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:20140101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20150102T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20150102T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T160846
CREATED:20231223T133147Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130237Z
UID:63081-1420176600-1420176600@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Dharma and Artha
DESCRIPTION:Chairperson: Prof. Charan Das WadhvaExternal Discussants: Amb. H. H. S. Viswanathan\, Dr. Deepshikha ShahiInternal Discussants: Dr. S. Kalyanaraman\, Saurabh Mishra  \nMajor Arguments of the Paper: \nOne of the fundamental  aims of political science in Indian traditions was to create the cultural  conditions necessary for the pursuit of the four great ends of life\, the purusharthas  – ethical goodness (dharma)\, wealth and power (artha)\,  pleasure (kama)\, and spiritual transcendence (moksha). The final or fourth individual aim  of moksha or liberation/spiritual transcendence is at a personal level  of self-realization and is not being included in this paper. Without moksha the concept is of the three goals of human existence consisting of dharma\,  artha and kama or trivarga. Each  goal is a deep philosophical subject. In statecraft\, the most important ones  are dharma and artha\, and it is on these that the author deliberates upon.  \nThe paper argues that in ancient Indian traditions  dharma and artha play an important role as they relate to statecraft. It has  not changed with time. Simplistically\, this is akin to what we may today  understand as principle and power. Only artha by itself is insufficient  to understand the philosophy of statecraft of the Indian traditions. The author  argues that for statecraft and international relations as practised in India\,  dharma is an important limb. Kautilya\, the author cum editor of Arthasastra\,  never suggested to be selective. He did not ever mention to ignore dharma. It  is only later commentators who have given their understanding where the holistic  interpretation of dharma with artha is underdeveloped; more so in  the domain of statecraft and diplomacy. This paper engages with the concepts in  the text and the commentaries and opinions of a number of authors who have  dealt with this topic. The paper argues that both dharma and artha are integrated and linked. If artha is like surface water surely   dharma is like ground water. Their meaning need to be  contextualized in the present milieu and a combination of these two concepts  should be judiciously applied in statecraft to herald lasting peace and  prosperity.  \nMajor  Points of Discussion and Suggestions to the Author:\n\nDharma with a capital D signifies the overarching  principles of life governing the universe\, whereas dharma with a small d is for  specific circumstances. Indian scholars of politics have mostly deliberated  upon the latter. Kautilya’s Arthasastra also falls into the second category.\nKautilya was secular in his outlook. His personal  religious belief did not affect the conduct of statecraft. It was evident when  Chandragupta\, his disciple\, leaned towards Jainism and Kautilya did not get  perturbed by this or come in his way.\nThe general western perception of India is that of a  land and people who are concerned with other-worldly affairs. However\, it is a  fallacy as we know that in the Indian philosophical tradition all four aspects  of life\, that is\, Dharma\, Artha\, Kama\, Moksha\, have been  given adequate attention.\nKautilya is considered to be immoral and lacking in ethics  because of its prescriptions for statecraft. However\, a proper understanding of  the Arthasastra suggests that he was very mindful of ethics and morality even  in the conduct of state affairs. For instance\, he gives precedence to Dharma Vijaya over Asura Vijaya. \nThe study of Arthasastra and other ancient Indian  political texts have assumed significance in the backdrop of the possibility of  India emerging as a world Power.\nExisting ‘Western’ IR theories are inadequate to  explain India’s rise.\nKautilya’s Arthasastra is a more holistic work than  Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations.  Kautilya was the first scholar to establish a link between domestic and foreign  policy. He argued that although the policy options before the king for the  conduct of the two are different\, there is a direct correlation between the  domestic and foreign policies of a state. \nFor Kautilya dharma was limited to the end and did not apply to the means. The king must set his  goals in consonance with dharma. Adoption  of unethical means to achieve a pious end has not been ruled out. In this he  differs from Gandhi who advocated the purity of means as well as end.\nIt was argued that Indian scholars should avoid the  tendency of exalting Kautilya and denigrating Western scholarship. A synthesis  of the best scholarly tradition of east and west will lead to the furtherance  of true knowledge.\nThe author was advised to give current examples to  argue his case as to how the Indian state has sought to practice dharma and artha in the conduct of statecraft. That will generate more  interest in Arthasastra.\nSince the morality of individual may not be in sync  with the state’s morality\, the author needs to deliberate upon different  aspects of morality and resolve the dilemma.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/dharma-and-artha
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:20150116T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20150116T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T160846
CREATED:20231223T133147Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250228T002046Z
UID:63080-1421386200-1421386200@idsa.in
SUMMARY:India-China Riparian Relations: Towards Rationality
DESCRIPTION:Chair: Prof. Brahma  ChellaneyExternal  Discussants: Mr. Sanjay Gupta and Mr.  Joydeep GuptaInternal  Discussants:  Ms. Shebonti Ray Dadwal and Dr. Jagannath Prasad Panda \nKey points of  presentation:\nIndia and China have long been  associated as rising powers in Asia. In order to boost their economy and growth  rates\,  they need  uninterrupted sources  of water supply. Water has  emerged as a contentious issue between India and China with complex  inter-linkages. The leadership in both the countries acknowledge the water  problem as an existential threat. Given the fact  that China has 14  land  neighbours out of which  13 are riparian  neighbours\,  it is important to note that it has no water- sharing agreement  with any of them. It is in this context the paper argues that it is the  principle concern of India to bring water issues into the core of the bilateral  discussions with China. The paper also identifies three major elements in  India’s  concerns over China being an upstream riparian : \n\nDams and diversions;\nThe resultant hydro-politics and power asymmetry; and\nThe impact of climate change\n\nThe paper further suggests\, as a counter  approach \,  strengthening of  diplomatic tools for  a structured  dialogue that allows apprehensions of the lower riparian regions and states  to be recognised and addressed. \nAs  many  of the regions in the world are lower riparian\, including India\,   Dr. Sinha argued  that a  stable supply of water is critical to India’s growth and development. Since  China  is an upper riparian region when compared to  India\,  hence\, the “water rationali ty”  or “water as a unifier” perspective  becomes an important issue for  discussion  between the  two  countries  for better riparian relations .\nDr. Sinha also outlined the  “power asymmetry” that exists in river basins. Given the political equation  between India and China\, the latter will use its upper riparian advantage to  circumvent any decision  made on India’s behalf. It is also  important to consider the food\, energy and water nexus which is highly  dependent on  the rapidly changing  ecosystem. This will prompt nations to take several actions\, many of them  unilateral\, to secure resources and territorial sovereignty. It is thus  essential that   water resource  utilisation policy  takes  into account the  impact of climate  change in terms of seasonal flow and extreme events.  \nDr. Sinha also  emphasised the middle riparian position of India and its dependence   on the waters of the rivers such as Brahmaputra\, and Indus and Sutlej  which originates from the Tibetan plateau (which is under Chinese territorial  jurisdictions) and then flows into Bangladesh and Pakistan\,  respectively. However\, unlike China\, India being an upper riparian state has  had longstanding commitments to bilateral river treaties with the lower  riparian states. \nThe paper concluded  with the following recommendations:  \n\n Any formal water  cooperation can be achieved only through a holistic\, bold\, and imaginative  diplomacy.\nWater issues should be structured on the principles of  international water law\, particularly ‘limited sovereignty’\, ‘no significant  harm’ and ‘information sharing’.\nIn addition to what has already been stated in the Memorandum of  Understanding (MoU) signed between India and China in 2002\, further accuracy  and regular availability of credible hydrological data are vital to the  effectiveness of any trans-boundary water arrangement.\nOne  of the ways forward  is to create a lower riparian  coalition. This coalition is not to be  militaristic in nature or seen as  versus China.  It should be  about    acknowledging and addressing the concerns of lower riparian nations . \n\nKey  points   from  discussion:\n\nIndia needs to  build its own understanding of water. The scientific knowledge on  water   management  in India is minimal when compared to China. The Central Water Commission is not  in  a  state to perform any kind of extensive research and development as there is  no  investment   in this area. \nNeed  to  shift from supply-side to demand-side management. Most of the treaties are focused  on supply side and not on demand side principles. Resultantly\,  the agricultural productivity in India is lowest.\nCross linkage of  issues should be built in order to bring China to the negotiation table.  For example\, Tibet c ould be used as a leverage  to negotiate  water issues with  China.  Turning  Tibet from a territorial/political issue to one of ecological/environmental  concern can prompt China to discuss and cooperate on socio-economic and  ecological issues.\nAre states and  nations the best actor/agent  to  deal with  a holistic issue like water? People’s participation is equally important  and their ground knowledge and understanding can be of great value .\nChina is making long-term  investments in the  hydro- power     sector in  order to phase out thermal power plants by 2030 and meet their demands for  clean energy. Apart from  Brahmaputra\,  China is also considering  water projects on  Indus and Sutlej rivers.\nIndia needs to move  from bilateral to multilateral diplomacy with lower riparian nations in the  region. Realistic approach should be adopted when it comes to formation of a  lower riparian coalition. \n\nReport prepared by  Mr.  Satyam Malaviya\, Research Intern\, IDSA.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/india-china-riparian-relations-towards-rationality
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