Events

Venue: Room No. 104 (Board Room), IDSA
A delegation of US Congressional Staffers will visit IDSA for interaction.

As part of an initiative to reach out to Universities and Think Tanks across the world, a bilateral meet was organized by IDSA with the University of Warsaw, Poland. The two sides appreciated the EU’s support which had helped create a meaningful programme of cooperation between the two institutes, as well as its support to other initiatives to bring Poland, the EU and India closer.

The University was represented by Professor Edward Halizak, Director of the Institute of International Relations, Dr. Boguslaw Zaleski, former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Institute of International Relations, and Dr. Jakub Zajarczkowsky, Chairperson of the Centre for Contemporary India Research and Studies, Institute of International Relations, University of Warsaw. IDSA was represented by Shri N.S. Sisodia, Director General, Smita Purushottam, Wg Cdr. V. Krishnappa, Joyce Sabina Lobo, Rajorshi Roy, and Pallav Pal.

Director General said that India and Poland have always had the best of relations, a fact he experienced during visits to Warsaw when he was at the Indian Ministry of Defence. He emphasised the need for greater knowledge about Europe, a continent which was often taken for granted. That was the reason for starting the Eurasia cluster at IDSA. The EU model of integration presented a successful role model of peaceful co-existence and cooperation. Poland had a key position in Europe as a mediator and as an active contributor to its evolution as a multinational body. Shri Sisodia suggested a collaboration programme with special focus on roundtables, lectures and publications to improve mutual understanding and contact.

He specially welcomed the initiative to start an Indian Studies Masters programme at the University of Warsaw and suggested that the curriculum could create employable skills that would improve the marketability of the programme. Some pertinent themes that could be included in the syllabus were the Indian business and legal environment, intellectual property rights and WTO issues, comparative assessments of developing economy models, role of FDI, technology transfer and technological indigenisation, trade agreements, macroeconomic management, and aspects of India’s Energy Security. These were highly relevant issues and would also require understanding of the global context which would increase the knowledge base, skills and employability of the student.

Prof. Halizak, Director of the Institute of International Relations, University of Warsaw, said a lot of effort had gone into developing a unique curriculum on Indian studies. It was an intra- disciplinary program which encompassed politics, security and business. He felt it would go a long way in better understanding India’s booming growth story and the steps which the country had taken to combat pertinent issues like poverty, unemployment and health care. This should bring India closer to the West. However, he identified security studies and economic integration as a leading area of expertise in his Institute. Poland had had the unique experience of re-orienting its security strategy in the last two decades. Members of his Faculty were engaged in the development of NATO’s Security Concept and had contributed significantly to the drafting of the Lisbon summit statement.

Poland had good relations with NATO and the West and had supported the campaigns to stabilise Iraq and Afghanistan. In Poland there was a huge discussion on these issues as controversies regarding the United States partnership could not be avoided. Questioning the idea of a decline of American power, he said in fact the unipolar moment was increasing as China’s model had still not fully consolidated and the EU was going through a difficult phase. For the moment only the U.S. was going to play a significant role in the new security arrangements in NATO and the Asia Pacific region. President Obama had made two very important visits to this region in the last couple of years and the U.S. had made new strategic partners in this region such as Vietnam, Indonesia and India. He said the East Asia summit would take place next year and India would join it. India as the EU’s strategic partner and as a connector was in a very unique position and was a very interesting partner for all countries including Poland. India plays a very important role in Polish minds. It is recognized as a great country. In light of India’s potential role in the Asia-Pacific, the Professor iterated a need for explicit pronouncement of an Indian national strategic doctrine. It should not under- estimate its capabilities.

Dr. Boguslaw Zaleski, former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Institute of International Relations said it was a common European interest to understand India and there was a need to specialise in Indian studies. Theirs was the only such institution in Central Europe and had been very active in organizing conferences with the aim of understanding India better. He added it was difficult to fulfil all expectations from the programme.

Dr. Zaleski, while highlighting his long standing association with India, expressed the need for a greater interest and participation on India’s part to promote learning about contemporary India in Europe. India is looked upon as a gateway between the Euro-Atlantic and the Asia-Pacific region. India enjoys huge goodwill in Poland and the people of Poland have high admiration for the country. But it is also imperative for India to tap into the opportunities that exist in Poland and reinforce the belief amongst policy makers that Poland and India can carry forward their relationship which seems to have stagnated in recent times. The last Prime Ministerial visit to Poland was way back in 1979 when Mr. Morarji Desai endeared himself to the Polish public. PM Donald Tusk had visited India and met the Prime Minister. Trade had been falling and it was important to rejuvenate contacts and revive cooperation. Therefore, India should ‘throw its doors wide open’ and show an urgency to rejuvenate the Indo-Polish partnership.

Wg. Cdr. Krishnappa spoke about the Indian National Strategy Project initiated by IDSA. Against the backdrop of political and economic developments since the early 1990s and the consequent blurring of lines between politics and economy, Wg. Cr. Krishnappa reflected on their combined implications for India’s national goals and aspirations. Whether this has caused a paradigm shift in the Indian mind-set to a more realist and rationalist approach will be a central consideration for the role India chooses to play on the global stage. India’s institutional memory, largely inherited from a cold-war context, leaves it ill-equipped to fully embrace the great opportunity a new global scenario has sent its way. Certain reflexive stances had been taken as default. He gave a frank analysis of the internal dialogue going on in India on these issues and said it was the aim of the project to elaborate a national security concept and strategy.

Professor Halizak said the dialogue on this issue should be continued, especially since India was a democracy and an important bridge between East and West. He remarked that although Indian business had gone global its approach on the WTO was old fashioned. He posed two issues: should India look at the possibility of forming alliances, and why was the concept of balance of power not talked about? The conversation also touched upon China, Russia and the asymmetric differential in power between India and China. The Minister said that the world expected that India as a big ship would give signals while it was changing direction. No one expected this change to happen overnight.

Director General felt that no big country can be in an alliance relationship with any other power. It had to be an equal partnership. Even the United States had said that the time for alliances had gone.

Dr. Zajarczkowsky of the Centre for Contemporary India Research and Studies, Institute of International Relations, University of Warsaw, stated that this was the second time the two sides were meeting and they valued IDSA’s support for the program. He stressed that it was important for IDSA and the University to create a real platform for sharing of ideas. Security issues continue to be crucial and there is a need to dedicate more than one seminar exclusively on security related issues. There can be a comparison between the security scenario in Europe and Asia and the role played by India. Issues like the question of Afghanistan, Indian Ocean, India-China competition and implications for the U.S. would be of great interest.

He thanked DG for his remarks on the Master’s Programme but added that the aim at the conferences was to strengthen cooperation by exchange of views on security which is the most important pillar. He described the number of international conferences held on the issue.

Eurasia cluster coordinator Ms. Smita Purushottam said that the Eurasia cluster had been created to focus on this vast and important region and to build up capacities for understanding global issues. She emphasized that the Eurasia cluster will strive towards achieving research excellence. She also identified the possibility of a joint assessment of implications of China’s rise by concerned constituencies in Poland, the EU and India. She added that the EU-India was a genuinely strategic partnership and both sides should take full advantage of a commonality in values. The EU was a global player and India also saw its future in partnership with peace loving countries and democracies. Other areas of focus were outlined.

DG proposed that an interesting area for focus could be Turkey’s growing role and the EU accession talks. There was a view that Turkey’s membership would help build one of the strongest bridges between Europe and the Muslim world. Turkey could set a positive example for democratization in the region and significantly contribute to EU’s security objectives. The DG proposed holding a roundtable conference to discuss the strategic importance of Turkey for the European Union and India.

In conclusion, a proposal was tabled for a joint conference and round-table over the years 2011-12 to exchange views on Polish and Indian perspectives on strategic issues in a rapidly transforming world. It was also agreed to strengthen the institutional relationship between the two institutes. As a priority it was decided to have a round table on Indian and Polish national strategic doctrine and exchange views on the strategic thinking on both sides. At a later date, roundtables on other interesting topics could be organised, especially during Poland’s EU presidency in the second half of this year.

Event report prepared by Mr. Rajorshi Roy, Research Assistant, Eurasia Cluster, with inputs from Ms. Kalyani Unkule.

Venue: Boardroom, IDSA Campus
Speaker: Vasundhara Sirnate

Click here for abstract

Chairperson: Ambassador Arundhati Ghose
Discussants: Ambassador K C Singh & Professor P R Kumaraswamy

Rajiv began his presentation by delineating the theme of his paper. In the introduction, he noted that given the fact that Iran is part of India’s extended strategic neighbourhood, the Iranian nuclear issue has generated a lot of ‘heat and dust’. He pointed out that the aim of his paper is to distil the Indian government’s policy as well as the nature of the debates in India regarding the Iranian nuclear issue. In this regard, three broad themes can be discerned in the Indian reactions to the Iranian nuclear issue: ‘Strategic autonomy’ as it relates to India’s foreign policy decision making;’ Regional stability’ as it relates to events in its “proximate neighbourhood”, the term used by India’s Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao; and ‘National security’ implications on account of operative clandestine proliferation networks.

Rajiv noted that strategic autonomy has been and continues to be a cardinal ordering principle of India’s foreign policy practise, as Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Sign has called it an ‘article of faith” for India. On the Iran nuclear issue, India had to take positions at multi-lateral forums like the IAEA and UNSC since the issue was becoming internationalised. While explaining the Government of India’s position on Iran issue, Rajiv noted that India is walking a tightrope. India voted against Iran at IAEA. However, India also supported diplomacy and consultations at multilateral forums where initiatives were undertaken to find solutions to the Iranian nuclear impasse. Apart from these efforts, India did profess its intention to act as a conduit to help in the resolution of the issue. He noted that in August 2005, for instance, in reply to a Lok Sabha debate on his visit to the United States, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pointed out that India could act as a “bridge reconciling differences between Iran and the other country”.

Rajiv noted that on the domestic front, the left parties were against India’s decision to vote against Iran at the IAEA. While BJP was not against the Indian decision per se, but it was critical of the government for its manner of dealing with the Iranian issue. He noted that the US factor has been crucial in India’s Iran policy. Ahead of the second IAEA vote, then US Ambassador to India David Mulford had warned that the Indo-US nuclear deal could “die” and US congress would “simply stop considering the matter” if India did not vote against Iran at the IAEA.

Discussing regional strategic stability, he pointed out that implications on the regional stability of the possible presence of another additional nuclear weapon power in India’s ‘proximate’ neighbourhood have figured prominently in Indian considerations. Citing several statements by Indian officials, he noted that Indian policy makers were wary or pessimistic about the possibility of another nuclear weapon power in their ‘proximate’ neighbourhood. Mentioning about India’s proliferation pessimism, Rajiv noted that India’s pessimism does not seem to be embedded in fears about weak Iranian nuclear organisations but due to the impact on regional security of the spread of sensitive technologies and capabilities.

While discussing about national security imperatives, Rajiv noted that Iran-Pakistan linkages on nuclear linkages have been revealed by IAEA reports. It stretches as far as back 1987, with Iran informing the IAEA in October 2003 that it received “drawings of the centrifuge through a foreign intermediary”. These linkages were highlighted again when in Mach 2010, the Washington Post revealed Pakistani government complicity in giving Iran “bomb-related drawings, parts for centrifuges to purify uranium and a secret worldwide list of suppliers.” This information has been reportedly found in a 11-page document written by A. Q. Khan.

In conclusion, Rajiv noted that in the Indian responses to the Iranian nuclear issue, the most important factor has been the issue of independence in Indian foreign policy decisions making, specifically as it related to interactions with the United States. He, however, noted that despite hiccups on account of the nuclear question, there has been a steady stream of interactions at the highest levels between India and Iran, including the conduct of strategic dialogues. He pointed out that the next one or two years could be crucial with regard to Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, and suggested that India’s diplomatic efforts should be focussed on reducing the range of ‘unsatisfactory strategies’ (NSA Shivshankar Menon’s term describing US options vis-a-vis Iran in a Wikileaks cable) and expand the space for the application of ‘satisfactory strategies”. He noted that Indian diplomacy has its task cut out, especially as these two years coincide with its non-permanent membership in the UNSC.

Points raised during discussion

• It is a very well researched paper. However, author needs to explore the Indian dilemma while analysing India’s Iran policy.
• India came close to Iran when Taliban captured Afghanistan but now situation has changed. Iran has been involved in creeping nuclear proliferation activities. The United States has gone after Iran. Iranians wanted to buy time aimed at tiring out the United States. Since India wants closer cooperation with the United States, it would be worth looking at whether India could have handled Iran policy differently. Was there any alternate way available?
• Earlier Iran was preachy to India with regard to nuclear non-proliferation since it is a NPT signatory and India is not. But Iran was not satisfied as India got several benefits without being a member of the non-proliferation regime which Iran could not get despite being a signatory. On nuclear issue, India has never agreed with Iran.
• India’s Iran policy during UPA-I was different from that being followed by the UPA-II government.
• Every nation calls itself strategically autonomous. In fact strategic autonomy is a very relative concept. No nation is fully autonomous, not even the United States.
• India cannot be a bridge. To be a bridging power, a nation needs to be between the two sides. Dealing with the Iranians is very difficult. India should not attempt to be a bridge as it could be knocked out by either side while attempting to play that role. To be a bridge, we must understand the fundamental problems of both sides. There is a need to look whether there is convergence of interest.
• Author needs to explore whether there is any strategic autonomy in India with regards to Iran. He needs to take a step further. He needs to critically examine the statements given by Prime minister and other documents and take his own stand.
• The LNG deal went through problems after New Delhi signed the energy deal with Tehran. Where did India go wrong?
• China supported the UN sanctions against Iran. While analysing the domestic debate, there is need to look at whether this reflected on the positions taken by the left parties in India.
• South Asia is a strategic liability for India whereas West Asia is an opportunity. Iran is very important for India because of its energy resources.
• There are non-parallel interests involved in India-Iran ties. On energy issue, India wants cooperation with Iran while on nuclear issue India is opposed to Iran’s nuclear programme.
• Author has structured the paper very well. However, paper needs to be more focused with regard to its objectives.
• Author needs to look at whether there is any divide between government and influential groups such as media, think tanks, etc. Is there any government stand on regional stability?
• In the paper, strategic autonomy has been dealt at significant length but regional stability and regional security have been given less coverage. The paper may need some restructuring in order to make it appear even.
• There is a need to examine what a nuclear Iran would mean for India’s national security interests.
• It is also necessary to look at the role of minority politics in India while understanding the domestic political debate in India vis-à-vis Iran.
• Thanking the speakers for their useful comments and suggestions, Rajiv noted that the Iran issue is over shadowed by the US factor. Iran could be a major worrying point in the future of India-United States relations. He noted that keeping in mind the prescribed word limit, he would incorporate these suggestions as much as possible.

Report is prepared by Sanjeev Kumar Shrivastava, Researcher at IDSA.