Events

Gp. Capt. (Dr.) Rajiv Kumar Narang, Senior Fellow, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), spoke on “Indo-US Defence Industrial Cooperation and Aatmanirbharta” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 17 July 2023. The session was moderated by Dr. S. Samuel C. Rajiv, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, the Director General of MP-IDSA, and scholars of the Institute were in attendance.

Executive Summary

The recent India-US defence industrial cooperation between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Joe Biden held from 21-24 June 2023 depicted the significance of technology in strengthening bilateral relationships with strategic partner countries. The speaker advocated the need to understand the complexities, implementing agreements and challenges in reciprocal agreements. He highlighted the need for protecting Indian intellectual capital, analysing impact of procurements on indigenous programs and civil-military fusion in aeronautics technologies, He concluded by emphasising the need for creating India’s defence technology innovation roadmap,instituting structural, policy and procedural reforms for enhancing contribution of Indian defence forces, pursuing joint development, joint IP creation and procurement; and instituting measures for inter-ministerial coordination to make R&D and innovation collaborations with international partners successful and pave the way for self-reliance (Aatmanirbharta) in defence technologies.

Detailed Report

Dr. S. Samuel C. Rajiv gave a brief introduction to the subject before describing how defence industrial cooperation between India and the United States has recently benefited from the jointly agreed upon defence industrial roadmap in June 2023. He briefly mentioned the previous defence framework agreements between the two countries that provided the structure to facilitate this cooperation further.

Gp. Capt. (Dr.) Narang cited the importance of technology in strengthening the relationship between partner countries. He drew attention to the latest India-US defence industrial cooperation between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Joe Biden held from 21-24 June 2023. Although the initiatives adopted during this meeting have the potential to enhance collaboration between the two states through technology-driven approaches, yet there is the need to comprehend the details of the agreement and complexities to effectively implement them rather than relying on expectations. He discussed the key initiatives and agreements signed and attempted to relate them to innovations, technology collaborations and the impact of such initiatives on achieving aatmanirbharta in the defence sector of the country. Finally, he made certain observations and gave certain recommendations.

India and the US have been close strategic partners since the signing of the 2005 framework agreement on defence relations, which was renewed in 2015. Along with the above, various other defence agreements were signed between the two countries to promote technology-sharing, co-development and co-production, such as the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) in 2012, and Strategic Trade Authorisation Tier-1 (STA-1) in 2016. The annual 2+2 ministerial dialogue was initiated in 2018. Since the initiation of the US-India Defence Dialogue in 2008, there has been significant growth amounting to USD 20 billion in the year 2020 from collaborations such as the C-17, C-130, Apache, Chinook, P-8i, and M-777. There were many other dialogue mechanisms like the Defence Policy Group (DPG), Defence Joint Working Group (DJWG), Joint Technical Group (JTF), Military Cooperation Group (MCG), and the Executive Steering Group (EG). However, there are still challenges to be addressed, such as the lack of reciprocal agreements between the Indian defence forces and US startups.

The speaker then spoke about several critical agreements relating to information exchange, aircraft technologies, fuel exchange and foundational agreements signed between India and US. These were the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) in 2002, the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) in 2016, the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) in 2018 and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) in 2020. He argues that there has been significant progress in India-US defence industrial cooperation in recent years, but that there is still more work to be done.

Before the beginning of Prime Minister Modi’s to the US, the Indian Defence Secretary Giridhar Armane and the US Under Secretary of Defence and Policy Dr. Colin Kohl co-chaired the Indo-US Defence Policy Group in Washington on 17 May 2023. They deliberated on enhancing defence industrial cooperation, partnerships, identifying opportunities for co-development of new technologies and production of existing and new systems, and R&D. This was followed by the visit of US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin’s visit to conclude the Roadmap for India-US Defence Industrial Cooperation on 4-5 June 2023. On 13-14 June 2023, US NSA Jake Sullivan also paid a visit to India to review the progress on the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies (iCET) and signed MOU on semiconductors. Discussions also centred around areas of space, AI and security of supply agreement and regulation of critical design in defence technologies, and placement of a liaison officer in each other’s military organisations. Gp. Capt. (Dr.) Narang emphasised the significance of Reciprocal Defence Procurement (RDP) agreements and streamlining of regulatory mechanisms to promote the export of defence technologies from US start-ups for the Indian defence industry and vice-versa. The most important agreement signed during Prime Minister Modi’s US visit, was the India-US Defence Accelerator Ecosystem (INDUS-X) – Defence Innovation Collaboration between the US Defence Innovation Unit (DIU) and the Indian DIO-iDEX. It is intended to complement government-to-government collaborations between Indian companies, investors, startup accelerators and academic research institutions to co-develop and co-produce advanced technology by Indian and US start-ups. This was followed by the acquisition and manufacturing deal of the GE-414 Aero-engine, and the 31 MQ-9B Sea Guardian/ Sky Guardian UAS Acquisition Deal. Additionally, the US Department of Defense (DoD) Space Force had signed an R&D Agreement with the 114-Ai and 3rdiTech, however, there have been no reciprocal agreements by Indian defence forces or the Ministry of Defence (MoD) with US-based startups.

In the context of the signing of the MoU for Joint production of 99 GE 414 for LCA Mk-2 and AMCA Mk-1 between HAL-GE on 22 June 2023, Gp. Capt. (Dr) Narang elaborated on the increase in the ToT from the earlier 58 per cent to 80 per cent for the GE414 engine, pending US congressional approval for the export administration regulation (EAR) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). He also expounded on six other such aero-engine joint development initiatives with other companies in the US, France, the UK, Russia and China. In the case of France, it is working with India for the development of an engine for the Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) and the Intermediate Medium Range Helicopter (IMRH). Furthermore, the Master-Ship Repair Agreement (MSRA) and the iCET were two other major agreements signed to further work in the areas of science and technology such as AI, quantum, space and telecom, among others.

The speaker then offered some observations. He pointed out that although India has a sizable defence budget, much of it is spent on foreign military hardware, so the country needs to concentrate on developing its defence technology, particularly in the areas of civil-military fusion and dual-use technologies to achieve civil-military integration in areas like aviation technologies. The INDUS-X defence partnership with the US has the potential to be a major boost for India’s defence industry, but it is important to ensure that India benefits from the partnership in a meaningful way. Several challenges need to be addressed to make the INDUS-X partnership a success, including IP sharing, ownership rights, co-production between Indian and US partners, and the prevention of the migration of Indian intellectual capital. Additionally, the Indian defence forces need to be prepared to take on a more active role in the development and procurement of defence technology. Gp. Capt. Narang maintained that it is also crucial for the government to proactively work towards an inter-ministerial approach to create a more equitable space for co-development and co-production defence projects through collaborative research, identify technological gaps, formulate proper problem statements, and funding, to gainfully leverage joint deference technology and innovation collaborations for capability development and pave the path towards Aatmanirbharta in the defence sector. India’s defence ecosystem is currently fragmented, with different ministries and agencies working in silos. This makes it difficult to coordinate and implement defence technology projects effectively.

The speaker concluded by stating that it is also essential to examine how procurement of foreign equipment impacts indigenous programs as India has a history of importing foreign military equipment, which sometimes leads to the neglect of indigenous programs. The government needs to ensure that procurement of foreign equipment does not come at the expense of indigenous development. Hence a comprehensive innovation roadmap, inter-ministerial coordination, and ownership for technology development are crucial for gaining ground towards Aatmanirbharta in India’s defence manufacturing and technology development roadmap.

Questions and Comments

Dr. Rajiv thanked the speaker for his detailed presentation and opened the floor for questions and comments. During the discussion which followed, the Director General Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy enquired about the purpose and associated cost benefit analysis of fitting an afterburner version of Kaveri aero-engine onto the LCA Mark 1 prototype for technology validation. He also enquired whether working on proven designs such the GE-F404 and GE-414 would be better approach. He added that India needs to collaborate with the US owing to the highly regulated defence industrial ecosystem of the latter. He stressed India’s ability to absorb and develop advanced technologies, both in the public and private sectors and the need to develop a more robust ecosystem for technology development and acquisition.

Mr. Arvind Khare enquired whether problem statements have been identified for the INDUS-X initiative from both sides and who will be the nodal agency from the Indian side. He also wanted some clarity on whether the INDUS-X initiative will fall within the same pattern as the bilateral innovation agreement between the DRDO and the Directorate of Defence R&D of Israel.

Dr. Abhishek Mishra enquired about the ToT percentage of the GE-414 jet engine cores and the requirement of the MQ-9B for the Indian Navy. Dr. Rajiv Nayan commented upon the importance of engine development for various applications, including unmanned systems and shipbuilding, and the need for India to become more self-reliant in this regard. He stressed increasing investment in R&D in the private sector to develop expertise in critical technologies.

Cmde. Abhay Singh commented on the lack of evidence-based research in defence and security due to the paucity of information in the public domain. Dr. Om Prakash asked the speaker about the advantages gained by the defence start-ups from the particular defence cooperation with the US. Dr. Anand Kumar commented on the recent order of around 1000 commercial aircraft which was placed by Indigo and Air India reflecting on the growth potential of the Indian aviation industry. Secondly, he enquired about why India might have a problem with replicating co-development models with the US as had been previously done with Russia while working on the BrahMos. Col. Rajneesh Singh remarked that China’s success in negotiating and establishing collaborative agreements with foreign companies is due to the availability of a conducive ecosystem for technological collaboration.

Overall, the discussion revolves around India’s technological capabilities, collaboration with other countries, and the need for a strategic approach to technology development and acquisition. Gp. Capt. (Dr.) Narang then responded to the comments and questions.

The report has been prepared by Ms. Shayesta Nishat Ahmed, Research Analyst, Defence Economics and Industry Centre, MP-IDSA.

A MP-IDSA Fellows Seminar by Dr. Swasti Rao, Associate Fellow, on "The Geopolitics of Europe's Quest for Energy Security: Significant Achievements amid Myriad Challenges” was held on 7 February 2023. It was chaired by Prof. Gulshan Sachdeva, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. The external discussants were Dr. Lydia Powell, Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), and Mr. Rajeev Lala, Associate Director, S&P Global. Ms. Anandita Bhada, Research Analyst at MP-IDSA, was the internal discussant.

Executive Summary

Almost a year into the war in Ukraine, European nations have fast-tracked their energy diversification in order to reduce their dependency on Russia. The main issues are policies adopted by Europe to diversify, the available options, and prognosis for the future.

Detailed Report

The Chair, Prof. Gulshan Sachdeva, in his opening remarks, stated that diversification of energy supplies would likely have a major geopolitical implication. For example, Europe moving towards the US for oil and Russia diversifying its energy exports away from Europe, towards Asia would significantly impact the international arena.

Dr. Swasti Rao began her presentation with a question – “Does Europe want to diversify its energy requirements from Russia?” She replied in the affirmative but pointed out that the main issue is implementing this vision. The speaker then highlighted the structure of her paper before briefly delving into the ongoing developments in Russia-Ukraine war.

Dr. Rao stressed that Europe is seeking to completely wean itself away from Russian crude oil, natural gas and coal. She highlighted Europe’s dependency on Russian energy amidst the differentiation in patterns and volume of such trade. She elaborated on the internal and external differences in Europe regarding the diversification process. She pointed out Europe’s plans to focus on alternative fuels in the form of hydrogen and nuclear, apart from creating new energy maps and import corridors. The fact is that today Europe is looking into both short-term and long-term energy measures, anchored to avoiding any potential dependency. For Europe, the supply chains should not only be cost-effective but also more resilient. 

Dr. Rao highlighted the diversification measures undertaken by Europe. These include import diversification, short-term energy imports, protection of the most venerable cohorts, and acceleration to new renewables. 

The speaker elaborated on the macro and micro energy trends in Europe – both before and since the conflict started. At the macro level, there has been a systemic and sustainable shift away from Russian energy. At the micro-level, Europe has sought to cut down domestic demand apart from transition to renewables. These steps are, however, hampered by limitations that include pipeline disruption, oil re-routing, global liquefaction capacity, and failure to meet market goals.

Moving to the issue of transition to renewables such as green hydrogen, blue hydrogen, and bio-methane, Dr. Rao highlighted the sense of urgency in the form of new European pathways to develop these alternatives. She also referred to Europe’s attempts at developing new import corridors. She emphasised that one of the reasons for Europe's ongoing support to Ukraine is anchored to Ukraine emerging as a promising option for green hydrogen.

On the issue of expanding avenues of energy cooperation between India and Europe, Dr. Rao referred to the Trade Technology Council and ongoing bilateral discussions in the field of hydrogen.

Dr. Rao concluded by stating that Europe appears to have shown a strong political will to diversify yet it would need strong political leadership in what would likely be a very painful period ahead.

Dr. Lydia Powell:

Dr. Powell, while complimenting the author for her presentation, felt that there is scope for enhancing the analytical rigour of the paper by moving beyond the summarizing and descriptive aspects. This includes a more rigorous analysis of the post-Ukraine energy situation in Europe and its future. She observed that the speaker could qualitatively improve the section on “geopolitics of Europe's quest for energy security”.

Dr. Powell gave a few more suggestions to improve the paper. First, she suggested revising the opening section, particularly the framing of whether the European Union (EU) can replace Russia in the context of energy. Second, one needs to dwell on who the winners and losers of the current geopolitical scenario are – this includes Russia, EU and the US. Also, whether Russia’s calculations are long-term vis-à-vis short term? Third, the speaker could address the question of whether the fossil fuel and nuclear industries are the winners in this climate. Fourth, the speaker should address whether Asia has become the winner given the renewed focus on the continent amidst Russia's growing energy exports to India and China. Similarly, has the developing world lost out in the short term on account of their energy crisis? Fifth, the paper must address its policy relevance, particularly for India.

Mr. Rajeev Lala:

Mr. Rajeev Lala highlighted the need to add a caveat around hydrogen – “hope”, especially on green hydrogen. Meanwhile, there exists two proponents around hydrogen; one is the blue hydrogen proponent (led by Saudi Arabia) and the other being the green hydrogen proponents (led by Japan, Korea, Switzerland, and South Korea). The key issue is financing, as both technologies are expensive; hence it is still most policymakers' hope.

There also exists a significant variation in European countries dependency on Russia. This has a direct bearing on each country’s national position on Russia with the most critical stand being taken by countries which have the least dependency. Mr. Lala suggested the need for a chart to show this correlation by providing the examples of energy dependencies of Germany and the United Kingdom on Russia.

The discussant called upon Dr. Rao to focus on the interconnectivity issue and the status of interconnectors across Europe. Meanwhile, a section could be added on the risks for 2023 and what could go wrong.

Mr. Lala elaborated on ongoing discussions on “winter approaching” and its potential impact on Ukraine, and stressed that winter has in fact already arrived in South Asia in the June-August period since all the gas markets are interconnected. He referred to its impact on Pakistan which is undergoing a prolonged energy crisis. In the same vein, Europe’s energy diversification could impact the Indian gas market, which the author should also focus on.

Ms. Anandita Bhada:

The discussant stressed on the need to highlight the winners and losers of the ongoing crisis. She referred to the eastern European countries, who being less economically developed, have found cheaper Russian energy more attractive. Ms. Bhada felt that the importance of interconnectors must be emphasized since several eastern European countries are landlocked or have a small coastline. In this, the significance of Poland-Lithuania interconnector should be emphasised. She also referred to the concept of projects of common interests which help secure energy across the continent. This includes the Baltic Gas Pipeline connecting Norway via Denmark to Poland.

Apart from raising the question of financing, Ms. Bhada highlighted the use of rare earth elements sourced from China for energy transition to renewables. She wondered whether a significant focus on renewables would mean Europe would have an increased dependence on China for rare-earth elements? Ms. Bhada also observed that the Brexit deal must be resolved for any substantial gains between Europe and the United Kingdom. Finally, regarding the reduction of demand, she pondered that by the time there is a reduction in the market for Russian energy sources, the need for the substitute would increase; thus, how would Europe balance it out? 

Prof. Gulshan Sachdeva:

The Chair complimented the author for her work. He also highlighted some of the areas of the paper which could be further improved.

First, the title could be formulated for a more precise understanding. Too many aspects within the title may create problems. There is also a need for more in-depth analysis of the geopolitical factors at play.

Second, there is a need to have a discussion on the concept of energy security and what is the European understanding of energy security. There is also need to discuss the history of the European understanding of energy security from the past to the current era.

Third, Prof Sachdeva opined that the Literature Review might not be needed but gave the researcher the discretion to keep or remove it.

Fourth, he highlighted the need to re-arrange the paper. In the introduction, the researcher could highlight the European concept of energy security, and then delve into the current geopolitical situation as a result of which Europe has chosen to adjust its energy security policies.

Fifth, concerning the figures, there is a need for primary data, and the use of multiple graphics is confusing for the readers. For example, a graph could be there for the situation before the Ukraine war and the current situation.

Sixth, there is a need to refer to more primary documents from the European Union; for instance, the Repower EU Plan needs to be added.

Seventh, Prof. Sachdeva observed that on India-EU collaboration, the researcher could avoid the over-emphasis on hydrogen since it may divert from the crux of the paper. In this, the paper needs to focus more on the impact of energy diversification on India. A country like India is significantly dependent on Russian arms and energy, and there could be severe implications for the geopolitics of the Eurasian region.

Eighth, the author must expand the conclusion.

Questions and Comments 

Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.)  agreed with the Chair on specific aspects of the paper which need to be reviewed. He observed that multilateralism is weakening, maybe to a certain extent even fracturing, which has led to multipolarity and emergence of regional groupings. In the past, regional groupings were linked to geography but several of those links are now fractured. In the same vein, he observed that geopolitics and ideology are fracturing existing trade agreements, for example, the EU- Russian energy mix and the US-China trade war. New alignments are shaping up, and old friends and alliances are finding themselves on opposite sides of the energy alignment; simultaneously, they are adapting and harmonizing with the current geopolitical situation.

On green hydrogen, he emphasised that Indian researchers have been active. Nevertheless, cost is a factor and the focus has also been more on blue hydrogen. The questions of economics trumping geopolitics and the success of the shift to hydrogen could be addressed.

The Q/A session broadly revolved around the themes of transition to greener energy, energy security, energy politics within Europe, nuclear energy option, North-South divide, India’s ability to deal with global risks and the need to focus on West Asia. 

The speaker responded to the comments and questions.

(Report prepared by Dr. Jason Wahlang, Research Analyst, Europe and Eurasia Centre, MP-IDSA)

Dr Anand Kumar, Associate Fellow, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, made a presentation on “Bangladesh’s-outlook towards Indo-Pacific” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 26 June 2023. The session was chaired by Ms. Shruti Pandalai, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA. The Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, the Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr) Bipin Bakshi and scholars of the Instituted participated.

Executive Summary

In the presentation on “Bangladesh's perspective on the Indo-Pacific region” its efforts to balance relations with China and the United States while aligning with India's Indian Ocean initiatives were highlighted.  The divergent views among countries regarding China's assertiveness and discusses Bangladesh's importance in the Bay of Bengal and the larger Indo-Pacific region were brought up. As per the speaker, Bangladesh is likely to align itself with the economic aspects of the Indo-Pacific while avoiding the defence and security aspects.

Detailed Report

Dr Shruti Pandalai, Associate Fellow, initiated the discussion by drawing attention to Bangladesh’s Indo-Pacific outlook, stressing its importance in maintaining a balance between China and United States while aligning with India’s Indian Ocean initiatives. She also emphasised that Japan’s PM Kishida sees Bangladesh as a potential Industrial hub for supply chains.

Dr Anand Kumar began his presentation by giving a broader view on Bangladesh’s Indo-Pacific outlook. He emphasized how the Indo-Pacific strategy is championed by the United States as a response to China’s assertiveness. The speaker drew attention to the divergent view countries take regarding China's assertive behavior in the Indo-Pacific. Countries like the US, France, and Canada see China as a potential challenge and advocate for collective action to maintain a rule-based global order. In contrast, countries like South Korea, EU, and ASEAN adopt an inclusive approach, seeking to balance relationships and prioritize cooperation and economic ties.

On the United States, the speaker elaborated that the United States has recognised the need to include the economic dimension in the Indo-Pacific strategy, as not all nations will be interested in the security aspect. The US has introduced the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF).Japan also has its own initiative, the Bay of Bengal Growth Belt. However, Bangladesh remains sceptical of Indo-Pacific strategy, as it is unwilling to be a part of a security alliance or purchase arms under it.

The speaker emphasised the significance of the Indo-Pacific Strategy by elaborating on Bangladesh’s role as a bridge between South and South East Asia. Bangladesh has expanded it’s maritime area which provides it convenient access to the Bay of Bengal, making it important in the larger Indo-Pacific region.

On China, the speaker emphasised that China has also constructed its pipeline from Myanmar. China has also financed and created two submarine bases in the Bangladesh. They have done it to change the security environment in the Indian Ocean region. China also has a presence in the Western Indian Ocean which is worrying for the United States and its allies.

The Speaker drew attention to Bangladesh which is a significant player in the Indian Ocean region and BIMSTEC, with a growing economy and potential to become a middle power. Bangladesh is strengthening its military and maintains friendly relations with the US, EU, and Quad members. The key Indo-Pacific players are interested in Bangladesh for their strategies to counterbalance China, and efforts have been made to improve US-Bangladesh relations over the past decade, including discussions on developing an Indo-Pacific corridor.

He further discussed the irritants in the US-Bangladesh relationship, including concerns over elections, human rights, media freedom, and Bangladesh's military ties with Russia and China. However, despite these issues, the broader engagement between the two countries shows positive progress. The US has employed "rapid fire diplomacy" to bring Bangladesh closer, but Bangladesh has its own priorities, such as the reinstatement of the Generalized System of Preferences facilities, removal of sanctions on RAB, extradition of Rashed Chowdhary, and increased US involvement in addressing the Rohingya issue.

Dr Kumar highlighted that once the US takes a step, its allies follow suit. Bangladesh is also part of Japan's vision of the Indo-Pacific and is seen as a potential partner by the US and its allies. However, Bangladesh is cautious about this due to its relationship with China. When China's foreign minister tried to pressure Bangladesh, the country assured China of its neutral stance. Bangladesh cannot afford to alienate China as it is its largest defence and trade supplier.

Western countries, especially the US, are crucial for Bangladesh, as it exports to the US and has a significant diaspora there. Bangladesh is transitioning from a low-income to a middle-income country and aims to maintain good relations with the West.

Dr Anand Kumar emphasized that Bangladesh has introduced its own open Indo-Pacific outlook, which aims to establish a free, open, peaceful, secure, and inclusive Indo-Pacific region. The document recognizes the significance of this region, considering its collective contribution to global GDP, international trade, climate improvement, technological advancements, and other key factors that shape Bangladesh's long-term interests. The document underscores the importance of renouncing and refraining from the use of force in international relations.

Additionally, it urges nations to adhere to relevant treaties of the United Nations and specifically encourages adherence to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The outlook’s objectives are derived from the guiding principle of strengthening mutual trust among nations, promoting dialogue, and ensuring peace and prosperity.

The Speaker explained that Dhaka has adopted a balanced approach to the Indo-Pacific region, viewing it as an economic opportunity while also maintaining relations with its largest trading partner, China. As Bangladesh moves closer to its 2024 elections, the perception of free and fair elections in the West will impact the response towards Bangladesh. With President Biden emphasizing the restoration of democracy, Bangladesh may seek diplomatic support from India and China while avoiding actions that could strain relations with China.

During his final remarks, the Speaker Bangladesh is likely to align itself with the economic part of the Indo-Pacific but it would stay clear of the defence and security part. It allows Bangladesh to navigate through the complex dynamics of the Indo-Pacific region and pursue its interests in a balance way.

Q&A Session

 Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy emphasized that Bangladesh is expected to focus more on the economic aspect of the Indo-Pacific and avoid getting involved in defence matters, although complete exclusion cannot be ruled out. Bangladesh relies heavily on China for trade and investments, while the US seeks to foster cooperation. India's engagement with Bangladesh is often misrepresented by both China and Bangladeshis who have gone to China. However, the declaration of the Bay of Bengal Initiative by the Japanese PM in the context of Japan's Indo-Pacific vision, in which Bangladesh plays a significant role, offers a potential positive outcome.

Maj. Gen. (Dr) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) expressed doubts about the accuracy of the map and the validity of the argument presented by the speaker regarding Bangladesh's classification as a middle power. He specifically inquired about the positions of the U.K. and Germany concerning Bangladesh's Indo-Pacific perspective. In reply, Dr Anand Kumar said that the maps had limited purpose and were shown to show where these countries are located.

Dr Ashok Behuria commented that Bangladesh is cautious about not aligning against China as it does not want to be on the wrong side of China's interests. He pointed out that China is more actively involved in the Myanmar issue compared to the United States. With the elections approaching, as the United States emphasizes the importance of free and fair elections, Bangladesh may require China's diplomatic support to navigate potential challenges and ensure its interests are upheld. He replied by saying that Bangladesh has come out with its own Indo-Pacific outlook to balance its relations.

Dr Swasti Rao stated that the European Union's global gateway initiative has achieved its initial objective, with South Asia, specifically Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan, agreeing to collaborate on a renewable energy project. The aim is to establish a connection with India's North-Eastern region and asked to shed light on its significance. Dr Anand Kumar replied by saying many nations are showing interest in South-Asian countries.

Mrs. Sukanya Bhattacharjee posed a how will Bangladesh address the ongoing illegal trading of weapons in the cox bazaar area of the CHT (Chittagong Hill Tracts) Of Bangladesh. In reply, Dr Anand Kumar said that Chittagong's has a role in weapon trading, but the focus of the discussion was on war-related weaponry.

The report was prepared by Ms. Shreya Rai, Intern, East Asia Centre, MP-IDSA.

Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmed, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University, gave a talk at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi, on 14 June 2023 and shared his perspective on “Evolving Political Situation in Pakistan and Prospects of India-Pakistan Relations”. The Session was chaired by the Director General, MP-IDSA, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy. Scholars of the Institute participated.

Executive Summary

Professor Ahmed spoke about the historical context of the creation of Pakistan, relations with India and dynamics of the political situation in Pakistan. Given his scholarship and writings on Pakistan, his views provided insights into how civil-society of Pakistan approaches issues concerning India-Pakistan relations.

The following points emerged during his talk.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah won the case for Pakistan on the basis of “Two Nation Theory.” The theory that Jinnah raised the bogey of a separate state just to increase his bargaining power vis-à-vis Indian National Congress in securing the interests of Muslims within India does not hold in light of documentary evidences. The demand for Pakistan was not a bargaining chip but Jinnah always wanted to be credited for the creation of Pakistan.

After the death of Jinnah, a controversy emerged about the kind of state he wanted Pakistan to be. Some said he wanted a modern state, others believed that he was all for an Islamic state, few thought he was in favour of a secular state. Every group has its own reasons to think that way. The confusion prevails because Jinnah may be quoted in any of the three ways.

There are plenty of evidences to suggest that Jinnah made attempts to bargain out Pakistan’s geostrategic location in lieu of military and financial support from the West. While Pakistan was yet to be a reality, he had already explained to US officials how Pakistan would support America in its efforts to contain Soviet Union’s expansion in South Asia.

Jinnah very much wanted Pakistan as a separate state but he did not think that relations with India would deteriorate. He had his plans to retain his properties in India. The violence in the wake of partition and largescale migration changed the situation on ground. As he realised that Pakistan would be flooded with a large number of refugees, which would be difficult for it to manage, he delivered his famous 11th August speech in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan where he said that “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed -- that has nothing to do with the business of the State.”

Pakistan has wasted its energy to compete with India and paid a heavy price for its enmity with India. The official narrative in India is that India is an existential threat and enemy number one, which is not based on any objective reality. None of the wars was initiated by India. Right since the beginning, it was the politico-security establishment at the helm which propagated this wrong idea.

People in Pakistan are not against India and Indian people. In fact, they welcome Indian people with open arms. One can ask Hindus and Sikhs visiting Pakistan to confirm this point. They are treated well by the ordinary Pakistanis. The official narrative between the two countries needs to be changed. It will benefit Pakistan more if it shuns its inimical approach towards India. To a question, whether the Muslims of India were treated as warmly in Pakistan, he said, as a communal state the behaviour of Pakistanis would be naturally warm towards them, but what really needed scrutiny is the attitude of the Pakistani Muslims towards non-Muslims from India.

Over the years, Pakistan has emerged as a rentier state. It allows its land and institutions to be used by outside powers for economic and military aid. Throughout the Cold war, United States paid the rent and used the Pakistani state the way it wanted. Now in the changed circumstances, Chinese are doing the same. However, Chinese are tough nuts to crack, as far as economic matters are concerned. They very much focus on recovering their money with profit, he said.

The political situation in present day Pakistan is fragile. There is a division in Pakistan Army, as some insiders are supporting Imran Khan. How deep this division is, nobody knows as of now. It is clear that unlike in the past, Punjab is no longer supporting the Army wholeheartedly. That is a worrying aspect for the Pakistan Army.

Bilawal Bhutto has his eyes on the security establishment. He is trying hard to get close to the establishment for political purposes. This was the reason he made an unceremonious remark against Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He has premiership in his mind. The Army may also back him as the current PML-N leadership is not considered reliable.

In the present circumstances, Imran Khan and his PTI do not seem to be coming back to power again, even if the future does not look certain now. Sharif brothers may have their chance to get hold of power again if they play their cards well. However, it will depend upon what the security establishment will decide in the days to come. Prof. Ishtiaq considered the Army an institution too critical for the survival for Pakistan and held that it still has enough power to shape the future course of politics in the country.

The talk was followed by comments by the Director General, Ambassador Sujan R.  Chinoy, and other scholars.

The report was prepared by Dr. Ashish Shukla, Associate Fellow, South Asia Centre, MP-IDSA.