Events

Event Report

Ms. Sindhu Dinesh, Research Analyst, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, spoke on “Withdrawal of French Troops from Mali: Implications and Challenges” at the Monday Morning Meeting which was held on 02 May 2022 at 10 AM in the Auditorium. The session was moderated by Ms. Ruchita Beri, Senior Research Associate and Centre Coordinator, Africa, Latin America, Caribbean, and United Nations (ALACUN) Centre, MP-IDSA. The Director-General, MP-IDSA, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy and all scholars of MP-IDSA were in attendance.

Executive Summary

In February 2022, France and its allies announced a coordinated withdrawal of their forces from Mali due to multiple obstructions by the military-led government. The talk shed light on the various dimensions, implications, and challenges of this move. The speaker highlighted the political, economic, and security developments in Mali, while also outlining the role of international actors in the region and underscoring the origins of French involvement in Mali, and discussing the ramifications of its withdrawal. The implications of the withdrawal on the G-5 Sahel countries, particularly as it pertained to security, were also underscored. India’s cooperation with France in Africa was discussed, along with France’s internal political and economic motivations behind the withdrawal.

Detailed Report

Ms. Ruchita Beri opened the session by underlining the growing unpopularity of the French presence in Francophone countries. With this observation, she invited Ms. Dinesh to make her presentation. Ms. Dinesh’s talk covered the implications and challenges of the withdrawal of French troops from Mali and its impact on the neighboring countries. She began her presentation by highlighting the political, economic, and security developments in Mali, including the coups, terrorist activities, prevailing poverty, and communal violence. She drew the audience’s attention to the fact that a rise in insurgent activity in northern Mali and the government’s inability to quell it led to a coup in 2012. Fearing an entrenchment of such activities in the central and southern regions, the interim government of Mali requested France’s aid in counter-terrorism, leading to Operation Serval and France’s arrival in the country in 2013. In 2020, another coup was led by Colonel Assimi Goïta against the government and in May 2021—in what the speaker said is referred to as ‘a coup within a coup’—Col. Goïta seized power and President Ndaw and Prime Minister Ouane were detained. This was the immediate political context of France’s decision to reduce its troops and later withdraw. Ms. Dinesh gave an economic overview, outlining Mali’s poverty and dependence on oil imports. She also noted that the growth of local terrorist outfits, communal violence between the herding and farming communities, drug trafficking, and other organised crimes have given rise to a complex security climate. She also provided a comprehensive overview of the activities of international bodies such as the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (UN MINUSMA), European Union Capacity Building Mission in Mali, and European Union Training Mission in Mali.

Talking about the inception and triggers of Operation Serval, Ms. Dinesh called attention to France’s moral obligation to look after its formal colonies. She also mentioned the success of Operation Serval in pushing back rebels to the northern part, giving rise to Operation Barkhane focused on counter-terrorism operations in the region, which although has eliminated the top leadership of several terrorist outfits and neutralised insurgents, has had limited success as the security threats in Mali have only increased. Ms. Dinesh pointed out that, after the May 2021 coup France refused to work with an unconstitutional government and President Macron announced a reduction of troops deployed to Mali. In February of 2022, France and its allies (part of Takuba Task Force) announced a coordinated withdrawal of their forces due to ‘multiple obstructions’ by the military-led government. In addition to this, a delay in elections and deterioration of bilateral ties also motivated France’s withdrawal. The speaker also shed light on the entry of new actors such as a Russian paramilitary organisation, the Wagner Group, into Mali. According to the government, the purpose of the Wagner Group is to train the armed forces of Mali but this reasoning is met with skepticism by the West. 

Ms. Dinesh outlined the internal as well as the external implications of the withdrawal. According to her, the withdrawal has immediate security consequences in both of these realms. It will open Mali to a potential increase in terrorist activities and an escalation of its security crisis. However, with the exit of foreign presence, it remains to be seen whether the insurgent and jihadist groups would now engage in talks with the Malian authorities. It will also impact the operation of MINUSMA, which is heavily dependent on France’s air support, and is not mandated to deal with counter-terrorist operations. The withdrawal also accelerates the challenges to development and humanitarian efforts extended to the nation. In the external domain, France’s withdrawal, according to Ms. Dinesh, poses concerns about the rise of transnational terrorist attacks in the region and a very real threat to countries south of the Sahel which may witness a spillover of jihadist terrorism. At the same time, she also brings to the audience’s attention the fact that the troops have not withdrawn from the entire region but only Mali.

Ms. Dinesh concluded by highlighting the possibility of the emergence of a security vacuum after France’s exit, along with Russian involvement in the region. She urged that the region is in need of a streamlined international effort, particularly a people and government-centric one, focused on the empowerment of the government apparatus and civil society.

After the conclusion of Ms. Dinesh’s presentation, Ms. Beri opened the floor for questions and discussion. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy complimented the speaker for a comprehensive presentation and also commented that care must be taken while assessing strategic partnerships with former colonial powers. Ms. Beri agreed with Ambassador Chinoy’s comments. Questions were raised on the extent of the success of the Russian Wagner Group in Mali. Underlining that Russia is Africa’s biggest arms supplier at the moment, Ms. Beri added that it is only natural that Russia would want to increase its presence in Mali. It remains to be seen as to how successful it is in dealing with the prevailing challenges.  

Some questions from the audience focused on France’s economic ambitions behind its involvement in Mali. France’s internal politics and economy were also discussed in this context. Questions were also asked about the reaction of neighboring countries to France’s withdrawal. In response, Ms. Dinesh outlined the rise of concerns in the region regarding the containment of terrorism, a potential increase in defense spending, and escalation of anxieties regarding migration. India’s cooperation with France, as well as Mali, was also discussed. The session was concluded by Ms. Beri with an acknowledgment of the fact that France is only withdrawing from Mali and still continues operations in other countries in the region, along with a comment on India-Mali relations and the future of Mali.

This report has been prepared by Ms. Halima Z. Ansari, Intern, MP-IDSA.

Dr. Priyanka Singh, Associate Fellow, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, spoke on “India-US 2+2 Dialogue: Bolstering the Strategic Partnership” at the Monday Morning Meeting which was held on 18 April 2022 at 1000hrs in the Seminar Hall I. Cmde. Abhay Kumar Singh (Retd.), Research Fellow, Manohar Parrikar IDSA chaired the session with Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director-General, Manohar Parrikar IDSA and scholars of the institute being in attendance.

Executive Summary

The India-US 2+2 Dialogue in the broader context of the India-US relationship was analysed at the meeting. The trajectory of the India-US 2+2 Dialogue since September 2018 was analysed briefly. The India-US bilateral relationship from Cold-War ideological divisions and divergent priorities to mutually beneficial strategic ties, including in the realm of defence domain was traced. It was concluded that given India’s balanced position in international affairs, the country could get the best out of the US by optimising convergences and minimising differences. India could do this by further extending its reach in the South Asian region and shielding its strategic autonomy.

Detailed Report

Cmde. Abhay Kumar Singh opened the session by posing a question regarding the convergences and divergences in the India-US relationship. According to him, India’s position on the Ukraine crisis was a major divergence in the discussion. However, the candid discussion between India and the US, followed by one of the longest joint statements, indicated the robustness of the relationship. With this observation, the Chair invited Dr. Priyanka Singh to make her presentation. Dr. Singh put the India-US 2+2 Dialogue in perspective by giving a brief background of India’s 2+2 engagements with the countries concerned, including the US. She drew the audience's attention to the fact that India had 2+2 arrangements with all the Quad members and Russia. The speaker presented a brief trajectory of the India-US 2+2 Dialogue since September 2018, when the first such meeting took place. She touched upon the issue of India signing the US defence foundational pacts and India-US cooperation under the Indo-Pacific framework. Dr. Singh called the 2+2 dialogue a platform that nurtures bilateral cohesion and provides an opportunity to amalgamate the issues concerning the two sides in the realm of defence, security, and intelligence sharing. According to her, the 2+2 platform provides a personalised interface for strengthening the bilateral relationship by moving forward on specific issues of mutual interests while weeding out the differences.

Commenting on the 2+2 Dialogue that was held on 11 April 2022 in Washington DC in the presence of Secretary of State, Antony J. Blinken and Secretary of Defense, Lloyd J. Austin III from the US side and Minister of External Affairs (EAM), S. Jaishankar and Raksha Mantri, Rajnath Singh from the Indian side, the speaker referred to the statement by the Ministry of External Affairs, India, which had positioned the dialogue as a forum to further consolidate the bilateral relationship between India and the US. The speaker also highlighted Raksha Mantri, Rajnath Singh’s visit to the Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) based in Hawaii. Further, Dr. Singh presented key developments that had taken place in the run-up to the 2+2 Dialogue. She mentioned the meeting between Foreign Secretary of India, Harsh Vardhan Shringla and the US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland as a part of a diplomatic exercise undertaken by the US with the countries that had taken a neutral stance at the United Nations (UN) vis-à-vis the Ukraine crisis. The speaker also referred to the controversial statement by the US Deputy National Security Advisor, Daleep Singh during his India visit where he had warned countries trying to circumvent American sanctions against Russia. Further, Donald Lu, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, had referred to the 2+2 Dialogue as a health check of the India-US strategic partnership. Moreover, President Biden had termed India as a ‘shaky ally’ amongst the Quad countries. Thus, there were a series of critical statements regarding India from the US’ top political echelon before the 2+2 Dialogue.

Apart from the statements, the 2+2 Dialogue was preceded by important geopolitical events in the region such as the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, India’s cautious position on the Ukraine crisis, and the rupture in the US-Pakistan relationship. Thus, the 2+2 Dialogue was an attempt to find a way to accommodate the varying priorities of India and the US that would resurrect confidence in the bilateral relationship. Emphasising the importance of the Dialogue, Dr. Singh observed that the 2+2 Dialogue was prefaced by a virtual meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Biden, which showed the strategic importance accorded by both sides to the Dialogue. The joint statement released after the 2+2 Dialogue prominently mentioned Global Partnership and Indo-Pacific Cooperation; Mutual Prosperity, Innovation, and Resilient Supply Chains; Climate, Environment, and Clean Energy; Science, Technology, Cybersecurity, and Space; Global Health; Defence and Security; Counterterrorism and Counter Narcotics; and Education and People-to-People Ties. Civilian deaths in Ukraine were condemned, and the cessation of hostilities was stressed on by both sides. The joint statement and presser after suggested that the US understood India’s position on issues of mutual interest. Additionally, there were efforts to augment bilateral investments, signing of a bilateral space situational awareness arrangement, expansion of ties in the cyber and space domain, promotion and review of working groups of the Quad, and a waiver from Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) sanctions for the time being. The joint statement also called on Pakistan to stop supporting terrorism from its soil.

The statement welcomed the convening of the 18th meeting of the India-US joint working group on counter-terrorism and the fourth Session of the India-U.S. Designations Dialogue in October 2021. Thus, the net result of the Dialogue was that things were back on track and the US and India decided to agree to disagree on the Ukraine crisis. The key focus of the discussion was the Indo-Pacific. Dr. Singh argued that India-US relations have moved from Cold-War ideological divisions and divergent priorities to mutually beneficial strategic ties, including in the defence domain. History and circumstances have shaped India-US relations. India-US defence cooperation dates back to 1951, when the first military agreement was signed between the two countries. Both countries participated in the joint military exercise ‘Shiksha’ way back in 1962. However, issues such as the Cold-War and the US’ stand on Kashmir did not let the relationship evolve. The root of the present synergy between the two sides goes back to 1991, before which the relationship was moving forward in an extremely cautious way under a conservative framework. In conclusion, the speaker pondered about whether the India-US relationship has already plateaued, even though the China factor might act as an adhesive? She maintained that given India’s balanced position in international affairs, the country could get the best out of the US by optimising convergences and minimising differences. India could do this by further extending its reach in the South Asian region and by shielding its strategic autonomy.

Participating in the discussion, Deputy Director-General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi complimented the speaker and asserted that India is navigating in an extremely complicated international scenario. India’s defence agreements with the US came about in a space where it helped India posture against China with a dormant Russia. Now Russia has suddenly re-emerged on the international canvas, which has made the situation extremely volatile. The Quad has no security implications as of now. India is the only intersection point in the BRICS, the RIC and the Quad. Thus, the country has to straddle both sides, balancing the competing priorities. A lot of things in the realm of India-US defence cooperation may not be in the public domain. In the security arena, the two countries have an anti-terrorism assistance programme. In the domain of technology transfer, things are moving forward positively, with Boeing announcing that Chinook chassis will be made in India. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bakshi observed that US-Pakistan relations are likely to improve. He drew attention to the fact that Pakistan had accused Afghanistan of promoting terrorism against the former. Pakistan Air Force aircraft had gone across the border to bomb the Khost province of Afghanistan. He raised the possibility of the US-Russia-India relationship turning into a zero-sum game and raised the question that if India moves closer to the US, does India have to go away from Russia? Or can India manage both relations?

Responding to the ensuing questions, Dr. Singh claimed that India does not have an option to be with either Russia or the US. India has to deal with both simultaneously. Both the US and Russia are important for India in its quest to deal with China. If one leaves Russia, it will move closer to China. Thus, the challenge before India is to strike a balance between Russia and a strategic partnership with the US. India’s stand on Ukraine is a testament of India’s balancing act. It will take time for the US to replace Russia in India’s strategic calculus, and even the US understands it. India seems to be listening to the US but not reacting so much. The priority for the regional actors is China and the Indo-Pacific. According to Dr. Singh, there is no threat to India on account of US-Pakistan relations.

Participating in the discussion, Cmde. Singh said that the US is constantly pushing back against Chinese assertiveness through regional, sub-regional and bilateral levels, although there exists a perception that the US was not doing enough. Moreover, Cmde. Singh contended that the Quad had an overt military security hand. But the Quad members purposely made efforts not to make the Quad look like an Asian NATO. However, the military-security domain remains the backbone of the Quad. Moreover, the Quad countries have enhanced security relations amongst one another in a bilateral and trilateral format. Cmde. Singh stated that Russia’s reputation had taken a hit due to the Ukraine crisis, while the perception of US decline had existed for the past 20 years. With this thought-provoking discussion, the Monday Morning Meeting came to an end.

The report was prepared by Mr. Niranjan Chandrashekhar Oak, Research Analyst, Manohar Parrikar IDSA.

The Monday morning meeting on “Political Instability in Sri Lanka” was held on 11 April 2022 at 10 AM in Seminar Hall I, Second Floor. Associate Fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), Dr. Gulbin Sultana spoke on the subject and elaborated on the causes and implications of the crisis in Sri Lanka. The session was chaired by Dr. Anand Kumar, Associate Fellow South Asia Centre, MP-IDSA. Director-General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy and Deputy Director-General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi shared their views. Coordinator South Asia Centre, Dr. Ashok K. Behuria also shared his views on the topic.

Executive Summary

Sri Lanka has been passing through a serious economic crisis that has also led to political uncertainty in the island nation. There have been peaceful protests for days and the protestors blame President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his government for the economic crisis and want him to go. Though the crisis continues and some countries have offered help, that doesn’t seem enough. Assessing the gravity of the situation, India has offered timely help of US$ 2.4 billion, although it has avoided commenting on the political crisis as it is Sri Lanka’s internal matter. The overall situation remains volatile and uncertain.  

Detailed Report

Dr. Gulbin Sultana started her presentation by saying that political instability in Sri Lanka has been caused by the economic crisis in the country. In the latest major political development, the whole Cabinet except the Prime Minister resigned with immediate effect late on Sunday night (3 April). Most of the Ministries since then are being run by Secretaries. The country has had no Finance Secretary for some time.

Dr. Sultana said that the people of Sri Lanka believe that the economic crisis was caused by incompetence of the Gotabaya Rajapaksa Government. Sri Lanka was mired in various crises like health crisis, farmers’ protests, amongst others for a long time. However, the major breaking point was an 8-9 hour long power cut on 30 March, after which people from a wide spectrum of society hit the roads. They started protesting against the government in various parts of the country. In the last week of March there were protests outside the President’s House which were condemned by the President saying that extremists were behind these protests. He, in fact, declared an emergency. However, people defied the emergency and curfew and came in large numbers on the streets from 2 April onward, demanding the resignation of the President. They also demanded a change in the political system in the country.

Apparently, it was the scale and nature of the protests across the country that forced the Ministers to resign on 3 April. Once the Cabinet resigned, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa appointed four new Cabinet Ministers on 4 April. The President then proposed the formation of an interim government with the opposition, which was an earlier demand of the 11 coalition partners of the ruling party. The opposition refused the offer.

Dr. Sultana said that the protests were widespread and not led by any political parties; the protesters came from all walks of life and appeared united. They included every ethnicity, class and professionals and therefore such protests were unprecedented.  

The opposition and the coalition partners (41 in number) who have decided to sit as independents in the parliament, are neither united nor consistent in their demands. The opposition agreed to the formation of an interim government but on certain conditions, which include: one, that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa would have to resign and two, no more than two of the Rajapaksas would be there in the interim government.  

Meanwhile, while debating the issues in parliament on 5 and 6 April, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) led ruling alliance asked that if the President resigns, what plan does the opposition have to deal with the situation. At the same time, the opposition seems to have realised that if it was unable to deal with the situation, it may also be blamed for the crisis. The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the other 11 coalition partners of the government have proposed the formation of the national executive council.

The main opposition is also saying that if the President decided not to resign, it would bring a no-confidence motion against the President. Several political parties have said that they would support a no-confidence motion against the government. There are a total of 225 members in parliament out of which the government had the support of 156 members. Out of that, 41 have withdrawn their support and are sitting as independent members. At the moment, the government has only 114 seats. However, though the government enjoys a simple majority at the moment, the opposition is not sure how many would vote in its support. What happens next will be known only on 19 April when parliament meets. The overall situation, according to Dr. Sultana, is dynamic and unfolding with new developments taking place.

Dr. Sultana stated that a few factors that need to be taken note of include: First, with regard to the protests, despite them being widespread, united and peaceful so far, it is not clear how sustainable they are going to be. Especially when the President has made it clear that he is not going to resign. Second, the role of SLFP is going to be important. Will the party support the government or will it decide to join the opposition needs to be seen. Third, the issue of legitimacy is important. Some people in Sri Lanka say that the problem is with the Presidential form of government in the country, not only with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Therefore, perhaps the political system needs to be changed in order to address the issues. However, the change needs to be constitutional.

There are some issues with these demands. Even if the President resigns, any interim government cannot continue for too long. That is a problem especially because new elections will cost money and it is a difficult proposition at a time when the economy is doing badly and even foreign reserves of the country have come down to $1.9 billion in the month of March. The newly appointed Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka has said that he has already tightened the country’s monetary policy. The country is also mulling over whether to go to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for bail out packages. The Governor has said that it would take 8- months to bring about some kind of stability in the economy.

Given all these factors, Dr. Sultana concluded that it is difficult to predict how the political and economic crises in Sri Lanka are going to unfold in the coming days. 

Discussion

The Director General, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy in his remarks started by pointing out that it is not a good sign for India to have two of its neighbouring countries, Sri Lanka and Pakistan facing political crises. Ambassador Chinoy said that any kind of turmoil in our neighbourhood essentially spells trouble for India. India must pose broad questions- whether such turmoil pushes Sri Lanka closer to China? Will they now rethink and open up to other possibilities other than China? Other than India? Will they also welcome the Millennium Challenge Corporation of the US? Or will it be viewed with the same kind of suspicion as it was seen as a zero-sum game or something that is a tactic against China or in more neutral terms, Ambassador Chinoy added.

Ambassador Chinoy said that to focus merely on political structure, like a change in the presidential system is like jumping out of a frying pan into the fire because in case of Sri Lanka no matter who is brought in, it is going to be an acolyte of the Rajapaksa family. That doesn’t address their fundamental issue which remains the economy.

Ambassador Chinoy said that there are three main prongs in the Sri Lankan economy. One, tourism which has dried up because of the COVID Pandemic. Instead of earning money, Colombo is spending money on stranded tourists in the country, especially from Russia and Ukraine. Second, because of the pandemic, remittances have dried up. This is important because Sri Lanka relies on remittances a lot. Third is the agriculture sector in which the country seems to have made some fundamental mistakes by putting bans on some fertilizers and is trying to form some half-baked notion of organic farming because agriculture has spiralled into a non-performing sector. The country can’t grow food for the country’s population, let alone for exports. Fourth is the undue reliance on external commercial borrowings to fuel the infrastructure spree. In this case borrowing from China and then unable to service the usurious rates of interest which puts Sri Lanka in debt, to the extent that the country has interest payments to the tune of $7.28 billion/year, an amount impossible for the country to pay. The only option here, Ambassador Chinoy pointed out, seems to be to turn to a country like India. India is doing what it can. India also has to make sure that it can’t open up too much just because the neighbouring country is in trouble. There have to be some conditionalities that India will also attach. There were some issues that troubled India. Some decisions taken by Sri Lanka were unfair in India’s view. There must be a review on all those matters.

But more broadly speaking Sri Lanka is turning to the IMF which raises some questions, Amb. Chinoy pointed out. Sri Lanka has been under scrutiny from the West on account of alleged war crimes and so-called human rights violations. Pressure on these matters is likely to increase if the country goes to the IMF because conditionalities that they attach for lending loans, like democracy, transparency, good governance, human rights, etc. will reflect those very same interests that had earlier tried to put Sri Lanka on the mat.   

Dr. Gulbin Sultana agreed with the issues raised by the Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy. She said that the option of the interim government that was being discussed, if it comes about, would only be for a short period of time. What happens after that? The main problem is how to deal with the economic crisis? The Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka has said that it would take 6-9 months to achieve some kind of economic stability. That means even if the new government is formed, it would have very little time to address various issues. But people are demanding change in the political system because they think the system has failed to address the issues.  On remittances, Dr. Sultana said that Sri Lankan expatriates are also protesting in many countries and they have said that they would not remit dollars to Sri Lanka until and unless the current government resigns. As far as undue commercial borrowing is concerned, it is a major problem but it seems that Sri Lanka doesn’t have much of an option but to go for loans. Though India is helping, how much assistance can it provide? Given the amount that Sri Lanka needs, one or two countries can’t help. Dr. Sultana said that some people say China was not as proactive as expected. But it would be wrong to say that Sri Lanka would move away from China. Finally, Sri Lanka is going to the IMF for help which is criticised by some sections in the country, as it would come with many conditionalities.  

Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi said that one needs to follow the crises in the two neighbouring countries carefully. Some observers are raising a question that there is a possibility of interference from the US. Both the countries are facing economic crises and have huge foreign debts because of mismanagement of the economy. Has the situation been engineered in a manner so as to create political instability is a question that needs to be looked into? Both countries have seen some unprecedented political developments. In this backdrop, how should India respond? Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bakshi said that if Beijing was to play an active role by helping Sri Lanka that would push it further into a debt-trap. One needs to find ways so that India can establish long term economic relations with Sri Lanka while keeping China at bay. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bakshi said that the idea of imposing organic farming without proper data and any trial is a function of a centralised decision making system. Power in Sri Lanka is centralised in one individual which may not be good for the nation.

Dr. Ashok K Behuria said that the issue of the executive presidency has been there for a long time in Sri Lanka. They have been trying to remove it, though that necessarily may not address the situation on the ground. The concentration of power in one person is proving detrimental for the country. As far as India's role is concerned, Dr. Behuria said that India has its limitations. India cannot pump in millions of dollars every year into the Sri Lankan economy to bring it out of crisis. At the same time, over the last 10 years, India’s influence in Sri Lanka has decreased. Other countries are securing their interests in Sri Lanka. India needs to look after its interests and act accordingly in the current situation. On the ethnic issue, Dr. Behuria said that India can join the international community and persuade the Government in Sri Lanka to go soft on the Tamil minority. But at the same time, it shouldn’t come at the cost of India’s reputation and influence. Some in Sri Lanka are mulling over bringing about a no-confidence motion against the present government. That would not remove the President, as according to the constitution, that would require 2/3rd majority in the parliament, Dr. Behuria added.  

Ms. Mayuri Banerjee asked that given the political instability in Sri Lanka, is it going to create a refugee crisis. If that is directed at India, how would India resist its interference?

Dr. Gulbin Sultana responded by saying that some people have come to India but only a few. Due to the conflict in Sri Lanka, people from Sri Lanka have come to India in the past as well. But it may not be like the situation in the 1980s when thousands came to India. But in any case if it happens, that would be a major crisis.

Ms. Saman Ayesah Kidwai asked whether the political and economic crisis in Sri Lanka is going to create a political vacuum that can be over taken by non-state actors. Is there a possibility of an armed conflict? 

Dr. Gulbin Sultana in response stated that Sri Lanka has been caught in armed conflicts for a long time. However, the current protests are unprecedented as they include every ethnicity and class. In fact the protests and the government response have united them. However, the ethnic problem remains unresolved. It can crop up again anytime.      

The report was prepared by Dr. Nazir Ahmad Mir, Research Assistant, MP-IDSA.

Capt. Anurag Bisen (Indian Navy) spoke on “India’s Recently Enunciated Arctic Policy: An Assessment” at the Monday Morning Webinar held on April 4, 2022. The webinar was chaired by Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha, Centre Coordinator, Non-Traditional Security Centre. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi, Deputy Director General, Centre members and scholars attended the webinar.

Executive Summary

India released its official Arctic Policy Document which highlights that India’s interests in the region are scientific, environmental, commercial and strategic. It is for this reason that India’s engagement with the Arctic region over the decades has been consistent and multi-dimensional. This policy document sets a clear roadmap for India’s holistic engagement in the region.

Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha gave a brief overview of India’s Arctic Policy that was released by the Ministry of Earth Sciences on March 17, 2022. He highlighted that the process of policymaking in India is witnessing a new and enlightened trend that includes having public discussion and taking inputs. Making a reference to Mikhail Gorbachev’s Murmansk speech in 1987 in which the Soviet leader called the Arctic as a ‘Zone of Peace’, Dr. Sinha raised issues over the emerging power rivalry and geopolitics of the region.

Capt. Anurag Bisen (Indian Navy) highlighted the long-standing need for India’s Arctic Policy. He mentioned that the Arctic region is warming three-times faster than the rest of the world, which is leading to accelerated melting of the Arctic sea-ice and consequently increased availability of mineral and hydrocarbon resources. He summarised the six pillars of India’s Arctic: 1. Science and Research 2. Economic and Human Development Cooperation 3. Climate and Environmental Protection 4. Transportation and Connectivity 5. Governance and International Cooperation 6. National Capacity Building.

Capt. Bisen further observed that the policy document sets a broad-base and holistic roadmap for India’s engagement in the Arctic region. He outlined the scientific interconnectivities between the Arctic and the Himalayas (also known as the Third Pole), especially the crucial link between the Arctic sea-ice melt and the Indian monsoons. Speaking on the mineral and energy resources potential, Capt. Bisen mentioned that the Arctic accounts for 30 per cent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 13 per cent of the world’s undiscovered oil. He asserted that India’s future engagement with the Arctic region can potentially address its energy security and rare earth minerals resource needs.

In the final part of his presentation, Capt. Bisen mentioned that India’s Arctic Policy calls for a dedicated polar research vessel, a need to develop indigenous capabilities in polar ship construction and to establish institutional funding for Arctic research at the national level. He suggested that India should also increase scientific participation in the working groups of the Arctic Council. On the issues related to economic and human development, the speaker mentioned that India is keen to explore opportunities for responsible exploration of natural resources and as per the sustainable development goals. On transport and connectivity, the document articulates India’s interest in seeking partnerships for shipbuilding and promoting opportunities for Indian seafarers. Referring to governance and international cooperation, he noted that the policy document focuses on understanding the Arctic related mechanisms at the national and sub-national legislation levels. On national capacity building, Capt. Bisen mentioned that India’s Artic Policy articulates developing Indian scholarship on the Polar Regions. Finally, he suggested that MP-IDSA could become a knowledge centre in this.

Questions and Comments

Following the presentation, Dr. Sinha invited the Director General, Deputy Director General and all the panel members to give comments and ask questions.

Director General, MP-IDSA, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy thanked the chair and complimented Capt. Bisen for his presentation. Acknowledging the reference made by Dr. Sinha to a paper authored by the Director General himself in 2012, Ambassador Chinoy highlighted that the write-up served as an important base paper for the preparation of India’s Arctic Policy. He further highlighted the importance of India developing infrastructure capabilities in the Polar Regions in terms of shipbuilding, deep seabed research and other related domains to fulfil its interests in the Arctic. Highlighting the military importance of the Northern Sea Route (NSR), Ambassador Chinoy asked the speaker to share his views on the same.

Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi, complimented Capt. Bisen for his presentation and highlighted the importance of linking the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) with the Northern Sea Route as it will have long-term economic and connectivity benefits.

Answering a question by Dr. Nihar R. Nayak on the Arctic interconnections with the Himalayas, Capt. Bisen mentioned that climate change in the region has direct implications on the Indian monsoons, which have a cataclysmic impact on Indian agriculture. It is therefore, extremely important for Indian scientists to understand these interlinkages.

Responding to a question by Mr. Bipandeep Sharma on the current suspension of the Arctic Council and its implication on ‘Observer States’, Capt. Bisen responded by saying that the observer states have no influence in the Council. All decisions in the Council are taken by its member states.

Dr. Uttam K. Sinha in his concluding remarks recommended that the participants should read India’s recently released Arctic Policy.

Report prepared by Mr. Bipandeep Sharma, Research Analyst, NTS Centre, MP-IDSA, New Delhi.