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:20110101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20120907T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20120907T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T183704
CREATED:20231223T134206Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130241Z
UID:63157-1346995800-1346995800@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Reframing Institutions: A Study of the Relevance of Southern African Customs Union
DESCRIPTION:Chair: Amb. HHS ViswanathanExternal Discussants: Dr SK MohantyInternal Discussants: Ms Ruchita Beri\, Ms. Shebonti Ray Dadwal \nMajor Highlights of the Paper: This paper broadly addresses the significance of the African continent in India’s foreign policy with special reference to the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) in India’s engagement in southern and sub Saharan Africa. A study of SACU’s relevance becomes significant in light of the increasing regional and sub-regional integration in Africa.  \nThe study traces the development pattern of southern Africa and the underlying components of economic power. It then reviews the SACU Agreement of 2002 and how it deviates from the 1969 agreement. The author also focuses on the nature of inequality among the SACU member states – South Africa\, Botswana\, Lesotho\, Namibia and Swaziland – and its bearing on inter-state relations. The possible roles that SACU can play in the future and how\, if at all\, it could contribute to redefinition of the geopolitical environment of the region are also explored. On policy considerations\, this paper addresses the implications of SACU for Indian foreign policy specifically towards Southern Africa. \nSACU’s role is seen as crucial in addressing the inequality in inter-state relations\, given that South Africa also dominated in its hinterland for decades. Among SACU member states\, inequality between South Africa and the BLNS states exists not only on economic terms but also in their respective views towards international politics. At the regional level\, SACU can represent the interests of its members in other oragnisations such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC). In a region peppered with landlocked countries\, an integrated approach becomes essential; SACU can help members coordinate policies and reconcile sovereign differences. SACU will prove to be a decisive player in formulating the equation of regional power in the years to come\, according to the author.  \nSince SACU as an organization is more homogeneous and more open to diplomatic efforts\, its relevance for India becomes imminent. One role it could play is in hedging three primary types of risks associated with engaging in a region such as southern Africa – political\, legal and financial. SACU could also assist in greater Indian engagement in the form of institutional capacity-building at the national\, regional and pan African level. In general\, SACU can help solidify India’s role in South-South cooperation and portray it as an ‘inclusive power’. It could also help facilitate stronger ties with Angola\, Mozambique or Tanzania which could further India’s engagement with the SADC. In addition\, building stronger bilateral ties with Namibia and Botswana can give India strategic access to the Atlantic Ocean and Central Africa. India could also assist Namibia and Botswana in setting up institutions in public governance\, professional banking and other tertiary sector businesses\, in order that it counters exploitative tendencies in the region and enhance its image in the development sector.  \nMajor Points of discussion and Suggestions to the Author:\n\nThe mechanism through which resources have been shared in SACU’s common reserve pool could be explored further\, since this could be relevant for other regions in the world such as South Asia where the idea of common reserve pool could be implemented.\nFurther study of SACU’s importance and implications for India could be useful for policy making bodies\, for example how India can gain from integrating with SACU (India currently cooperates with at least eight other regional economic communities in Africa)\, and vice versa. In addition\, SACU cannot be studied in isolation from Africa’s numerous other regional economic communities. Given South Africa’s dominant role in this organisation and the region\, the question of whether SACU has succeeded in addressing inequities among member states needs to be explored further. \nA review of China’s role in Africa relating to this study could be undertaken given the level of China’s engagement on the African continent. \nA comparative study could be undertaken to study the relevance for India of signing a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with SACU versus the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)\, which includes all SACU member states. Also\, if SACU has succeeded as an institution\, the study could explore what lessons India could draw from this (particularly relating to the SAARC). \nWhile the study suggests that South Africa could act as a gateway to sub-Saharan Africa\, given that there is an amount of resentment regarding South Africa’s dominant role in the region\, it would be worth exploring if this is indeed useful. \n\nReport prepared by Princy Marin George\, Research Assistant\, Africa\, Latin America\, Caribbean and UN Centre
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/reframing-institutions-a-study-of-the-relevance-of-southern-african-customs-union
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:20120921T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20120921T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T183704
CREATED:20231223T134152Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130241Z
UID:63156-1348205400-1348205400@idsa.in
SUMMARY:One Hundred Years of  Kautilya’s Arthasastra
DESCRIPTION:Chair: Dr S KalyanaramanExternal Discussants: Ambassador K P Fabian\, Professor Navnita Chadha Behera and Col VMB KrishnanInternal Discussants: Mr. Saurabh Mishra and Ms. Nupur Brahma \n \nThe central argument of this paper is that Kautilya\, the ancient strategic thinker of India\, has been neglected and not been given his due in the Indian strategic thinking. It seeks to revive the study of Kautilya’s Arthasastra and establish it in the contemporary security studies. The paper examines the discourse that has evolved through the last 100 years\, since the Arthasastra was first discovered and translated. The paper attempts to find out the answers of the questions raised on the strategic culture in India as some academicians even go to the extent of declaring an absence of strategic culture in India. The paper tries to document and deal with almost all the scholarly controversies related to the Arthasastra during this period and relates a whole tradition of political and strategic thinkers (makers of the kingly science) like Manu\, Brihaspati\, Sukra\, Parasara\, Vysas and Chanakya as recognised in the Panchtantra.  \nThe difficulty in studying Kautilya and his times are due to the cartographic gaps\, poor state and progression of maps and the controversies about the age and identity of the author. The contemplations about the age of the work vary between 4th century BCE and 3rd Century ACE. There are different views about the authorship of the Arathasastra as well: One holds that Kautilya was a single person who wrote it by himself and the other claims it to be a compiled “work by authors under the rubric of Kautilya.” A few scholars find the traces of all strategies and diplomacy within the Arthasastra while others allege that its importance is magnified and overstated. \nIt is interesting to note that Kautilya’s four upayas (devices)—sama\, dana\, bheda\, danda—to achieve the goals of diplomacy have a remarkable similarity with Morganthau’s sections in his realist theory about divide and rule\, compensation\, armaments\, and alliances. The paper discusses Kautilya’s theories of the seven elements of state (prakritis)\, six measures of foreign policy (sadgunya)\, the circle of states (rajamandala)\, the kinds of conquest (vijaya) and war (yudha). \nCountries of Southeast Asia have also been influenced by the Kautilyan concepts of mandala\, cakra and chakravartin. In 1929\, Herbert H. Gowen traced how in course of time niti or the old Indian rulers as embodied in treatises\, became a system coveted and adopted by foreign potentates. The spread of the Indian ideas took a long route through nitisastra\, panchtantra\, Hitopdeca\, Qalila and Dimnah and Beast Fables to pass into Persia\, Arabia\, North Africa\, Spain and Provence. \nThe paper elucidates nine reasons for the neglect of the study of Kautilya: \n\nA-historic nature of the Indian civilisation and oral tradition\,\nLack of proper battle accounts available from Indian sources and over-reliance on Greek and Graeco-Roman sources\,\nAbsence of holistic teaching and education and domination of a western discourse\,\nKautilya’s suspended status between schools of nationalists and Marxists\,\nLack of policy focus and absence of serious study in think tanks\,\nLack of language skills and preservation of texts\,\nKautilya not being a soldier like Sun Tzu\, Clausewitz\, Jomini or Liddell Hart\,\nInterpretation by antisocial elements and narrow mindedness\,\nMisunderstanding brahmin scholars\, over exaggeration of brahmanism and perception of male chauvinism.\n\nMisconceptions exist about Kautilya and his statecraft. Kautilya is looked upon as Machiavellian which distorts the correct picture. The difference between Machiavelli and Kautilya is regarding the subject matter of their works and methodology. The former was narrower limiting himself to the unification of Italy\, leaving the questions of economy aside\, while the latter had a holistic view of the vijigishu: consolidating the empire in almost the entire Indian subcontinent.   \nCondemnation of Kautilya as an unethical teacher is due to the ignorance about his work. The image of Chanakya as a cunning brahmin is stereotypical in nature. Some scholars consider Kautilya’s work as immoral and repudiated by the Indians themselves while Lankavatarasutra refers to Kautilya as rsi and Somadeva refers him as nyayavid. The reasons for such diverse image might be in the imaginations of some playwrights influenced by their contemporary contexts. The paper finds Kautilya too serious a business to be left to linguists or historians alone. Most of the work on Kautilya lies in the category where the scholar does not read the text but keenly quotes from what some commentator had said superficially.  \nMisquoting Kautilya does more harm than good. One main reason for him being misunderstood is the use of Kautilyan terms as a simplistic jargon. The paper gives instances of misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Kautilya. Blanket use of the mandala makes it the most misunderstood term as people contemplate and extrapolate it to any extent they want. It is also said that the matsya nyaya and the mandala theory of Kautilya’s Arthasastra are the two evils. \nResearching Kautilya is a level playing field for all as it is not limited to historians only. There are no classified documents or files to be consulted and unearthed. This knowledge lies scattered across the domains of archaeology\, philosophy\, linguistics\, history\, political science and religious texts. Public perception about Kautilya is based mainly on folklore\, mythology and limited on readings and research. \nThis paper suggests that the Kautilya moment has now arrived. The care and preservation of ancient archives is essential. The science\, politics and statecraft of the Arthasastra need to be preserved and practiced in ways in which Indian classical music has survived and thrived. There is a need for state patronage\, sponsorship and financial backing for the study of Arthasastra. Research and training for this purpose must be undertaken and encouraged at all the levels.  \nMajor points of discussion and suggestions to the author:\n\nUnder the influence of Gandhian values and Nehru’s\, thought there was no space for Kautilya to make his mark.\nKautilya is also considered a part of the Indian philosophical system. As the Indian ways of knowing the reality has a non-dualistic mode of thinking\, Kautilya goes beyond matsya nyaya. He elucidates how to deal with realpolitik while actually looking at the norms and tries to give ways where anarchy can be overcome. \nIt is difficult to understand Kautilya because military history and historical sociology are not taught in the Indian universities at all. A problem of language exists in the study of Arthasastra as the strategists are disconnected from Sanskrit. We also need to maintain a critical space with regards to the Anglo-American influence while keeping in mind that we generally impose ipso facto the modern jargon and terminology on ancient contexts. \nKautilya’s work should not be taken as the Bible. Reading of original translation is must to avoid distortions and we should read Chanakya not only because we aspire to become a great power but also because the world would be a more peaceful place by understanding him.\nAs we generally restrict ourselves to the Indian heartland while digging into the history of Indian strategic culture\, the outlook (caricature) of Kautilya also inhibits his acceptability.\nWe need to know more about how the Arthasastra was followed in Kautilya’s time. Arthasastra requires a rereading in the context of modern state and democracy.\n\nReport prepared by Saurabh Mishra\, Research Assistant IDSA.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/one-hundred-years-of-kautilyas-arthasastra
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