EVENTS

You are here

Events

Title Date Author Time Event Body Research Area Topics File attachments Image
National Seminar on Kautliya’s Arthasastra October 08, 2013 Conference



PROGRAMME
Indian Council of Social Science Research Supported National Seminar
October 8 (Tuesday) 2013
“Developing Indigenous Concepts and Vocabulary: Kautilya’s Arthasastra”

SESSIONS

0900- 0930 Registration

0930- 1000 Inaugural Session

1000-1015 Tea Break

1015- 1130 Session I-Discourse on International Relations and Strategic Culture

Chair: Dr Kalyan Raman, Research Fellow , IDSA

  1. Dr Jayashree Vivekanandan: “What is the role of historical texts such as the Arthasastra in the formulation of Indian strategic traditions?”, Assistant Professor, South Asian University, author of Interrogating International Relations: India’s Strategic Practice and the Return of History, New Delhi, Routledge, 2011 [Watch Video]
  2. Dr Medha Bisht: “What are the nuances that may be missing   in the Western discourse on IR as existing in Arthasastra?”, Assistant Professor, South Asian University and former Associate Fellow at IDSA [Watch Video]
  3. Wing Commander G. Adityakiran: “Exploring the concepts of Grand Strategy and strategic planning in Kautilya's Arthasastra through a hermeneutical lens”, Instructor, teaches Kautilya at Defence Service Staff College, Wellington, Tamil Nadu [Watch Video]

1130-1300 Session II- Issues of Strategy, Art and Laws of War

Chair: Lt Gen (Retd) Satish Nambiar, Distinguished Fellow, IDSA

  1. Prof. Radhakrishnan Pillai: “A relook at various powers used in military strategy in Arthasastra”, Dept. of Philosophy, Bombay University, Head of Chanakya Institute for Public Leadership and author of Corporate Chanakya [Watch Video]
  2. Group Captain Vinay Vittal: “Counter Insurgency Strategy”, M. Phil. dissertation on Kautilya at School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, US. Pursuing Ph.D. on Kautilya from School of International Studies, JNU [Watch Video]
  3. Wing Commander U.C. Jha(retd.): “ Means and methods of warfare: Kautilya and Contemporary Laws of Armed Conflict ” , Ph D in Law and Governance from JNU and author International Humanitarian Law: The Laws of War (2011) [Watch Video]
  4. Col Harjeet Singh( Retd): “Military Adages and Stratagems in the Kautilya Arthaśāstra ”, author The Military Strategy of the Arthaśāstra [Watch Video]

1300-1400 Lunch

1400-1500 Session III-Education and Training on Kautilya Today

Chair: Shri K. Srinivasan, former IG BSF, Now IG CRPF for Intelligence.

Lectured in Sanskrit prior to joining BSF in mid 1970s.

  1. Dr. UC Thapliyal : “Status of education and teaching on Kautilya in Indian universities( including departments of Sanskrit) and other Institutions”, former Director, History Division, Ministry of Defence, author of books/edited chapters on military during Kautilyan period [Watch Video]
  2. Prof. Shubhada Joshi: “Vidyasamuddesha: Its relevance in contemporary education: Defence and Development”, Head of Department of Philosophy, University of Mumbai. She is heading the major research project on 'Kautilya’s Arthasastra and good governance' at the University of Mumbai which trains young boys and girls in study of Arthashastra [Watch Video]

1500 -1515 Tea

1515 -1655 Session IV–Discussion and Suggestions

Chair: Dr Arvind Gupta, DG, IDSA

  1. P.K. Gautam: “One Year of Arthasastra : Response , Pedagogy and Research”, Research Fellow at IDSA, author IDSA monograph One Hundred Years of Kautilya’s Arthasastra and convener of the seminar. [Watch Video]
  2. All invited speakers to give suggestions for five minutes each
  3. Observations of Discussant and Moderator, Dr Krishnendu Ray, Department of History, University of Calcutta, author “Varieties of Sandhis and Varieties of Mitras: An understanding through text(fortcoming)”

1655-1700 Vote of Thanks by Col P.K. Gautam(Retd), Research Fellow, IDSA, Convener

Event photographs [+]

Press Release [+]

Non-Traditional Security
Iran, IAEA and the Challenges of 'Politicised Safeguards' Implementation September 20, 2013 S. Samuel C. Rajiv Fellows' Seminar

Chair: Ambassador R. Rajagopalan
External Discussants: Ambassador Sheelkanth Sharma and Prof. R. Rajaraman
Internal Discussants: Dr G Balachandran and A Vinod Kumar

The paper examined three issue areas that according to the author exemplified the politicised nature of the interactions between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These included dispute over access to military sites like Parchin where nuclear-related activities could have taken place; disputes pertaining to the sources as well as the nature of the information being used by the IAEA to carry out its safeguards activities inside Iran; and the ‘nuclear activism’ of Western non-governmental organisations like the ISIS. The paper noted that charges of politicisation by Iran – made justifiably or conveniently - make the task of safeguards implementation by the IAEA that much more complicated and is a factor not only prolonging a resolution of the issues concerned (primarily due to the absence of ‘smoking gun’ evidence of either Iranian complicity or innocence) but even possibly inhibiting it.

On Parchin for instance, despite 10 rounds of talks from January 2012 to May 2013, Iran and the IAEA have not yet agreed on the contours of a ‘structured approach’ regarding further cooperation. In July 2013, Iran charged IAEA Director General Yukiyo Amano of ‘partiality’ and accused him of intending to ‘keep open this issue [Parchin] in order to pave the way for Iran’s enemies’. Iran’s arguments for not agreeing to facilitate access pending an agreement on the contours of such access include the failure of the IAEA to deliver ‘all relevant documents related to the Agency’s concerns’, and the IAEA not allegedly sticking to its end of the bargain on negotiated portions of a possible agreement in subsequent meetings, during the 10 rounds of talks.

Iran more specifically contends that since Parchin is a ‘military site, granting access is a time-consuming process and cannot be permitted repeatedly’ and insists that the Agency focus on a non-nuclear site was beyond its mandate. However, Iran had given IAEA access to military sites in the past, like Lavisan-Shian, Kolahdouz, and Parchin twice in 2005. Iran’s arguments therefore that it cannot give ‘repeated access’ – when the last time the IAEA was given access was way back in November 2005 – starkly illustrates the limitations of IAEA under INFCIRC/214 (Iran’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA) to draw safeguards conclusions for Iran.

As for the second issue area, Iran has expressed concern over what it alleged was leaks of confidential information provided to the IAEA on such subjects like ‘plutonium research project’. Iran has also been urging the IAEA to share information about the member-states/sources which indicated ‘possible military dimensions’ (PMD) of its nuclear activities. The paper highlighted the fact that the IAEA therefore faced real challenges in its efforts to broad-base the sources of information as it strives to build a ‘state-level’ safeguards picture, if the information so generated is not shared or is viewed as having ulterior motives. The IAEA however on its part is faced with the dilemma of protecting genuine sources of information, to the extent they are.

As for the third issue area, the paper noted that the role of the ISIS highlighted the political jostling that accompanied safeguards implementation in Iran, especially on such aspects as posting of IAEA DG reports on its website on the day they are presented to the Board of Governors, which Iran takes exception to. The ISIS however contends that it is doing a ‘public service’ by disseminating the reports which are not ‘safeguards confidential’.

The author went on to highlight safeguards implementation in countries like South Korea and Brazil. In the latter case for instance, concerns relating to access to a new uranium enrichment facility in 2004 were resolved within the framework of the IAEA. The author highlighted Brazil’s continued reluctance to sign the AP and its nuclear submarine project as issues that could have an impact on how other countries like Iran could view such endeavours.

In the light of the as yet unresolved nature of contentions between Iran and the IAEA, the paper noted on-going IAEA efforts to improve the efficiency and efficacy of safeguards implementation in the face of emerging challenges amidst budgetary, organisational and legal constraints. In the Iran case, while budgetary or organisational constraints seem not to have played a negative role (over 800 man-days of inspections were conducted for instance between February 2003 and September 2004), lack of adequate legal authority (as embodied in the IAEA Additional Protocol) has hindered its ability to conclude that all of Iran’s nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes. The author closed by noting that even as the IAEA safeguards department has an important role to play, the resolution of the decade-long imbroglio would however eventually depend on a political understanding between Iran and its P5+1 interlocutors.

Ambassador Sharma suggested that safeguards implementation was inherently a ‘political’ job. He pointed out that Iran itself went ‘political’ when it approached the EU-3 after concerns relating to its activities were first brought into limelight in 2002. Amb. Sharma urged the author to also consult the writings of former IAEA officials like Ollie Heinonen and Mohammad El Baradei to get their view on the issues involved. He wanted the author to bring into the paper aspects relating to Iran’s interactions with the P5+1 to situate the Iran-IAEA interactions in the overall political context. Amb. Sharma noted that Iran cannot possibly cite the Brazil case in defence of its own position.

Prof. Rajaraman stated that the paper was exhaustively cited and had clarity in its arguments. He noted that though Iran may or may not cite the issue of safeguards implementation in Brazil, the author had complete freedom to examine the issue from a purely academic perspective to draw comparison or lessons if any. Prof. Rajaraman proceeded to give a brief presentation on the technical aspects relating to the Iranian nuclear issue, including on such issues as the different types of Iranian centrifuges and the impact of the Stuxnet virus on the Iranian programme. He pointed out that Iran could use the same centrifuges in which it had enriched uranium to 3.5 per cent to further enrich it to weapons grade within a considerably shorter amount of time if it so desired, thus fuelling concerns about a possible breakout. The IAEA remained wary of Iran’s intentions as it had a history of not declaring its nuclear projects to the agency. He noted that it was imperative that ratifies the AP, and bring all their facilities under IAEA safeguards and inspection.

Dr. G. Balachandran urged the author to examine whether the AP gave the Agency the necessary authority to demand access to sites like Parchin. He further highlighted the fact that the IAEA has been able to verify both ‘correctness’ and ‘completeness’ in close to 80 per cent of states having significant nuclear activities (SNA)and therefore was reasonably successful in its safeguards implementation efforts. This experience should be helpful to the IAEA if and when it is required to verify that all of Iran’s nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes. Vinod Kumar urged the author to provide more empirical elaboration to show the politicisation process in play.

Dr. Arvind Gupta noted that the paper does a good job of listing the Iranian contentions on the three issue areas that the author has explored and that this was a useful exercise to know where Iran stood. The validity or otherwise of its arguments however are open to contention. Dr. Dany Shoham enquired whether IAEA safeguards implementation in North Korea could be explored by the author as another case study.

Amb. Rajagopalan urged the author to more clinically examine the issues in the light of the comments received. He urged the author to provide a few paragraphs on the background to the political dispute between Iran and the P5+1 so that lay reader could more easily understand the issues being discussed. The Chair closed the session by commenting on the larger geo-political issues at stake in the light of the Syria crisis and Mr. Rouhani’s election as the new Iranian President.

Report prepared by S. Samuel C. Rajiv and Daneesh Sethna.

Nuclear and Arms Control
Defence Innovation in India: The Fault Lines September 13, 2013 Laxman Kumar Behera 1030 to 1300 hrs Fellows' Seminar Defence Economics & Industry
North East India: Strategic and Developmental Imperatives July 15, 2013 to July 16, 2013 Conference


A two day conference, “North East India: Strategic and Developmental Imperatives”, was jointly organised by the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses and Special Branch, Assam Police, on July 15 and 16, 2013. The Conference was inaugurated by the Chief Minister of Assam, Shri Tarun Gogoi. The key note address was delivered by His Excellency the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Nirbhay Sharma.

The participants included: Dr. Arvind Gupta, Shri G.K. Pillai, Shri H N Das, Shri H S Das, Shri Jishnu Barua, Shri Khagen Sharma, Shri Sudip De, Shri D N Bezboruah, Shri J N Choudhury, Prof. Imdad Hussian, Prof. Monirul Hussain, Lt. Gen. J R Mukherjee (Retd.), Lt. Gen. Arun Sahni, Shri Jaideep Saikia, Brig. Ranjit Borthakur (Retd.), Brig. Mandip Singh, and Dr. Pushpita Das.

Many useful thoughts and recommendations emerged at the conference. Some of these are enumerated below:

Observations

Insurgency & Ceasefire

  1. The basic ingredient of insurgency i.e. popular support is drying up in the region. Insurgency is active only in Manipur. There are around 50 insurgent groups in Manipur.
  2. The surrender and rehabilitation policy for the insurgents are faulty. There is no proper verification of the surrendered militants. Large numbers of persons who surrender are not militants.
  3. Ceasefire and Suspension of Operations with militant groups allows them to indulge in extortion and kidnapping, which in turn help them in maintaining their clout over the people of the region.
  4. There exists deep nexus between all the insurgent groups in the Northeast. The CPI (Maoist) is also in touch with the North east insurgents primarily to source weapons. Arms were given by the United Liberation Force of Asom (ULFA) to the CPI (Maoist) in West Bengal.
  5. While most of the insurgent groups especially from Manipur have camps along the India-Myanmar border in Myanmar, the ULFA has small hideouts along Myanmar-China and Myanmar-Thailand border areas in Myanmar. The North east militants also visit neighbouring countries like Nepal.
  6. The biggest challenge to the North East is extortion carried out by various insurgent groups. Extortion has become meticulously organised activity in the region and is one of the major sources of funds for the militants.

Political

  1. It is important to understand the culture and psyche of the people of North East while framing policy alternatives.
  2. The perceived threat to the political identity of the Assamese people from the illegal migrants from Bangladesh lies at the core of the Assam problem. The indigenous people of Assam feel that in future the illegal migrants will become the majority population and they will lose political power.
  3. The Centre, the State and the insurgent groups who are engaged in negotiations are mulling over two possible solutions to this issue. First, to declare Assam as a tribal majority state where almost all the seats will be reserved for tribals. Second, to prepare a new list of all the people in the state based on the 1951 National Register of Citizens and the electoral rolls of 1971 and then reserve a given number of seats for the descendants of these people.
  4. The peace negotiations are long drawn processes because people who are engaged in these negotiations over time loose attention and inertia sets in. Also small issues take months to get resolved.
  5. The ceasefire agreements and peace negotiations have resulted in reducing the violence levels and given the civil societies of the region space to talk.
  6. Final peace accord with the Nagas will be signed by everybody in Nagaland for a lasting peace in the state.
  7. One of the ways to contain insurgency in the region is to delegate powers to the ethnic minorities through the Autonomous District Councils so that they can fashion their own development.
  8. The Sixth Schedule policy implemented to protect tribal way of life was supposed to be interim in nature. But it has been raked up to create tribal homelands.
  9. The implementation of Sixth Schedule in Assam has not benefited the tribal communities of the state. Following the 73rd and 74th amendments, the Central and state governments are providing huge amounts of financial resources to the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI) and municipalities. Since, the scheduled areas do not fall under the purview of the PRI and municipalities, they do not receive any share of these funds and as a result they lose out.
  10. Deficiency in governance is a major problem in the region.

Development

  1. Security situation in the region has improved considerably in Assam and Meghalaya in particular facilitating conducive atmosphere for investment and development. The Northeast Industrial Policy initiated by the Government of India further contributed in encouraging investment and industries in the region.
  2. However, the Northeast will not attract big industries because the region is resource deficit, and does not have economies of scale to match. Moreover, the security situation in the whole of the region has not improved uniformly.
  3. The tax free industrial policy has been rolled back causing uncertainty amongst the business community and thereby hampering investment atmosphere in the region.
  4. Apprehensions were expressed about the continued brain-drain from the region to other parts of the country. Although the trend is good for a short term as it provides employment opportunities for the educated and skilled youths of the region, but in the long run such leaching away of talents does not augur well some the development of the region.
  5. The North East Council (NEC) and the Ministry for the Development of the North East Region (DoNER) have become fund disbursing agencies instead of strategic planning agencies. At present approximately Rs. 11,000 crore is lying idle with the Ministry of DoNER.
  6. Only piecemeal projects costing between Rs 5 and 10 lakhs are being planned and executed. These projects have not resulted in dramatically altering the development scenario of the region.

Look East Policy

  1. North east is the weak element in India’s Look East policy because of inadequate connectivity between North East and the ASEAN countries.
  2. The North East still remains inward looking focussing primarily on internal conflicts. There is no discussion on the benefits that could accrue to the region from the Look East Policy.
  3. India’s Look East Policy will remain partially successful if the North East does not benefit.
  4. If the North East Region is opened up there is a fear of being swamped by cheap Chinese goods, which would spell disaster for the local manufacturing units.
  5. Apprehensions exist that the development of communication links could result in developing strong links between the people of the North east with the people of China, Myanmar and ASEAN countries, which would undermine the unity and integrity of India.
  6. Opinion on the opening of the Stilwell Road was divided. While some welcomed the opening of the road, other expressed apprehension arguing that northern Myanmar has virtually become China.
  7. Emphasis was given on maintaining friendly relations with China to continue economic engagements.

Border issues

  1. The international borders in the North east are extremely porous. Thus, cross border infiltration of militants, and smuggling of arms are rampant in the region. Dimapur has become the hub for the collection of sophisticated arms smuggled from across the border, especially Myanmar. Small arms, on the other hand, are sourced from illegal arms factories in Bihar and smuggled into the North east and distributed to the militant groups.
  2. Mizoram has also emerged as a major conduit for arms smuggling of arms from Myanmar. The problem is aggravated because of no deployment of border guarding
  3. Since the trijunction between India-China-Myanmar is not settled, the length of the India-Myanmar boundary also differs from 1348 km to 1643 km.
  4. China has differing claim in Arunachal Pradesh. Along the westernmost corner, Chinese claim line lay 20 kms south and in the eastern most extreme of Arunachal Pradesh it lay 30 km south.
  5. International boundaries in the North East have not crystallised into lines separating sovereign countries on the ground.
  6. Intelligence is the key in securing the border areas.

Recommendations

A number of recommendations were forwarded by various speakers. Some of these are as follows:

Insurgency

  1. Thorough background check of all insurgents groups should be carried out before the central government enters into any Ceasefire or Suspension of Operations Agreements with the insurgents.

Political

  1. Political solutions to the Assam problem should be discussed openly as widely as possible to avoid backlash from the tribal and the minority population of the state.
  2. A system of work permit should be issued so that the illegal Bangladeshi migrants do not end up as Indian citizens.
  3. The Autonomous District Councils should be empowered.
  4. Governance should be improved in a step by step manner. Strict supervision by senior officials should be initiated to improve the delivery system of the government.

Development

  1. The Ministry of the Development of the North East region (DoNER) be merged with the North East Council (NEC) for better strategic planning and coordination of various developmental projects in the region.
  2. Focus of the Ministry f DoNER and NEC should be on investment in maga-projects which will make big difference to the development of the region.
  3. Institutional capacities in the North east should be developed urgently.
  4. Pragmatic land use policy should be formulated for attracting industries in the region. Micro, small and medium enterprises should be encouraged.
  5. Local tourism should be promoted. Tourists residing in the eight North Eastern states should be encouraged to travel within the region.
  6. Niche tourism or high end tourism should be encouraged. Medical and higher education tourism should be encouraged.
  7. The North east should become a single economic unit without disturbing the political boundaries of the states. No internal traffic barriers in the region. Exclusive five year plan for the North east focusing on development of infrastructure.

Look East Policy

  1. Greater awareness about the Look East Policy and its benefits to the North East should be generated among he policymakers and the intelligentsia of the region.
  2. Ties with Myanmar should be deepened by exploiting Myanmar’s anxieties about China as well as existing deep civilization and spiritual ties.
  3. The North East region must be included in the India-ASEAN Vision for trade and cooperation. Development Plan for the North East should factor India-ASEAN strategic cooperation.
  4. Integrated and bottoms up approaches are required for integration of the North east in the Look East Policy. The North East should formulate plans as to how it can engage with the ASEAN. Better coordination of efforts by all the Northeastern states should be ensured.
  5. Visa offices of Bangladesh and Myanmar should be located in the North East.
  6. Centres/Departments for the studies of neighbouring countries like Myanmar, Bangladesh, Tibet, Bhutan and Nepal in Universities should be set up in universities to understand India’s neighbours better.

Border issues

  1. Special economic zones along India-Bangladesh border, especially in Meghalaya and Assam should be set up.
  2. States should focus more on the development and security of the border areas.
  3. Sentiments of the people of Arunachal Pradesh should be taken into consideration by the central government while discussing the frameworks for resolution of the border dispute with China.
  4. Matching infrastructure and military capability should be build to ensure peace and enable negotiations from a position of strength.

Report prepared by Dr. Pushpita Das, Associate Fellow, IDSA

Click here for event photographs [+]

Press Release [+]

Terrorism & Internal Security
Talk by French Minister of Defence, HE, Mr Jean-Yves Le Drian on 'Indo-French Defence Partnership: The Choice of Strategic Autonomy' July 26, 2013 1530 hours Other

Venue: IDSA Auditorium (Second Floor)

Biography

Jean-Yves Le Drian, 64, was born in 1947 in Lorient (Brittany). He holds an “agrégation” in History (1971) and is an honorary Inspector General in the French National Education Department.

Local mandates
After he was elected as member of the town council of Lorient (1977), he became Mayor of the city in 1981 and remained in that position until 1998. Today, Jean-Yves Le Drian chairs the regional council of Brittany, where he was elected in 2004 and re-elected in 2010. On this account, he is currently holding responsibilities within French and European authorities. Since 2010, he has been chairing the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR) which gathers 161. coastal regions. Within the Association of French Regions, he chairs the “Europe” committee and the “Regions” sub-committee.

National Responsibilities
After having been elected Deputy for Morbihan in 1978 for the first time, Jean-Yves Le Drian left the National Assembly in 2007. All along these mandates, he sat on the National defence committee. He was more specifically involved in Defence matters and, among others, he was Rapporteur for the budget of the French Navy, as well as rapporteur for commission of inquiry about the safety of Sea transport of dangerous and polluting products.

President François Mitterrand appointed Jean-Yves Le Drian as Junior Minister for the Sea (1991-1992) to Paul Quilès, who was then Minister for Public Works, Housing, Transport and Space (Edith Cresson Cabinet). Among others, he was in charge of setting up the modernization policy of the Harbours (reform of the dockers).

In 2004, François Hollande, the then First Secretary of the Socialist Party, appointed him as National Secretary in charge of defence matters. He entrusted him with a similar responsibility as Head of the, Defence pole during the Presidential campaign of 2012.

The President of the Republic appointed Jean-Yves Le Drian as Minister for Defence on May 16, 2012, in the Jean-Marc Ayrault cabinet.

Click here for complete text of address [+]

Press Release [+]

Missile Defence in Southern Asia: The Emerging Strategic Environment August 23, 2013 A. Vinod Kumar 1030 to 1300 hrs Fellows' Seminar

Chair: Ambassador R Rajagopalan
External Discussants: Professor Swaran Singh and Professor Stephen F Burgess
Internal Discussants: Lt Col Sanjiv Tomar and Shri S Samuel C Rajiv

Nuclear and Arms Control
Interpretation of Concepts in Kautilya’s Arthasastra August 16, 2013 P. K. Gautam Fellows' Seminar

Chair: Dr Ashok Behuria
External Discussants: Ambassador H.H.S. Vishwanathan and Dr Medha Bisht
Internal Discussants: Dr Nihar Nayak and Mr Shyam Hari P

Major Arguments of the Paper:

The paper generates a dialogue between past, present and the future and attempts to understand the Kautilyan concepts such as samdhi,  vigraha,  Sadgunyadesopananta sandhi (surrender of land), bhumisandhi (pact for acquiring land), and  vyasanas (calamities) and its relevance in the contemporary state behaviour. The paper concludes that concepts of war, peace and diplomacy as given in the Arthasastra are relevant today and needs to be further studied and explored.

Major Points of Discussion and Suggestions to the Author:

  • Arthasastra covers almost every aspect of statecraft including diplomacy. For instance, the contemporary phenomenon of honey-trap finds a very detailed treatment in Arthasastra. Similarly, the concept of Rajamandala in the Arthasastra provides a framework for understanding and analyzing the behavior of nations in contemporary international relations.
  • Governance, and accountability are the buzz words of modern democracies; these concepts are dealt with elaborately in Arthasastra.
  • The entire concept of the welfare state is found in one sutra of Arthasastra which says that in the happiness of the subjects lies the happiness of the state/king.
  • The concept of Vigraha as given in Arthasastra is similar to the concept of Détente in the cold war period and can be examined with reference to the contemporary Sino-Indian relations.
  • The policymakers today are confused between ends and means of foreign policy. In Kautilya’s Arthasastraone finds very clear exposition of what constitute objective and what is strategy in two terms Sadgunya andUpayas.
  •  Kautilya’s Arthasastra has seven Prakrits orconstituent elements of state, whereas in western conception of state only four elements find mention. Economy which is the basis of a state is missing in the western conception, whereas Arthasastra considers it as an important constituent of state.
  • Since the world has dramatically changed establishing the relevance of Kautilya’s work will require great amount of scholarship. One way to establish the relevance of Arthasastra is to explore the elements of universality in it, which transcends temporal dimensions.

Report Prepared by Amit Kumar, Research Assistant, IDSA

Military Affairs
Comparative Study between Arthasastra and San Shi Liu Ji( The Thirty Six Strategies) August 02, 2013 Jean Langlois-Berthelot Fellows' Seminar

Chairperson: Brig Rumel Dahiya, SM (Retd)
External Discussants: Col V M B Krishnan and Group Captain Vinay Vittal
Internal Discussants: Ms Rukmani Gupta and Dr Saurabh Mishra

Major Arguments of the Paper:

This paper was a comparative study, perhaps the first. between two major books on warfare theory: Kautilya’s Arthasastra and Sunzu’s San Shi Lui Ji (36 Stratagems).
Delving on the absence of a comparative study between San Shi LiuJi and Arthasastra, the author blames lack of interest among political scientists and strategic experts to look at Kautilya. The other reason could be the challenge of comprehending the philosophical and historical traditions of two different cultures represented by these two great strategists. A proper understanding of the philosophical and historical traditions is essential to contextualize these two books.

The paper then discusses the similarities between the two texts. It argues that the most striking similarity between the two texts is that for them war is seducere: getting the enemy away from his habits so to get him lost and then destroy him. The importance of shaping false perception in enemy’s mind and to employ time to defeat the enemy by using his weaknesses are the two most important instruments of seduction. In both book it is very clear that the strategists have to decide what the enemy thinks. Both SanShi Liu Ji and Arthasastra explain seduction in war with very different philosophical concepts drawing from their cultures.

Major Points of Discussion and Suggestions to the Author:

  • While San Shi Liu Ji primarily deals with warfare, Arthashastra deals with a whole gamut of issues like, economy, governace, politics, etc. Warfare and victory in war nevertheless are important subject-matters of the Arthashastra
  • It is wrong to portray Arthashastra as a realpolitik genre. Kautilya’s Arthashastra talks about enlightened self-interest. It is very liberal and welfare-oriented as far as the internal policies of the state is concerned. Significantly, post-conflict scenario as discussed in Arthashastra evades scholarly attention. It is very comprehensive and progressive in nature. The Arthashastra has not altogether forgotten moral precepts, while dealing with the business of statecraft.
  • The origins of Arthashastra and SunZu are contested but the origin of San Shi Liu Ji is not known. The author and the motivation to write the text is yet to be ascertained.
  • Indian military does not lay much emphasis on the teaching of war classics, unlike China. The study of the war classics will enable the civilian and military bureaucracy in India to ingrain the teachings in these classics in their thought and practise.
  • These two texts are of warring states, when deception and pre-emptive strikes were common. However, in the present era of interdependence, the strategy of deception and pre-emptive strike does not seem to be feasible.
  • Power is an important component of strategy alongwith temporal dimension. San Shi Liu Ji does not devote attention to this aspect of strategy.
  • The author was advised not to use the term Hindu philosophy. Since, these days the term evokes mixed response, it was suggested to use the term Indian philosophy. Moreover, many of the philosophies which western scholars put under a generic term Hindu philosophy today belong to other religions like Buddhism, Jainism, etc.
  • The transcendenatl values in Indian philosophy are well established and there are many instances in the Indian tradition of highest sacrifices being made for the sake of these values. It is erroneous therefore, to say that Kant’s categorical imperative is absent in Indian tradition and value-system.
Non-Traditional Security
Iranian Nuclear Imbroglio: Exploring Scenarios July 23, 2013 1500 hrs Round Table

Venue: IDSA, Room 005 (Ground Floor)

Chair: Amb. Arundhati Ghose

Panellist:

  • Amb. Rakesh Sood
  • Amb. K.C. Singh
  • Amb. R. Rajagopalan
  • Amb. Sheelkant Sharma
  • Prof. Rajesh Rajagopalan
Nuclear and Arms Control
Fourth IDSA-BIISS Bilateral Dialogue: Future of India-Bangladesh Relations July 03, 2013 Bilateral


The fourth IDSA-BIISS bilateral dialogue was held in IDSA on July 3, 2013 at the IDSA. The BIISS delegation was headed by Major General Sajjadul Haque, DG, BIISS and IDSA delegation was headed by Dr. Arvind Gupta, DG, IDSA. Over the course of the day-long discussions between the two sides, a number of subjects were discussed, including the dynamics of India-Bangladesh relations in the context of a changing global order, the challenges and opportunities arising out of the relations, the dimensions of economic ties (particularly trade, investment and connectivity), the role played by regional organisations and the potential for widening and deepening relations between the two countries in the future.

The dialogue began with the welcome address by Director General of IDSA and Director General of BIISS. Both Dr. Gupta and Major General Haque acknowledged the productive exchange of views in the previous IDSA-BIISS bilateral dialogue held in Dhaka last year. They expressed their satisfaction and appreciated the effort of both the institutes for continuing the process of dialogue.

Director General of IDSA Dr. Arvind Gupta gave an overview of Indo-Bangladesh relationship in the last four years. He described the past four years as a momentous period in India-Bangladesh relations, which has resulted in an atmosphere of hope and positivity. He expressed his satisfaction that both the countries are moving towards the resolution of practical problems and the relationship has been placed in a firm institutional settings. Yet many issues remain unresolved. While On the issue of resolution of water and land, Bangladesh has expressed its dissatisfaction, India also continues to have its concerns on the issue of illegal migration. According to Dr. Gupta, both the countries need to adopt realistic approach to deal with these issues. Noting the importance of the India-Bangladesh relationship, he warned against complacency, arguing that relations should continue to be enhanced and strengthened. It is important for both the countries to deliberate on the ways to make relations better.

In his welcome address Director General of BIISS Major General Sajjadul Haque said that India and Bangladesh are the two closest neighbours in the region. Both the countries are having common heritage and shared history. Bangladesh acknowledges the sacrifices made by the Indian soldiers for its liberation and pays homage to them. He mentioned that as both the countries share the largest border in South Asia, it is quite natural that they have to deal with large number of issues of concern. But he expressed his satisfaction that both the countries made tremendous progress in crucial areas like connectivity, security and climate change.

Special address was delivered by High Commissioner of Bangladesh to India Amb. Tariq Karim. Amb. Karim gave a holistic picture of positive developments in Indo-Bangladesh relations in the last four years. Amb. Karim highlighted the following sectors of concerns to both India and Bangladesh where both the countries made tremendous progress:

Security

Anti state elements are security concern for both India and Bangladesh. Bangladesh has made it clear that presence of any of these elements in its soil will not be tolerated and addressed the concern resolutely.

Trade

Trade between the two countries is phenomenal. India in its greater wisdom opened up its market and allowed duty free access to Bangladesh, not for any charity purpose, but for its own interests. It was however a great gesture and it is based on underpinning principle of regional cooperation in the other region like EU and ASEAN, where bigger power leads the smaller power. In the process, both sides are benefiting. Formal trade between the two countries is going up. Expressing his optimism Amb. Karim said that if Informal trade is converted into formal channel it will further boost up the trade between the two countries.

Connectivity

Trade is not possible without connectivity. The Movement of people across the border, region and geographical entity and exchange of ideas are extremely important. Connectivity is taking place in its own pace. Most of 1bn $ line of credit given by India, i.e. 800 mn $ has been put into revamping Bangladesh’s infrastructure like restoration of railways, roads etc. Now Bangladesh is going to re-claim its river. Given the fact that Bangladesh is a river-nation, the High commissioner of Bangladesh emphasised on building river network, rather than focusing only on trans-Asian highways and rail network. Amb. Karim commented that “India’s growth is Bangladesh’s growth because Bangladesh can grow only when India grows”. If Growth is thought of in terms of entire region, regional growth can exceed China’s growth. According to Amb. Karim, even after partition the region was well connected. Visa was not required in the first few years after partition. But Pakistani leaders feared that they might lose East Pakistan, if connectivity with India was not stopped. This severely impacted on the existing regional connectivity. Amb. therefore, stressed that both India and Bangladesh need to work together to restore these connectivity that existed historically.

Energy

He also emphasised the importance of co-operation in the energy sector, observing that energy is the fuel for any economy. According to the High Commissioner growth of any economy would require political will and supply of power. Amb. also gave importance to sub-regional co-operation on energy sector. He asserted that Bangladesh and the North-east of India must be central to India’s Look East Policy.

Water

Despite the hiccups on the water issue, Amb. is hopeful that it will be resolved amicably by both the countries. He emphasised on the joint harvesting of water.

Land Boundary

India shares the most difficult boundary with Bangladesh. In case of Pakistan and China there is a natural barrier, but Indo-Bangladesh border is highly porous. Because of its porous nature, it is very difficult to monitor and control the border. Only possibility in this regard is joint co-ordination between the two border guards. He also emphasized on the importance of operationalisation of the land boundary agreement.

Avenue for New areas of Co-operation

According to Amb. Karim coastal shipping is a new area where both the countries can work together. He mentioned the potential both Tamilnadu and Odisha has in coastal shipping. There is a realization now among the Bangladeshi businessmen that they cannot concentrate only on West Bengal and the North East market and need to expand their business to other parts of India. As a result, number of agreements have been signed with other states of India, e.g. four agreements with Mumbai, eight with Chennai whereas only two with Kolkata.

Agenda for the Future

Citing the example of Den Xiao Ping’s modernization programme in China, Amb. Karim said that it is very important to bring stability at home and to make peace with neighbours to make progress. Both India and Bangladesh need to work on this regards. Every society can change its direction when it reaches its “ouch point” which is basically driven by the youth and the issues that mobilize them. He mentioned that women, youth and media can play extremely important role in bringing change in the society. Amb. reiterated the point earlier made by President Pranab Mukherjee that the agenda for the future for both the countries has to be sub-regional.

Ambassador acknowledged the role of institutes like IDSA and the BIISS to develop strategic thinking in all the issues mentioned above and the importance of dialogue like this, but he said that dialogue can be useful if the outcome reaches to the concerned constituencies.
These opening statements were followed by three sessions of discussion and dialogue, each with an over-arching theme. The first was on India-Bangladesh co-operation in the context of global and regional developments, the second on economic relations between the two countries and the third on the way forward. Some of the main points to emerge from the discussion are as follows:

Session I: Global and Regional Perspective

Chair: Maj General Sajjadul Haque

The first session of the bilateral dialogue focused on the theme of “Global and Regional Perspective.” In this session presenters from both IDSA and the BIISS presented their country perspective on “South Asia and Emerging Global order” as well as “Regional Dynamics with special focus on SAARC, BIMSTEC and BCIM.

On “South Asia and the Emerging Global Order” Dr. Arvind Gupta presented Indian Perspective and Ms. Segufta Hossain presented Bangladeshi perspective. Both the presenters examined the prospects and challenges of South Asia in the new global order that has emerged in post cold war period and gave an overview of how both India and Bangladesh is coping with these changes. Explaining the current scenario, Dr. Gupta said that West seems to be declining, EU is in crisis, Russia is trying to find its place in this new world order and China has emerged as a kind of super power. Economic financial crisis is recurring. South Asia is also changing in response to these changes in the world. While globalisation has weakened the state, power of social media has expanded. Since the end of cold war, countries have achieved moderate growth rate, yet it continues to face many challenges like poverty, disease, hunger, unemployment, climate change and environmental degradation. Terrorism continues to remain as an issue in South Asia. However, there are some positive developments as well. India economy is growing. It is engaged with its neighbours in the multiple front, Its development assistance to the neighbouring countries and Africa is remarkable. India has emerged as a net security provider. Indian Navy’s role in controlling piracy and relief assistance during natural disaster needs a special mention. Other South Asian countries are also contributing in global stability by providing their personnel to the UN peace keeping force. Migrants are catering to the economic development of the receiving countries and remittances are contributing the economy back home. Bangladesh plays an important role in providing link between South Asia and East Asia. He recommended that further study is required to analyse the impact of the challenges mentioned above and to deal with them. According to Dr Gupta, the footprint and engagement of China in the region has been significant and should be studied for its impact.

According to Dr. Segufta Hossain end of cold war has brought changes in both global and regional politics. Dr. Segufta Hossain underlined the fact that 9/11 brought significant changes in South Asia. It has changed the security dynamics of some of the South Asian countries by involving extra regional power in the region. With the increase of Chinese involvement in the region, South Asia’s relations with the US have assumed complexity. Four recent developments like the Presidential election in the US, China’s leadership succession, election in Pakistan and democratisation in Myanmar have not only brought changes in their own countries but also in the region. Obama administration’s long term economic agenda can transform South Asia. There is a normalisation of relations of the West with Myanmar. In the context of these global as well as regional changes, Dr. Hossain explained prospect and challenges for Bangladesh. While Bangladesh’s relations with the US and China improved tremendously, its relationship with Myanmar has been experiencing both ups and downs.

On “Regional Dynamics (SAARC & BIMSTEC, BCIM)” Dr. Anand Kumar, Associate Fellow IDSA gave Indian perspective and Mr. Abu Salah Md. Yousuf from the BIISS presented Bangladeshi perspective. According the Dr. Anand Kumar SAARC and BIMSTEC could not make much progress. While the BIMSTEC is losing its original focus, Dr. Kumar attributed numbers of factors for SAARC not being able to deliver, such as: political instability in the countries of the region, lack of capacity, tendency to look beyond the region, lack of discussions on security and different concerns of different countries. However, Dr. Kumar argued that since Islamabad summit countries of the region are giving emphasis on the need for increase in role of the SAARC. In New Delhi Summit in 2007, India has also shown its willingness to go extra mile. India is no longer unwilling to involve external observer, if it is involved for a genuine reason. In post 2014, with the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, SAARC will have to face new challenges particularly, on the issue of connectivity. Therefore, it needs to be energised. He considered BCIM as a laudable initiative, but still at a nascent form. However, he said that China can be involved in the BIMSTEC, instead of focusing on a separate grouping.

According to Dr. Abu Salah Md. though there are different arrangements in the region to focus on co-operation on different issues, at times they are overlapping. Yet Mr. Salah gave credit to these groupings for their effort to bring regional cooperation. India and Bangladesh share common perceptions and concerns on issues like economic growth, security interests and shared values. Both India and Bangladesh perceive involvement of external powers in the region with concern. Terrorism, narcotics and human trafficking are issues of concerns for both the countries. They share common values like democracy, peace and stability in the region. Both the countries also want to increase trade and investment as well as energy co-operation. As a result is a growing trust between the two countries. They have initiated different arrangements to solve the bilateral issues. Dr. Salah concludes that the emerging partnership between the two countries will contribute to strengthen the regional arrangements; at the same time improved regional co-operation can reinforce the Indo-Bangladesh relations.

The main points that emerged from discussion are as follows:

  • Despite of the failure of the regional groupings optimism was expressed on potential of these groupings to make progress in the future. It was argued that overlapping of the institutions and their objectives are not unique characteristics of South Asian region. If there is more number of institutions in South Asia it shows the dynamism of the region. South Asia can follow ASEAN model.
  • Smaller groups are better placed in deepening regional co-operation
  • Though the original focus of BIMSTEC is economic co-operation, it is also important to discuss issues like terrorism, because it can be a threat to economic growth.
  • Concern on growing number of Chinese footprints in South Asia was discussed. India has specific concern of this because of its past experience. It is also concerned about closer relations between China and Pakistan as well as growing dependency of the smaller countries of the region on China. India is also concerned about signing FTA with China. However, this concern are raised not only in India, but has also been raised elsewhere as well. Repayment of loans taken from China is a big problem especially in the countries where China is engaged in building port and other infrastructures. It was also pointed out that linking up with China as such is not a problem, but one needs to question the motivation of China’s growing interest in the region.

Session II: Economic Dimensions – Trade, Investment and Connectivity in the context of Look East Policy

Chair: Amb. Rajeet Mitter

Economic Dimensions – Trade, Investment and Connectivity in the context of Look East Policy
This session honed in on economic relations between India and Bangladesh. Dr Smruti S. Pattanaik presented India’s perspective on trade, investment and connectivity between the two countries, while Dr Mahfuz Kabir presented the Bangladeshi perspective.

Dr Pattanaik argued that both India and Bangladesh have versatile Look East Policies, yet a major challenge that needs to be overcome is a validation of their own mutual interests. In other words, aside from looking out to the South-Eastern countries, they need to look at each other as well. Geographically, India connects with Bangladesh and Myanmar before moving outward through to the South East Asian region. Initially, the Look East Policy was designed towards strengthening India’s historical ties with its South-East Asian neighbourhood and beyond. But, over time, it has transformed into a much more integrated policy that seeks to connect India’s North-Eastern states with the region that lies across India’s international boundary (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, and China) and beyond. India’s trade relations with these nations thus inevitably involve those frontier states whose unique inputs manifest themselves in the flourishing inter-state local and informal trade. The total border of the North-Eastern states with Bangladesh alone amounts to 1880 km. Taking this forward, a Look East policy that focuses on Bangladesh and its neighbours could provide a larger market access for North Eastern states and vice versa.

Nevertheless, a central stumbling block in realising stronger trade relations has been the matter of transit and connectivity. It was hoped that with the transition to democracy in Bangladesh, popularly elected government unlike the military regimes would be more responsive to the issues of connectivity and transit. Further, as the Indian and Bangladeshi economies liberalized in the post 1990 period, their share in bilateral trade also increased. According to Dr. Pattanaik, India and Bangladesh needed to focus on those areas which could improve trade ties in a mutually beneficial and sustainable manner. In this regard, both countries have to deal with two basic issues – complementarity of products and protection of the domestic industry. India’s exports to Bangladesh currently constitute about 28% of its total trade with the region, second to Sri Lanka (32%) and higher than Nepal (21%). Some of the major components of India’s exports to Bangladesh are cotton (28%), vehicles (8%), cereal (7.05%) etc., and imports from Bangladesh include vegetable textile fibres (25%), Fish and related (23%), textile articles (12%), edible fruit (7%), apparel and accessories (5.5%). Even though the trade balance is in favour of India, if one looks at the component which Bangladesh imports from India most of them are textile product. These imports feed Bangladesh‘s indigenous garment industries which provide maximum export earning to Bangladesh. The textile industry thus constitutes an important aspect of Indo-Bangladesh trade relations.

As part of achieving enhanced trade relations, Dr. Pattanaik also illustrated the importance of establishing border haats in both states in their corresponding regions. For instance, while Kalaichar in the West Garo Hills of Meghalaya has a border haat, Bangladesh has yet to provide its own location to facilitate trade despite having bilaterally agreed upon to do so. Multiple locations in Bangladesh like Tuibari, Nunsari, Kamalasagar and Boxanagar have either proposed or undecided border haats in the pipeline.

Both states must engage the private sector to invest in their respective economies. This inevitably raises the matter of profit viability. Further, to boost investor confidence, the stability of the political environment is certainly important. It additionally helps to have a common market, especially in border regions. This formalises trade that has otherwise a huge illegal component given the demand-supply dynamics of the market. The porous border facilitates illegal trade and benefit the smugglers while the state losses revenue. Establishing integrated check posts and improved border security facilities are in the process and will ensure greater transparency of trade as well as population and labour movement.

Lastly, sub regional cooperation would be an important aspect between the two states under their respective Look East policies and within regional frameworks like SAFTA, BIMSTEC, and BCIM, in addition to bilateral trade cooperation. The Asian Highway networks certainly go a long way towards enhancing transit connectivity crucial to facilitating access, attracting greater investments and increasing trade volume with lesser costs. Nevertheless, both states need to work on improving their trade infrastructure and build on their strengths if they are to cash on their trade potential both bilaterally and regionally.

Dr. Mahfuz Kabir, Senior Fellow, BIISS began his presentation by acknowledging that connectivity was indeed a critical instrument to the reinforcement of trade and investment. And, Bangladesh has been one of India’s most trusted partners in trade and investment given its proximity and shared history. Nevertheless, according to him, one of the first challenges that needed to be addressed was the dual versions of the Look East policy in Bangladesh that negatively impacted public perceptions, i.e. an intellectual and scholarly version on the one hand, and a policymaker and diplomat’s version on the other.

Following the visit of the Indian PM in September in 2011, positive initiatives taken by India have further deepened mutual economic cooperation. In fact, the outgoing year is going to witness India as Bangladesh's 2nd biggest trade partner. As estimated by the author, Bangladesh's bilateral trade has now crossed the US$ 6 billion mark. More than 60% of the total trade between the two countries are conducted through regional organisations (the BCIM economic corridor in total facilitates US$ 6.9 billion in trade in the region). Thus, Bangladesh could enjoy the benefits of its unique location between South and South-East Asia and the two giants India and China if it indulges in the diversification of its exports and maintains greater transit connectivity. Towards this, Bangladesh's 6th Five Year Plan focuses on improving its regional connectivity.

Tracing the current trends in the trade relationship, Dr. Mahfuz further stated that India is now an almost free market for Bangladeshi products as India has declared duty free access for LDC's to its market. Bilateral trade has been moving upward appreciably -- both in terms of exports and imports -- though this has led to mounting deficit. From 1980 to 2010-11, trade with India grew at 238% per year at simple average rate. Bangladeshi exports to India has grown 182% and from India to Bangladesh by 297%. Currently, finished textile products dominate the Bangladeshi trade basket, aside from jute, hilsa fish etc. Intra-industry trade is a significant aspect of Indo-Bangladeshi trade, and trade with India includes a 30% value addition. Also Bangladeshi exporters enjoy some level of RCA (Revealed Comparative Advantage) in certain categories.

India's investment into Bangladeshi has resulted in an employment intensive growth in the latter. India’s FDI in Bangladesh took off since 2009-10, so that today India is the 13th largest source of 100% FDI in Bangladesh. Moreover, Dr Kabir pointed out, FDI from India (as well as from China and South Korea) generates more employment per dollar than FDI from many Western countries. This fits in nicely with Bangladesh’s commitment to inclusive development. Moreover, the stock of India's FDI into Bangladesh is highly concentrated in textile, banking, power, agriculture and fishing. Sectors with a potential for an expansion of investment include leather and leather products, ICT's (with Bangladesh possessing an emerging mobile industry as an LDC), chemical industry, electrical and electronic industry, rice seed (focusing on securing food security) and in R&D.

Some of the suggestions put forth by the speaker related to increasing the financial and developmental scope of the trade relationship. One of the proposals to come from Bangladesh and currently submitted to its government is a report describing a user fee policy to provide passage and logistic support of goods through the well-connected economic corridors. Welfare gains from the BCIM economic corridor could secure a 10% reduction in transport costs. Relating trade to development, 29 extremely backward border districts in Bangladesh could be postured so as to benefit from enhanced investment opportunities and better regional connectivity to the nearest growth centre. This would require extensive transformation in the trade infrastructure in inland water, at sea and on land.

In terms of its development objectives, Bangladesh aims to be a middle income country by 2020 as articulated in its report ‘Vision 2020’. Realising this hinges on power generation to meet the needs of industry and of course development. Given this objective, the speaker suggested that Bangladesh’s neighbours (like West Bengal in India, Nepal etc) could trade their excess generated electricity. Further, land custom stations and border haats are other aspects crucial to improving trade facilitation.

Looking at the way forward, the speaker raised the following that needed to be considered -

  • Determining a pragmatic transit fee
  • Realising the economic potential of BIMSTEC
  • Achieving greater connectivity especially with respect to sub-regional transit
  • Overcoming the negative public opinion associated with Indian trade and transit
  • Allowing for the youth in Bangladesh to take advantage of India's economic opportunities, healthcare and education facilities to ensure a reality of benefits over supposed suspicions of India’s unwieldy dominance

In the concluding discussion, it was argued that greater connectivity will increase people to people contact and it would go a long way in shaping people's perceptions of each other. A change in mindset can only be possible through greater interaction between the people of two countries. It was felt that FTA between the two countries may not contribute significantly to bilateral trade as India has already provided Bangladesh with duty free access to its market. Formalising trade will be crucial if the state is to secure the benefits of the huge informal trade that exist between the two countries. Development of infrastructure would be crucial for economy of the two countries as well as for bilateral trade. Though official trade with India is often publicised, Bangladesh has an even larger informal trade with India. This is larger than China’s trade with Bangladesh. Lastly, it was agreed upon that broad based trade liberalisation measures would facilitate a better trade relationship for Bangladesh than an FTA. Potential sectors for future Indian FDI into Bangladesh are ICTs, electronics, chemicals, rice seeds and R&D. Connectivity, electricity grid connections and reducing the incidence of cross-border smuggling were identified as areas where there is room for improvement.

Session 3 Role of youth and Media and seeking mutual convergence for further cooperation
The third session of the bilateral dialogue focused predominantly on the role of the media and the youth in the furthering the relations between the two countries. Significant thought was devoted towards discussing the stability of the bilateral relationship and the role domestic political changes might play in dictating the tone of relations between the neighbours. The meeting was chaired by Prof. Partha Ghosh.

To begin, Nazmul Arifeen, researcher at BIISS, presented his paper on the role of the youth in bilateral relations, suggesting that greater contact between the youths of the two countries, in varied fields of endeavor such as sports and culture, supplemented by expanded networks and their increased engagement in the bilateral dialogue process, would enhance relations and understanding between the states.

Dr. Shaheen Afroze, Research Director of BIISS, presented her paper on the role of the media in relations, highlighting what she thought was an “asymmetrical relationship” between the medias of the two countries. In a content analysis of the major dailies, English and vernacular, of the two countries, she said she had found that there was significantly less coverage of Bangladesh in Indian media than of India in Bangladeshi media. The asymmetric nature was compounded by the fact that content from Indian media “flowed seamlessly” into Bangladesh while the reverse was not evident. She said that the focus of the content published in the two countries was different: the Bengali media in India focused on transit issues, water sharing, trade and the bilateral relationship while their English counterparts addressed issues such as illegal migration, terrorism and insurgency while almost completely neglecting transit issues. In contrast, the Bangladeshi media was more balanced, addressing issues across the spectrum listed above. She concluded by remarking that the Medias of the two countries had not contributed positively to a borderless regional ideology and that work could be done in this regard. She highlighted positive changes in the rhetoric of Indian and Pakistani media outlets over the years, suggesting that that could be a good example of how tenor and content could be modified in an attempt to remove an atmosphere of distrust.

Dr. Smruti Pattanaik, research fellow at IDSA, disagreed on Dr. Afroze’s assertion that Indian media was less focused on their neighbour than Bangladeshi media and argued that while this might be true for the national media outlets in India, it is not for local ones. She pointed out that the national media are focused on national issues, often neglecting events occurring in individual states of the country while media organizations in states bordering Bangladesh were far more sensitive to events across the border. She observed that the biggest change in recent years is the advent of new media, supplemented by greater mobile connectivity that has allowed especially the youth to bypass government and enjoy freedom of opinion and share their feeling with youths across the border. Social media allows the youth to post pictures in the social media and express their opinion and share it with others. She also listed various examples of interaction between the youths of the two countries; from University level student exchanges to youth forums under organizations such as SAARC, asking what the impact of returning youths was on the country and how their perceptions interacted with the overall domestic perceptions of the neighbour. She noted, however, that the number of Indians pursuing education in Bangladesh was less than the number of Bangladeshis studying in India.

Dr. Ashok Behuria, a Research Fellow at IDSA brought up the distinction between inter-country relations and inter-government relations. He argued that relations between countries should be independent of which government is in power in those countries. He also argued that bilateral relationship should be viewed with words of realism. He warned against having an issue overload in bilateral relations as the two countries were discussing a wide range of issues from trade and economic cooperation to maritime security issues and cooperation between major Universities. He suggested that it was "perhaps too early to take stock of everything that is going on". He spoke about radicalisation that has affected the whole region and stressed that the way forward did not involve only hard security measures but a transformation of the educational sector and a consensus on what kind of Islam should be projected in societies. Regarding points made earlier in the day about the continuity and stability of the bilateral relationship, he asserted that the relationship between the countries would not change in the wake of political changes in their state capitals as governments had become "more sagacious". He pointed out that the relationship between the two countries was not merely the relationship between the two governments and that more should be done to foster interaction and cooperation at the non-governmental level. He pointed out that the results of periodic reviews must be fed to the people to sustain interest and the tempo of the relationship.

A considerable amount of time in the question and answer period of third session was devoted to discussing the potential fallout of a change in governments in Dhaka and New Delhi in the near future. The consensus was that while the coming to power of parties currently sitting in opposition benches might change the immediate atmospherics of the region, it would be temporary and would do little to reverse the momentum and progress made thus far. The BIISS delegation also emphasised that Bangladesh is a mature democracy and its relations with India would not be affected by a change of government. Prof. Partha S. Ghosh asserted that a BJP government in India would not at all adversely affect ties with Bangladesh, arguing that the BJP has a track record of seeking good relations with neighbours. Regarding the perception of Bangladeshi youth towards India, the Bangladeshi delegation pointed out that it was difficult to paint all the youths with the same brush as there were a variety of opinions on issues across the board. It was also noted by the delegation that anti-India sentiments in Bangladesh were based merely on criticism of Indian positions rather than on malicious emotions. There was also considerable discussion of the role of Indian states bordering Bangladesh had to play on Indian policy, a topic that elicited varying opinions.

The chair of the session, Prof. Partha Ghosh, concluded by saying the greatest asset prospects for cooperation in the region had was that there were deep cultural and civilizational bonds that would undeniably shape links in the future. Major General Sajjadul Haq, Director General of BIISS stressed that everything that was discussed during the event must be put into action, producing tangible results. Overall, the dialogue covered a vast range of issues and a number of opinions were expressed. There was general consensus that the deepening of India-Bangladesh ties is in the interests of both countries.

Report prepared by Ms Gulbin Sultana, Malissa Cyril and Aditya Pillai with inputs from Sirish Raghavan

Event photographs [+]

South Asia

Pages

Top