Nepal's diplomatic engagements with India, China, and the US span a spectrum of critical domains, including post-earthquake reconstruction in 2015, development partnerships, water resources, power collaboration, defense, trade, COVID assistance, and technical support. He pointed out that the relationships sometimes extend beyond economic and strategic interests, to encompass educational and cultural exchanges that deepen mutual understanding. Furthermore, the Speaker provided a detailed analysis of the annual Official Development Assistance (ODA), Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), and data on exports and imports by India, China, and the United States from the year 2015 onwards through graphic representation. The Speaker also underlined that Nepal’s developmental approach to India and China is characterised by a responsive stance, tailored to Nepal's specific needs. Conversely, the United States employs a comprehensive three-pillar approach, emphasising the reinforcement of institutions and resilience, the promotion of inclusion, and support for federalism. In his analysis, he highlighted that India participates in Nepal's development through the High Impact Community Development Project (HICDP), cultural endeavours, people-to-people interactions, religious connections, and contributions to both small and large-scale infrastructure projects and FDI. He pointed out the Chinese involvement in Nepal encompasses contributions to projects ranging from small to large-scale infrastructure, FDI, and community engagement on a smaller scale. He explained that, the United States is involved in Nepal through extensive social empowerment initiatives, policy advocacy and lobbying at the government level, and limited participation in FDI. Mr. Pant concluded his presentation by emphasising that Nepal and its government must undergo three crucial changes. Firstly, there is a need to adopt an efficient debt management system to utilise loans, aids, and grants for driving productivity in the country. Simultaneously, implementing transparent reporting mechanisms becomes imperative to instill confidence among donors. Secondly, improving the investment climate is pivotal for FDI, requiring a reinvigorated Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPPA) with India and new agreements with China and the U.S. Finally, the adoption of a multi-alignment foreign policy that meets mutual requirements without jeopardizing any interests is paramount for Nepal's diplomatic manoeuvring. Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha, complimented the Speaker for his meticulous presentation of data and stated the need to analyse foreign aid dynamics in a holistic manner. He provided valuable insights into Nepal's dynamic nature, challenging the perception of it being solely a buffer state due to its strategic orientation. He recommended that the Speaker refine the research topic to enhance focus and depth. Additionally, he suggested exploring pre-2015 data, emphasising the unique aid dynamics of the 1960s in Nepal. He raised concerns about the potential drawbacks of foreign aid, noting that it may create more problems than it resolves. He also questioned the effectiveness of Nepal's political approach in managing and accepting foreign aid, highlighting the need for a rigorous and well-thought-out strategy. Dr. Nihar R. Nayak, initially commented on the discussion, noting a bias towards highlighting the negative aspects of foreign aid without due consideration of the positives. He underlined the superiority of investments over aid, reiterating their developmental orientation. He raised a question about the potential impact of the loss of trade preferences, as Nepal is set to graduate from the Least Developed Country category in 2026. He also questioned the relevance of using Africa as a reference point in the study. He suggested that better methodology and sampling techniques be adopted, which could in turn lead to more in-depth analyses. Additionally, he observed that there was a lack of uniformity in the presented information, underscoring the need for a consistent approach in evaluating the subject matter. During the discussion, the Chairperson, Dr. Ashok Behuria expressed skepticism regarding Chinese aid initiatives and presented arguments favouring India's effectiveness in this regard. He cited China's overseas development projects, which faced scrutiny for high costs and substandard construction. Using the example of the Pokhara airport, he highlighted the risks associated with adopting China's infrastructure-at-any-cost development model. Dr. Behuria inquired about the shifting stances of various political parties regarding foreign aid acceptance or denial. Additionally, he raised concerns about the muted stance of the Nepalese media, pointing out biases between India and China that could strain relations. He also advised the Speaker to focus on enhancing the analysis section of the paper for a more comprehensive understanding. Questions and CommentsThe floor was opened for comments and questions. The issues discussed included Nepal’s foreign policy orientation with regard to FDI, the politics of aid and issues of accountability as well as the country’s ability to absorb foreign aid. The speaker responded to the comments and queries raised by the attendees. Report prepared by Ms. Sneha M, Research Analyst, South Asia Centre, MP-IDSA. |
||||||
| Talk by Dr. Nicolas J.A. Buchoud on The UN SDGs at the Halfway Mark: Prospects & Challenges | October 06, 2023 | Talk |
Dr. Nicolas J.A. Buchoud, Think7 Consultant and Advisor to the Dean and CEO of Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI), gave a talk at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi, on 6 October 2023 and shared his perspective on "The UN SDGs at the Halfway Mark: Prospects & Challenges". The Session was chaired by the Director General, MP-IDSA, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy. Scholars of the Institute participated in the discussion. Executive SummaryDr. Buchoud emphasised the importance of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and called for enhanced collaboration between states. He acknowledged the challenges of macroeconomic and monetary factors affecting states’ efforts in achieving SDGs. Dr. Buchoud commended India's comprehensive efforts for its G20 Presidency and called India a role model for finding innovative solutions to various challenges of SDGs. Detailed ReportAmbassador Sujan R. Chinoy introduced Dr. Nicolas J.A. Buchoud by highlighting all his important professional associations. Ambassador Chinoy, in his opening remarks, pointed out that Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have not even become successful in achieving 10 to 12% of their set objectives past the halfway mark in 2023. Ambassador Chinoy mentioned that the COVID-19 Pandemic and the ongoing war in Ukraine have further created challenges for global food, fuel, fertilizers and finance that have hampered the success of SDGs. In his remarks, Ambassador Chinoy underscored that the developed states have failed in their commitments to provide the required finances to the developing states of the Global South. This has further deprived these states of achieving SDGs and their own nationally determined goals and objectives. With some of these initial remarks Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, called upon Dr. Nicolas J.A. Buchoud to deliver his talk. Dr. Nicolas J.A. Buchoud thanked Ambassador Chinoy and started his talk by highlighting the importance of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Dr. Buchoud mentioned that there is a need for upgrading active collaboration and dialogue between G7 and G20 to address various issues of SDGs. He highlighted that the motto ‘Think globally, act locally’ remains very relevant for states in meeting their SDGs as many solutions to these global issues could be found locally at community, municipality and at regional levels. Dr. Buchoud in his talk acknowledged that there are a number of macroeconomic and monetary factors that are seriously affecting SDGs and international affairs as a whole. He pointed out that the issue of economic desynchronisation is not only at a global level but many developed Western states are witnessing the impact of economic desynchronisation within their states that hampers their efforts to meet SDGs. He brought out that though billions of dollars have been poured into the countries’ economies in the form of relief packages, no substantial progress has been made by these states in achieving SDGs. Dr. Buchoud mentioned that the world presently is in an extremely volatile time period. The global links of interdependency post-Cold war have accelerated global urban development, but these linkages of interdependency have also created global challenges of governance for states. The moment these global linkages of interdependency get disrupted, these create equally difficult problematic situations for global order. He highlighted that analysing the current global order and states' divide within the UN, there remain some serious doubts about whether the existing framework of UN would be able to deliver on Agenda 2030 in the next 6-7 years. He acknowledged that though there are several constraints within the existing system, attempts to review these challenges need to be done in a careful manner. Dr. Buchoud mentioned that in this global think tanks can play an important and constructive role. Highlighting India’s success of its G20 Presidency, Dr. Buchoud mentioned that India under its presidency managed to ensure consensus among states on various issues despite these states' global differences. This serves as a positive example of what could still be achieved on SDGs. Dr. Buchoud mentioned that the transformation of the global financial architecture is not an abstract phenomenon but it is something that is really happening. He pointed out that as the G20 Presidency in coming years moves to most of the countries of the Global South, these countries have a fair chance to shed a different light on development issues that are of primary concern to them. He pointed out that the African Union's entry into G20 is a positive sign. Many of these African countries have very strong recommendations about development and governance models that have been ignored by other countries in the past. African Union entry to G20 under the Indian Presidency offers many new opportunities to almost 50 African states to address these emerging challenges. In his concluding remarks, Dr. Buchoud mentioned that the way in which India had prepared for and delivered its G20 Presidency has been far more comprehensive than has been analysed by most observers. Secondly, India since its independence, has emerged as a role model for development. India’s ability to craft significant innovation can become a guiding principle for addressing various challenges of SDGs. Finally, Dr. Buchoud mentioned that the efforts put forward by India under its G20 Presidency need to be taken forward and further refined, as these carry the seeds of possible transformations for the global future. Questions and CommentsAmbassador Sujan R. Chinoy raised three critical comments for the Speaker to respond to: Firstly, Ambassador Chinoy mentioned that the United Nations has become quite redundant and incapable of efficiently addressing global issues of war, peace, growth and prosperity. Secondly, he asked the Speaker to comment on the competing notions of what constitutes progress and development. Ambassador Chinoy mentioned that the assessment of the emerging global system suggests that there is no uniform code to which all the global states could collectively agree. Thirdly, Ambassador Chinoy raised the issue of ‘Climate Finance’. He highlighted that under the preoccupation of post-COVID recovery and the Ukraine-Russia War, Western states seemed fatigued on the issues of climate finance. Ambassador Chinoy further mentioned that if he takes all these three factors into account, he does not see any of the SDGs successfully being achieved within the existing timeframe. He also questioned the Speaker regarding the UN’s rationality while setting its aspirations for these SDGs in 2015, being fully aware of the existing political, economic and other ideological differences among 193 countries of the world. Lastly, Ambassador Chinoy asked the Speaker if these Bretton Woods Institutions have any ‘Plan B’ if they failed to meet their 'Agenda 2030'. Col. (Dr.) D.P.K. Pillay commented on the issue of the revival of coal-based plants in the European countries post-Ukraine War and asked the Speaker about their calls for green agenda and climate change. Col. Pillay also mentioned that the Global South needs adequate finances to meet their SDG targets for which the West needs to fulfil their commitments. Ms. Ruchita Beri asked Dr. Buchoud about the impact of COVID and the Ukraine War on meeting the objectives of SDGs. She questioned whether the Western world is ready to fulfil their financial obligations committed to African countries in the past. Comdt. Manoranjan Srivastava also highlighted the issue of climate finance. He mentioned that India by 2030 requires almost 2.5 billion dollars to meet its climate obligations. He highlighted that the global ocean ecosystem has become vulnerable to the impacts of global warming and the earth has reached its tipping points, that cannot be reversed in the near future. Dr. Adil Rasheed asked the Speaker if the global economic problems that have emerged post-COVID-19 Pandemic and the anomalies’ amongst states created by these, could be used as an excuse to get out of the 2030 deadline set for meeting SDGs. Dr. Nicolas J.A. Buchoud gave a detailed explanation to all the questions and the comments raised and the talk ended with a formal note of thanks from the Director General. |
||||||
| 15th South Asia Conference - Achieving Regional Economic Integration in South Asia (December 14-15, 2023) | December 14, 2023 to December 15, 2023 | Conference | South Asia | South Asia Conference | system/files/15th-SAC-webinar-poster-copy.jpg |