EVENTS

You are here

Events

Title	Date	Author	Time	Event	Body	Research Area	Topics	File attachments	Image
Special Address - Professor Stephen Cohen on Obama’s South Asia Policy	October 29, 2010			Speeches and Lectures	The run-up to US President Barack Obama’s visit to India has been an opportunity for IDSA to interact with eminent experts in the super-power’s domestic and foreign policy spheres and on this occasion, Prof. Cohen addressed an informed audience on the subject of the current administration’s involvement in South Asia. The Director General of IDSA, Mr. N.S. Sisodia, inaugurated the session by welcoming Professor Stephen Cohen and lauding his long-standing association with IDSA and academic interest in South Asia. Prof. Cohen’s visit to India was sponsored by the American centers, and he also participated in a Brookings dialogue in early November. At the outset, Professor Cohen predicted continued progress of US-India relations regardless of the outcome of high-level visits. He reviewed the range of reactions elicited by the Indo-US nuclear deal – both favourable and less so – within the United States, deeming as legitimate concerns over some of the associated proliferation implications. He went on to add, however, that India’s impeccable democratic credentials had gone a long way to facilitate ultimate consensus over the deal. Regarding immediate priority ranking of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy, however, he rated India below Afghanistan and Pakistan. Vis-à-vis China, the US and India have both adopted a wait-and-see policy, but this, according to Professor Cohen, has only further strengthened the basis for a meaningful partnership between the two democracies. On the question of Afghanistan, he came out in support of revival of the Bonn Agreement as a way to successfully combat radicalization. Given the shared stakes India and Pakistan have in a stable, moderate Afghanistan, he expressed hope for close cooperation between the two nations. Regarding American involvement in the region, he identified facilitation of Indo-Pak rapprochement and better relations with Iran as deserving consistent effort. A member of the audience called into question the idea that India and Pakistan shared interests in Afghanistan, in response to which Professor Cohen suggested that radicalization of Afghanistan being detrimental to both actors, a distinction needs to be drawn between interest and policy. Responding to another question, he characterized a Pakistan riddled with uncertainty as worrisome to the US and candidly admitted that its weaknesses sometimes played out in its favour. Professor Cohen held India partly responsible as far as the closeness of China Pakistan relations is concerned. In answer to a query related to American assistance to Pakistan, Professor Cohen acknowledged the possibility of diversion of funds to the Taliban, yet argued that this was an inevitable fall-out if Chinese influence over Pakistan were to be held in check. He went on to suggest that the American dilemma vis-à-vis Pakistan was not too different from the Indian one, as the outcomes of a more aggressive stance against Pakistan were far from clear. Support to radical groups by the Pakistani ISI was seen – albeit ill-judged – as historically a widely employed instrument of statecraft. Professor Cohen’s assessment of Indo-US relations over the long-run was that the initiative lies with India on most outstanding issues. In the Chair’s summary, Mr. K. Subrahmanyam argued that the tipping point for Pakistan would be triggered by internal constituencies reacting to American intervention in tribal areas. He predicted decline in American financial support to Pakistan pending decisive action on the latter’s part to counter radical groups. He portrayed India as the default partner for a US attempting to win the “knowledge race” and maintain it’s pre-eminence. Report prepared by Kalyani Unkule, Research Assistant, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.
Special Address - US-India Strategic Partnership: What Lies Ahead	October 22, 2010		1030 to 1200 hrs	Special Address	Venue: IDSA Seminar Hall-I Speaker: Ambassador Timothy J. Roemer, US Ambassador to India Chairperson: Mr. Naresh Chandra, Chairman, National Security Advisory Board, and former Ambassador to the United States	North American
China’s Defence Diplomacy in Southeast Asia	December 30, 2010	Pankaj K Jha	1030 to 1300 hrs	Fellows' Seminar	Chairperson: Amb. TCA Ragachari Discussants: Prof. Chintamani Mahapatra and Prof. Manmohini Kaul	East Asia
What should be India's strategic response to insurgency and terrorism?	October 06, 2010		1000 hrs	Round Table	Programme Countering ideological narratives: Strategic Response to LWE -- Srinivas Reddy Countering ethnic narratives: Strategic Response to insurgencies in the Northeast -- Pradeep Phajoubam Religion, Secessionism & Cross border linkages: Responding to insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir –- Iftikhar Gilani Systemic reforms- police, intelligence, governance – -- Prakash Singh Download Concept Note	Terrorism & Internal Security
India, Pakistan and the Bomb: Debating Nuclear Stability in South Asia	September 20, 2010		1500 hrs	Book Release	IDSA is organising a Book Release titled ”India, Pakistan and the Bomb: Debating Nuclear Stability in South Asia” authored by Professor Sumit Ganguly. The book will be released at 1500 hrs on Monday, 20 September 2010 in IDSA Seminar Hall I. The book release will be followed by a panel discussion by Brig. Gurmeet Kanwal, Prof. Amitabh Matto and Prof. Kanti Bajpai.
The Domestic Determinants of Iran's Foreign Policy: The Illusion of Consensus	October 21, 2010	Mahan Abedin		Fellows' Seminar	Chairperson: Shri Rajiv Sikri Discussants: Cdr. (Retd) M. R. Khan and Prof. Gulshan Dietl Mr Mahan Abedin, visiting fellow, introduced his paper by highlighting the significance of studying the foreign policy making process in Iran as it is rising as a regional power. He began by mentioning a note of caution that this academic exercise constituted a unique challenge since the Iranian foreign policy is mired in profound ideological, political and institutional complexities. Describing the Western and Iranian scholars’ approach to study Iran’s foreign policy making process, the presenter pointed out that while the Western scholars contend that all things being equal, Iranian policy is “rational”, in as much as it is the product of a laborious analytical and consultative process. On the other hand, the Iranian scholars are less concerned with the actual policies than with the ideological, political and cultural determinants that shape foreign policy formulation in Iran. However, both approaches yield suboptimal levels of understanding. He stated that both create a distorted panorama of the Iran’s foreign policy vision and aspirations. Contrary to the Western notion of “consensus”, Mr Abedin argued that the process of foreign policy making process in Iran is considerably more complex; that consensus is either lacking or where it is achieved, it is at an unacceptably high price. Moreover, the actual policies often reflect the tensions and divisions bedevilling the Iranian elite, leading foremost to inadequate implementation. However, he stated that Iran has made huge inroads in relatively non-contentious foreign policy areas, namely in the region where it is steadily emerging as the dominant power. But now it is faced with a hostile global climate, an outcome that is directly tied to the Iran’s antagonistic relationship with the West. In the second part of the presentation, he spoke about the ideological, political, and institutional construction of Iranian foreign policy making process. Outlining the ideological context of foreign policy, he said that the Islamic Revolution of 1979 dramatically altered the tone and rhetoric of its foreign policy and since then its foreign policy towards many of the countries remained relatively unchanged. He pointed out that faced with the ambitions of a revolutionary Islamic ideology engaged in the relentless pursuit of re-ordering Iran’s relations with the major world powers, Iranian scholars have struggled to embed the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy within a national framework. He added that still, a very small number of scholars have attempted a more innovative approach, namely to weave together the competing and conflicting ideational and ideological strands of foreign policy thinking since the Islamic Revolution. So far as the efforts to re-define the pan-Islamic aspirations of the post-revolutionary Iranian state is concerned, more than thirty years of the Islamic Revolution, it has failed to adequately define its national interests according to a consensual set of ideological and conceptual norms. He held that the complexity is not merely about the inclusion of pan-Islamic themes that tend to complicate foreign policy thinking but it is also about the attempts to redefine the national interests along revolutionary lines, which necessarily requires a radically new theoretical model for engaging with the major powers, particularly the US. The confusion also prevails among its diplomatic and the wider foreign policy establishment over the nature and extent of the pan-Islamic policies to be pursued. The author said that although there are over one hundred officially registered political parties in Iran, the party system is very weak. The majority of political parties do not represent any identifiable socio-economic interests. However, three reformist parties i.e. a) the Islamic Iran Participation Front, b) the Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution, and c) the National Trust Party are in particular recognised as genuine since they represent broad and identifiable political and ideological interests. He held that in the absence of a strong party-based system, factions have filled the political vacuum in Iran. In the sphere of Iran’s foreign policy, three factions i.e. “Principalists”, “Practicalists” and “Reformists” have an impact on Iran’s external conduct. On the role of the Iranian institutional system in foreign policy making process, Mr Abedin said that the post-revolutionary Iranian foreign, defence and intelligence systems are rich with institutions and these play important role in policy making, particularly in comparison with the pre-revolutionary order. Besides, the leadership (Valiy-e-Faqih), the Supreme National Security Council, the Islamic Consultative Assembly (National Parliament), the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, and the State Expediency Discernment Council are the other key institutions which play essential role in foreign policy formulation and implementation processes. He held that the existence of such an elaborate system often leads to the marginalisation of the foreign ministry as the country’s main foreign policy centre. Moreover, the prevailing institutional complexity is partly a product of ideological confusion and the lack of a disciplined party-based political system. Therefore, the profound philosophical and ideological contradictions that go the very heart of the Iranian system have penetrated into every institution, the net result of which is lack of consensus on a broad range of domestic and external issues. He pointed out that Iran’s foreign policy in the region is very successful in pursuing its national interests in the context of Islamic revolutionary beliefs and values. However, ideology has been a major constraint on its foreign policy outside the region, as evidenced by the volatile relationship with the West. But it is enormously problematic to label Iran’s foreign policy as “Islamic” or even “Ideological”, in the light of the profound sense of expediency and flexibility that informs the decisions of Iran’s rulers and their policy makers. Iran has chosen its ideological conflicts selectively, basing its calculus on issues and determinants that maximise its influence and power in the region. The opposition to Israel is best seen in this context. At the end, he said that any initiative to improve the foreign policy making process in Iran would do well to focus on the ideology, politics and the institutional setup. Finally, he concluded by suggesting that Iranian strategists and policy makers would benefit from the formulation of a clear and comprehensive national security doctrine. In addition, the recognition of the role of the Civil Society in shaping foreign policy will reduce the more harmful effects in foreign policy and will also help to align the country’s political society with the national security establishment. Cdr (Retd) M. R. Khan, citing various articles of the Iranian constitution, said that the very basis of Iran’s foreign policy consensus is based on its Islamic outlook. In this context, he referred to Article 152 which deals with the rejection of all forms of domination and the preservation of the independence of the country in all respects and its territorial integrity; Article 153 which deals with “no foreign control”; Article 154 which deals with “Independence, Support of Just Struggles” and other such constitutional provisions. This reflects Iran’s regional as well as outside regional foreign policy, Cdr Khan said. Speaking on the geopolitical advantages of Iran and its possession of critical natural resources like Oil and Gas, he said that in the past, Iran faced threats from both West and North and when Soviet Union liquidated, threats from north disappeared. However, it still faces threats from the West. He opined that because of Iran’s demographic and geopolitical advantages, it feels that it should get primacy not only in the region but also outside. Prof. Gulshan Dietl suggested the presenter to improve the paper by incorporating more sources from books and documents. Prof. Dietl also suggested for using more Persian language in the paper to provide an inclusive Iranian perception of foreign policy making. She said that in a democratic country, factions play important role in shaping foreign policy of the country and these factions should be carefully analysed in the context of Iran. She added that to assess the role of the leader (Valiy-e-Faqih) in Iran’s foreign policy making process, the author need to better analyse and relate the role of the Supreme National Security Council. Wg Cdr. V. Krishnappa said that Iran is a most important player in the region and it aspiring to play the ideological role. The ideological battle between Iran and other regional actors is going on since a long time in search of playing this role. On nationalism and pursuing national interests, he said that the factions are playing crucial role in Iran in shaping its foreign policy making. He, however, said that differences between various factions and political parties are inherent as the foreign policy making process is inherently a very complex process. In this context, he cited Jawaharlal Nehru’s Non-alignment policy and said that even Nehru’s NAM policy came under criticism. He said that on many of the issues that the author presented such as role of ideology, political actors, institutions etc there is lack of coherence and suggested the author to improve on this. He also suggested of studying Iran’s strategic behaviour for better understanding its foreign policy in the context of its security and ideological dimension. Mr S. Samuel C. Rajiv said that by framing the three level of analysis for studying Iran’s foreign policy making process the author have done good job. He held that consensus on policy issues always do not lead to rational decision making. However, Iran is very successful in its regional foreign policy where general consensus is built but not at large levels. He suggested that the role of public opinion, think tanks etc. should be involved in the foreign policy making process for more democratisation of policy making process. Discussion One participant asked Mr Abedin that how he would differentiate between the domestic factors (religion and politics) and international factors (Nuclear, Gulf, and the West) which lead to the articulation of Iran’s foreign policy. Iran views growing power and influence of Israel in the region as a security threat and there is a domestic consensus in Iran on its containment policy towards Israel. One commentator asked for elaboration on how Iran defines its national interests. Another participant wanted to know about the Iran’s perceptions about India’s rising power and its growing role in the West Asia. What is the domestic consensus on Iran’s nuclear energy policy? How do they view the Western perspectives on Iran’s nuclear policy? How they are going to resolve this problem? How different political parties view Iran’s role as a regional actor? There are different points of view in Iran on various domestic factors which influence its policy making process. What are the main domestic determinants of Iran’s foreign policy? Chairperson’s Remarks There is insufficient understanding outside Iran on how its foreign policy is made. He appreciated for having a stimulated and spirited discussion on this subject. He said that the author has made a good attempt to explain the political structures in Iran’s foreign policy making process. It is also a clear attempt to look at Iran as first a rationalist and then Islamist state. He stated that Iran has regional aspirations and the real issue at present is the place of Iran in the region as a regional power. After Afghanistan and Iraq war, the West is now after Iran. On its role in Iraq and Afghanistan, dialogue is resuming with the West, particularly with the US. He hoped that there will be some settlement on Iran’s regional role. Finally, he said that Islamic character of Iran is as important as the national character of it and he felt that there is need to do more research on this subject. He concluded by thanking the gatherings for having a constructive engagement. Report prepared by Dr Saroj Bishoyi, Research Assistant, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi	Africa, Latin America, Caribbean & UN
Assessing China's Behaviour	September 06, 2010		1030 hrs	Round Table	Venue: Seminar Hall 1, IDSA Chairperson: Shri K. Subrahmanyam	East Asia
13th Asian Security Conference on "Towards A New Asian Order"	February 16, 2011 to February 18, 2011			Conference	Concept Note The onset of the ‘Asian Century’ requires fresh thinking on regional architectures in Asia. Will these be able to deliver on the promise of the future? What needs to be done, and can be done, to enable this? Given the conflictual history attending the rise of powers in Europe, the timely development of pan-Asian frameworks could help in constructing a different future. The conference aims to examine efficacy of existing structures and probe Asian thinking on making the future benign for Asia and the world. The Conference would be a useful step in conceptualising a new pan Asian order, even as it, in the main, surveys existing capacities against possibilities. The aim is to visualise a pan-Asian framework for addressing security challenges and for facilitating cooperation. The Conference is designed to address both traditional and non-traditional security issues in their political, social and economic dimensions. It does so in five subthemes. The first day will be devoted to geopolitical dynamics and associated traditional security issues. The second day will focus on geo-economics and non-traditional security themes. On the last day, an attempt will be made to ‘discover’ an ‘Asian Way’, drawing on Asian cultures and traditions while keeping world order imperatives in mind. The subthemes are Subtheme 1: The Geopolitics of Asia Subtheme 2: Traditional Security Challenges Subtheme 3: Globalization and the Rise of Asia Subtheme 4: Non-traditional Security Challenges Subtheme 5: Managing the Challenges The key questions to form the backdrop of particular sessions are: What are the implications of rising powers in Asia for the powers themselves, for external powers and for the region? How can the fruits of the economic miracles in Asia be preserved? What are the variants if any to the traditional security paradigm? Can cooperative security deliver on non-traditional security challenges? Is it premature to think of ‘One Asia’? A detailed look at Asia and its potentiality will be done in five separate sessions. Subtheme 1: The Geopolitics of Asia Asian and External powers Asia, comprising as it does, the regions of West Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, South East Asia and East Asia, is at the centre stage of global events and at the fulcrum of the global power shift. A number of issue require attention: implications of the rise of China and India; enduring conflicts in West Asia; the continuing military entanglements of the US; access and control of resources of Central Asia; expansion of security regimes in Asia-Pacific. The questions for this subtheme are: Can the rise of Asian powers continue as ‘benign’ and ‘peaceful’? What are the prospects of cooperation and conflict? Can the current Asian architectures manage the future? What is the status and role of US, Russia and Australia as ‘Asian powers’? How can existing faultlines be managed Subtheme 2: Traditional Security Challenges Nuclear Proliferation, Terrorism, Maritime Security The maturing strictures against aggression, nuclear backdrop to conflicts between major powers, lethality and costs of modern weapons, and the spread of globalisation have made military power usable mostly for purposes of deterrence. Threats exist less from direct military confrontations between states than from non-state actors acting either autonomously or under state sponsorship. The traditional security domain has changed. Asia, therefore, needs to take note and reshape its military profile accordingly. The questions for this session are: How serious and urgent are traditional ‘threats’? What is the scope for cooperative security? What are the determinants of ‘freedom of the seas’? What is the scope for military diplomacy, engagement and confidence building? What are prospects for arms control and disarmament regimes? What is the continuing utility and future of nuclear weapons in Asia? Subtheme 3: Globalization and the Rise of Asia Asia and the World Economy Can one visualise a non-realist future for Asia, one based on growing interdependence? The capitalist model of consumption has its perils in being unsustainable, unless tempered by Asian traditions of abnegation. The two continent-sized states, China and India, are justifiably catering to their growing populations. However, they have to face up to the limits of growth. Competition for access to resources and markets in Asia and elsewhere has the potential to disrupt relationships. The recent economic shocks indicate inherent fragility of the global economic order. Can important lessons in growth with equity be learnt from the ‘Asian Tigers’? The session will attempt answer the following: How central is China’s economic growth the key to Asia’s economic future? What are the roles of the Chinese, Indian and Japanese economies in the Asian and global economic order? Can the US-Chinese economic relationship be sustained indefintely? What is the role of regional organisations in the evolving Asian economic order? How can Asia cope with future economic crises? Subtheme 4: Non-traditional Security Challenges The Asian Commons, Water, Energy, Technological Frontiers, Democratisation Non-traditional security thinking is displacing traditional modes given that these challenges are both ubiquitous and more demanding. They have the potential to both mitigate and aggravate depending on how they are approached. Given population densities, social disparities, expanding urban clusters and the fragility of an environment under assault from economic growth, the future could be very bleak. The opportunity for turning it around through enlightened moderation of aspirations, application of technology, creating responsive policing organisations and by democratisation, is now. The conference will dwell on such issues as: How can the Himalayan ecosystem be managed better? What are ‘best practices’ in managing water conflicts? Is there a pan Asian solution to future energy security? What contribution can an Asian regional architecture make? How can technology be harnessed for the new Asian century? What is the future of democracy and democratisation in Asia? Subtheme 5: Managing the Challenges Regional Groupings, Intra- and Inter-Regional Linkages Visualising a benign future helps in the creation of structures to bring about more cooperation in future. The ‘Asian’ input, relying on a cultural legacy of centuries, needs expansion. The continent currently views itself in multiple ‘regions’ that have regional structures of varying efficacy to integrate and mellow nationalisms. It is an idea only geographically. In such a circumstance, would broaching a pan Asian concept be premature? The following questions will animate this session: Is it possible to draw a normative ‘Asian Way’ from Asian cultural streams? What can be learnt from the European experience of political, military and economic integration? Is there a case for evolving a pan-Asian concept? Is a pan Asian political and economic order discernible? What are the prospects for greater economic integration across Asia? How can existing structures be enhanced? Programme Schedule Day 1 16 February 2011 0915-1000h: Registration 1000-1400h *Session 1: The Geopolitics of Asia* Chairperson – Mr. Siddharth Varadarajan 1000-1100 (First half) Vincent Wang - The Rise of China, the Rise of India, and the Changing Geopolitics of Asia Masako Ikegami - Challenges of Rising China: A New Cold War or Neo-Imperialism? 1100-1200h Keynote Session 1100h-1105h – Welcome of Hon’ble Minister of Defence, Shri AK Antony 1105-1110h – Welcome address by DG, IDSA, Mr. NS Sisodia 1110-1125h – Inaugural Address by Hon’ble Minister of Defence and President, IDSA, Shri AK Antony 1125-1130h – Vote of Thanks by Dr. Arvind Gupta, Lal Bahadur Shastri Chair, IDSA 1130h-1200h – Tea 1200-1400 Session 1 continues Bakhtier Khakimov - Building of a new architecture of security and cooperation in Asia: Russian vision Mumin Chen - Realist and Pragmatic Elements in China's Grand Strategy: Assessments of China's Relations with Japan, Taiwan, and India Prakash Menon - Indo-Pak relations and the Balance of Emotions 1300h-1400h – Discussion/Q&A 1400h-1500h – Lunch 1500h-1730h *Session 2: Traditional Security Challenges* Chairperson – Lt Gen (Retd) S Nambiar Paul Salem - Building Cooperation in West Asia (On Skype) Joseph Liow - The East Asia Summit and the Security Architecture in the Asia-Pacific Tetsuo Kotani - Maritime Security in Asia V Gundlupet - Nuclear Threats and Diplomacy: An Analysis of Indian, Pakistani and Chinese Use of Nuclear Threats Saleem Shahzad - Lessons from Pakistan's Counter -terrorism Policy for Asia 1645h-1730h – Discussion/Q&A (Tea will be available in foyer 1630h-1700h) Day 2 17 February 2011 0930h-1300h *Session 3: Globalization and the Rise of Asia* Chairperson – Dr. Sanjaya Baru Niklas Swanström - Globalization and the rise of Asia Sean M. Lynn-Jones - Globalization and Asian Security: Promise or Peril? Sumit Ganguly - The Obama Administration and South Asia Zhang Zhenjiang - West European Integration and East Asian Regionalism: What we can learn and what we cannot learn? Arshin Adib-Moghaddam - Iranian-American relations and the future security architecture in western Asia Atul Aneja - Implications of Developments in the Arab World 1130-1145h – Tea 1145-1300h – Discussion/Q&A 1300h-1400h – Lunch 1400h-1715h *Session 4: Non-traditional Security Challenges* Chairperson – Dr. Radha Kumar Syed Iqbal Hasnain - The Geopolitics of Himalayan-Tibetan Glacier Melt Uttam Sinha - Himalayan Hydrology and the Hydropolitics Xia Liping - Energy security and Asian regional architecture Tai Ming Cheung - Economics, Security and Technology in Northeast Asia: Maneuvering Between Nationalist and Globalist Forces Yaacov Vertzberger - Towards an Architecture of a Global Disaster-Management-Regime A Roadmap Iqbal Singh Sevea - ‘Regulating’ Islam in the Asian State 1600-1615h Tea 1615h-1715h – Discussion/Q&A Day 3 18 February 2011 0930-1245h *Session 5: Managing the Challenges* Chairperson – Amb. Leela K. Ponappa Robert Art - US-China Relations and Implications for India (On Skype) William Thompson - Long Term Asian Patterns of Conflict Alexander Lukin - Russia and Geopolitics of Asia Mustafa Aydin - Developments and changes since the end of the cold war: West Asia and Central Asia Arvind Gupta - How India is managing its Asian Challenge 1130h-1145h – Tea 1145h-1255h – Discussion/Q&A 1300h-1330h Closing Session Chairperson: N. S. Sisodia Closing Address – Amb. Shivshankar Menon, NSA Vote of Thanks 1330h Group Photograph of participants Lunch Conference Booklet Rapporteurs Report		Asian Security Conference
The Long View from Delhi	August 18, 2010		1000 to 1230 hrs	Book Discussion Forum	Venue: Seminar Hall 1, IDSA PROGRAMME 10.00-10.30 AM: Registration & Coffee 10.30-11.30 AM: BOOK DISCUSSION Introductory Remarks Brig Gurmeet Kanwal (Retd), Director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS) Presentation of the book by the authors: Rear Admiral K Raja Menon (Retd), Distinguished Fellow, IPCS Dr. Rajiv Kumar, Director & CE, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) Remarks by the Discussant: Dr. Sumit Ganguly, Visiting Fellow, IDSA Comments by Shri K Subrahmanyam, Distinguished Defence Analyst 11.35 AM- 12.30 PM: Q&A 12.30 PM: Dispersal
India's Foreign Policy in the Globalising World	August 18, 2010		3:30 PM	Round Table	Speaker: Dr. Arvind Virmani Venue: Room No.005, IDSA

Pages

Top