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:20070101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20080827T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20080827T053000
DTSTAMP:20261105T212443
CREATED:20231223T222619Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130744Z
UID:63757-1219815000-1219815000@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Resurgence of Russia
DESCRIPTION:The discussion at IDSA on August 27\, 2008 was part of the Institute’s ongoing research activities and was aimed at encouraging interactive dialogue among experts available on specific fields. The objective of the Round Table was to discuss the underlying and most compelling factors contributing to the resurgence of Russia and its implications. The Round Table was held against the backdrop of recent developments in Russia and its conflict with Georgia over the separatist enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.  \nSome twenty scholars including international affairs specialists participated in the half-day working session. Those who joined the discussion included\, Shri Rajiv Sikri\, former Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs\, Shri Nandan Unnikrishnan\, Russia expert at the Observer Research Foundation\, Dr. Gulshan Sachdeva\, Russia expert at Jawaharlal Nehru University\, Dr. Subhas Kapila\, Russia Expert\, Shri N.S. Sisodia\, DG\, IDSA\, Dr. Arvind Gupta\, Lal Bahadur Shastri Chair at IDSA\, Dr. Thomas Mathew\, DDG\, IDSA\, Shri Sujit Datta\, Senior Fellow at IDSA\, Brig. B.S. Sachar\, Senior Fellow at IDSA\, Prof. P. Stobdan\, Senior Fellow at IDSA and others. \nThe discussion mainly centred around three broad themes covering a range of issues relating to internal trends in Russia\, strategic issues and the cast of international players impacting Russia’s course\, and finally aspects of Indo-Russian relations. Among the many points discussed the following stand out as important. \nRussia’s Resurgence \nRussia’s resurgence has been underway since 2004 when Vladimir Putin\, through his tough domestic policy measures\, put an end to several ambiguities and misgivings about Russia’s ability to stage a comeback as a power of consequence. Putin’s military successes in Chechnya provided Russia the latitude and sense of self confidence for restoring the country’s lost strength and international prestige.  \nWhether or not such assessments indicate full resurgence of Russia\, there was no doubting the optimism expressed in the discussion about Russia’s remarkable economic comeback. The country has emerged as the world’s biggest energy producer\, pumping more oil than Saudi Arabia and making Europe dependent on the export of its natural gas. The growing commodity items exports have swelled the Kremlin’s coffers\, which now possesses the third largest reserve of foreign currency in the world. It has a Stabilization Fund worth over $160 billion dollars. There was no doubt among the participants that with the current 7 to 8 per cent growth rate\, Russia could emerge as a powerful economy; with Europe’s biggest market. Such being the current trend\, it became clear from the discussion that Russia cannot be wished away so easily by the world. \nHowever\, there was a great deal of deliberation on how Russia remains a nation fraught with problems and uncertainty. For example\, its current internal stability and economic situation conceals as much as it reveals. The economy is still largely based on export of natural resources that entails policies for diversification process in other areas. Russia has lost its capabilities\, especially technical skills for handling large project management. Georgia’s ability to bring down six Russian aircraft indicated chinks in the Russian armoury. \nThe current surge in Russian economy is linked to a power struggle within – redistribution of wealth (centralisation and re-privatisation) – especially in the energy sector and even in military industrial complexes. Corruption is rife with little transparency in decision making system. Judicial system is weak and requires urgent reforms. It was noted that the Russian leadership is adopting autocratic tendencies\, backsliding on democracy\, curbing free press\, encouraging nationalism and xenophobia while using energy as a powerful weapon of foreign policy. \nAlso on the downside\, the country is facing a widening gap between rich and poor. The social sector i.e.\, education\, health and transport systems suffer from acute underinvestment. The country is also mired in a dangerous demographic crisis – its population is declining by 800\,000 people every year that could curtail future economic growth. It is difficult to imagine how merely 100 million people in the decades ahead would be able to defend a vast nation of 11 time zones. Russians are already worried about the Chinese increasingly creeping into their territory\, but are not able to deal with the problem. Many felt that the potential of Indian workers immigrating to Russia could be taken up as a serious option. \nStrategic Perception\nThe discussion reflected a view that Russia is subtly seeking strategic autonomy as against the earlier partnership strategy with the West. This could be indicative of Russians getting emboldened by the windfall from oil revenues\, as such determined to reassert on the regional and global stages. However\, participants who had experience of directly handling Russian affairs in the past felt that the Russian people have suffered enough national humiliation and would now stand up against the host of international scenarios being drawn up by the West. Interestingly\, some experts perceptibly put forth the argument that the Cold War\, in fact\, has never ended. The West never dismantled the NATO and instead chose to expand beyond Eastern Europe into the traditional Russian strategic sphere i.e.\, Ukraine and Georgia. \nSome experts expressed the view that the ideological basis for the resumption of a new Cold War did not exist\, as Russia too now adheres to democratic values\, free market and globalization. However\, they expressed the view that as long as the US plan for further dismemberment of Russia persists\, tension between Russia and the West will continue unabated. The current Georgian crisis is a fallout of Kosovo\, as Moscow was preparing for a showdown for months. The objective was to draw a strategic line beyond which Moscow would not tolerate Western poaching. The Russians had a history of strong national pride and there would be an obvious tendency for Russia to counter the repudiation of its great power status. It is seeking to reinvigorate nationalism and international assertiveness to regain its lost national pride. There were\, however\, questions about the sustainability of Russia’s emerging geo-strategic policy orientation.  \nWhile rejecting the resumption of a Cold War theory\, experts recognised that Russia faces inherent technological limitations and military wherewithal vis-à-vis the 10 times stronger USA. Russia\, they felt\, may have to play a more nuanced game especially in the Caucasus\, Eastern Europe and Central Asia. China’s entrenched influence and the West’s ability to use its economic leverages could drive a further wedge between the former Soviet Republics and Russia. The crisis in Georgia was a case in point. \nWhile the tensions between Russia and unrelenting neighbours have been growing for years\, the US’ exuberant support for Georgia’s leadership clearly emboldened the latter to enter into full confrontation with Moscow. The US\, according to some experts\, was a ‘paper tiger’ and would not be able to defend Russia’s neighbours\, should the confrontation develop full scale. Russia\, they felt\, feels seriously threatened about its security\, and therefore its future actions would be security driven even if it means going for another war. Importantly\, there would be a split inside Georgia and Ukraine before they finally join NATO. As Russia’s stake in the global energy market grows\, Russia would be seeking a global strategic balance even if this meant a return to bipolarity. By any means\, the US would be unable to force Russia out in an arms race. \nThe discussion also brought up the issue that China might negatively react to Russia’s reassertion. In a scenario of a wider strategic competition\, experts felt that China\, because of the nature of its relations with the West\, will swing in favour of the US. Most participants did not take an optimistic view of the Sino-Russian strategic partnership. Suspicions between the two are greater than co-operation. The broad view that emerged finally was that Russia would threaten the West up to a point. It will withdraw once it is able to draw its red lines. A full confrontation is unlikely\, but Russia would retain the right to disrupt or contain the American agenda in Russia’s strategic neighbourhood. \nImplications for Indo-Russian Relations\nThere was a great deal of discussion on how Russia was still politically\, diplomatically and militarily important for India. A country with large stockpiles of strategic bombers with a veto power in the UNSC acts as a useful counterweight against global hegemony. A view was expressed that Russia could refurbish its strategic assets\, and has strong scientific and technological base that can be taken advantage of by India. A view was expressed that Russian weapons were still the best bet for India’s requirements. It was felt that India cannot afford to ignore its old and time-tested strategic partner\, as the traditionally strong US-Pakistan relationship and China-Pakistan nexus still persisted. Also\, India had to develop sufficient confidence in alternative source of support in the area of defence. Further\, Russia’s diplomatic support to India in the context of the issue of Kashmir cannot be lost sight of. \nHowever\, another view expressed was that India needs to shed its old nostalgia and instead seek a more realistic relationship with Russia based on current realities. There has been a tendency to overestimate the importance of Russia especially among Indian academia\, foreign policy circles and the defence establishment. Critics viewed diversification as a major challenge\, especially when a linkage is yet to be established between engines of growth in India and Russia. Some experts felt that defence cooperation with Russia is not going to be same and it would be wise to speed up the diversification process. Similarly\, on energy\, nothing big is happening. An alternative assessment put forward was that Russia and India had substantially moved away from each other\, as can be seen from the divergent foreign and defence policies pursued by both countries. The existing dispensation had a utility for India only for a single-window clearance. But\, clearly\, the lack of a transport corridor and banking system could inhibit any meaningful commerce between the two countries in the future. Russia’s recent action against Georgia had questioned the sanctity of the existing state boundaries. The unravelling situation in the Caucasus would have implications for India\, especially when a position is required to be taken by India on the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This would require a carefully calibrated response. \nConclusion\nWhile some experts expressed optimism about Russia’s future\, others saw it to be less strong than it perceived itself to be. A revival of the Cold War seemed unlikely\, but Russia protecting its vital security interests while acquiring strength to thwart US moves in areas where Russia had got a hold came out clearly in the discussion. Russia was likely to remain important for both the European and Chinese economies.  \nOn its road to regaining domestic and international stature\, the participants saw several challenges in Russia’s way. The most serious issues related to social indicators and demographic trends. The establishment of a democratic and plural political system\, which was at a nascent stage\, was also noted as a constraint. \nWhile Russia’s potential to emerge as a major power centre and a countervailing influence to the US in global affairs was not in doubt\, it would still require a positive and sustained engagement with major powers like the US\, Europe\, China and India to achieve the desired status. An equally important factor would be how others\, while keeping pace with the changing reality\, approach Russia’s resurgence as a phenomenon and gain from its endowments. The US\, however\, seems unprepared to reconcile to a resurgent Russia and will need to take initiatives for a deeper engagement with it to avoid a repeat of the Cold War-like confrontations. \nFinally\, the participants felt that there remained a serious gap in the research being done on Russia in India and urged a fresh impetus for scholarship on the emerging Indo-Russian relations in a realistic manner. A proposal for a research programme in cooperation with the government could be mooted to bridge the gap in knowledge\, as well as\, for preparing analytical papers needed by the Government. \nPrepared by Professor P. Stobdan\, Senior Fellow at IDSA and Co-ordinator of the Russia and Central Asia cluster.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/resurgence-of-russia
CATEGORIES:ROUND TABLES / WORKSHOPS,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:20080828T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20080828T053000
DTSTAMP:20261105T212443
CREATED:20231223T222619Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T111709Z
UID:63756-1219901400-1219901400@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Current Developments in J&K
DESCRIPTION:The IDSA organized a Round Table on 28th August 2008 to discuss the current developments in Jammu & Kashmir. A number of leading experts and academics participated. \nThe idea of the Round Table was triggered by a spate of recent articles in the mainstream media which suggested that the alienation in the Valley and anti-India sentiment was so strong even after 61 years of accession that India should think of letting the J&K go rather than keep it as a millstone around its neck. \nThe participants at the Round Table were unanimous that India should not bow to the pressure exerted by the separatists for “Azadi”. Any weakness shown will seriously compromise India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It will lead to the unraveling of India. Giving independence to Kashmir would trigger similar sentiments in the other parts of the country. The suggestions made in the media that India should let go of the Valley were preposterous\, highly irresponsible\, mischievous and probably orchestrated. \nA time line of important events in the present crisis was presented and analysed. It was felt that a firm handling of the crisis in the initial stages could have contained the problem. The issue of land transfer was handled in a most inept manner. The crisis was allowed to fester for far too long. The various political parties behaved in an unbecoming and partisan fashion. Their actions only accentuated the crisis. They failed to appreciate the threats to national unity and integrity. \nThe role of the media in the current Kashmir crisis was also discussed. There was unanimity that some of the leading channels had gone overboard in giving disproportionate coverage to the separatists’ sentiment. The coverage could have been more balanced and restrained.  \nThere was considerable discussion on what had gone wrong in J&K. It was quite obvious that the issue of “alienation” needed to be addressed urgently and sensitively. The people were fed up with poor governance and corruption. The intensity of the agitation in Jammu had taken every one by surprise. The people in Jammu & Ladakh regions have their own grievances of discrimination by the State and the Central governments. The genuine grievances of the people in Jammu and Ladakh regions should not be ignored. \nThe participants felt that in the current crisis\, the government should act firmly and make it absolutely clear that it would not tolerate secessionism and separatism. J&K is an integral part of India. India is a secular democracy. The government should not be defensive on the use of force according to the law of the land. Care should be taken not to use force excessively or indiscriminately. At the same time the government should not show weakness vis-à-vis the extremists who have hijacked the agenda and taken advantage of the prevailing volatility. The rule of law must be enforced at all costs.  \nWhy do the Kashmiris think of themselves as being different from rest of India? This issue evoked considerable discussion. The people of J&K have been the beneficiaries of the aid from the Central government. Per capita Central assistance to J&K is about Rs.11\, 000\, as compared to Rs.700 for U.P. However\, economic assistance has not overcome the feeling of alienation of the people of the state. The problem has political dimension. Many participants felt that Article 370 has contributed to the feeling of separateness among the Kashmiris and has come in the way of integration of J&K with the rest of India. It was suggested by some that the State of Jammu & Kashmir should be trifurcated into three separate states to improve the quality of governance. It was pointed out that the division of states is nothing new and the existing boundaries were not sacrosanct. Many states have been pared down with good results. Similar solution could be tried out in J&K also. However\, the suggestion should come from the people themselves.  \nAn alternative could be decentralization through strengthening of local government institutions i.e. Panchayat Raj Institutions and Municipal bodies. Constitutional provisions on the subject applicable in the rest of the country were not adopted in the State of J&K. This aspect also needed urgent consideration as good local-self government Institutions would improve transparency and governance. \nThe various dimensions of the concept of “Azadi” were analysed. A point was made that “Azadi” means different things to different people. “Azadi” does not necessarily mean “independence”. Most Kashmiris realize that independent Kashmir is not a viable entity. While a sizeable section of the minority in the Valley is in favour of accession to Pakistan\, most would oppose the idea. They know what Pakistan is. The Kashmiris will lose their freedoms that they enjoy in India if they join Pakistan. What they need is the freedom of action. That is what “Azadi” means to them. The government of India should try and ensure that all the freedoms which a democratic and secular India gives to its citizens are available to the Kashmiris. Efforts should be made to ensure that the Kashmiris get good governance through clean and efficient administration as well as local institutions.  \nThe rise of radical Islam is a matter of grave concern. It has complicated the situation. Since 1989\, the Valley has been radicalized by extremist elements. Srinagar alone has nearly 100 Ahle-Hadis mosques which preach radical Islam while undermining the local traditions.  \nIt was suggested that the mainstream political parties should display maturity and reach out to the ordinary Kashmiris including the separatists so that their mindset is changed in favour of India. They should not act for narrow political gains. India has a lot to offer to the Kashmiris. The government should\, however\, ensure that it does not adopt an overbearing and patronizing attitude towards the Kashmiris. It should carefully listen to all sections of J&K society. The suggestions for change and reform should come from the Kashmiris themselves.  \nThe Pakistani factor remains crucial to the stability in the state. Pakistan is behind the rise of terrorism and separatism in the state. The government should remain alert to the enormous capacity of Pakistan to take advantage of the present volatile situation and stir further trouble in the state and for the country. \nWhile the Round Table did not discuss specific measures\, the consensus was that the situation can be and should be defused urgently. However\, bold decisions will be required to solve the problem in the long term. There was no case for the government of India bending before the separatist elements and their loud sloganeering. The government should signal this appropriately and firmly not only to the agitators but also to the rest of India.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/current-developments-in-jk
CATEGORIES:ROUND TABLES / WORKSHOPS
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR