Events

Col. Gurinder Pal Singh, Research Fellow, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), spoke on “Integrating India’s North East Region in the Backdrop of “Act East Policy” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 24th April 2023. The session was moderated by Col. (Dr.) DPK Pillay,(Retd)., Research Fellow. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, the Director General of MP-IDSA, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), the Deputy Director General of MP-IDSA and scholars of the Institute were in attendance.

Executive Summary

Act East Policy is a key foreign policy that aims to further strengthen India’s relationship with the South East Asian region through three ‘Cs’- Commerce, Connectivity and Culture. In the process of establishing connect with the South East/Asia Pacific region, integration of India’s North Eastern Region can be understood as both a precondition for the success, as well as a desirable outcome of the said policy. The need is to develop a robust and comprehensive strategy towards this end through an integrated approach. Challenges remain multi-dimensional that include insurgency, Indian Insurgent Group (IIG) camps, arms trade, and other governance and administrative issues. In order to fully utilise the untapped potential of the North Eastern region, strategies and their effective implementation is paramount.

Detailed Report

Col. (Dr.) DPK Pillay (Retd.) began the meeting with a brief introduction about Col. Gurinder Pal Singh.

Col. Gurinder Pal Singh began his presentation by putting forth a brief outline of his presentation that emphasised the challenges faced while incorporating the North Eastern Region within the context of the “Act East Policy”, and to present strategies derived from the ‘Net Assessment Process’ to address these challenges effectively. Col. Singh proceeded by giving a brief historical background and evolution of the physical as well as political composition of North Eastern States. The nomenclature ‘seven sisters’ was eventually evolved to ‘Ashtlakshmi’ with the inclusion of Sikkim within North Eastern fold in 2002. The diverse demographic composition of North Eastern Region is riddled with division on tribal lines and heterogeneity, further complicated by the improper state border demarcation.

The speaker then dwelled on the Act East Policy, announced by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the East Asia Summit in Myanmar in November 2014. The policy not only entails economic or foreign policy orientation rather it exhibits political, strategic and cultural characteristics. It is due to its extreme significance that institutional mechanisms for dialogue and cooperation have been established. All these mechanisms have been directed towards and driven by three overarching C’s- Commerce, Connectivity and Culture.

He further discussed in greater detail six challenges facing the North East Region- Insurgency, Indian Insurgence Group (IIG) camps, illegal arms trade, AFSPA, Peace Accords and other aspects. The government’s action on this entire front has to some extent been encouraging but lots need to be done so as to further the integration process. 

He then took the presentation to a ‘Net Assessment’ phase where he explained in detail the formulation of strategies based on the problem statement emanating from the situation on ground. For instance, in this case, integration of North East Region is the overall objective. To proceed ahead, scanning various internal and external factors impacting the region is required. After the detailed assessment of the region, as well as government’s own strength, suitable strategies have to be crafted out. The strategy must be clearly illustrative of what actually it entails, without any ambiguity. He went on to use this formulation in problem statements from a diverse set of landscape ranging from Governance, Economic, Cultural and Social Development strategies.

Col. Singh concluded the presentation with some of the key recommendations across three different landscapes- Governance, Socio-political and Economic. Under Governance, he emphasised upon inclusive growth model, enhancement of trust, transparency and governance benefits reaching to the grass root level as drivers to integrate the region. In this regard, he recommended streamlining the land laws to overcome the complex traditional system. This will help in land acquisition, encourage private enterprises and resolve ownership aspects involving tribal groups and other stakeholders. One of the important aspects is to increase North East representation in North Eastern Council and Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region.

In socio-political domain, Col, Singh recommended tasking Civil Society organisations, and other local organisations for participative contribution towards project monitoring, executing and implementation of government schemes. Further, he recommended opening higher education institutes and centres of excellence to further hone the much needed bridge between the North East Region and rest of India. In the economic domain, trade induced industrialisation, investment in communication infrastructure, designating NER as a Special Economic Zone can lead to increased investment, export promotion, infrastructure and skill development. Further, enhancing human resources can lead to numerous socio-economic benefits including increased productivity, investment, innovation, social development, social cohesion and sustainable development.

Comments and Questions

Col. (Dr.) DPK Pillay complimented the comprehensive presentation. He agreed to the contention that the number of casualties due to insurgency have significantly gone down due to a certain designed strategy being followed by the Armed Forces and the Police. He illustrated the three pronged strategy followed to deal with North East problem. The strategy entails, end to all inter-state disputes by 2022, no interference in indigenous socio-cultural life of tribals and enhancing economic growth in the region. He further agreed with most of the recommendations made by Col. Singh in his presentation.

The floor was opened for questions and comments. The Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, the Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), and scholars of the Institute contributed to the discussion. In his remarks, Ambassador Chinoy emphasised on ‘national integration’ which is considered an important ongoing process. He believes that on the integration part India has done quite well, especially in the last few years. The period has witnessed resolution of unresolved boundary disputes between the states, forward movement, dialogues with various underground groups. Connectivity is another milestone achieved in the last few years in terms of construction of roads, highways, feeder connectivity and bridges. On the point of trade led development of the region, Ambassador Chinoy pointed out that trade needs proper transportation which under the “Act East Policy” is a problem as the Kaladan multi-model project, Tamu-Kalewa-Kalemyo project and other similar projects have been languishing for a long time. Airways led commerce is also not an option due to issues related to market connectivity and specific goods related problems.

Ambassador Chinoy further highlighted the need for mental acceptance and integration of North Eastern indigenously developed businesses which at the moment are dominated by West India. Lack of large scale industrialisation is notable too.

Col. Singh agreed with most of the observations brought forth by Amb. Chinoy and attributed most of the positive developments to ‘Political Will’.

Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) highlighted that Bangladesh (more specifically, Chittagong) forms the natural flow of the land. Hence cutting trees, mountains, terrains across north east for developmental purposes is not wholly sustainable. He further emphasised upon better diplomacy in terms of getting critical support from Bangladesh and Bhutan in tackling insurgency issues.

In response to Dr. Gulbin Sultana’s question regarding religious peace in the region, Col. Singh highlighted the Buddhist, Hindu and Christian circuit as an instrument to cater to the religious aspirations of the people.

In response to Dr. Smruti Pattanaik’s question on free movement regimes and free trade, Col. Singh highlighted that a lot more needs to be done to control and regulate the movement across the India-Myanmar Border.

Dr. Pushpita Das highlighted the traditional nature of tribal society as the crux of the problem. She stated that the need is to change the nature of society in order for development initiatives to percolate down to the grass-root level.

Col. Manish Rana pointed out the paradox of mixing economic and cultural integration. According to him, preservation of cultural uniqueness is more important than the resolve over cultural integration.

Mr. Jason Wahlang asked about the prospects of integration in the longer run in light of tribal-non tribal clashes witnessed in the North Eastern Region. Col. Singh asserted that there are multiple socio-political issues which certainly impact the prospects of integration. He cited the example of Citizenship Amendment Act that was misconstrued in North East as targeted against indigenous inhabitants, while a lot of minorities have benefited from the Act on the western borders.

Report prepared by Mr Abhishek Verma, Research Analyst, Internal Security Centre, MP-IDSA

Col. (Dr) Divakaran Padma Kumar Pillay, Research Fellow, Non-Traditional Security Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, spoke on “Sustainable Development Goals: India's Challenges and Accomplishments” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 10 April 2023. The meeting was moderated by Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha, Senior Fellow and Centre Coordinator, NTS Centre, MP-IDSA. Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) and the scholars of the Institute participated in the discussion.

Executive Summary

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by the United Nations in 2015. The basic objective set forth by these SDGs was to eradicate poverty, protect the planet, and ensure global peace and prosperity by 2030. Nation states are taking desired actions to meet these SDGs as per their national capacities. In the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, a significant amount of economic resources have been drained that could have otherwise been used to meet the objectives of global SDGs. India, in comparison to many other states, has done significantly well in achieving its SDGs.

Detailed Report

Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha gave a brief introduction about the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and highlighted that SDGs require collective global action and India in the past has shown remarkable success in achieving some of these, while others still require significant action. After his brief introductory remarks, Dr. Sinha requested Col. Pillay to make his presentation.

Col. DPK Pillay started his presentation by highlighting the need for sustainable development. He mentioned that climate change and the over-exploitation of resources has impacted global food production and has also resulted in global water scarcity. In his presentation, he highlighted various global initiatives on sustainable development including the Stockholm Conference in 1972, the Earth Summit in 1992, the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and the Paris Agreement in 2015. Col Pillay also discussed three key elements of sustainable development i.e. Environmental Sustainability, Social Sustainability and Economic Sustainability. Highlighting the challenges to sustainable development in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, he mentioned that the conflict has drained a significant amount of economic resources that could have otherwise been used to meet the objectives of global SDGs. Referring to the emerging global shortages of food, fuel and fertilizer, Col. Pillay mentioned that the conflict in Ukraine has significantly impacted global supply chains.

In assessing India’s SDGs, he highlighted the key roles played by various ministries and organizations, including the NITI Aayog, the Ministry of External Affairs, the Finance Ministry, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and the Ministry of Panchayati Raj. Col. Pillay further discussed India’s initiatives such as Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, National Food Security Act, Swachh Bhatart Abhiyan and Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation that marks India’s important contributions in achieving SDGs. Col. Pillay mentioned that despite these positive initiatives there are several challenges that hinder India's pace in achieving its national SDGs. These include financial and budgetary constraints, the issue of overpopulation and technological limitations. Col. Pillay concluded with an optimistic universal prayer highlighting India’s ethos in achieving common global good and SDGs.

Questions and Comments

Post the presentation, Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha invited Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd), for his comments, and then opened the floor to participants for their comments and questions.

Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) highlighted the role of the Urja Ganga Gas distribution pipeline that provided cheaper gas to 20 cities and towns in the hinterland. He mentioned that as we are in the process of moving towards achieving SDGs, this ongoing transition is also leaving carbon footprints. He asked the speaker regarding the possible option that India could take to limit such footprints. 

Mr. Arvind Khare asked the speaker about India’s approach to social security and social justice in achieving SDG targets. He further enquired about India’s approach in building adequate facilities and infrastructure for Divyang Children.

Dr. Swasti Rao asked the speaker to explain and differentiate between SDGs and Paris Agreement goals.

Dr. Adil Rasheed commented on the interlinkages between political structures and their role in SDGs. He also asked the speaker to comment on the role of modern political structures in meeting various challenges of the state’s SDGs.  

Col. DPK Pillay gave extensive and insightful remarks on all the comments and questions raised by the participants.

Report prepared by Bipandeep Sharma, Research Analyst, Non-Traditional Security Centre, MP-IDSA, New Delhi.

Dr. Swasti Rao, Associate Fellow, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, spoke on "Analysing the EU Security Dialogue in Brussels: Implications of the Ukraine War for Europe, the World, and for India” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 3 April 2023. The session was moderated by Cmde. Abhay Singh, Research Fellow, MP-IDSA. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, Senior, and scholars of the Institute were in attendance.

Executive Summary

Dr. Swasti Rao participated in the first edition of the Schuman Security and Defence Forum in Brussels between 20-21 March 2023. The Presentation gave an overview of the discussion at the dialogue and analysed the capabilities of the European Union in strengthening its Security.

Detailed Report

Cmde. Abhay Singh commenced the session by briefing everyone about the previous years' gas imports from Russia to European Union (EU) markets. He talked about the approaches of different countries within Europe to assist Ukraine in the war.

Dr. Swasti Rao stated that her presentation would briefly explain the discussion at the Schuman Security and Defence Forum, where she had participated. She started by underscoring the EU’s awareness of a more comprehensive understanding of security and putting efforts into deepening the relationship, not only with NATO and US but also across the globe, as they see the importance of like-minded partnerships in the current period. The bloc aspires to become more autonomous and to focus on strategic autonomy to become a global security provider through building key defense partnerships. Cooperation with partners is the fundamental pillar of the EU security and defense agenda. The motto for the Schuman Security and Defence Forum 2023 was 'stronger together in an unstable world’. The EU is focused on strengthening its cooperation with regional organizations and also on crisis management and stabilization worldwide. Dr. Rao also briefed about the European Peace Facility and Security and Defence dialogues which are the key instruments of the EU to strengthen their Partnership capabilities.

Diplomatic relations between the European Union and China seem more stable today than last year. Although Beijing was not invited to the dialogue, the EU is becoming more and more aware of the requirement to form a uniform rule of engagement with Beijing. She mentioned the speech of the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen about EU-China Relations and their new strategy to converge on “de-risking” ties with China. The de-risking would essentially limit the EU’s vulnerability to a broader range of stress factors and possible disruptions caused by Beijing and China-related geopolitical tensions.

The speaker discussed the high impact of events taking place in Europe like the Russia-Ukraine War, energy security crises, climate change, green transition, and an escalation over Taiwan, etc. She said that the key takeaways from ‘day 1’ of the dialogue were deliberations on the EU’s transactional diplomacy in Africa and Russia's presence in the Middle East via the Wagner group. She also mentioned conversations on maritime space, cyber capabilities and artificial intelligence warfare, security and politics of space, Brexit, etc. And finally, she emphasized the role of joint exercises for the EU.

Further, she talked about EU relations with India. India is a crucial partner for the EU, and the West, and the geopolitical situation has opened a more comprehensive array of foreign policy pathways for India to engage with the EU and vice versa. There have been strategic talks with India for the security of the Indo-Pacific region. Noted factors in their relationship were the Free Trade Agreement negotiations, Defence Cooperation with Europe, India's neutrality on Ukraine, and India’s relations and oil purchases with Russia.

Dr. Rao then discussed the Maritime Domain Cooperation. The EU's coordinated maritime presence is focused on the western Indian Ocean Region (IOR), with India as a critical partner. There have been talks on enhancing the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the potential of a trilateral partnership. Other themes discussed were the global gateway, green hydrogen production, and space cooperation.

The speaker highlighted the remarks by the Swedish Minister of Defence on threats to the EU in today’s complex environment. The minister said there is unprecedented cooperation between the EU and NATO with reference to the joint declaration between the two on various points in January 2023, further adding to their plans for the division of labour for collective defense across the globe.

In the concluding remarks, Dr. Rao said that as the challenges to global security grow, the EU needs to work together with partners and allies.

Q&A Session

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy complimented the speaker on her presentation. He commented on the change in concerns of the EU on its security, be it national, international, or energy. He said that we should do a very careful analysis of the EU's desire to expand in the security space of the Indo-Pacific. The EU should change its way of looking at India and the Global South for better partnerships in the region. He suggested a deeper study of sensitive issues to strengthen our ties with the EU but on our own terms.

Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) questioned the focus of the EU on strategic autonomy and their capabilities to operate in the Indo-Pacific region. He also pointed out NATO pivoting to Asia. He further added that we see a regional division as the EU goes for the western IOR and AUKUS, mainly on the Western Pacific. He further asked whether the EU believes they can defeat Russia with the recent internal disturbance within Europe.

With regard to the Director General’s remarks, Dr. Rao agreed with his comments and talked about the oil purchases in Japan. She also emphasized the massive trade between the EU and China and mentioned the EU hybrid threat toolbox. In response to the Deputy Director General’s comment, Dr. Rao pointed out that the deepening ties with the US and NATO are key, but the EU’s aspiration to achieve strategic autonomy should be looked upon as a complementarity. Further, she highlighted the EU’s ways of achieving strategic autonomy and stated that they needed a balance between NATO and strategic autonomy after the war to achieve their goal. She then briefly mentioned the EU strategy for the Indo-Pacific.

Mr. Abhishek Verma, Research Analyst, asked if there was any discussion about nuclear strategy and planning and how Germany looked for a collective security framework that Europe is coming up with, like European peace facilities. Dr. Rao said there was no discussion on nuclear strategy and planning, but it was mentioned in passing. In reply to another question, she said that Germany does not want to be seen as a country that is going alone like Poland but instead wants to be seen as going along with its allies.

Mr. Niranjan Oak, Research Analyst, questioned about providing lethal aid to some African countries through European Peace Facilities. In reply to this question, the speaker stated that EU sentiments are evident in Europe and that if they want to ensure peace, they must have the capabilities to do that. She further added that the first aid would go to Niger and Mali, and after that, they are going to Africa as they are worried about the Wagner group.

Dr. Deepika Saraswat, Associate Fellow in West Asia Centre, pointed out the absentees of the Schuman Security and Defence Forum and the EU’s outlook towards Central Asian countries, ignoring the importance of connectivity. In reply to this, Dr. Rao stated there had been a lot of talk on connectivity. Still, the purpose of this forum was only focused on Security and Defence partnerships leaving out economic aspects for the moment.

The report was prepared by Mr. Karan Phular, Intern, Centre of Europe and Eurasia, MP-IDSA.

Dr. Rajeesh Kumar, Associate Fellow, ALACUN Centre, MP-IDSA presented his paper on “Indian and Chinese Approaches to United Nations Peacekeeping in Africa” at the MP-IDSA Fellows’ Seminar on 20 March, 2023, at 1430hrs in MP-IDSA Auditorium. The Seminar was chaired by Lieutenant General Satish Nambiar, PVSM, AVSM, VrC, (Retd.) former DGMO & First Force Cdr. and Head of Mission of UNPROFOR (former Yugoslavia), and former Director, United Service Institution of India. The external discussants for the Paper were Ambassador T.S. Tirumurti, Former Permanent Representative of India to the UN, New York and Professor Yeshi Choeden, CIPOD, SIS, Jawaharlal Nehru University. The internal discussants included Major General (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, Ms. Ruchita Beri, Senior Research Associate & Centre Coordinator, ALACUN Centre, and Colonel (Dr.) D.P.K Pillay (Retd.), Research Fellow, Non-Traditional Security Centre. The Seminar was attended by all MP-IDSA scholars and interns.

Executive Summary

In his paper presentation, Dr. Rajeesh Kumar compared and contrasted Indian and Chinese involvements in the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKOs) highlighting their troop deployment and rationale for participation, their involvement in UNPKOs in Africa and, the Indian and Chinese voting responses on United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) related to UNPK Missions in Africa. He concluded by presenting the findings of his paper followed by policy suggestions. According to the external and internal discussants, the paper was timely, good and well-researched on an important topic. They suggested that the paper could verify and update the data presented, distinctly bring out comparisons of Indian and Chinese involvement in UNPKOs, include historical contexts and add additional dimensions such features of India’s UNPKOs in Africa, additional motivations underlying India’s UNPK efforts in Africa among others. The discussants discussed every policy recommendation in the paper in great detail.

Detailed Report

Lt. Gen. General Satish Nambiar PVSM, AVSM, VrC, (Retd.) (former DGMO & First Force Commander and Head of Mission of UNPROFOR (former Yugoslavia), and former Director, United Service Institution of India) chaired the MP-IDSA Fellows’ Seminar. Introducing the panel, he invited Dr. Rajeesh to present his paper on “Indian and Chinese Approaches to United Nations Peacekeeping (UNPK) in Africa”. In his presentation, Dr. Rajeesh Kumar (Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA) compared and contrasted the Indian and Chinese involvements in the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKOs) highlighting their troop deployment and rationale for participation, their involvement in UNPKOs in Africa and, the Indian and Chinese voting responses on United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) related to UNPK Missions in Africa. He concluded by presenting the findings of his paper followed by policy suggestions. Detailing the limitations of his study, Dr. Rajeesh spoke on the huge disparities in availability of data especially on China’s troop deployment and insufficient official documents on the latest peacekeeping details of China.

In the first part of his presentation, Dr. Rajeesh explained the evolution of the Indian and Chinese approaches to UNPKOs. India is the largest troop contributor, has proactively participated in 75% of the UNPKOs globally since 1964, provided critical leadership roles, sustained the largest peacekeeping fatalities (177 peacekeepers) and has adopted a principled approach emphasising on the United Nations (UN) Charter principles such as sovereignty, consent of parties and impartiality. He stated that a primary characteristic of India’s approach is its peacebuilding activities and engagement with local communities. On the other hand, China had initially opposed all activities pertaining to peacekeeping including resolutions since it perceived UNPKO as a tool of superpowers to intervene in global south countries. The Speaker explained that China’s involvement in the UNPKO took a drastic shift in the 1980’s, it’s today the second largest contributor to UNPK budget, ranks tenth in troop contributing countries (TCCs), largest among the permanent five (P5), has adopted a principled approach emphasising UN Charter principles and has a selective approach since it uses peacekeeping as a tool to wield influence.

The second part of Dr. Rajeesh’s presentation focused on Indian and Chinese involvement in the UNPKOs in Africa highlighting their troop contribution, rationale for participation and criticisms. Providing an overview and trajectory of UNPKOs in Africa, he mentioned that the continent has hosted nearly 47% of peacekeeping operations (PKOs) in the world. India has participated in 22 missions in Africa, suffered most casualties (123 deaths) and consistently contributed at least more than 5,000 troops in all missions. The Speaker assessed that India’s participation in Operation Congo is a specimen of India’s robust PKO contribution, its involvement in Somalia illustrated the fundamentals of India’s peacekeeping in Africa, Sierra Leone validated India’s stellar contribution, deployment of an all women unit in Liberia and role in South Sudan exemplified the fundamental characteristics of UNPKO in Africa among many others. However, he added that India’s peacekeeping in Africa is not free of criticism and alluded to the lack of language proficiency, accusations of sexual abuse and inadequate training to face challenges in the African context. On the other hand, China has participated in 17 UNPKOs in Africa, recently become proactive in its participation and its important missions include Congo, Liberia, Sudan and South Sudan. He stated that Chinese involvement has been criticized for lack of transparency, failure to uphold human rights standards in peacekeeping, resource extraction, use of PKO forces for its security interest in Africa and support for authoritarian regimes. Discussing the rationale for both countries, the Speaker assessed that while India contributes troops as a display of its solidarity with developing countries, to strengthen bilateral ties, and due to its aspiration for the high table among other factors; China’s involvement is due to its growing ambitions, security and economic interests, to safeguard  Chinese infrastructure constructions, showcase  its military capabilities and building of a positive reputation in Africa.

In the next section of his presentation, Dr. Rajeesh briefly discussed the voting responses of India and China on UNSCR related to UNPKOs in the timeframe of 1991-92, 2011-12 and 2012-22. Stating the voting responses in each year to the UNPKOs, the Speaker summarised that the voting patterns displayed the proactive and aggressive approach of both countries. Dr. Rajeesh concluded his presentation with the key highlights of his findings and offered a few policy suggestions. Identifying the similarities of Indian and Chinese approaches, he pointed out their shared common interests in promoting peace and stability in Africa, support for regional development activity as emerging powers and demonstration of their growing influence and leadership. He discussed that India and China differ in their motivations for participation in UNPKOs in Africa, approaches to engaging with local community, and in their voting patterns. Dr. Rajeesh suggested that local language constraints of Indian peacekeepers could be improved; specialized training could be increased; and use of modern technologies in African UPKOs can be promoted.

Ambassador T.S. Tirumurti (Former Permanent Representative of India to the UN, New York) complimented Dr. Rajeesh for a timely paper on an important topic detailed in an analytical manner and researched well, bringing out important points. He shared some of his observations such as - besides India’s world renowned professionalism and contribution to shaping UNPK policies, India has left a stamp on every peacekeeping activity including peacebuilding, recognising importance of technology in peacekeeping and strengthening the regime to prevent impunity attacks against peacekeepers. He expressed agreement with the presenter’s opinion that India views UN as a critical element of its global vision for peaceful coexistence and PKOs help shape a country’s image positively as a responsible international actor. Stating that most conflicts in Africa are rooted in colonial struggle, Ambassador Tirumurti underlined that India’s participation in UNPKOs in Africa is an expression of its solidarity with developing countries. Underscoring the importance of historical dimensions with multiple examples, he assessed that India’s focus on UNPKOs in the African continent came as a natural extension of the close defence links established since 1950s. This makes India different from China and altruism must not be forgotten in the world of realpolitik.

Commending the author’s perspectives on the evolution of Indian and Chinese peacekeeping, Ambassador Tirumurti shed light on some points of convergences and divergences between the two such as – on risks taken, India has professionally evaluated risks cautiously and deployed its peacekeeping troops in high risk theatres unlike China which is hesitant; on military strategic capabilities, while India has less reserve capability and a long logistic link from India to Africa, China has the largest standby force for peacekeeping with 8,000 troops and its logistics base in Djibouti is an advantage which is pertinent as the distance and time for decision making costs India a few deployment opportunities; on mandates, while both the countries are concerned about the increasingly robust mandates, India views it as a means to address issues  with the national defence forces while China sees it as an attempt to erode host state authority; both countries pushback against pressures from the West; on senior leadership, India has contributed leadership at all levels since the beginning unlike China; on engagement with local communities, while India is known for building good engagement, China is criticized for the lack of it.

Agreeing with the author’s observation that India has a more principled approach of neutrality to UNPK, Ambassador Tirumurti sounded a note of caution to the author on certain aspects stating that – the sources criticising training of Indian peacekeepers must be verified for their credibility; re-consider correlation drawn between China’s peacekeeping deployments and its economic interests with inclusion of substantive data and statistics to explain the nexus; criticisms on Chinese support for authoritarian regimes must be justified with valid examples; important to compare only those UNSCRs votes where both countries expressed views on the mandate of UNPKOs since abstentions are often related to non-peacekeeping factors; and policy point four given by the author must be re-checked as one must not confuse India’s economic interests with its peacekeeping interests. Additionally, Ambassador Tirumurti offered valuable suggestions for enhancing the paper such as – China’s financial contribution to UNPK could be explained with a chart and comparison with P5 to understand how China uses its financial clout to bring about changes in some UNPK appointments; comparison of how diversified the UNPK pledges of China are vis-à-vis India’s pledges; highlight India’s contributions such as Unite Aware Initiative; closely examine gender mix in Indian and Chinese troops and finally, enhancing women deployment in Indian peacekeeping troops could be included in the policy recommendations. The discussant concluded by acknowledging the author for bringing out a valuable paper.

The next external discussant, Professor Yeshi Choeden (CIPOD, SIS, Jawaharlal Nehru University) began by appreciating the author’s worthy attempt to study the topic. She conveyed that peacekeeping is the most visible form to exist on the international stage and focus on the African continent of 54 countries is valid since India and China as emerging countries require support. One way to establish relations is by participating in the UNPKOs. Professor Choeden provided inputs on how to improve the paper further. At the outset, she expressed her concern that the while the paper has a parallel discussion on India and China in UNPKOs, the policy recommendation only focused on India which raises a query on the utility of comparing with China. She suggested that policy suggestions could perhaps include some lessons to learn from China such as its efficient publicity of its peacekeeping involvement. Policy recommendations in the paper must emerge out of the comparison discussed in the paper and even the title could include the word ‘comparison’. Mentioning that the paper highlights China’s budget contribution, she cautioned that budget contribution cannot be compared with troop contribution since budget contribution is a legal obligation unlike troop contribution. Additionally, while India has a reputation of paying consistently on time, it could be researched whether China also pays the full amount in time and since China’s budget contribution is discussed, India’s budget contribution must also be included.

Professor Choeden opined that India’s standby forces commitment must be included similar to how China’s is discussed and, recommendations could emerge from this comparison. She stressed on the importance of comparing not just uniformed personnel but also the contribution of non-uniformed personnel such as police personnel and experts. She underlined that gender must be discussed in greater detail since it’s an important topic at the UN. Professor Choeden candidly expressed her views elucidating that Indian peacekeepers are known as ‘initial peace builders’ because of their involvement in humanitarian assistance to local communities unlike China and, that China’s contribution until recently was limited and specialized in logistical support which is not risky while India’s UNPK contribution includes all aspects. Reflecting on India’s contribution in mainstreaming gender in UNPKOs, she recommended that the policy inputs must highlight the need to repeat the deployment of an Indian women police unit similar to Liberia. She also pointed out the need to update some of the data mentioned in the paper. Professor Choeden concluded by commending the author’s good attempt and stressing on the need for added research before its publication.

The first internal discussant, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) (Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA) began with appreciating the paper. He shared his insights on the TCC data. For instance, the paper states that China is the highest TCC among the P5, however, the total troop contribution of the P5 is half of India’s troop contribution. He opined that the paper must distinctly note that although China ranks 10th in TCC, it is 10th by a very large margin from India. Another interesting facet in the TCC data, according to Maj. Gen. Bakshi, is that only one NATO country features in the top 30 TCCs, i.e. Italy ranked 24th. In this context, the Speaker underscored the importance of the location of troops and the type of troops contributed by the countries. Informing the audience about his own field experiences with regard to troops deployed in UNPKOs, he pointed out that the paper had mismatching figures in the tables and remarked on the need to re-check and update the data. Noting that the paper does not list the names of the Special Representative to the Secretary General (SRSG), military advisors and force commanders in the section on India’s leadership contribution to UNPKOs, he underscored that India’s military advisors in UNPKOs, the names of SRSGs and Deputy SRSGs need to be mentioned and, India’s helicopter deployments including type of troops must be included.

Maj. Gen. Bakshi emphasised that China’s initial contribution was only in logistical support which is a well secured area with no risks and zero contact with hostiles; unlike India which has its troops deployed in all arenas. He proposed that the paper would benefit to compare and contrast India and China’s UNPK involvement in the same missions in Africa. Recognising that peacekeepers and police officials are important in an UNPKO, he elucidated on the significance of teamsites and the critical role played by unarmed military observers. Vouching that the success of a mission depends on how teamsites function, Maj. Gen. Bakshi conveyed that while unarmed military observers are the eyes, ears and smile of the UN; the peacekeepers are the hidden teeth. He highlighted that Indian peacekeepers besides being praised for professionalism, a friendly approach and reliability in crises, are well known for complete impartiality, highly ethical approaches and innovative ways of handling issues. Reflecting further on this, Maj. Gen. Bakshi shared some personal anecdotes.

The Speaker opined that language skills may not be as important for troops who would anyway have the support of interpreters and since most African countries are Anglophone. Asserting that Indian peacekeepers having inadequate training is not a substantive statement, he said that “Peacekeeping is not a Soldier’s job, but only a Soldier can do it”. Maj. Gen. Bakshi suggested that the huge training footprint of India’s Centre for United Nations Peacekeeping (CUNPK) could be included. Expressing agreement with the recommendation on technology in peacekeeping, he reflected on the restrictions caused by budget. He concluded by commenting on the need to reconsider the issue of addressing economic interests mentioned by the author in policy recommendations.

Col. (Dr.) D.P.K Pillay (Retd.) (Research Fellow, Non-Traditional Security Centre, MP-IDSA) congratulated Dr. Rajeesh for bringing out a timely paper on a topic that has limited material available. Reflecting on the importance of the historical context and influence of India’s role as founding member of the League of Nations and the UN, Col. Pillay detailed an overview of India’s neutral assistance and troop contribution to the war in Korea headed by Lt.  Gen. K S Thimmaya, its troop contribution during the Suez Canal crisis and participation in Yugoslavia. Discussing India’s refusal to participate in the UN Missions in Timor-Leste and others based on its principled approach, he suggested that these dimensions could also be mentioned in the paper. Noting that China never participated in UN Missions initially, he reflected on the reasons that led China to eventually involve itself in UNPKOs such as its approach of “cannot rip them, join them” and the impact of the war in Korea. He pointed out that China does not contribute to UNPKO budget out of charity.

Mentioning examples of Chinese activities in Sudan, Mali and Congo, Col. Pillay underlined that China’s UNPK deployment and resource allocation must be elaborated in detail in the paper. He asserted that humanitarian cause does not drive China’s agenda and it is instead a low cost PR exercise. He assessed that India has failed to capitalise on its UNPK efforts despite having contributed much more than China, qualitatively and quantitatively. On policy suggestions, he opined that language skills training was not feasible and rather, unessential.  Stating that ‘India was earlier what Africa is today’ and African nations like Mozambique aspire to be like India, he discussed the various fields that India could offer insights to Africa including college construction in conflict-prone zones, healthcare and others. Expressing that the paper is good, he suggested that strands driving both the countries participation in UNPKO and the differences could be built coherently in the paper.

Internal discussant Ms. Ruchita Beri (Senior Research Associate & Centre Coordinator, ALACUN Centre, MP-IDSA) began her remarks by stating the importance of the topic. She expressed concern that the paper has missed discussing the security situation in the African continent. Stating that the continent is not a monolith and has 54 countries, she noted that UNPK in Africa is challenging since peacekeepers face a tough and complex security climate. She analysed that further to the reasons discussed by the author for India’s rationale for participation in UNPKOs in Africa, a key motivation was keeping peace, a clear foremost objective in India-Africa cooperation. Quoting Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech which underscored the commitment of India and Africa towards peace, she stressed that India’s UNPK interests in Africa are driven by its genuine desire of peace commitment & solidarity with people of Africa. Mentioning the ten guiding principles of India-Africa engagement, she emphasised on principle seven that states India’s support to UN in advancing peace in the African continent. Sharing that there are several statements by the Government of India (GOI) on this issue, she suggested that this could be incorporated into the paper.

Taking cognizance that India’s peacekeeping in Africa is exemplary as drawn out in the paper, Ms. Beri shed light on other important features of India’s peacekeeping in Africa such as promoting gender equality, reflecting solidarity and enhancing bilateral cooperation. She added that examples could be provided to substantiate how India’s UNPK effort has helped in promoting relations. Ms. Beri shared her observations on the policy recommendations provided by the author. On language skills, she highlighted that Africa has multiple languages and brought out the issue of limited language training facilities available in India to provide such training. On Indian peacekeepers not receiving adequate training, she underlined that the sources of such criticism, whether African or western, must be verified especially since India is at the forefront of training African peacekeepers and peacekeepers from abroad. She suggested that the perception of African countries about India as a security partner in terms of its role in UNPKOs could also be explored in the paper.

Next, Ms. Beri shared her observations on China’s involvement in UNPKOs in Africa stating that writings by Chinese scholars could be referred to which highlight China’s great power ambition as a rationale for its UNPK involvement. She shed light on factors driving China’s Africa policy such as contestation of Taiwan. She mentioned that reports of incidents indicating that China has tested its weapons through UNPK could also be included in the paper. Ms. Beri concluded by quoting Nelson Mandela’s “dream of an Africa which is in peace with itself” and conveyed that India is trying to help its African counterparts achieve this dream.

In the Q/A session, Ambassador Tirumurti underscored that language skills of peacekeepers is not a common sense issue on which a conclusion could be made but rather, it is important to consider what the UN requires. Stating that the UN mandates language proficiency as one of its criteria in UNPKOs, he asserted that the author’s policy suggestion is credible. Additionally, on the gender ratio of troops, he added that India must fulfill the percentage mandated by UN. Further, explaining that countries do not invest in conflict areas which is where peacekeeping forces are deployed, he stressed on the need to exercise caution before linking economic interest with peacekeeping and underlined the importance of data for such a connection. The UN Mission in Mali was also briefly discussed in the Q/A session.

Next, Dr. Kumar shared his remarks on the comments and inputs received. He acknowledged the discussants for their valid inputs adding that he would incorporate the same.

In the final leg of the seminar, the Chair Lt. Gen. Satish Nambiar candidly shared his insights and observations on the theme of the paper. He suggested reframing the paper title and argued that India does not necessarily gain from the Chinese experience. He substantiated his observation by sharing insights from his own experience as a UN First Force Commander who spearheaded military personnel from 34 countries. He asserted with multiple explanations that since India has been engaged in UNPKOs much longer than the Chinese, China could learn from India’s experience. In his remarks, Lt. Gen. Nambiar outlined the various significant contributions of CUNPK and suggested that these could be incorporated into the paper.  Assessing that India has participated in every UN Mission in Africa, he contended that the Chinese were not able to match India’s intense contribution and commitment to UNPK. He advised that the paper could address these issues as well. He emphasized the importance of data being correct and suggested that since the first Military Advisor at UN was an Indian, this could be included in the paper.

According to Lt. Gen. Nambiar, the focus of the paper ought to be what the Chinese can learn from India. On the issue of India’s aspiration for permanent membership in the UNSC, he remarked that it would never come about unless all P5 agree and all representing countries get together. He argued that the focus of India’s effort for reconstitution of the UNSC must be to ensure inclusion of one of the 54 countries from the African continent and one from among the 27 countries in South America. In his opinion, as far as India is concerned, other countries would fight our case provided India gets its economic act together along with strong bilateral relations. He also shed light on the hypocrisy of western nations who occupy top leadership positions in the UN Mission rather than deploying troops on ground; efforts to securitise climate change and the issue of funding. In his concluding points, Lt. Gen. Nambiar remarked that the Indian Peacekeeper has a tremendous record and the onus lies on everyone to ensure that this reputation is not sullied.

The Fellows’ Seminar concluded with brief remarks by Ms. Beri stating the importance of presenting a researcher’s viewpoints, significance of constructive criticism to improve the paper and note of acknowledgment to the external discussants.

Key Takeaways on the Paper

• An important, worthy and timely paper on a significant theme.
• India has adopted a principled approach emphasising on the United Nations (UN) Charter principles such as sovereignty, consent of parties and impartiality. On the other hand, China has adopted a principled (emphasising UN Charter principles) but selective approach (since it uses peacekeeping as a tool to wield influence).
• While India contributes troops as a display of its solidarity with developing countries, to strengthen bilateral ties, its aspiration for a high table among other factors; China’s involvement is due to its growing ambitions, security and economic interests, to safeguard Chinese infrastructure constructions, to showcase its military capabilities and building of a positive reputation in Africa.
• The similarities of Indian and Chinese approaches include their shared common interests in promoting peace and stability in Africa, support for regional development activity as emerging powers and demonstration of their growing influence and leadership. On the other hand, India and China differ in their motivations for participation in UNPKOs in Africa, approaches to engaging with local community, and in their voting patterns.
• The paper suggested that local language constraints of Indian peacekeepers could be improved; specialized training could be increased; and use of modern technologies in African UPKOs can be promoted.

Inputs by External Discussants

• Historical dimensions portraying India’s UNPK efforts in Africa as a natural extension of the close defence links established since 1950s, India’s tryst with UNPKOs and sacrifice of Indian peacekeepers could be included.
• Sources criticising training of Indian peacekeepers must be verified for their credibility.
• Correlation drawn between China’s peacekeeping deployments and its economic interests must be substantiated with data and statistics to explain the nexus.
• Criticisms on Chinese support for authoritarian regimes must be justified with valid examples.
• It is important to compare only those UNSCRs votes where both countries expressed views on the mandate of UNPKOs since abstentions are often related to non-peacekeeping factors.
• China’s financial contribution to UNPK could be explained with a chart and comparison with P5 to understand how China uses its financial clout to bring about changes in some UNPK appointments.
• The need to repeat and enhance women’s deployment in Indian peacekeeping troops could be included in the policy recommendations.
• Policy recommendations in the paper must emerge out of the comparison discussed in the paper.
• Since India has been engaged in UNPKOs much longer than the Chinese, perhaps the focus of the paper ought to be on what China could learn from India’s experience.
• The efforts of CUNPK and its significant contributions could be incorporated.

Inputs by Internal Discussants

• India’s military advisors in UNPKOs, the names of SRSGs and Deputy SRSGs, India’s helicopter deployments including type of troops and the critical role played by unarmed military observers must be included.
• The paper would benefit to compare and contrast India and China’s UNPK involvement in the same missions in Africa.
• The huge training footprint of India’s CUNPK could be included.
• The issue of addressing economic interests mentioned in the policy recommendations must be reconsidered.
• The historical context and influence of India’s role as founding member of the League of Nations and the UN could be discussed in the paper.
• China’s UNPK deployment and resource allocation must be elaborated in detail in the paper.
• The paper has missed discussing the security situation in the African continent.
• Other key motivations for India’s UNPK efforts in Africa as brought out by GOI statements, and other important features of India’s peacekeeping in Africa could be included.
• Examples could be provided to substantiate how India’s UNPK effort has helped in promoting bilateral relations.
• The perception of African countries on India as a security partner in terms of role in UNPKOs could also be explored in the paper.
• Writings by Chinese scholars on China’s UNPKO participation could be referred.