[wpc_countdown theme=”flat-colors” now=”1505295460276″ end=”2856″ bg=”#fff” padding=”5″]
India’s Foreign Policy Workshop
India Foundation is convening a uniquely comprehensive six day workshop on India’s Foreign Policy in New Delhi from January 28 – February 1, 2018. This event will bring together, as participants, 70 aficionados of Indian foreign policy: researchers, academics, and practitioners, from across India, from India’s neighbouring countries, and from key partner nations. The course structure for this workshop is well rounded to cover major thematic issues and vital Bilateral Relationships in India’s Foreign Policy. These sessions will be addressed by senior practitioners and thought leaders including Union ministers of the Government of India, national leaders, experienced diplomats (serving and retired), domain specialists and Delhi-based Ambassadors of several nations. In addition, this Foreign Policy Workshop will deploy innovative mechanisms to facilitate in-depth analysis and interaction through Breakout Sessions, Panel Discussions, Foreign Policy Labs and Mini-Workshops on selected issues.
Young Thinkers
Young Thinkers’ Meet – Vadodara
India Ideas Conclave
India Ideas Conclave
Needling The Army
A rather peculiar phenomenon which is now appearing on the political landscape and in the mainstream and social media, is that anyone who is anyone, feels compelled to comment on the country’s Armed Forces, more so on the actions of the Army. The trend gained traction after the terror attack on the Air Force Station at Pathankot in January 2016, which caused casualties to own forces before the terrorists were eliminated. This was followed a month later by a terror attack on a government building in the outskirts of Srinagar which resulted in the loss of three para commandos including two Captains, before the lone terrorist was eliminated. Then in September, 17 soldiers lost their lives in a sneak attack on a brigade HQ in Uri sector, which rightly caused rage and indignation across the country and led to the Indian Army responding by a surgical strike across the border, successfully targeting a number of terrorist bases. Finally, in November, the terrorists struck once again, this time at an artillery unit in Nagrota, killing three soldiers, including one Captain.
2017 has not yet seen the type of high profile attacks of 2016 on military targets, which perhaps points to the success of the Army in keeping the area under effective domination, but civil disobedience in the form of pelting stones at the security forces has taken on a more ominous dimension. It was to save the lives of election officials and their protection party from a thousand or so stone pelters intent on creating mayhem that Maj Gogoi, who was detailed to rescue the beleaguered officials, tied up a stone pelter in front of his jeep and carried out the rescue without mishap in April this year. But then all hell broke loose, with exaggerated concern being expressed for the human rights of the tied up stone pelter, but muted or no criticism being showered on the murderous stone pelters and their attempts to thwart the election process. The Army supported the action of Gogoi, with the Chief giving him his commendation card while stating at the same time that though not the norm for the Army, different situations required different responses. A former Army Commander of Northern Command however openly expressed his displeasure to the act of tying up a stone pelter, taking the high moral ground that such an act had no place in the Army’s ethos. The Government supported the Army Chief, but predictably, the opposition came out all guns blazing, indicting the Centre and the alliance government at the State for its perceived failure in bringing peace and normalcy to the Valley and infringement of the human rights of the civilian stone pelter.
Soon public opinion was divided on the issue. Editorial pieces in the Indian Express slammed the Army, the Telegraph termed the sequence of incidents as shocking and unbecoming and the Hindustan Times bluntly stated “The General has it wrong”. Karan Thapar, the son of a former Chief also jumped into the fray, stating that it was ‘not the Indian Army I know’. But other mainstream papers supported the Army, support pouring in overwhelmingly also from the social media. In all the brouhaha, the basic issue however got ignored.
Commanders need to take decisions in real time in situations which are akin to war. Their actions cannot be judged in terms of right or wrong — but on whether their action was done in good faith. How an action will eventually pan out can never be pre-determined and young commanders must always have the backing of their superiors in the chain of command for taking on the spot decisions. Otherwise, our junior leadership will lose confidence in the higher leadership with disastrous consequences for the Army and the nation. More importantly, as said so eloquently by Sadguru, decisions on the battlefield must be left to the commanders who are facing the bullets and cannot be the subject of debate in the media. Every action cannot be put open to public gaze. The Army is the instrument of final resolve and its edge must never be allowed to be eroded. Which is why the Chief supported his officers fighting on the battlefield. On a different note, Karan Thapar may be right when he stated that this is not the Army he grew up in. It most certainly is not. The present Chief upheld the interests of the Army. Sadly, that did not happen when his father was the Chief and we suffered humiliation at the hands of the Chinese in 1962.
(The writer is Director of India Foundation)
The article was published in Salute magazine, April-May 2017 issue.
Curtain Raiser of International Conference on “BIMSTEC: An Enabling Architecture for Growth, Prosperity and Partnerships”
An International conference on BIMSTEC will be organized by India Foundation in collaboration with FICCI in Guwahati from November 2 to 4, 2017, under the overarching theme of ‘BIMSTEC: An Enabling Architecture for Growth, Prosperity and Partnerships’. The conference aims to engage the Member States of BIMSTEC on the same platform and collectively streamline a vision for the future. As a prelude to the BIMSTEC conference and on the occasion of 20th Anniversary of BIMSTEC on 6th June 2017, India Foundation and FICCI organised a curtain raiser of the conference. Shri Jayant Sinha, Minister of State, Civil Aviation, Government of India, was the Guest of Honour at the curtain raiser. He released the official brochure and website of BIMSTEC conference.
Addressing the curtain raiser, Mr. Jayant Sinha said that, “To make the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean the real power centre of the region, the BIMSTEC countries would have to work together”. He added that “To strengthen trade, connectivity is vital to develop linkages”. Therefore, the focus of India is on developing transport infrastructure, which includes rail and roadways, waterways and aviation. He also highlighted that India is developing its railways and roadways network and is linking the northeast with the rest of India so as it to make it the hub for reaching out to the neighbouring countries.
Mr. Sinha also suggested that to encourage high value travellers and to allow free movement for business persons, there should be an open skies policy in BIMSTEC. He said that India is looking to expand the UDAN (Ude Desh ka Aam Naagrik) scheme of its aviation policy to countries of BIMSTEC.
Mr. Prashant Agrawal, Joint Secretary (BIMSTEC & SAARC), MEA, read out the transcript of the message from Shri Narendra Modi, Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, on the occasion of Twentieth Anniversary of BIMSTEC.
The event was a well-attended and saw participation of many Ambassadors and officials from the Embassies of BIMSTEC countries apart from other dignitaries.
Challenges to China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI)
China organized it’s first Belt and Road Forum (BRF) Summit in Beijing on 14th-15th May 2017 which was attended by 29 Heads of States and as many as 129 countries including delegation from other South Asian countries, except India and Bhutan. It also included leaders and officials from Russia, US, Japan, UK, Germany and France. The initiative which was proposed in 2013, is the clearest expression of President Xi Jinping’s determination to break away with Deng Xiaoping’s dictum to “hide our capabilities and bide our time”. More recently, China made a robust call in ‘defense of globalization’ at Davos, World Economic Forum (WEF) meet 2017, in same line and vigour.
The ambitious project is backed by top Chinese leadership and draws on the strength of China’s USD 10 trillion economy, with spending of nearly 150 billion USD a year, in the 68 countries that have signed up to the initiative. .Considering the unfolding nature of OBOR project, its opportunities and challenges cannot be set out in clearer terms at present. The project aims to link Asia, Africa and Europe, with an eye to establish free-trade area in the Asia-Pacific region and linking it further to Europe through Land and Maritime Silk Road so as to make it global project whose influence exceeds China’s immediate borders. The ‘grand strategy’ of OBOR looks both to the East and West. Although driving on ‘economic exceptionalism’, it has strategic underpinnings to counter ‘Pivot to Asia’ of United States in the Asia Pacific region and causing shifts in global governance model with new identity and vision. To mention, the initial impression for having multi-model link from Asia to Europe was found in India’s desire for an International North-South Transit Corridor (INSTC), in September 2000, bringing together India, Iran and Russia.
Despite China’s covert objectives to redefine ‘global norms and institutions’ through OBOR project, the idea faces some key challenges at both domestic and global fronts.
Firstly, Beijing expects around USD 100 billion of infrastructure investments in Asia from newly created institutions like AIIB and NDB (BRICS Bank), which seems less likely to realize before 2020. Although AIIB aimed to lend more than USD $1.7 billion in 2016, the amount remains less to the intended projections for OBOR. Secondly, the OBOR project also faces push from different stakeholders in China, considering the involvement of three ministries at the official launch of vision document on OBOR which was released in March 2015. With likely ambition of the project related with provincial interest of Western China, it has chances of being ‘over stretched’ to China’s domestic politics. Thirdly, there is growing tendency for ‘risk aversion’ in China’s financial institutions that forms a key challenge against taking lead in investments abroad.
On the global front, concerns remain on questions of ‘debt repayment’ to China being faced by countries like Ukraine, Zimbabwe, Cambodia and Sri-Lanka. According to IMF report 2016, out of Cambodia’s USD 3.9 billion bilateral public debts with China, 80 percent is owned by China. Further there is also concern on the flow of Chinese goods and services in countries along the Land and maritime route of OBOR. Considering the over capacity of Chinese economy, there are doubts if OBOR aims to link production centers in China to the markets in Eurasia. The project also attaches need to deal with political risk and operational insecurity in Central Asia, South Asia and the Middle East for Chinese investment.
The project also has not found approval from India due to the fact that$46 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), with officials declaring that the venture violated Indian sovereignty. The China was unwilling to agree with New Delhi’s requests for consultations on the objectives, nature and financing of the BRI. India has made its position clear that China cannot ignore its concerns on territorial integrity and Chinese will have to adhere to One India policy. As per some reports in media, the likely deployment of 30,000 Chinese ‘security personnel’ to protect the projects along the CPEC, in addition to 15000 troops from Pakistan army make the situation alarming for India. To remember, the standoff on Demchok and Chumar (2014) due to Chinese incursion has drawn concern from India’s highest leadership. India’s future strategy thrust on CPEC must be based on a careful assessment of geopolitics and economics.
Moreover, in the maritime domain China is set to increase number of its marine corps from 20,000 to one lakh at strategic Gwadar port in Pakistan and in military base of Djibouti.. In recent years, China has moved aggressively to increase its power projection capabilities through the rapid modernization of its navy and has increasedits military spending. Given the case of Indian opposition, a ‘meaningful dialogue’ between both is necessary giving due consideration to India’s sovereignty concerns and upholding of ‘One India’ policy. China needs to address the context of rising tension with India in the larger framework of realizing the dream of ‘An Asian Century’.
As the BRF summit concluded major European nations like France, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Portugal and Britain refused to sign the trade document citing concerns on public procurement and environmental standards. The challenge before China is to communicate that its objective and vision for BRI does not represent a threat for regional stability, territorial sovereignty and equitable world order.
(Abhishek Pratap Singh is a Fellow, South Asia Democratic Forum (SADF), Brussels and Doctoral Candidate, Centre for East Asian Studies (Chinese), Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.)
Turning down China
But India’s staying away from the OBOR mega show will not affect bilateral relations adversely
Belt and Road is China’s most ambitious initiative in history. Popularly known as One Belt One Road (OBOR), this infrastructure project of gigantic proportions attempts to bring under its sway more than 60 countries, from the Scandinavian world to the South Pacific Islands, in its land and maritime versions. The ancient Silk Route is said to be the inspiration for this initiative launched in 2013.
For President Xi Jinping, Belt and Road is a project of personal ambition and honour. His government has not left any stone unturned to make it a reality in a span of less than four years. In the first three years, various projects have seen the signing of contracts worth more than a trillion US dollars.
In a world of competing economic and trade alliances, OBOR has overtaken many others active in the region and beyond. The European Union has some 27 member countries; the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has 13 countries; the East Asia Summit has 18 countries; even a religious grouping like the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has only 57 countries as members. APEC, TTP, SCO — none comes anywhere near the Belt and Road initiative which boasts of the involvement of more than 60 countries.
By all means, this is singularly the biggest constellation of nations in the 21st century. One prominent nation missing in this mega show is India. Like other countries, India too was invited to the Beijing conclave, with invitations reaching six different ministries for participation in various forums during the summit. The Chinese were hopeful till the last moment about Indian participation. But the government of India decided not to send its representatives to the summit.
Belt and Road is essentially a Chinese project. Two major Chinese financial institutions are supposedly taking responsibility for arranging the necessary finances for participant nations. When completed, the rail, road and maritime routes of this project are expected to boost bilateral and multilateral trade in a big way.
Where the project is a matter of pride for the Chinese leadership, it is also mired in controversy over sovereignty questions and fears about debt servicing obligations. Projects like this one, involving multiple countries, are launched only after proper deliberations among the beneficiary countries and after addressing their concerns.
In the case of Belt and Road, however, the Chinese have opted for a different course. They first announced the project and then initiated the dialogue process with various stakeholder nations. It suited some; for some, like Nepal, it is too big a proposal to be rejected. India is probably the only country that didn’t find it virtuous or beneficial to join this mega alliance.
India’s reservations need to be looked at from the sovereignty perspective. China routinely threatens countries when it finds issues even remotely connected to its own sovereignty question being “violated”. Not just China, no country compromises with its sovereignty for the sake of some trade and commerce interests.
India’s Achilles’ heel is the China Pakistan Economic Corridor, popularly known as CPEC. The CPEC is seen as a part of the Belt and Road initiative although it started much earlier. In fact, when the Chinese entered into an agreement with Pakistan in 1963 to build the Karakoram Highway in the Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) region, India had vociferously objected to it on the very question of sovereignty. The region through which the highway was to pass belonged to India and has been under the illegal occupation of Pakistan. The Chinese side, thus, has full knowledge of India’s concerns about the region.
The CPEC today passes through the same region of PoK called Gilgit Baltistan (GB). India has time and again raised its concerns over Chinese activity in the region, the latest being in 2011 when information came out about the presence of thousands of Chinese troops in the region. Adding insult to injury for India is the very name of the project, CPEC, although the region through which it passes doesn’t belong either to Pakistan or to China. In such a scenario, for India to participate in the summit would have meant acceptance of the CPEC proposition.
There is no reason to assume that India’s decision will affect bilateral relations with China adversely. Both India and China have a mature leadership under Modi and Xi. Both work together on many other multilateral forums like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB), BRICS Forum, etc. In bilateral relations, there are certain irritants that have either been inherited over time or are a result of realpolitik. That includes China’s position on Pakistan and terrorism sponsored by it on Indian soil. India hopes that China appreciates its concerns and takes mutually satisfactory and reassuring measures.
However, being not just a nation but a civilisation in itself, China has time and again betrayed its own style in diplomacy. In his book The Hundred Year Marathon, Michael Pillsbury suggested that Chinese strategists have a definite road map for their country to overtake all other world powers, including America, by the time their Maoist Revolution completes a hundred years in 2049, becoming the sole super power. But President Jinping seems to be a man in a hurry. He wants to achieve it much earlier.
As pointed out by The Economist magazine, China today talks not in terms of the China Model or the Beijing Consensus as it used to. The terminology used these days is “China solution” and “guiding globalisation”. Its initiatives, including OBOR, need to be viewed from the perspective of these newly coined phrases.
(Ram Madhav is National General Secretary, BJP and Director, India Foundation.)
(The article is originally carried in the Indian Express, 17th May, 2017 at http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/turning-down-china-one-belt-one-road-4659155/ )
Dalai Lama’s Visit to Arunanchal Pradesh and China’s Belligerence
The reaction of China against Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunanchal Pradesh holds no ‘valid reason’ except political anxiety.
The visit of His holiness the Dalai Lama to India’s state of Arunanchal Pradesh in the month of April, has drawn noticeable concern from China. In an unceremonious set of reactions, China displayed its anguishes with the visit by relating it with an ‘unsettled border dispute’ with India in the eastern sector, also referring for its commitment to defend its ‘core interest’ vis a vis India. However, the context of this visit and background of India-China relation in regard to Tibet makes a compelling case for Chinese ‘unfounded concern’ in the given context.
Looking back to the history of India-China border dispute, the ‘Tibet card’ has been well played by Chinese at different periods of time. Firstly, this became a point of context for China in their diplomatic negotiations with India on border dispute from 1957 to 1962. China also seems to have overplayed the notion of India’s involvement in Tibetan uprising in mid 1950s. This was the time when role of the United States (US) investigative agency CIA was more vital and decisive in order to escalate problems in Tibet (JK Knaus, Orphans of Cold War, 1999)
Secondly, the use of Tibet card also forms key component of ‘Forward Policy School’ of thought in China and in West in regard to 1962 India-China war which always shifts the blame of instigating the war on Indian policy choices at that time. In both the cases, the objective assessment of fact suggests a rather different and truthful theory. Interestingly, in both cases India’s role was peaceful and justified with no provocation to China.
Rather than questioning the presence of Thubten Norbu in US since July, 1951 as a ‘motivating factor’ behind Tibetan uprising in 1950s, China seems to have ignored the Indian reprimand of Gyalo Thondup in 1953 at Gangtok to warn him in person not to carry out political activities on Indian soil. Simply put, India has no such role in CIAs covert operation in Tibet. Rather China took the advantage of India’s weak positioning and security intelligence to its favour in 1962 war.
Thirdly, it is largely accepted that Tibet had become independent when the Manchu Resident and the remnants of his military escort left its soil in January 1913. In between 1913 to 1949, China was using more ‘assertion’ rather than ‘exertion’ over Tibet based on historical maps. After PLAs march into the Tibet in October 1950 and signing of ‘Peaceful Liberation of Tibet (17 Point Agreement), Tibet almost found itself incorporated with the China.
During the signing of ‘Panchsheel Agreement’ in April 1954 between both the countries, India recognized the ‘Tibetan region of China’ as a part of the PRC. But the same was not reciprocated by China in terms of India’s sovereignty on Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). China has also not even spoken officially on the ‘One India Policy’ as put forward by Indian Minister of External Affairs, Smt. Sushma Swaraj.
China must understand that ever since his stay in India, the Dalai Lama has never been allowed to ‘play politics’ because India does not want to playthe Tibet card with China. This was the‘sixth visit’ of His Holiness to the state of Arunanchal Pradesh, which is an integral part of India. HH Dalai Lama enjoys respect in the heart of every Indian as a ‘religious leader’ and so he is widely celebrated amongst all. So the reaction of China against his visit holds no valid reason except political anxiety.
China started referring to Arunachal Pradesh as ‘Southern Tibet’ since 2006 in their official records. If we look back to history, this stands true with the Chinese ‘changing position’ on border negotiations with India.
At times when the theatre of global politics has shifted to Asia, the political cooperation between India and China is necessary. This is preliminary to realize the dream of 21st century as ‘Asian Century’ as enunciatedby Prime Minister Narendra Modi. While Manmohan-Jintao era witnessed the ‘Strategic Partnership’ between India and China, the new leadership led by Modi-Xi desires to move towards ‘Comprehensive developmental partnership’ between both countries. There is enough space for both to prosper and secure their national interest.
In the given context some wider economic cooperation in terms of ‘sectoral engagement’ between both the countries has increased in areas like sister cities, railways, infrastructure and manufacturing. However, the political context of bilateral relations has not moved forward. On the issue of India’s membership to NSG and listing of Pakistan based terrorist Masood Azhar in UN list of terrorist, China has found less reasonable excuses against India. And now its opposition to HH Dalai Lama’s visit has witnessed profound reactions in India. China must realize that it needs to reflect upon aspirational India and not allow any untimely opportunity to effect Indian sensitivities because it takes much time to regain the ‘lost trust’ between two countries. In case of India and China the level of ‘high trust deficit’ is already an accepted fact.
China must acknowledge that India beinga ‘civilizational state’ has allowed Dalai Lama to establish his religious abode in Dharamsala, in recognition to the distinct linguistic, cultural and religious traditions of Tibetans. The nature of this relationship is more cultural than political. In China too a growing number of people are rediscovering the country’s dormant Buddhist traditions inspired from Tibetan Budhism. At the time when new age Chinese people are seeking ‘religious revival’ through Buddhism this newly found and more vocal ‘hard stand’ of China against its preacher seems largely mistaken. This not only cause damage to China’s soft power credentials but its respect for cultural prudence as well.
Considering China’s desire to be a dominant World power, it must act in more prudent manner rather than being more reactive to a rightful visit by any religious leader who symbolizes the message of peace and non-violence.
(Abhishek Pratap Singh is a Fellow, South Asia Democratic Forum (SADF), Brussels and Doctoral Candidate, Centre for East Asian Studies (Chinese), Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.)
Curtain-Raiser for 2nd Indian Ocean Conference and India -ASEAN Youth Summit
India Foundation hosted a Heads of Missions Dinner for ambassadors of India in several countries as well as ambassadors of several countries to India as a curtain-raiser to two of its flagship events namely, 2nd Indian Ocean Conference-IOC 2017 and the First India-ASEAN Youth Summit. The event was attended by the Union Minister of Railways and also Director, India Foundation Shri Suresh Prabhu. The Guest of Honour for the event was Shri M J Akbar, Minister of State for External Affairs and Director, India Foundation. The event was a well attended and saw participation of about 50 ambassadors and dignitaries. These included Indian Ambassadors of USA, UK, France, Russia, Singapore, UAE, Japan, South Korea, Qatar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and several other countries. Foreign missions heads of the IOC and ASEAN region also graced the occasion. The brochure for the Indian Ocean Conference and India-ASEAN Youth Summit were released by Shri M J Akbar and Shri Ram Madhav, National General Secretary, Bharatiya Janata Party and Director, India Foundation.
2nd Indian Ocean Conference- IOC 2017 is a flagship India Foundation event which aims to discuss issues related to the Indian Ocean Region. The theme of the conference this year is ‘Peace, Progress & Prosperity’. Delegates from all the countries of the India Ocean Region and other concerned nations have been invited to present their views. The Indian Ocean is the world’s third largest body of water which covers about one fifth of the world’s total ocean area. The Indian Ocean Region (IOR) cuts across a vast span of territory that directly affects both the global economy and some 32 nations in the region. The countries in the IOR are for the most part developing and middle income countries, with varying levels of development, stability and security. The level of political stability, the quality of governance, demographic pressures, ethnic and sectarian tensions, and the pace of economic growth create a different mix of opportunity and risk in each state. The IOR is also one of the most complex regions in the world in human terms. It reposes significant endowments of strategic natural resources, tremendous ecological and human diversity, and resplendent cultural and civilisational traditions, making it arguably a pivotal harbinger to regional and global peace, progress and stability. Equally, it is a potential lodestar, offering a new template for maritime concert, cooperation and management, and societally-beneficent harness, of the vast blue economy. Economic development can pave the way for the countries in the IOR to eradicate poverty. Peace remains a vital condition for Progress and Economic Development, which in turn can lead to Prosperity for all in the region. This year the conference is being hosted in Colombo from 31st August – 2nd September, 2017. Shri Ranil Wickramasinghe, Prime Minister of Sri Lanka has consented to be the Chair of the Organizing Committee and Smt. Sushma Swaraj, External Affairs Minister, India has agreed to be the Vice-Chair of the Organizing Committee.
India-ASEAN Youth Summit 2017 will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the ASEAN-India Dialogue Partnership by building on the close cultural and civilizational links of India and its South East Asian neighbours. The theme of the summit is ‘Shared Values, Common Destiny’. The Youth Summit is being hosted by India Foundation and the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) comprises of Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Thailand, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam. While India’s civilizational links with the region are centuries old, renewed and revitalised engagement with the region has come with the “Act East Policy” of the Hon’ble PM of India Shri Narendra Modi. This enhanced engagement is a natural progression of the significant pivot to the region in form of the Look East Policy. Hon’ble PM at the 12th ASEAN India Summit and the 9th East Asia Summit held in Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar, in November, 2014, formally enunciated the Act East Policy. The addition of a robust economic vector to the Indo-ASEAN relationship has made it a stronger, more sustainable partnership. The Summit is scheduled to be held from 14th-19th August in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
More photos can be accessed here.
India Foundation Journal May June 2017
Focus : Gender Justice
India-Japan Partnership for Economic Development in NER
India Foundation and Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), jointly organised a Workshop on ‘India-Japan Partnership for Economic Development in NER’ on March 29-30, 2017 at Kaziranga in Assam. The workshop was structured on three themes: Economic Development Trends in NER and Current Status of India-Japan Engagement; Imperatives of Cross-Border Connectivity and Market Linkages for NER with ASEAN and Generating a Long-Term Vision for India-Japan Partnership for Economic Development in NER. This was the second workshop organised on the theme of economic development of the NER through India-Japan cooperation, the first workshop having been organised in Dimapur in March 2016.
Inaugural Session
The inaugural session was graced by Shri Sarbananda Sonowal, Chief Minister of Assam. In his welcome remarks, Shri Rajat Kathuria, Director and Chief Executive, ICRIER spoke of India-Japan relations, with specific reference to economic engagements in the development of the North-East region (NER). He said that India is one of the fastest growing regions in the world today. Now that India is catching up with the world in its growth rate, there needs to be convergence within the country, particularly between the central government and the states which are gradually growing economically. Emphasis therefore, has to be made on infrastructure, institutions and governance. In the era of competitive federalism that the Indian Prime Minister has unleashed in the country, great opportunities exist for the states in NER as well as other states across the country to unleash their productivity for rapid growth.
In his opening remarks, Mr. Hideki Asari, Minister (Political), Embassy of Japan, New Delhi, said that Japan appreciates the importance India attaches to its North-East region and mentioned that the Japanese Ambassador to India had over the previous year, paid visits to Imphal, Kohima, and Assam. He said that Assam and its tea are very well known among the Japanese people and that Imphal and Kohima are also well known names, due to the fierce battles which were fought there more than 70 years ago. While speaking of India-Japan relations Asari said that the term North-East region in India is given special meaning when we think about our special relations between Japan and India, which is termed as special global and strategic partnership. He said that PM Abe announced his foreign policy strategy as a ‘free and open Indo-Pacific strategy’. This strategy treats Pacific and Indian Ocean as a wide region which is covered by this one strategic domain and can be used to improve intra and inter-region connectivity to promote flow of people and goods. To ensure maritime security to protect such flow of people and goods, there is a synergy between the Japanese strategy and PM Modi’s Act East Policy. Already, Japan and India have had strategic and political dialogues at various levels, to include meetings at the summit and ministerial levels and also 2+2 meetings of foreign and defence secretaries in Tokyo. Asari said that both Japan and India have been working closely on improving connectivity in India, and between India and its vicinity and added that the cooperation on North-East region between Japan and India can be placed in this wider strategic context. It is often pointed out that the biggest impediment of economic development in the North-East is the state infrastructure and connectivity. He said Japan is an active partner which can help in improving connectivity and added that in Japan’s cooperation on infrastructure improvement in India, ODA (Official Development Assistance) plays an important role. Japan is already promoting qualitative infrastructure covering these aspects and its cooperation with India is no exception. The North-East region of India, like Japan is very mountainous, and also very vulnerable to the damage caused by heavy rain and natural disaster. He said that this is one area where both countries can work together, particularly on the improvement of roads. Speaking of investment, he said more and more Japanese companies are interested in investing in India and that Japanese direct investment in India has grown significantly in the last 10 years. The North-East region, including Assam, has vast economic potential- agriculture, food processing and many other industries – and by exposing certain potential, the region can benefit. Asari quoted Prime Minister Abe that ‘a strong India is in Japan’s interest’ and said that cooperation in NER will contribute to a stronger India, which will lead to more prosperous region covering India and its vicinity and beyond and eventually prosperous and peaceful region.
The Keynote Address at the workshop was given by the Chief Minister of Assam, Sarbananda Sonowal. Sonowal said that the three sessions in the workshop clearly showed a new resurgence of Japan’s partnership in the NER and that the India-Japan engagement with focus on development of the NER is going to be on the permanent agenda of the development strategy of the seven sister states and Sikkim. He said that States should become proactive and mobilise the people and all the stakeholders in trade and commerce. Accordingly, the Government of Assam has announced a separate department for Act East Policy. NER, he said, is not just a window for ASEAN in the context of Act East Policy. His vision, he said was “to turn this corridor into the epicentre of the Act East Policy with three Cs as three pillars: Communication, Commerce and Culture. If this is ensured, then this corridor will become a golden corridor. Any partnership between Japan and India will find a sound foundation with North-East as a springboard”. He said that there were many similarities between Japan and the region but the only difference would be the current level of economic development. He gave emphasis to the vision of PM Modi to see NER as an organic hub of the country and conveyed his intention to grow the economy without preserving the ecology. He said that Assam will create a global business hub in Guwahati which will be the business hub of the entire North-East region. He concludes his address reiterating that the time is ripe for exciting times for both NER and Japan through economic partnership.
The Vote of Thanks was delivered by Maj Gen. Dhruv C Katoch, Director, India Foundation.
Session 1: Economic Development Trends in NER and Current Status of India-Japan Engagement
This session was chaired by Shakti Sinha, Director, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. The speakers were Prof Manoj Pant, JNU; Akio Okamura, Director, Planning Division, South Asia Department, JICA and Anand Kumar, MD, NHIDCL.
The Chair reflected on the India-Japan partnership and on the convergence of strategic interests between the two countries which face common challenges and spoke of common interest in economic growth and complementarities, both in terms of demography and skill profile of the people. Over the years, Japan has evolved as an important development partner. Japanese investments in infrastructure is important for North-East region, massive flagship projects which are undertaken in the region are to be marked but for larger a series of local initiatives are needed to promote local economic development. Involvement of the Government to bring in private sectors and talking ‘Act East’ are fine, but implementation of the policy remains a major issue. Bangladesh can emerge as hub for development in India’s North-East.
Prof. Manoj Pant said that the concept of NER must be deconstructed. Assam is a large state but was not very wealthy whereas Sikkim was a tiny state with a high per capita income, not needing any handouts from the Centre. In terms of economic development, therefore, the region cannot be considered as one entity. The other difference is the multiplicity of social systems prevalent in the region asdevelopment becomes difficult in States which are very heterogeneous. Manipur has a very large plain area and the tension between plain and hill has been there for so long. When one thinks of economic development of NER, this social and economic diversity must be taken into account. Prof Pant opined that peace is pre-requisite for the entry of the private sector into the region. Besides Assam, Arunachal Pradesh would perhaps attract the private sector because of this reason. He said that commonality among the states is very low population density and a development strategy in this region has to begin from the agricultural sector. To enable the farmer to come to the market should be the motive of the agencies, and therefore the issues of connectivity between states assumed greater import.
Akio Okamura spoke of how to develop infrastructure and hydro power projects in North-East region and the rationale for Japan to extend its support. He was of the view that in order to attain inclusive sustainable development of whole of India, North-Eastern region should be the focus. He said that development of the NER could act as a catalyst for BBIN region and is also important as a gateway between India and ASEAN. Two projects specifically mentioned were rural roads and forest projects. He said that as the region is mountainous, it is difficult to widen existing roads, and even the existing road transport network was limited. The importance of connectivity between the states of NER was highlighted and mention was also made of connectivity with Myanmar and Bangladesh. Making a mention of Motor Vehicle Agreement (MVA) in BBIN, he said that National Highway development in Myanmar will actually benefit the NER. He added that in order to secure technology for maintenance of soil and structures, JICA is implementing capacity building projects in mountainous region.
Anand Kumar said that in infrastructure development, India has been a late starter and with particular reference to the NER, it lags behind. He said that the reasons for the slow pace of development were geological issues, the soft soil, undulating terrain, law and order issue and the lack of resources to include equipment and human resources. He said that the NHIDCL was set up to fast-pace and improve national highways and cover strategic areas to include the NER and its aim was to give an economic boost and enhance the transport efficiency in the region and between the region and South-East Asia. Infrastructure development will unleash the potential of land, resources, be it agricultural produce or the minerals and also enhance the use of human resources. Capacity and skills of the contractors however have to be developed and involvement of the community in infrastructure development was important.
Session 2: Imperatives of Cross-Border Connectivity and Market Linkages for NER with ASEAN
This session was chaired by Prof. Nisha Taneja from ICRIER. The speakers were Naoyuki Yoshino (ADBI), Mishra (Knowledge Foundation, Kaziranga University), Dr. So Umezaki (JETHRO) and Prof. Gurudas Das (National Institute of Technology, Silchar).
The Chair posited that connectivity cannot be looked at in isolation; a lot of other issues come into perspective. There was a need to look into both physical and non-physical connectivity, financial connectivity, people to people connectivity and also tele-communications connectivity. Naoyuki Yoshino said that infrastructure has three effects- one direct and two other indirect effects. If infrastructure is completed, then private businesses will come into the region. High quality is required otherwise maintenance costs over the years will be exorbitant. Cross border infrastructure too is very important in many Asian countries. It is also important for finance to be provided to small businesses along the highway and railways, called as home town investment.
Mishra, posited that education plays a very vital role in people to people connectivity. Private and personal education is important and the entire NER could become a hub for education with the ASEAN countries. He suggested the establishment of linkages with our Japanese counterparts to increase the quality of delivery of technical and professional education system.
Dr. So Umezakiwas of the view that the biggest difference can be made through the strong will of the governments of India and Japan. He said that ASEAN countries are very diverse, and added that economic integration between ASEAN has been driven by this diversity, without which it would be difficult to maintain the momentum of economic integrity. He also briefly delved on the Mekong India Economic Corridor (MIEC). In Dr. Umezaki’s view, the lack of a vibrant economic agglomeration in the NER throws up expectations for some cities in this region to grow as economic centres. Enhanced connectivity between Guwahati and other parts of the region would help the region grow. He said that the larger impact of the trilateral highway can be observed mainly in Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram and that MIEC economic benefits will have an impact on a large scale.
Dr. Gurudas Das said that public sector investment could not come in the NERin a big way due to state-centric security reasons. In his view, the triadic linkage between resource, production and trade could not take place, which was the reason why the area remains underdeveloped. He posited that the markets of the neighbouring countries were more important for the region and said that the main obstacle in the NER thus remained market connectivity. He was of the view that this could be established in two ways – either through Bangladesh or through South-East Asia. As of now, the NER has not benefitted as the whole trade takes place through the maritime route. Great potential for trade however exits, like export of items such as pineapples, ginger and fish from the NER.
Panel Discussion: Generating a Long-Term Vision for India-Japan Partnership for Economic Development in NER
The panel discussion was chaired by Dipok Kumar Barthakur, Vice Chairman, State Innovation and Transformation Aayog (SITA). The eminent panelists for this session were Yaduvendra Mathur from NITI Ayog; Shinichi Nakabayashi, ADBI; V.B. Pyarelal, Additional Chief Secretary (Finance), Assam; Takashi (JETHRO, Mumbai) and MrityunjayJalan (ChotaTingra Tea Estate). The Chair highlighted the fact that the NER is an agriculture-based economy. He said that the agriculture revolution preceded the industrial revolution and that India’s Act East Policy makes Myanmar and Japan its natural partners.
Yaduvendra Mathur opined that the PM of India has given vision not only for change but also for transformation. He said that the country, particularly the North-East, is looking for transformation as people of the NER have their own aspirations.
Shinichi Nakabayashi said that agriculture is a very creative industry and that ADBI promotes regional cooperation and connectivity and also small and medium enterprise. He said that the NER is a good region to implement ADBI’s idea of finance, cross-connectivity, and SMEs promotion. As a multilateral institute, ADBI has a mandate to promote cross-border trade so that NER could be connected to Bangladesh and its vicinity. He further said that the NER is strategically important for India to preserve the territorial integrity of the country and Japan is aware of this importance and is willing to work with India to develop the region.
V.B. Pyarelal emphasised the need to upgrade modern infrastructure with help from Japan. There is a scope, he said, for hydel power in the NER. Assam is the first state to use Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the State budget and so the allocation is also done for it.
Takashi made a comparison about people seeking job opportunities in India and Japan and said that from a complementation in resource point of view, India and Japan can be very good partners and human resources, experience and technology can be complemented between the two nations. From the infrastructure point of view, the aim of the project for the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor was job creation, industrial development and export expansion in the long term.
Mrityunjay Jalan spoke of his experiences in the tea industry and collaboration with the Japanese in the techniques of tea production.
Valedictory Address by Shri P B Acharya, Hon’ble Governor of Nagaland with additional charge as Governor of Tripura
In his Valedictory Address, P.B. Acharya stressed the need for workshops like these and made an emotional appeal to the delegates to have a result oriented focus in such deliberations. He lauded the richness of North East India, calling it a region which welcomes others with a NAMASTE (N-Nagaland, A-Arunachal Pradesh, A-Assam, M–Meghalaya, Mizoram, Manipur, S-Sikkim, T-Tripura) and talked about the need to invest in areas of education, energy and employment. The situation in the NER is not the creation of the local population but perhaps the deficiency of the people from the other parts of the country being unaware of the region. He said that friendship with Japan is time immemorial and made a mention of Japanese soldiers reaching India for the first time at Moirang in Manipur and Kohima in Nagaland. He gave the mantra for development of the state as the three Es – Education, Electricity and Employment.
The vote of thanks was thereafter delivered by Maj Gen. Dhruv Katoch, Director, India Foundation.
Revisiting Indian Independence Movement
The Indian Independence Movement was not merely a movement against foreign occupation but also a mass people’s movement to break the chains of oppression. Men and women in their thousands, from Sindh to Kalinga and Kashmir to Kanyakumari, contributed their mite to the freedom struggle. They came from all walks of life – famers, factory workers, journalists, artists, students, educationists, religious saints, Dalits, tribal et al, but their achievements and contribution have unfortunately been ignored in our academic discourse. As Indian democracy owes its vibrancy and diversity to this mass participation in the independence movement, it is essential to acknowledge the role played by many of the unsung heroes of the Independence movement and record the same for posterity. It was in this context that India Foundation, in collaboration with National Council for Promotion of Sindhi Language, organised a national seminar on Indian Independence Movement on March 18, 2017, at Indian Institute of Public Administration. The seminar focused on the contributions made by writers, journalists, revolutionaries, spiritual and religious leaders and those from the underprivileged and deprived sections of society.
The Inaugural session was chaired by Prof. Prakash Singh, Professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Delhi. Captain Alok Bansal delivered the opening address and made the case that we in India need to write our own history instead of borrowing it from others. He mentioned several forgotten heroes from Hemu Kalani to Raja Mahendra Pratap and said it is our responsibility to document the works of these leaders for posterity. The reasons why the Britishers left India also need to be revisited and researched properly.
Dr. Ravi Tekchandani, Director, National Council for Promotion of Sindhi Language, in his inaugural remarks said that not only the unsung heroes but the geographies too need to be remembered. He spoke about the Akhand Bharat, and the need to understand the idea and thought behind it. He also urged scholars to look into the politics of language.
The first session titled India’s Pen Warriors was chaired by Dr Kashinath Pandita, Author & Professor. The speakers for the session were Dr Ravikant Mishra, Deputy Director, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library and Shivaji Sarkar, Associate Professor at the Indian Institute of Mass Communication. Dr. Kashinath Pandita spoke about the need to learn from our mistakes. He stated how history can be manipulated by quoting Nehru’s example. He then used his background and experience from Kashmir to describe the way history can be expressed in a lopsided way. He put the onus on the writers to write responsibly. Dr Ravikant Mishra talked about how the language and literature controversy in North India started and panned out, and specifically the literature of Iqbal. The aim of the discourse is to rediscover the Indian past, understand the colonial context in which they were living and to reshape the future. Important nationalist poets and writers such as Jaishankar Prasad and Suryakanth Tripathi Nirala have written plays and narratives in the historical context. He very eloquently spoke about Iqbal, author of “Saare Jahaan Se Achcha”, a patriot and nationalist to celebrate the composite culture of India and how he transformed over time, due to the influence of European history. Shivaji Sarkar spoke about the contribution of the journalists and reporters in the Indian freedom movement and made the point that some politicians also became journalists and contributed to the cause of journalism and nation building. He further made the point that journalism should be used to reduce corruption and promote thinking among masses.
Session on Voices from the Margins was chaired by Dr Meenakshi Jain, Member, Indian Council for Historical Research. The speakers for this session were Prof. Badri Narayan, G.B. Pant Social Science Institute, Dr Nani Gopal Mahanta, Gauhati University and Dr Yuthika Mishra, University of Delhi. Dr. Meenakshi Jain spoke about the origins of the freedom project of ICHR and opined that even though the beginnings of writing on the freedom movement were impartial, it was soon captured by the left, hardly even giving credit to the Congress for the freedom movement. Prof. Badri Narayan focused on the Dalits and their participation in the freedom movement. He spoke of two main narratives with respect to the participation of Dalits in the freedom movement. The first narrative denies the participation of Dalits in the freedom movement because of their relative poverty. The second narrative states that Dalits liked the British rule as it gave them freedom from the traditional caste-based social setup. Both these narratives are questionable and do stand up to scrutiny. Prof Narayan elaborated on the role played by Dalits in the freedom movement, to include personalities such as Gangu Baba, a Dalit freedom fighter and wrestler who was hanged by the British in Kanpur. Dr Nani Gopal Mahanta talked about Assam and its role in freedom struggle. He classified the participation of Assamese people in the freedom struggle into six stages. These he called Ahom’s resistance against British, revolt of 1857 and Ahom participation, agrarian revolts from 1860 to 1900s, growth of national consciousness between 1852-1920 and the role of middle-class intelligentsia and their influence; imposition of Bengali in Assam, Gandhian phase and the resistance against both Congress and British. Prof. Yuthika Mishra spoke of the role of women in India’s freedom movement, mentioning women freedom fighters like Rani Lakshmi Bhai of Jhansi, social reformers like Savitribai Phule and famous women in power like Rani Parvathibhai of Travancore.
Session III was on the Contribution of revolutionaries in the freedom struggle and was chaired by Shri Shakti Sinha, Director, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. The speakers were Sanjeev Sanyal, Author and Principal Economic Advisor, Government of India and Vikram Sampath, Author and Historian. Sanjeev Sanyal talked about the contribution of revolutionaries in the freedom struggle and the importance of acknowledging it. He said that Indian Naval Mutiny was the point where the British understood that India cannot be ruled anymore. Vikram Sampath talked about Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and his contribution to the Independence Movement. He said that Savarkar was a revolutionary, influenced by Italian revolutionary politician Mazzini and his ideas. He said that Savarkar used history and historical arguments as a way to influence and make his points.
Session IV was on Contribution of Spiritual and Religious Leaders and was chaired by Prof. Prakash Singh, University of Delhi. The speakers were Prof. R.P.Mishra Director, Gandhi Vidya Sansthan Varanasi, Hindol Sengupta, Author and Dr. Bhuwan Kumar Jha, University of Delhi. Hindol Sengupta talked about the idea of Mother through the lens of Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Swami Vivekananda and Rishi Aurobindo. Dr. Bhuwan Kumar Jha talked about how heroes like Madan Mohan Malviya and K.N. Munshi wrote and talked about Hindus and Hindu nationalism. He finished his talk by concluding that we need to reposition ourselves in a way where catering to Hindu interest is not seen as in conflict with national interest.
In the Valedictory session Shri Ram Madhav, Director India Foundation and National General Secretary, Bhartiya Janta Party spoke of the need to revisit history, to avoid repeating mistakes of the past. He opined that the Indian independence movement had different shades and we should be open to all of them. In his concluding remarks, Shri Ram Madhav made the pertinent point that while we cannot undo any history, we can learn valuable lessons from the same. This quest must be all encompassing to include those lessons which we may find unpalatable, so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. He concluded with the remarks that interpretation of History has no end, there can be multiple interpretations, all of which must be analysed with openness.
Counter Terrorism Conference 2017: Terrorism in Indian Ocean Region
The third edition of Counter Terrorism Conference (CTC) was hosted in New Delhi from 14th to 16th March 2017, by India Foundation in association with Government of Haryana. Themed on “Terrorism in Indian Ocean Region”, it had speakers from 28 countries and participants from 35 countries. CTC 2017 thus provided a platform to understand the different nuances of terrorism from participants across the globe. The earlier two CTCs were held in Jaipur in 2015 and 2016, and were also conducted at the international level. This has now become an annual event which is much looked forward to, having acquired a truly international character with focus on issues that are relevant across the globe.
Pre-Conference Workshops
Two parallel pre-conference workshops were held on 14 March. These were on “Economic Impact of Terror and Terror Financing” and on “Technological Dimensions of Terrorism.” The former was chaired by Mr Haseeb Drabu, Finance Minister, Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir and speakers were Col Vivek Chadha, IDSA, Mr Karnal Singh, Director, Enforcement Directorate, and Mr. Alexander Evans, Deputy High Commissioner, British High Commission. The latter was chaired by Mr Arvind Gupta, Deputy National Security Advisor, Govt. of India and speakers were Mr Ajey Lele, Senior Fellow, IDSA, Mr Alexander Nikitin, Chief Researcher, Centre for Euro-Atlantic Security, Russia; and Mr Robin Simcox, Terrorism and National Security Specialist, Margaret Thatcher Fellow, the Heritage Foundation, USA.
Inaugural Session
The Pre-Conference Workshops were followed by the Inaugural Session. The dignitaries for this session were M. Hamid Ansari, Vice-President of India, Shri Bimlendra Nidhi, Deputy Prime Minister of Nepal, Shri Suresh Prabhu, Union Minister for Railways, Shri Manohar Lal Khattar, Chief Minister of Haryana and Shri M.J. Akbar, Minister of State for External Affairs. Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe, Prime Minister of Sri Lanka showcased his presence through Skype. During the inaugural session, a book was released by the Vice President of India. Titled ‘Global Terrorism: Challenges and Policy Options”, the book was a collection of articles, from the distinguished gallery of speakers in CTC 2016, and was edited by Maj Gen. Dhruv C Katoch and Shri Shakti Sinha.
The Chief Minister of Haryana welcomed delegates on behalf of the Government of Haryana, a co-host of the conference. He said that India had been and remains a victim of international terrorism, which had now snowballed into a full blown, multi-dimensional and multi headed global security threat. He further stated that it was indeed an irony and a matter of grave concern, that even though no corner of the world today was free from the curse of terrorism, the international community doesn’t appear any closer to evolving a united stand and strategy against terrorists’ activities and highlighted the failure to make cross border terrorism an extraditable offence worldwide, which had made several countries safe heavens for terrorists.
Shri Suresh Prabhu, Union Railway Minister, said that to fight and counter the menace of terrorism, we all need to raise our voice in unison while chalking out any plan of action. He stressed the fact that terrorism was a threat to democracy, a threat to humanity and a threat to human existence itself. He added that over a period of time, terrorism had become a global phenomenon and it was no longer possible to fight terrorism in the confines of one country or any limited geography.
Shri Bimalendra Nidhi, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, Nepal, stated that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations was a serious global threat to humanity and underlined the need to demonstrate firm commitment at the highest level to stop terrorist acts and bring perpetrators to justice. He said that terrorist activities were against fundamental values of liberty, humanity, freedom and universal brotherhood because terrorism not only causes loss of precious lives of innocent people but also disrupts society’s progress and country’s development.
Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe, Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, in his Skype address, pitched for closer cooperation among countries of the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) to combat the threat of terrorism. He warned that maritime infrastructure in the IOR could be a potential target of terror groups. He suggested that terror financing must be disrupted and the response mechanism to deal with the challenge must be robust and effective. He also called for close cooperation among countries of the region to defeat terror and said “one man’s terrorist cannot be treated as another man’s liberator”
M Hamid Ansari, Vice-President of India, stated that in recent years nothing had caused greater pain, disruption and inconvenience to societies, governments and individuals than the phenomenon of terrorism and that security in the IOR was capricious on account of a complex set of problems inherited from its recent past. He said that the most virulent factor fuelling terrorism was state sponsorship of and collusion with terrorists and in this regard, he referred to the case of Pakistan’s use of extremist groups as an instrument of foreign policy which is well documented with the U.S. State Department’s Country Report on Terrorism for 2015. Some United Nations-designated terrorist organisations continue ‘to operate within Pakistan, employing economic resources under their control and fundraising openly.’ Essentially, the Pakistani military had reared ‘good’ terrorists for cross-border missions while battling ‘bad’ militants that fail to toe its line. The Vice-President categorised the typology of terrorism in the Indian Ocean Rim mainly in four sections as a) Left-wing violence, b) Ethno-political violence, c) Politico-religious violence, and d) Cross-border terrorism. He said that out of these four, the last was perhaps the most abhorrent, of the kind we in India have had to suffer for a number of years. He suggested that the States who sponsor terrorism must be isolated by the international community and forced to abandon the use of terrorism as a tool of state policy and that nations must not distinguish between friends and foes when it comes to identifying terror sponsoring states.
Mr M.J.Akbar, in his vote of thanks, said that India had the strength and conviction to eradicate the menace of terrorism because it also had an ideological answer to this menace – a democratic polity and modernity to counter regressive jihadism and terrorism. He underlined that the world could not have prosperity without peace and the principal threat to peace was terrorism.
Special Plenary: Ministers’ Panel
The Ministers Panel comprised of Gen. Wiranto, Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security, Government of Indonesia, Mr Hekmat Khalil Karzai, Deputy Foreign Minister, Government of Afghanistan, Mr Asaduzzaman Khan, Minister of Home Affairs, Government of Bangladesh, Mr Sagala Ratnayake, Minister for Law and Order and Southern Development, Government of Sri Lanka and Mr K. Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs, Government of Singapore.
General Wiranto, explained how the Indonesian government responded to the threats of terrorism through hard and soft approaches. He spoke of the need for an effective narrative to counter the propaganda of terrorists and the imperative of international cooperation, stating that “The threat of terrorism will always be there. Therefore, all countries need to strengthen cooperation, bilaterally, regionally and globally to fight the terrorist threat”.
Mr Hekmat Khalil Karzai was focussed on Afghanistan and the surrounding region and explained why the region was undergoing serious security challenges related to terrorism. In large measure this was due to States in the region that supports terrorist groups and who use terrorism as an instrument of their State policy. These States distinguish between‘good’ and ‘bad’ terrorists, the ‘good’ terrorists being the ones who such states use in furtherance of their foreign policy. They provide sanctuary and support to such terrorist groups and use their military to fight those they consider to be ‘bad’ terrorists. Many of the terrorist groups also benefit from the proceeds of narcotics. They have a symbiotic relationship with the people involved in drug trade because terrorists provide security to drug dealers and the drug dealers provide resources to terrorists. He also pointed to the difficulty in dealing with terrorist financing, which has enabled terrorist groups to receive funds from various parts of world.
Mr Asaduzzaman Khan, re-emphasised Bangladesh government’s “zero tolerance” to terrorism and Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s declared stance against any sort of terrorism and violence extremism. He spoke about the counter terrorism strategy of Bangladesh which is primarily based on 4 pillars: prevention, disruption, capacity building and upholding respect to human rights.
Mr Sagala Ratnayake spoke on ‘Post-Conflict Sri Lanka: Rebuilding Peace and Confidence among people severely affected by Terrorism and War”. He emphasised the fact that “Sri Lanka was, is, and continues to be a multi ethnic country; rich in diversity and rich in tradition”. He said that it was of prime importance to build the confidence in all people and that was what the Sri Lanka government was doing, to safeguard the country from the recurrence of conflict.
Mr K. Shanmugam stressed on building the capacity for a Direct Kinetic Response to the threats of terrorism along with psychological strengthening of the population. He also emphasised the need for international cooperation in various related aspects adding that the matter of terrorism being fuelled by ideology and money from outside the country required serious consideration. He suggested that the government, religious leaders and community groups, all need to work in a much more synchronised manner in today’s time to halt and push back the waves of terrorist ideology sweeping the region. He stated that the ideology of ISIS had to be countered doctrinally and said that religious leaders had a role to play in the same.
CTC 2017: Day 2
Tackling Terror Through Good Governance
This special session was chaired by Shri N.N. Vohra, Governor of Jammu and Kashmir. The speakers were Ms. Mehbooba Mufti, Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir and Shri Raman Singh, Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh. Both these states are seriously impacted by terrorism and they continue to devote considerable time, effort and resources in combating terrorists. In this session, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, Shri E.S.L. Narasimhan, delivered the keynote address.
Mr Narasimhan said that the only objective of terrorists was to cause physical destruction and destabilisation of an established government. He stressed the need to look at the root causes of terrorism and what motivated people to join terrorist organisations for only then could measures be formulated to eradicate this menace. He also stressed on the need to look at how effective governance can be used as a means to counter terrorism.
Ms. Mehbooba Mufti, shared her personal experiences as an administrator of a State where development and good governance were the biggest victims of the menace of terrorism. She said that terrorism was the biggest threat that entire world was facing today but unfortunately all the countries who were fighting terrorism, were not fighting it together. She said that governance can be a very effective tool in countering terrorism but governance alone cannot fight terrorism because, as per her own experience, governance is the first casualty of terrorism. In fighting terrorism, the states energy gets concentrated on security instead of development and the focus of good governance shifts to law and order. The counter terrorism strategy must hence be a multi-pronged strategy, with redressal of grievances at right time being a part of such strategy.
Terrorism in South Asia
This session was chaired by Shri Rajiv Mehrishi, Home Secretary, Government of India and speakers in the session were Hein Kiessling, author, Germany; Yuan Zhibing, Director General, 1 Bureau, IDCPC, China and Mr Vivek Katju, former ambassador.
The session primarily focused on the South Asian Region which generally evokes the image of a region that was plagued by violent religious extremism where groups like the Taliban, al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) were active. All the speakers agreed that terrorism had imposed heavy economic costs on most of the South Asian nations. The speakers were of the view that terrorism in South Asia could be defeated by exploiting the ideological, doctrinal and sectarian differences existing among terrorist groups and dealing holistically with all aspects of international terrorism. The general opinion was that a collective strategy and action plan at the regional and international level was required to achieve the desired objective. The session also focused on al Qaida and Daesh, which were seeking to impose their presence, not just in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but in the rest of South Asia too. Confronting terrorism in South Asia was thus no easy task as various regional and domestic parties were engaged in cross purposes for their own ends. The situation remains fraught with danger and no early solution as of now appears in sight.
Terrorism in Africa
The session was chaired by Lt Gen. K.T. Parnaik, Former GOC-in-C, Northern Command, Indian Army. The two speakers in the session were Dr. Ruchita Beri, Senior Research Associate, IDSA, and Mr. Simon Allison, Africa Correspondent, The Daily Maverick; Consultant, Institute of Security Studies, South Africa.
Dr. Beri’s presentation focused on maritime violence off the Horn of Africa which has been the focus of global attention over the past decade or so, with piracy in the IOR being the most prominent threat. She stressed that it would be wrong to assume that Africa’s insecurity was only an African problem. Africa’s internal problems had repercussions beyond its natural borders; piracy in the IOR being just one example of this malaise. Thus, it was imperative that each stakeholder, both inside and outside the continent, be involved in resolving these insecurity issues.
Simon Allison pointed out in his presentation that by any measure, Africa’s fight against terrorism had been a failure because footprints of militant groups had expanded in a broad arc in the African continent. Groups such as al-Shabab, Boko Haram and al-Qaeda etc. continue to flourish despite repeated military onslaughts, and both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) have made a concerted effort to expand their presence on the continent, both directly and via proxies.
Terrorism in South East Asia
The session was chaired by Mr Takeshi Kohno, Professor, Department of Social Sciences, Toyo Eiwa University, Japan and the speakers were Mr Bilveer Singh, Adjunct Senior Fellow, RSIS, Singapore; Mr Dam Phu Cuong, Chief of Asia and Oceania Division, General Department of Security, Vietnam and Mr Hamidin, Director for Prevention, National Counter Terrorism Agency, Indonesia. The panelists agreed that despite many decades of counter-terrorism measures in the Southeast Asian Region, especially since 2001, the threat of terrorism remains serious and in some ways, may have even been exacerbated. The speakers raised concerns of the dual terrorist threat posed by al Qaeda and IS in Southeast Asia and opined that there is the situation of flux as to which jihadi group is the key terrorist threat in the region.
Bullet to Ballot
The session was chaired by Shri Kiren Rijiju, Minister of State for Home Affairs, Government of India. The keynote speaker in the session was Mr Baburam Bhattarai, former Prime Minister of Nepal. The panelists were Mr R. Sampanthan, Leader of Opposition, Sri Lanka; Mr Sajad Lone, Minister of Social Welfare, ARI & Trainings and Science & Technology, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, and Mr Hagrama Mohilary, Chief Executive Member, Bodoland Territorial Council. In this session, each speaker shared his own journey of transformation.
Mr. Rijiju said that election results might not be in our hands but getting the electoral process itself was a great success. Many groups in various parts of India have shown a great example in this regard because in past those groups were on the side of bullet but with passage of time, they realised that it was impossible to break India and democratic process was the only way out to get heard and recognised. So these groups also joined the mainstream politics and became part of Indian democratic process.
Mr Bhattarai discussed the theme of the session in context of Nepal and Nepalese Maoists and how the armed struggle in Nepal transformed and switched to constitutional mechanisms. Mr Sajjad Lone narrated his personal experience by highlighting a story of three individuals who were tipping points in his own transformation from side of bullet to ballot. He was of the view that the path of violence leads people nowhere, but opined that there were a lot of impediments or problems like ideology and perception at time of transition from the bullet to the ballot, which the government must understand and should walk extra mile to bring everyone into the fold of ballot.
Special Address: Mr Avi Dichter
A special keynote address was delivered by Mr Avi Dichter, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Israel, which was chaired by Gen. V.K. Singh, Minister of State for External Affairs, India. Mr Dichter said that both India and Israel had been victims of terrorism, so in current context, the counter-terrorism cooperation was the need of the hour within the larger security cooperation. He opined that the growing threat of the Islamic State (IS) in India, would necessitate greater emphasis by both countries to expand the cooperation. Chairing the session, Gen. V.K. Singh reiterated India’s stand that there were no good and bad terrorists. He called upon the global community to support India’s proposal at the United Nations for a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT).
Terrorism in West Asia
The session was chaired by Lt Gen. Syed Ata Hasnain, former GOC 15 Corps. The three speakers in the session were Mr Daniel Pipes, President, Middle East Forum, USA, Mr. Ilan Berman, Vice President, American Foreign Policy Council, USA and Mr. Vladimir Evseev, Deputy Director of the Institute for Commonwealth of Independent States, Russia. Daniel Pipes covered various aspects of Islamist terror ideology which is moving from West Asia to South Asia and which people are facing today. He also opined that there is no co-relation between good governance and terrorism. Ilan Berman talked about the Islamic State (ISIS) that has captivated the global imagination. He said that the group’s rapid military advances, coupled with its unbridled brutality, have made it global public enemy number one and as a result, the organisation has become the near-singular focus of Western counterterrorism policy. Gen. Hasnain, spoke about history of terrorism since 1928 when the term ‘Muslim brotherhood’ was coined in Egypt, till 2014 wherein al Baghdadi and ISIS emerged and propounded the same. He said what was happening in West Asia was serious question for all of us.
At the dinner hosted by Mr. Ajit Doval, National Security Advisor of India, for all the delegates, Mr. Doval made a strong pitch for a common definition as well as a global convention on terrorism. He said, “The nature of terrorism is constantly changing in the backdrop of technology and social media. It has changed in the past, it will change in future. We all are actually into fourth generation warfare.” He further stated that despite this, there was inadequate cooperation among the international community and there was no common definition of terrorism. Some countries still try to justify terrorism by saying that the “cause meets the ends”, which further highlights the need for a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT).The Guest of Honour on this occasion was Maj Gen Mahad Mubarak al Mesheikhi, Secretary General for Military Affairs and Head of CT Committee, Royal Office of Oman, who spoke of the CT effort in his country.
CTC 2017: Day 3
Mechanisms for Countering Terror in IOR
The session was chaired by Ms. Preeti Saran, Secretary (East), Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and speakers in the session were Mr Boaz Ganor, Founder and Executive Director, ICT, Israel; Vice Admiral G. Ashok Kumar, Deputy Chief of Naval Staff, Indian Navy and Vladimir Milovidov, Russia. Ms. Saran spoke about the initiatives of Government of India for strengthening the counter terror mechanism. She also stressed that the new methods and techniques should be adopted by the world community to tackle terrorism. The speakers thereafter gave out their views on the subject.
Problems of Left Wing Extremism in IOR
The panelists discussed the various aspects of Left Wing Extremism (LWE), also known as Naxalite or Maoist movement which has been the most prominent violent movement that India has been exposed to continuously for the last four decades and more. The panelists agreed that the success of counter-terrorism strategy would require a carefully balanced military offensive, backed by civil administration moving into the area to provide governance, justice and development, thereby winning over the vast majority of people and eliminating the support base of the Maoists.
Role of International Institutions in Countering Terrorism.
The session was chaired by Mr. Martin Kimani, Director, National Counter Terrorism Centre, Kenya and the speakers in the session were Mr. K.V. Bhagirath, Secretary General, Indian Ocean Rim Association, Ms. Elizabeth Joyce, Chief of Section, Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate, UN and Mr. Asoke Mukerji, former ambassador. The panelists discussed the growth of terrorist activities, especially after the end of the Cold War in 1989 that led the UN to adopt Conventions setting up a robust international legal architecture to counter terrorism to suppress specific acts of terrorism, like terrorist bombings, financing of terrorism and nuclear terrorism. Speakers also discussed how the UN’s attempt to adopt an international legal convention remains gridlocked till today, although India had proposed the first draft of such a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) in 1996. The CCIT would oblige member states to implement the legal principle of “prosecute or extradite” to deal with terrorism through international cooperation.
Valedictory Session
The Valedictory Session of CTC 2017 was chaired by Shri Kaptan Singh Solanki, Governor of Haryana and the dignitaries who graced the occasion were Shri Rajnath Singh, Union Minister of Home Affairs, Government of India and The Rt. Hon. Sir Anerood Jugnauth, GCSK, KCMG, QC, Minister Mentor, Minister of Defence, and Minister of Rodrigues, Government of Mauritius. Shri Rajnath Singh said that international co-operation was an imperative for the law enforcement agencies of different countries for post-event investigations. International co-operation is also needed to build popular opinion and pressurise the countries that use terrorists as their strategic assets. He also said that “Terrorism knows no boundaries and doesn’t respect nations’ sovereignties. They have become trans-national in character. They use modern technology to propagate their ideology and perpetrate violence. Since terrorist outfits do not recognise national boundaries and acts of terror are executed often through networks spread over several countries so that’s why there is no alternative to forging international cooperation to effectively counter it.”
At the end of the three day conference, Capt. (IN) Alok Bansal, Director, India Foundation, delivered the vote of thanks.
Book Review: Sreeram Chaulia’s ‘Modi Doctrine: The Foreign Policy of India’s Prime Minister’
Pages, 251, ISBN: 9789386141156, Price: ₹599.
Book Review by: Rajeev Ranjan Chaturvedy
Despite the persistent domestic challenges of poverty and inequality, India enjoys recognition as arising and responsible power in the emerging world order. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India came to power in a landslide victory in May 2014 under the leadership of Narendra Modi. There was a lot of speculation at home and abroad over India’s possible foreign policy directions after Modi’s ascent to power. A parliamentary majority achieved by a single party for the first time in India since 1984 amplified the expectations, and hence, scholars and observers wondered how Modi’s leadership mattered for India’s foreign policy, and for the emerging global order.
Sreeram Chaulia’s Modi Doctrine decodes India’s external engagement under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi. The main argument of the book is that Modi is “globalising and revolutionising India’s foreign policy like no other prime minister since Jawaharlal Nehru”. Analysing the conduct of India’s external engagements through critical evaluation of Modi’s foreign policy, he explains the impact Modi has made in global affairs. The author has knitted together his arguments through six key research questions focussed on elements of style and substance, Modi’s worldview, global perceptions, achievements or indicators of paradigm shift, future prospects and finally identifying the gaps and ways to overcome them.
Addressing the elements of style, the author underlines the role of individual personalities in bringing about major shifts in foreign policy and views Modi as a “transformative leader” who has reconstructed India’s foreign policy through “fundamental changes with inspirational content”. As India’s “Diplomat-in-Chief”, Modi has developed a political framework at the highest level for engaging countries around the world. Due to his continuous and sustained interactions with the world leaders, Modi’s personal style is starkly different from that of his predecessor. Modi is charismatic, authoritative and a very effective communicator using face-to-face, print, electronic, digital as well as social media platforms. The author rightly argues that Modi is a very energetic and active leader and he takes a different approach from “diplomacy as usual”. Modi’s “retail diplomacy” and his reliance on personal chemistry has been painted as a “powerful tool in enhancing India’s diplomatic engagement”. Moreover, Modi’s break from the traditional ways of diplomacy gives him “a personal connect to use that to manoeuvre during tense situations”. Hence, the pro-active leadership of Modi has transformed India’s engagement with the world.
The Modi government has qualitatively and quantitatively enriched engagement with the Indian Diaspora. It is trying to simplify rules, quickly responding to their grievances, and engaging them in the overall development agenda of the government. “Dancing with the Diaspora” captures in great details Indian government’s pro-active approach towards the diaspora community which has re-energized Non Residential Indians (NRI) and Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) community. Further, Indian diaspora is very fragmented and Modi has become a unifying force for the community across the world. Modi’s policy initiatives are strengthening their ties with their country of origin and enhancing their stature in their country of residence. Moreover, digital diplomacy has become a very effective means of communication. For instance, diaspora community has approached the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) for assistance and due to quick and direct communications, timely assistance have been facilitated by the government.
Focussed on India’s development, Modi’s foreign policy “is guided by the constant drive to reform and transform India, for security and prosperity of all Indians”. The business of India is business, and therefore, Modi’s economic diplomacy is driven by “a sense of India’s retaking its position as a leading commercial power that once determined prosperity and business on a planetary scale”. Modi’s “sharp business brain with an earthly, common sensical grasp of monetary matters” has “redefined what it means to be “business-friendly” on transnational scale”. The author underlines some new elements in the government-to-business relations which has significantly enriched coordination between the government and investors, and has injected more economic dynamism.
The author has encapsulated various alphabet soup, for e.g. three Ds: democracy, demography and demand; three Cs: connectivity, commercial ties and cultural bonds; five Ts: tradition, talent, tourism, trade and technology; three Ss: skill, speed and scale –and has underlined that all these coinages of new concepts and acronyms are stimulating a “paradigm shift” in India’s role in global affairs.
The author argues that under the Modi Doctrine, there is a clear enunciation for India to drive and lead on global challenges and India seems prepared to play a vital role on issues of interest to the international community and humanity at large. He observes that India is on the right track to be a leading power “owing to its leader [Modi] and his unparalleled mobilisation of national will”. The author aptly notes that the USA-China-India diplomatic triangle will determine global power balance, institutional makeup and political outcomes in this century. While he explains transformation in India-USA relations, and India-China relations, he also recognises limitations and Modi’s red lines on India’s national interests and strategic autonomies. The author captures Indian government’s active engagement with major powers and several regional and global institutions on issues of common interests for better policy coordination. These issues range from climate change, technological cooperation, pandemics, terrorism, skill development, trade and services agreements, energy security and many others.
Some key features of the Modi Doctrine are: long-term thinking; deploying more human and material resources, restructuring policymaking; forging novel ideas and institutions and stepping up to assume greater international responsibilities. Moreover, while decoding various features of the Modi Doctrine, we must accept that doctrine is not a definitive statement, rather, it is a way of seeing a departure from the past. The world is dynamic where frames of reference are shifting rapidly. In Modi’s foreign policy approach, we see a sense of a broader shift in ideas which is more problem-solving.
Sreeram Chaulia is a prolific writer and an insightful scholar. However, there are some shortcomings to his approach. First, he has done the criticism of some of previous Prime Ministers of India which are not entirely true. He claims that Indian foreign policy before Modi was “a saga of ad hocism, improvisation and unpredictability”. His sweeping assertions like the “insular mindset of the Indian Foreign Service cadre and the absence of world class scholarly work in India” are unsubstantiated. Second, he asserts that the long-term policy planning and scenarios related work had been missing altogether, which is incorrect. He overlooks earlier works, for example, ICRIER’s National Interest project, in which many serving and retired diplomats and several eminent experts contributed including the current National Security Advisor. Third, while a seamless continuum between India’s choices at home and its external engagements or a tight integration of domestic and foreign policy is a key feature of the Modi Doctrine, the author is uncertain about the importance of domestic factors in ensuring success of the Modi Doctrine. When author contends that before Modi, India foreign policy suffered from shortage of political will and direction of top, he forgets that the same BJP—whose hold on government between 1998 and 2004 presided over events of lasting and global magnitude: India’s nuclear tests, and two significant crises between India and Pakistan.
Nevertheless, the author presents his experience and knowledge in a clear and candid manner and will provoke further research on emerging Modi Doctrine. The book is handsomely produced, with an index and sourced from the most relevant documents on the subject and is essential reading for all interested to understand transformation of India’s foreign policy.
(Reviewer is Research Associate at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), an autonomous research institute at the National University of Singapore. He can be contacted at isasrrc@nus.edu.sg/rrchaturvedy@gmail.com.)
(This book review is carried in the print edition of May-June 2017 issue of India Foundation.)