Events

The Director General of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) and Dr. S Kalyanaraman, Research Fellow, IDSA, interacted with thirteen students from the Chanakya Institute for Public Leadership, University of Mumbai. The students visited the IDSA with their Directors Prof. Radhakrishnan Pillai and Dr. Ranjit Shetty. The visit was a part of the CIPL India tour programme to introduce its students to the diversity and complexity of the Indian nation. Their main interest in IDSA was to understand the role of IDSA in strategic thinking and policy making. They particularly focused on the project undertaken by IDSA to explore indigenous strategic thinking including Kautilya’s Arthasastra.

During the interaction, the students of CIPL explained how they are being inspired by Chanakya’s thought on Governance and strategy. Most of them reflected that Chanakya’s dispassionate and rational line of thought, added with his commitment to rajadharma, provides an ideal way of leadership. The students, from diverse educational backgrounds, converged on their special interest in the qualities of leadership required to lead the country and formulate and implement wise policies.

Dr Arvind Gupta, DG, IDSA, expressed his wish for more interaction and even academic collaboration, if possible, between the two institutes to explore and research on indigenous strategic thinking, which, though recognised, is latent and underexplored.

Dr. Kalyanaraman answered in detail the diverse queries of the students about the Kashmir issue, military modernisation, leadership, nuclear policy, international image, normative issues in governance and international relations, and many more.

The interaction was arranged by Col. (Retd.) P. K. Gautam. Research Fellow IDSA, who has initiated the IDSA project on indigenous strategic knowledge.

Venue: Room no 005, IDSA

The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, has constantly pushed the envelope on looking at matters of security and policy through a multi-dimensional prism. It is within this context that we are studying the role and rise of new actors like the media and its increasing relevance and profile in the realm of policy making. At a time when the country is witnessing challenges - political, social and moral, the role of the media is rising in perception as never before. But how much does 'prime time' in the era of 24 hour news coverage actually impact policy?

The IDSA monograph titled "Who Sets The Agenda? Does Prime Time Really Pace Policy? - The Indian Experience" by Ms Shruti Pandalai, attempts to address these questions looking at recent foreign policy debates which have been widely discussed. We are organising a round table discussion on the same.

Panel of Experts

Ambassador Nalin Surie
Ambassador Leela Ponappa
Dr. Sanjaya Baru
Mr. Nitin Gokhale
Ms. Mahrukh Inayet
Mr.Josy Joseph

Concept Note

Through the monograph “Who Sets the Agenda? Does Prime Time Really Pace Policy?” the author has tried to demonstrate the dynamics of the growing interface between diplomacy and the news media within the Indian case study. The focus has been broadcast media, specifically television and the change it has ushered in bureaucratic and political responses to crises. Television news coverage in India seems to have a higher impact in the realm of domestic policy vis-a-vis foreign policy. Its exponential growth in a competitive ratings driven market has given it an image of a pressure group which has not yet attained political maturity to be taken seriously by policymakers. However the ‘real-time response’ and accountability component introduced to the arena of diplomacy has been the vital pressure point in many foreign policy considerations.

This monograph has explored three basic questions: Does the Indian media influence and shape agendas in policy formulation? If it does, what is the role and the extent of this influence? Is the influence independent or contingent upon conditions?

The media’s agency has been versatile in the case studies examined. From a pressure group that almost seems to set the terms for talks with Pakistan in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, to acting as a back channel negotiator via a bilateral media track II peace initiative; to being the participant who created a sustained campaign on the highlighting the advantages of the Indo-US Nuclear deal and ensured that the government took a stand on the ‘Race Attacks’ targeting Indians in Australia; or being the critical observer who embarrassed the govt. for its alleged soft response to the incursions by China on the disputed border. The spectrum has been wide; at least in perception. Yet despite its multifaceted agency, this monograph argues that media’s influence on foreign policy formulation is negligible and restricted to short term changes and not long term policy.

So how do we take these deliberations and policy recommendations forward? The roundtable will aim to address :

1. The media's increasing profile as an actor in foreign policy formulation: is it constructive or otherwise?
2. What are the challenges on reporting on foreign policy in India?
3. Television vs. Print coverage of foreign affairs.
4. A critical assessment of government’s response to 24x7 media.
5. The Way forward.
6. New areas of research.

Venue: Room No. 105

Brief profile of Prof Ishtiaq Ahmed

Prof Ahmed was born in Lahore, Pakistan, on 24 February 1947. He received my doctorate from the University of Stockholm in 1986 where he currently holds the position of a professor in the Department of Political Science. During the academic year 2008-2009 Ishtiaq Ahmed is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), National University of Singapore, on leave from Stockholm University. Some of his recent publications are:

• "Pakistan’s national identity" in International Review of Modern Sociology, Volume 1 No. 34. Spring 2008.
• "Group Representation in a Democracy?", in Utsikt mot utveckling 29, Equal Representation. A Challenge to Democracy and Democracy Promotion, pp. 73-90. Collegium for Development Studies, Uppsala University 2007.
• "The Cultural and Political heritage of Sri Lanka". in Utsikt mot utveckling 29, Equal Representation. A Challenge to Democracy and Democracy Promotion, pp. 119-130. Collegium for Development Studies, Uppsala University 2007.
• "The Lahore Effect", in Seminar, No 567, November 2006, Dehli, India, pp. 29-37
• "Globalisering och fredsrörelsen i diasporan: Provsprängningarna av kärnvapen i Sydasien 1998" in Maria Borgström and Katrin Goldstein-Kyaga (eds.), Gränsöverskridande identiteter i globaliseringens tid: Ungdomar, migration och kampen för fred, Huddinge: Södertörns högskola, 2006, pp. 169-196.
• "Punjabi identities: Before and after the 1947 Partition of the Punjab", in Troubled Times. Sustainable Development and Governance in the Age of Extremes. SDPI/Sama Editorial and Publishing Services, 2006. pp. 374-390 (pdf)

The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) organised a workshop, “Kautilya: Creating Strategic Vocabulary” on April 9, 2013. This workshop was a part of the IDSA project on Indigenous Historical Knowledge. It followed an introductory workshop on Kautilya organised by IDSA on October 18, 2012, which discussed the relevance of Kautilya in Indian strategic thinking. Following is the YouTube hyperlink to the workshop presentations:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrR2OTOrNPrhiTv3m5lhklOzTAXtqrFMk

The workshop on strategic vocabulary started from the point suggested by Mr. Shivshankar Menon, National Security Advisor, in the previous workshop, about developing an indigenous vocabulary to understand international relations. A total of six presentations were made relating the Kautilyan concepts and terms to the contemporary affairs of international relations. The presenters were Dr. Deepshikha Shahi, Asst. Prof. Janki Devi Memorial College, University of Delhi, Mr. Kota Mallikarjuna Gupta, Student, Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution, New Delhi, Mr. Satyam Malaviya, Student, Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution, New Delhi, Mr. Jean Langlois, from EHES Grande Ecole-School for Advanced Studies in Social Sciences, France, Group Captain Vinay Vittal, Air HQ and Col (retd) P K Gautam, Research Fellow, IDSA.

Dr. Deepshikha Shahi spoke on “Arthasastra beyond Realpolitik: the ‘Eclectic’ face of Kautilya”. She said that we need to set Arthashastra free from the realist interpretation and look into it with other approaches as well. According to her, though the academic efforts towards establishing Arthasastra as a precursor to political realism has helped in evoking Arthasastra from its apparently dormant condition, it has simultaneously exercised a delimiting impact on the scope of this incredibly vast and profound script. A critical assessment of the realist interpretation of Arthasastra can create room for a broader and more useful way of reinventing Arthasastra. Although the realist elucidation of Arthasastra provides valuable insights into the Kautilyan vision of politics, it is marked with some ‘hermeneutical’ problems that can be diluted by demonstrating the eclectic character of Arthasastra that not only encompasses the features of political realism but also goes well with the insights of social constructivism. She also tried to find the traces of social constructivism in Arthasastra in the latter part of her paper.

Mr. Kota Mallikarjuna presented on the “Aspects of Peace in Kautilya’s Arthasastra”. Contextualising with the conflicts in Asia, he listed Kautilya’s preferences for peace instead of war. He also talked about various kinds of samdhis (treaties) in Arthasastra.

Mr. Satyam Malaviya presented how the tactical postures and policies adopted by Pakistan can be explained by the vocabulary of Arthasastra. He defined Pakistani foreign policy as SAB (Samdhayay yayat, Anarthinam, Bhuyo-yaceta) policy which he tried to explain with different instances of India-Pakistan and US-Pakistan relationship.

Mr. Jean Langlois described the importance given to the element of power and troop solidarity by Kautilya. He said that Kautilya defined power as not just military might or economic strength, but also intellectual capacity that enables a king to conduct an objective analysis and make a correct judgment. The king’s power, for Kautilya, is mainly tied to the power and popular energy of the people. Here one of the key points Kutilya highlights is the importance of the population of the state one decides to attack. Kautilya even suggested that men of an army should know one another and that an army of friends fighting side by side is the most difficult to defeat.

Group Captain Vinay Vittal elucidated elements of Kautilya’s grand strategy in Arthasastra. He said that Kautilya’s grand strategy emanated from the national policy and strength of the seven elements (prakrtis) of the state or national power and the grand strategy in turn guided the military strategy. According to him, Kautilya’s national policy was centred on the population. He also demonstrated, with the use of Kautilyan vocabulary (vigraha, prakash-yuddha, kuta-yuddha, tusnim-yuddha, dvaidhibhava, yana and asana) how Israel is able to gain a foothold among the Arab nations.

Col. (Retd) P K Gautam deliberated on the concept of dharmavijay (just war) in Arthasastra. He explained how it is different from lobhavijay (conquest of greed) and asuravijay (conquest like demon). He further explained India’s role in the liberation war of Bangladesh as a dharmavijay. He elucidated vocabulary from the Arthasastra pertaining to winning peace and the laws of armed conflict. He also flagged how Kautilya emphasises on a war and victory without spilling blood.

Discussing the papers presented, Dr. Kalyan Raman said that if calling for an Indian theory of physics or economics is absurd, so is the call for an Indian theory of International Relations (IR). It is possible that this call for an Indian theory of IR is the result of angst about Western scholarship’s hegemony in the field. We should avoid looking for an Indian IR theory in isolation from the Mainstream or the so called western IR knowledge body. We should rather integrate our indigenous knowledge body with the mainstream. The study of the text like Arthasastra is important not because they would provide us with the vocabulary and perspective for initiating an Indian theory of IR, but because it would enable the Indian scholars to introduce nuances that may be missing in the Western discourse on IR and thus provide the scope for integrating Indian IR scholarship with the international mainstream. Further, the study of these texts would also provide the inspiration to investigate and interrogate the diplomatic history of India’s various kingdoms and empires over the last 2500 years. This is precisely what is missing in Indian IR studies, which has been predominantly devoted to writing commentaries on current affairs.

In his concluding remarks, Dr. Arvind Gupta, DG, IDSA said that India urgently needs an Indian discourse of International Relations than Indian International Relations Theory, and the workshop is a small step towards this goal.

Col (retd) P K Gautam, who is steering the project, chaired the workshop.

Report prepared by Saurabh Mishra, Research Assistant IDSA.