BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//MP-IDSA - ECPv6.15.12.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:MP-IDSA
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://idsa.in
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for MP-IDSA
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Asia/Kolkata
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0530
TZOFFSETTO:+0530
TZNAME:IST
DTSTART:20090101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20101119T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20101119T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T202003
CREATED:20231223T221238Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130246Z
UID:63628-1290144600-1290144600@idsa.in
SUMMARY:The Indian Advocacy of Internationalism in the Nehru Years
DESCRIPTION:Summary\nAs the title suggests\, the paper examines one of the significant aspects of Indian foreign policy which was greatly influenced by Nehru’s ideas on internationalism. The purpose of the paper is to explore how this idea of internationalism evolved during the freedom struggle and made a passage thereon to be a part of independent India’s foreign policy. Nehru’s aim in advocating the principles of internationalism was to realise the creation of the ideal of One World centred on the United Nations which represented the world community. Keeping this in mind\, he crafted independent India’s foreign policy composed of five elements: opposition to colonialism\, imperialism and racialism; concept of non-alignment vis-à-vis the two Cold War blocs to preserve Asia in particular as an ‘area of peace’;  prevent internationalization of conflict; disarmament; and peaceful co-existence as embodied in the Panchsheel agreement for the evolution of a peaceful and co-operative international order\, thus paving the way for realising the ideal of One World.  These elements became the framework through which the foreign policy of India was conducted\, mostly connected and identified with ‘non-alignment’. The author clearly expresses that all these elements including non-alignment were designed for the realization of the ideal of One World.  \nThe paper is composed of four sections. First the paper discusses the origins of Indian internationalism and how it emerged as an integral part of the expression of Indian nationalism\, particularly from the 1920s. This had much to do with the developments within Asia in this period. ‘Anti-imperialism’ and ‘solidarity’ with colonised states as well as the idea of ‘Asianism’ were an integral part of the views of the Congress on foreign affairs. This was entwined with the goal of attaining independence and the call for co-operation among nations fighting imperialism. Hence\, Congress and Nehru expressed a commitment to the goals of anti-imperialism and nationalism along with internationalism. Here the paper points to the Congress policy of India not becoming a party to an imperialist war or being forced into one\, thus suggesting the direction of independent India’s foreign relations. These ideas and principles became the key pillars of Indian foreign policy after independence.  \nThe second section focuses on the dilemma that Indian nationalists faced in terms of reconciling their demand for independence from British imperialism with the internationalist responsibility of opposing Nazism\, Fascism and Militarism\, and how they sought to reconcile the two\, particularly in the Quit India Resolution. The Quit India Resolution clearly expressed the Indian approach of internationalism in terms of anti-imperialism\, anti-racialism and freedom for all peoples\, particularly in Asia; the idea of free nations joining together to form the future UN; the importance of the UN serving as the mainstay of a new international order\, a world federation that would work for the common good of all humanity; and global disarmament.  \nSection three discusses the idea of Pan-Asianism\, which provided the backdrop for independent India’s emphasis on Asian solidarity vis-á-vis European imperialism. Nehru’s thoughts in this regard were articulated in his works\, proposing the formation of an “Asiatic Federation of Nations”. The outcome of these ideas\, along with those of the Congress and other Indian thinkers\, was the idea of rallying all Asian countries to promote peace and fashion a normative international order by supporting the UN. This was to lead in the direction of realising the ideal of One World. \nSection four parses through select speeches of Nehru to demonstrate the internationalist framework that guided Indian foreign policy during the Nehru years and argues that the above mentioned ideals\, ideas\, and goals were incorporated since Nehru’s incumbency as Prime Minister in the interim government. Anti-imperialism and non-alignment were a result of the expression of Indian nationalism from the 1920s. This was put to practice along with others: prevention of internationalization of conflict; disarmament; and peaceful co-existence. These elements were incorporated in the wake of developments in Asia—SEATO and CENTO alliances in Asia\, war in the Korean Peninsula\, etc.—which portended possibilities of a world war. The fact that all these elements were an integral part of a unified conception of internationalism and of the imperative of nudging the world towards the ideal of One World centred on the United Nations is clearly evident in Nehru’s speech at the UN General Assembly on 20 Dec. 1956\, wherein he emphasised the significance of UN as representing the world community and how the Cold War and arms race were impediments to realising the ideal of One World.  \nThe paper ends by noting that internationalism was replaced by national interest in subsequent years due to the security concerns faced by India. The paper gives a normative conclusion that national power should be married with the ideals of internationalism. \nExternal Discussant\nProf. Pusphesh Pant: Extolled the paper in terms of the relevance of the subject. However suggestions were made in terms of: the need to contextualize\, and on the paper being Nehru-centric. It was pointed out that the time-line dates back much before the Nehruvian period regarding internationalism. Also there were thinkers within India who had similar or contending views on internationalism. Bearing in mind the age of Nehru\, with regard to his earlier works\, the importance of periodization or framing of exact time-lines on Nehru’s advocacy was stressed upon. Thirdly\, there were movements like the Khilafat which went beyond Pan-Asianism. Fourth\, it was to be noted that Nehru was not a complete idealist. He was practical on matters like the Sino-Indian border issue\, Tibet etc. Fifth\, the need to clarify the context in which internationalism was defined in the paper; Asian solidarity or Afro-Asian solidarity or world solidarity. \nInternal Discussants\nV. Krishnappa: Commended that the author had included Nehru’s advocacy of a global order as the latter could foresee the world in terms of global networks in play. This was important from the strategic as well as the national interest perspective. With regard to the time-line of Nehru’s advocacy\, suggestions were made that it could be located within contemporary representations of Nehru. One of the comments was on how Pan-Asianism could be reconciled with internationalism when materialism had taken over Asia.  \nDr. Rajaram Panda: Reiterated the need for the timeline and contextualisation. He mentioned his reservation regarding the use of phrase -‘surrender of sovereignty’. The paper would also benefit if detailed analysis was made on the role played by India in the Korean War. Inclusion of events like the Japanese victory over China; Tagore’s dialogue with the Japanese philosopher Okakura Tenshin on Asian identity; possibilities of atomic war and Japanese annexation of Korea\, were all imperative. Stress was laid on the need to clarify the context of Pan-Asianism and also the need to categorize the regions of Asia. As it was pointed out in the paper on possibilities of a third World War with regard to Asian developments viz.\, Indo-China War and Korean War\, the significance of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis which brought the world to the brink of a world war needs to be included in this context as well. Suggestion was made on the need to mention Radha Binod Bihari Pal’s dissenting judgment at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and how this judgment boosted the morale of the Japanese after their defeat in WW-II. Lastly\, as the conclusion was abrupt\, he suggested that the paper would need more elaboration. \nGeneral Discussion\nSeveral comments were made in terms of the paper being a framework of Nehru’s ideas. Nehru\, Tagore\, Gandhi were personalities of their own. The 1920s were different from the 1930s and Nehru’s views on internationalism were not necessarily shared by his colleagues. Nevertheless\, Congress was led to a great degree by Nehru. Differentiation has to be made between Nehru the thinker and Nehru the statesman. As the world is coming close to Nehru/Gandhi ideals\, especially with Obama advocating a world without nuclear weapons\, the need for reviving these themes highlighted in the paper was significant. \nChair’s Summary\nProf. Sumit Ganguly: Noted that changes and comments suggested were vast and hence a book in the making would be a good idea. Prof. Ganguly made three organisational comments: one\, on sections being far too long and thus the need to break them further into sections\, secondly the usefulness of having clearer time-lines or historical periodization\, and finally the conclusion being compressed and abrupt. \nHe also made substantive comments: whether there was even the prospect of UN during 1942 when the Quit India Resolution was pronounced. Discussion and themes are not connected\, but descriptive. For instance\, India’s role in the Korean War needs to be more detailed. Importance to be given to India-China agreement on Tibet as it was a pivotal movement. This should lead and continue the debate on Nehru’s stand. Thirdly\, there is a highly idealized view on Pan-Asianism between pages 14 to 17 which evaporates after the war. No mention of the viciousness of Japan is made. Fourth\, one should note\, as Prof. Pant said\, that Nehru was in the Ahmednagar prison without access to material and news. Nevertheless\, he brilliantly prophesized that Britain would not stand up to Hitler. This suggests that Nehru was not an idealist as he was made out to be.     \nReport prepared by Joyce Sabina Lobo\, Research Assistant at IDSA.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/the-indian-advocacy-of-internationalism-in-the-nehru-years
CATEGORIES:FELLOW'S SEMINAR,EVENT REPORT
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20101119T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20101119T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T202003
CREATED:20231223T221327Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250228T045308Z
UID:63629-1290144600-1290144600@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Why Transnational Energy Pipelines Remain Pipedreams in South Asia
DESCRIPTION:Open to all Members; others pl. contact 1030 to 1300 hrs Conference Cell \nChairperson: Prof. Sujit Dutta\nDiscussants: Shri A Karnatak & Dr. Bhupendra Kr. Singh
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/why-transnational-energy-pipelines-remain-pipedreams-in-south-asia
CATEGORIES:FELLOW'S SEMINAR,EVENT REPORT
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20101126T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20101126T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T202003
CREATED:20231223T221238Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130246Z
UID:63625-1290749400-1290749400@idsa.in
SUMMARY:GCC-Iran Rivalry and Challenges for India in the Gulf
DESCRIPTION:Chairperson: Air Marshall Inamdar \nDiscussants:\n      External-Prof. Ramakrishnan (JNU)\n      Internal– Brig (retd) Rumel Dahiya & Ms. Princy Marin George \nIndia has huge interests in both Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in terms of securing energy supply\, protecting interests of the Indian diaspora\, enhancing trade and investment\, fighting against piracy and more recently trying to forge strategic partnership with the region. The rising profile of China in the region is another concern for India.  \nGCC-Iran relations have been marked by competition and rivalry. Both have engaged in ideological conflicts over Shia-Sunni divide\, territorial disputes\, presence of the United States in the region\, Iranian nuclear programme and Saudi-Iranian relations which has in many ways steered the relationship. This has posed some challenges for Indian foreign policy in the Gulf region in recent times. India’s proximity to one of these players does not augur well with the other. In his paper\, Dr. Prasanta Kumar Pradhan has argued that the political\, ideological and strategic conflicts between Iran and the GCC pose challenges for India in pursuing her interests in the region. \nHe identified five major issues of contention and discussed them in his presentation. \nIdeological rivalry:\nAfter the Islamic revolution\, Ayatollah Khomeini openly declared\, “Our revolution is not limited to the boundaries of Iran. Economic and political difficulties should not compel our officials to forgo the principal task of exporting our lofty Islamic Revolutionary goals…The true meaning of export of our revolution is to awaken the Muslims and their governments so that they can change themselves and not allow their precious resources to be plundered by anti-Muslim outsiders.” By outsiders he meant the Sunnis. The conflicting relations between Iran and the GCC have also aggravated the existing Shia-Sunni divide in the region. \nIranian Nuclear Programme:\nThe Iranian nuclear weapon programme has raised concerns in the minds of the GCC rulers. Initially they recognized Iran’s rights for a peaceful nuclear programme. When evidence emerged about a clandestine programme intended for producing nuclear weapons\, the GCC countries started to support IAEA efforts and looked at the involvement of the UN Security Council as a positive development to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capability. If Iran becomes successful in making nuclear weapons\, it would not only shift the balance of power in the region in favour of Iran but also multiply the threat perceptions of the GCC countries. The threat perception is the natural outcome of the Gulf Arab countries’ perception of Iran as a hegemonic power and the Iranian eagerness to spread their influence into the region.  \nTerritorial disputes:\nIranian occupation of three islands namely\, Abu Musa\, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb in the Gulf which are claimed by the UAE is another issue of contention between the GCC and Iran. To add to the worries of the GCC\, Iran has built a port in the Abu Musa Island. In August 2008\, Iran opened two administrative offices in Abu Musa which\, it claims\, are to help ship registration and maritime rescue. In a statement\, GCC Secretary-General Abdurrahman Al-Attiyah “strongly denounced Iran’s opening of two administrative offices on Abu Musa Island\, which belongs to the UAE and is occupied by Iran.” The GCC fears that this will give Iran greater control of shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. \nPresence of the United States:\nIran alleges the GCC countries of inviting the US to the region and has also alleged them to be the “puppets of the Great Satan”. The possibility that Iran could produce nuclear weapons is a nightmare for the USA. Apart from the nuclear programme\, the US’ threat perception of Iran is dominated by the Iranian support of terrorism\, and its WMD and missile capabilities. Iranian threat perception is understandable as Iran feels itself surrounded by US military forces. \nSaudi-Iranian relations:\nIran has called the Al Saud regime un-Islamic and openly called for its overthrow. Ideological rivalry\, Saudi allegation of Iran flaring up its Shia population in the Eastern Province\, Iranian allegation of Saudi Arabia flaring up its Sunni population\, regional power struggle between the two\, Iranian nuclear programme\, close Saudi-US relations etc. have strained Saudi Arabia’s relations with Iran. Saudi Arabia’s support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 further deteriorated the relationship. Saudi Arabia has also questioned the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme and has supported the USA in imposing sanctions against Iran. \nIndia’s interest in GCC countries:\nFor India its relationship with GCC represents its varied interests in the economic\, political and strategic fields. The Gulf region has been the main source of India’s energy needs supplying around two- thirds of India’s total energy requirements. The Gulf region has been a lucrative market for Indian manufactured goods including textiles\, spices\, food products\, electrical goods and machineries and IT products. India’s five million strong work force in the GCC countries is also an important link. India looks at the GCC countries as partners in tackling terrorism. \nIndia’s interest in Iran:\nIran’s geopolitical and strategic location\, long coastline along the Gulf\, and its influence over the Strait of Hormuz makes it an important country in the region. Iran has the third largest proven oil reserves and second largest proven gas reserves in the world. India eyes Iranian gas for its long term energy security. India\, Iran and Afghanistan are discussing to develop the Chahbahar route through Melak\, Zaranj and Delaram which would facilitate regional trade and transit\, including Afghanistan and Central Asia. Another potential area of cooperation between India and Iran is in maritime security. India supports an Iranian nuclear programme for peaceful civilian purposes but is against the nuclearisation of the Gulf region which will have severe implications for the region in future. \nChallenges for India:\nUS presence and strategic cooperation in the Gulf and the US-Iran conflict pose a serious challenge for India. India cannot fully support US policies in the region\, nor can India completely oppose them. India would require the support of the USA in the region to further its interests. \nChina’s growing economy and thirst for energy has driven its policies in the Gulf. Bilateral trade between China and the GCC topped US $ 70 billion in 2008. China has been using the conflict between the GCC and Iran in the best possible manner. Despite voting against Iran at the IAEA over the nuclear issue\, China has managed to stabilize its relations with Iran. China is viewed by Iran as a counterweight for the USA in the region. On the other hand\, China is viewed by Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries as an important trade partner and a big power in Asia. \nGCC-Iran rivalry is deepening in Iraq. India should build its ties with Iraq but this is taking a lot of time because of the unstable political situation and the social situation. \nIndia is highly dependent on the Gulf region for its energy security as it imports about two thirds of its energy requirement from the region. As the issue of energy is directly related to the regional political conditions and the warmth of the bilateral relations between the countries\, it becomes important to take the relationship up to level of stability. India has huge interests in GCC and Iran and this makes it important for India to calibrate its policies so as to ensure supply of oil from both GCC countries and Iran. \nConclusion:\nDr. Pradhan pointed out that the conflict between Iran and the GCC countries has severe regional implications which would also affect India’s interests in the region. He suggests that the growing Indian interests and influence in the region should be complemented with a sound policy for dealing with the two major powers. For India\, dealing with the USA in the Gulf is a political and strategic challenge while China primarily remains an economic rival. A peaceful and stable Gulf region is in India’s interest and India needs to carefully nurture its policies in the region. \nDiscussion\nThe following issues were raised: It was suggested that Iraq being an important factor in the Iran-GCC conflict that aspect too needs greater analysis. Second\, the differing visions of the security of the Gulf need to be incorporated. Third\, the notion of Gulf regionalism needed attention. It was pointed out that after US military intervention in Iraq\, even Saudi Arabia was offended. India on the other hand is emerging as a balancer with China playing an important role in the region. \nIt was also pointed out that the definition of the Gulf is very conflicting as Iran would like to call it Persian Gulf while the GCC would call it Arabian Gulf. Second\, the Diaspora is extremely important and India used to have a diaspora in Iran where its treatment was not good. The importance of Israel was highlighted and democratisation of GCC was emphasised. Unlike Indian diaspora in the US who are viewed with pride\, Indian diaspora in GCC are viewed as a source of responsibility. However it is this diaspora which has acted as a catalyst in strengthening India’s relation with the GCC. \nReport prepared by Pallavi Pal\, Research Intern\, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses\, New Delhi
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/gcc-iran-rivalry-and-challenges-for-india-in-the-gulf
CATEGORIES:FELLOW'S SEMINAR,EVENT REPORT
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR