BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//MP-IDSA - ECPv6.15.12.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
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:20080101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20090327T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20090327T053000
DTSTAMP:20261105T002342
CREATED:20231223T222240Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130250Z
UID:63710-1238131800-1238131800@idsa.in
SUMMARY:A Scenario-Building Method on India’s North East: Time Horizon 2015
DESCRIPTION:Chair: Prakash SinghDiscussants: G. D. Bakshi and Arun Sahgal \nIn her presentation titled ‘A Scenario-Building Method on India’s North East’\, Dr. Namrata Goswami projected the vision of a peaceful and prosperous North East India by 2015. Identifying terrorism\, left-wing extremism and insurgencies as the three great internal security threats of India\, she repeated Manmohan Singh’s earlier statement that growing insurgencies in the North East are caused by lack of development and externally funded terrorism. Dr. Goswami has utilized the scenario building method pioneered by Herman Kahn of RAND. She identifies the key factors/drivers which can be utilized to perceive and describe\, if not predict\, four future scenarios in the Northeast by 2015. Before explaining the four scenarios\, Dr Goswami points out the advantages as well as disadvantages of the scenario building method. According to her\, despite the fact that scenario-building is one of the most widely accepted method of bringing about some true sense of a possible future\, the future based on such method still remains imagined and fictitious.  \nWhile explaining the future scenario of North East India on the basis of scenario building method\, Dr. Goswami offers a list of positive and negative drivers which can either lead the region on the path of prosperity or can prove as impediments in its progress. On the positive side\, she points to factors like the region’s richness in natural resources\, cultural heritage\, the growing number of youthful population\, higher level of education\, influence of local communities and music in life\, governance\, etc. Factors like backward condition of transportation and communication\, perceived feelings of neglect by New Delhi\, cultural differences\, rising ethnic violence\, negative political culture\, militarization of political culture\, rampant extortion network\, economic backwardness\, porous international border\, etc.\, are pointed out as negative drivers.  \nOn the basis of the above mentioned drivers\, Dr. Goswami has put forward four possible scenarios of North East India by 2015. They are: Destination North East: A Touristic Paradise (a scenario based on tourism development); Island North East: Beware imagined ‘others’ (a scenario based on fear of domination and ethnic violence); Multi-Cultural North East: Liberal and Progressive (a scenario based on the success of democracy); Global North East: Looking ‘East’ with Hope (a scenario based on the success of India’s ‘Look East’ policy). Among the four\, Dr. Goswami considers the first\, third and the fourth scenarios as ‘ideal’ to improve the conflict ridden states of the Northeast.  \nPoints raised during the discussion of the Paper: \n\n\nThe paper should be based more on certain pattern based prediction rather than single event prediction. \nIn scenario construction\, more than eight possible scenarios should be taken up. After discarding some of those scenarios due to their consistent inconsistency\, four to five scenarios should be finally taken up for scenario building. \nInstead of making the scenario building method so much RAND centric\, the scenarios should be based on the method adopted by certain private companies.\nAn explanation of the process of scenario building in the paper will be helpful.\nAs a choice of tool for scenario building method\, net assessment technique is ideal\, as it helps crystallize the scenario.\nAlong with internal factors\, geo-political factors too should be taken into account. As part of the geo-political factors\, Chinese arms supply to insurgent groups in the Northeast\, growing security threat from HUJI\, etc. should be incorporated.\nIt is necessary to have an in depth study of growing Islamic fundamentalism as part of insurgency situation within Northeast.\nSince many of the positive drivers mentioned in the paper can be negative drivers in other contexts (e.g.\, governance)\, a clear stance on the matter is necessary. \nThe status quo will probably persist for some time in the Northeast.\nAs long as extortion in Northeast India continues\, achieving the desirable goal of disarmament\, demobilization and rehabilitation (DDR) will not be possible. As a result\, trade and tourism\, the two sectors which constitute a significant part of the paper\, will suffer.\nPolitical resolutions\, so far\, have not been very successful in bringing down the insurgency problem in the North East region. Under the circumstance\, if armed forces are pulled out from the region\, insurgency will\, once again\, increase.\nGreater academic emphasis should be put on the strong historical linkages between the Northeast and the rest of India. \nFocus on factors like what exactly is the subject for whom the scenario is built; identification of key decisive factors; identification of drivers and their classification\, will make the paper all the more interesting.\nBoth actors as well as issues can be treated as drivers. \nAs far as Northeast India is concerned\, factors like scale of insurgency\, cross border support for insurgency\, cross border migration\, transport and communication\, state of economy\, etc.\, can be treated as potential drivers. \nLocal cottage industry\, progress of Northeastern youths in sports and positive governance in Sikkim should be incorporated as positive drivers.\nProgressive change in politics\, such as through bringing about changes in labour laws\, opening for outside work force\, enhancement of education\, increase in resource base\, etc.\, can be quite helpful in improving the situation of the Northeast. \nIndian government’s future approach to its so called ‘Look East policy’ will depend on factors like degree of economic and social integration through communication revolution and softening of borders\, lack of infrastructural developments coupled with political and economic concerns. \nThe possibility of a peaceful and prosperous Northeast within the short timeframe of five years is unrealistic. Instead\, the timeframe should be extended to 2050. \nThe possibility of enduring peace in the region will depend upon the insurgency situation. The level of insurgency has already reduced in the region. Influence of Naga insurgency\, which used to be considered as mother of all other insurgencies in the Northeast is no longer evident. Insurgent groups seem to be still working in this region\, particularly for monetary benefits rather than demand for autonomy. \nWith good governance\, backed by insistence on accountability\, peace can be brought to Northeast region. \n\nPrepared by Pranamita Baruah\, Research Assistant at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses\, New Delhi.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/a-scenario-building-method-on-indias-north-east-time-horizon-2015
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:20090327T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20090327T053000
DTSTAMP:20261105T002342
CREATED:20231223T222241Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130250Z
UID:63711-1238131800-1238131800@idsa.in
SUMMARY:The Indo-US Relationship: Is Diplomatic Style Important?
DESCRIPTION:Chair: Kanwal SibalDiscussants: K. C. Singh and Christopher S Raj \nThe presentation of Professor Steven Hoffman began by examining the question “Is diplomatic style important and what impact does it have as far as Indo-US diplomatic negotiations are concerned? Professor Hoffman began by noting that diplomatic style is important enough to deserve careful attention. During the period between 1997 and 2007\, he interviewed diplomats on both sides. According to him\, some practitioners pointed out that tone or style naturally ranks below substance in importance\, but not always. An experienced Indian diplomat called style a “force multiplier” in Indo-US relations. When the two sides engage\, they do deal with the matter of ‘how do we talk to each other?’ A former American diplomat said that diplomatic style and substance intertwine. To separate style from substance for the purpose of analysis can prove useful\, but is not easy and real care must be taken in doing so. His presentation puts forward some results produced by such an effort. Professor Hoffman adopts a historical narrative that analyses change and convergence in Indian and American diplomatic practices. Change in style accordingly began in June 1998\, and is still taking place today.  \nProfessor Hoffman divided his presentation into five parts. First\, he described problematic practices on both sides. For instance\, Americans could be overbearing\, demanding\, arrogant and deadline imposing\, etc. and similarly the Indian side could be self-righteous and arrogant as well. Professor Hoffman got this sense after examining published sources and interviews. \nSecondly\, he provides two historical illustrations on diplomatic style. The first being Indian foreign secretary J.N. Dixit’s diplomatic negotiations with George Bush Sr’s. administration in 1992\, and second the dialogue between Jaswant Singh and Strobe Talbott during the period 1998 to 2000. Professor Hoffman says that in diplomatic style\, there is a learning process underway. In every negotiation\, substance comes first and when basic parameters set in well then style matters. In the last ten years\, India and the United States sustained a momentum but episodically there were problems during the negotiations on the Indo-US nuclear deal. He noted that the Obama administration is sending the right signals to carry forward the momentum built by the Bush Administration.  \nThirdly\, Professor Hoffman describes US diplomatic practices during the George W. Bush administration and refers to US ambassador India Robert Blackwill’s statement about the adoption of a radically new diplomatic style. Blackwill had said that “America will not be a nagging nanny” and that the Bush administration does not intend to lecture India on its national interests. According to Professor Hoffman\, the Ambassador’s public comments and phraseology did reflect a real ideological and policy change in Washington.  \nFourthly\, Professor Hoffman points out that in fact India and the United States were developing a set of mutually accepted practices that may also be called rules that came into existence in the mid-2000s. Professor Hoffman pointed out the developing shared rules of engagement in Indo-US relations: No Naggy Nanny\, India to be treated with respect\, recognition of India’s major power status\, avoidance of vitriol\, and developing rules to maintain momentum in the US-India relationship\, avoiding surprises from either side\, shaping issues jointly\, deepening and broadening the range of interaction\, establishing personal relationships and institutionalizing the relationship.  \nIn the last part\, Professor Hoffman puts forward his interim conclusions. Shared or common diplomatic practices make communication of substance easier\, increases mutual understanding\, allows each side to educate the other\, enhances trust\, acts as a force multiplier\, and helps ease if not eliminate historical resentments paving the way for substantive mutual gains. He emphasizes that no matter how bilateral ties between India and the United States evolve during the next few years\, this study makes a case that diplomatic style is important\, in this particular relationship. What has been learned and gained should be maintained\, and even built upon further. One may hope that a reasonably common set of guiding diplomatic practices will characterize the full range of US-India ties in the future. \nPoints raised during the discussion \n\n\nIt is important to understand whether style reflects substance. If practitioners are frank and enjoy a level of trust and also do not question the other’s fundamentals\, then style matters.\nOne cannot have different style while dealing with different countries. It is substance and issues which make the difference\, not style. If the United States and China can develop without changing their diplomatic style\, then why should India change its diplomatic style. The substantive nature of India-United States relations began with the Indian nuclear tests in 1998. It was not change of style but in substance. \nSystemic differences between India and the United States also lead to differences in negotiating style. \nDifferences in negotiating style between India and the United States is also the result of systemic differences; an Indian Foreign Minister is invariably a politician whereas in the United States Secretaries of State are frequently drawn from academia\, business\, armed forces\, etc.\nIn the United States behavioral sciences have taken a major lead in shaping policies. Style reflects behaviour and in this process selection of words used during negotiations plays an important role.\nDiplomacy carries historical baggage. Personalities like Henry Kissinger played a crucial role. Their personality and diplomatic style prove influential as Kissinger was successful in United States-China rapprochement process in 1971.\nDiplomatic style matters and works so long as diplomats are sensitive to substance. \nDiplomats respond to the leaders. Leaders set the substance and diplomatic style works accordingly.\nFor success in negotiations\, parties need to understand the bottomline well.\nWhile understanding the change in Indo-US relations\, it is important to note that India’s economic progress and new found prosperity have played a major role in this process.\nIndia is a major power and it is interesting to analyse where the United States places India in its ‘Grand Strategy’.\nSometimes diplomatic behaviour or style only works as a lubricant.\nFactors like culture\, personalities and national identity should be kept in mind and engagement should be in terms of principles.\nStyle certainly matters in Indo-US Relations as in any relationship. But it has been observed that when core issues are discussed\, style takes a back seat. Style becomes different when contentious issues are discussed. \nDiplomatic style works in negotiations if it is carried out with a certain degree of caution and care.\nIt is important for Indian diplomats to have a good knowledge about the United States\, and a good way is to gain exposure in American universities. \nCharisma of personalities involved in diplomatic negotiations works because it builds trust and enhances confidence\, as happened in the case of the Jaswant Singh-Strobe Talbott dialogue. \n\nPrepared by Sanjeev Kumar Shrivastav\, Research Assistant at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses\, New Delhi.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/the-indo-us-relationship-is-diplomatic-style-important
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