The Peninsula Foundation

Tag: India

  • Living Next to China: India’s Economic Challenge

    Living Next to China: India’s Economic Challenge

    Abstract

    Hampered by declining economic growth, India needs to take bold and practical economic measures to overcome the adverse impact of the coronavirus pandemic, compounded by past economic blunders such as the demonetisation and the haphazard implementation of the GST regime. Mohan Guruswamy analyses that the seeds of the current economic slide were sown by the UPA II regime by its populist measures that were wasteful, unproductive, and reduced capital expenditure. Non action by the NDA governments on these issues has made it worse. He argues that India must not shy away from recourse to deficit financing to overcome the current unprecedented challenges faced by the economy on account of the Covid-19 disruption. India needs to increase its stimulus package from a mere 0.3% of the GDP to at least 10% to boost economic revival and growth. India’s reserves of $490 billion ($530 billion as of recent figures) is available to be tapped for economic revival. The measures must focus on addressing the severe impact on weaker sections of the society such as the poor, lower middle-class, and the farmers.

    The Covid2019 shock hit all world economies and has caused a serious contraction in all of them. Ironically, in the advanced economies like the USA, UK, Japan, and others, it exposed their intrinsic strengths with highly evolved social security systems by and large being able to absorb the labor displacement and the ability to quickly put together a fiscal fight back plan. Even China has been able to quickly recover its pole position as the worlds leading exporter and industrial production center. In India, Covid2019 exposed our co-morbidities, and has further opened the traditional faultlines, with the large unorganized labor cohort bearing the brunt of the costs. At last count the CMIE estimates over 130 million daily wagers in the urban centers being rendered jobless and homeless.[i] India’s economy which has been in distress for most of the last decade in now seriously stricken.

    When India’s economic history is written in some future date, and when a serious examination is done of when India lost its way to its ‘tryst with destiny’, the decade of 2010-20 will be highlighted.

    When India’s economic history is written in some future date, and when a serious examination is done of when India lost its way to its ‘tryst with destiny’, the decade of 2010-20 will be highlighted. The facts speak for themselves. India’s real GDP growth was at its peak in March 2010 when it scaled 13.3%.  The nominal GDP at that point was over 16.1%. The nominal GDP in September 2019 was at 6.3%, it’s lowest in the decade. Since then the downward trend is evident and we are now scraping the bottom at about a real GDP growth rate of 4.5%, this too with the push of an arguably inflationary methodology. Our previous CEA, Arvind Subramaniam, estimated that India’s GDP growth is overestimated by at least 2.5%. BJP MP and economist Subramaniam Swamy was even more pessimistic. He estimated it to be 1.5%.

    The decline in the promise is amply evident by the change in the make up of the economy during this decade.  In 2010 Agriculture contributed 17.5% of GDP, while Industry contributed 30.2% and Services 45.4%.  In 2019 that has become 15.6%, 26.5% and 48.5% respectively.  The share of industry has been sliding.  This is the typical profile of a post-industrial economy.  The irony of India becoming post-industrial without having industrialized must not be missed.

    Decline in Capital Investment

    The most significant cause for the decline of growth is the decline in capital investment.  It was 39.8% of GDP in 2010 and is now a good 10% lower.  Clearly without an increase of capital investment, one cannot hope for more industrialization and hence higher growth.  What we have seen in this decade is the huge increase in Services, which now mostly means increase in Public Administration and informal services like pakora sellers.

    In 2010 it seemed we were well on track.  But now we are struggling to get past $3 trillion, and the $5 trillion rendezvous that Modi promised by 2024 will have to wait longer.

    At the turn of the century, as China’s GDP began its great leap forward (from about $1.2 trillion in 2010 to $14.2 trillion in 2019), was also a heady moment for India whose GDP of $470 billion began a break from the sub 5% level of most of the 1990’s to the rates we became familiar with in the recent past (to hit a peak stride of 10.7% in 2010). At that point in time, if growth rates kept creeping up, we could have conceivably gone past $30 trillion by 2050. But for that the growth rate should consistently be above 7%. It seemed so feasible then.  In 2010 it seemed we were well on track.  But now we are struggling to get past $3 trillion, and the $5 trillion rendezvous that Modi promised by 2024 will have to wait longer.

    To be fair to Modi and the NDA, the decline began early in the second term of the UPA when capital expenditure growth had begun tapering off.  Dr. Manmohan Singh is too canny an economist to have missed that.  But UPA II also coincided with the increasing assertion of populist tendencies encouraged by the Congress President and her extra-Constitutional National Advisory Council. The decline in the share of capital expenditure was accompanied by a huge expansion in subsidies, most of them unmerited.  Instead of an increase in expenditure on education and healthcare, we saw a huge expansion in subsidies to the middle and upper classes like on LPG and motor fuels. Even fertilizer subsidies, which mainly flow to middle and large farmers with irrigated farmlands, saw a great upward leap.  Clearly the money for this came from the reduction in capital expenditure.  Modi’s fault in the years since 2014 is that he did nothing to reverse the trend, and only inflicted more hardship by his foolish demonetization and ill-conceived GST rollout.

    The realities are indeed stark.  The savings/GDP ratio has been in a declining trend since 2011 and Modi has been unable to reverse it.  Consequently, the tax/GDP ratio and the investment/GDP ratio have also been declining.  The rate of economic growth has been suspect and all objective indicators point to it being padded up. The drivers of economic growth such as capital expenditure is dismal.  Projects funded by banks have declined by over half since 2014 to less than Rs.600 billion in 2018-19.  Projects funded by the market have dropped to rock bottom.  Subsequently the manufacturing/GDP ratio is now at 15%.  Corporate profits/GDP ratio is now at a 15-year-old low at about 2.7%.  You cannot have adequate job creation if these are dipping.  Declining rural labor wage indices testify to this.

    Between October 2007 and October 2013 rural wages in the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors grew at 17% and 15%, respectively.  Since November 2014, however, agricultural and non-agricultural sector wages grew at only 5.6% and 6.5%, respectively. In 2019 average rural wage growth has further fallen to 3.1%.[ii]

    Bharat and India Divide

    It is very clear now that the urban lane has been moving well in India.  Indeed, so well that an Oxfam study revealed that that as much as 73% of the growth during the last five years accrued to just 1% of the population.[iii] This does not mean it is just the tycoons of Bombay and Delhi who are cornering the gains.  Government now employs close to 25 million persons, and these have now become a high-income enclave.  The number of persons in the private and organized sector is about another ten million. In all this high-income enclave numbers not more than 175-200 million (using the thumb rule of five per family).  Much of the consumption we tend to laud is restricted to just these.

    The simple fact that the share of Agriculture is now about 15.6% of GDP and falling, while still being the source of sustenance for almost 60% of the population reveals the stark reality.  A vast section of India is being left behind even as India races to become a major global economy.

    Agriculture is still the mainstay of employment.  Way back in 1880 the Indian Famine Commission “had observed that India had too many people cultivating too little land”.  This about encapsulates the current situation also.  While as a percentage the farmers and farmworkers have reduced as a part of the work force, in absolute terms they have almost tripled since 1947.  This has led to a permanent depression in comparative wages but has also led to a decline in per farmer production due to fragmentation of holdings.  The average farm size is now less than an acre and it keeps further fragmenting every generation.[iv] The beggaring of the farming community is inevitable.  The only solution to this is the massive re-direction of the workforce into less skilled vocations such as construction.

    The simple fact that the share of Agriculture is now about 15.6% of GDP and falling, while still being the source of sustenance for almost 60% of the population reveals the stark reality.  A vast section of India is being left behind even as India races to become a major global economy.

    As the decade ends, the Bharat and India divide have never been more vivid.  Our social scientists are still unable to fix a handle to this because the class, cultural and ethnic divides still eludes a neat theoretical construct.  Yet there can be little disagreement that there are two broad parts to this gigantic country and one part is being left behind.  The distance between the two only increased from 2010 to 2020.  This is indeed the lost decade.  Recovering from this will take long and will be painful.  If we take too long, we might have used up a good bit of the ‘demographic dividend’ and the demographic window of opportunity.  The ageing of India will be upon us by 2050[v].

    Covid-19 Impact – Increasing Economic Disparities 

    In the recent months the onslaught of the Covid2019 induced lockdown has been quite relentless.  From 2004-2014 India’s GDP grew at an average of 7.8%.  At its peak it went past 10% in 2010-11 Then it started slowing down.  The new government was unable to return to the old growth rates because it did not care to learn from the experiences of the previous regime, which began to spend more on giveaways, misguidedly thinking it was welfare economics, and took the accelerator off capital expenditure.  Even though capital expenditure is driven in India by government spending, this government spending is very different from subsidies and giveaways.  Subsidies generally tend to be misdirected with the already well-off garnering most of it.  Minimum Support Prices (MSP) are a huge annual subsidy[vi]and 90% of it accrues to the states of Punjab, Haryana, and the coastal region of Andhra Pradesh.  Fertilizer subsidies tend to accumulate to the advantage of large and medium farmers or to about a quarter of all land holdings.  Ditto for free power.  The only welfare expenditure to benefit farmers is investment in irrigation, rural infrastructure, and social welfare like education and health.  Unfortunately, this has been on the decline.  This has exacerbated disparities, both local and regional.  With capital expenditures declining, job creation suffered and the inevitable slowdown of GDP growth happened.  As we started diving, the government inflicted the so-called Demonetization adding to our woes.  Just as things began to look up, the Covid2019 pandemic overtook us.

    Now the only dispute on national income is how much will be the contraction.  The Finance Ministry hopes there won’t be any. The IMF has officially said it will be 4.5%.  The rating agencies predict a contraction of 6.8%, while many more are suggesting something closer to 10%.  How do we deal with is now?  The government of India has tended to be “conservative” in its outlook and has made no serious suggestion on economic stimulus.  What it calls a stimulus is actually not a stimulus. The problem is more philosophical.

    The divide between the Keynesians and the Chicago school is as intense and often antagonistic as the Sunni-Shia, Catholic-Protestant or Thenkalai-Vadakalai Iyengar divides.

    Keynesian economics is a theory that says the government should increase demand to boost growth. Keynesians believe consumer demand is the primary driving force in an economy.  As a result, the theory supports expansionary fiscal policy.  The Chicago School is a neoclassical economic school of thought that originated at the University of Chicago in the 1930s.  The main tenets of the Chicago School are that free markets best allocate resources in an economy and that minimal or zero government intervention is best for economic prosperity.  They abhor fiscal deficits.

    Inadequate Stimulus Package 

    The instruments used to beat countries like India into submission are ratings agencies such as Moody’s, which just downgraded India.  We shouldn’t lose too much sleep over it.  India is a hardly a borrower abroad and is more of a lender holding $490 billion as reserves.

    The only reason why the actual stimulus package is only Rs.63K crs is the obsession with fiscal deficits by Chicago economists such as Raghuram Rajan and his former student the hapless Krishnamurthy Subramaniam, the present CEA. They are true disciples of the Washington Consensus to judge countries like India by the fiscal deficit size.  The instruments used to beat countries like India into submission are ratings agencies such as Moody’s, which just downgraded India.  We shouldn’t lose too much sleep over it.  India is a hardly a borrower abroad and is more of a lender holding $490 billion as reserves.

    That is why the CEA when asked about a big stimulus said: “There are no free lunches!” That’s exactly what Milton Friedman said. But they quite happily ignore the biggest deficit financed economy in the world is the USA.  Raghuram Rajan told Rahul Gandhi on his videoconference that a stimulus of Rs.65K crores would suffice in the present situation[vii]. The Nobel Laureate Abhijit Bhattacharya and former CEA Arvind Subramaniam suggest a stimulus package like the USA or Japan[viii].  The USA has just announced a stimulus of over $3.5 trillion or over 15% of GDP.  Modi’s stimulus is a mere 0.3% of GDP.

    What is ‘Fiscal Deficit?’ A fiscal deficit occurs when a government’s total expenditures exceed the revenue that it generates, excluding money from borrowings.  Deficit differs from debt, which is an accumulation of yearly deficits.

    Many serious economists regard fiscal deficits as a positive economic event.  For instance, the great John Maynard Keynes believed that deficits help countries climb out of economic recession.  On the other hand, fiscal conservatives feel that governments should avoid deficits in favor of balanced budgets.

    India’s debt/GDP ratio is by contrast a modest 62% and yet it intends to pump in a mere 0.3% of GDP as stimulus.

    The fastest growing economies in the world, and now its biggest – USA, China, Japan and most of Western Europe – have the highest debt/GDP ratios.  Japan’s debt/GDP is over 253% before the latest stimulus of 20% of GDP.  China’s debt is now over 180% of its GDP.  The USAs debt/GDP is close to 105% yet it is raising $3 trillion as debt to get it out of the Covid2019 quagmire.  India’s debt/GDP ratio is by contrast a modest 62% and yet it intends to pump in a mere 0.3% of GDP as stimulus.

    Pump priming the economy by borrowing per se is not bad.  It is not putting the debt to good use that is bad.  Nations prosper when they use debt for worthwhile capital expenditure with assured returns and social cost benefits.  But we in India have borrowed to give it away as subsidies and to hide the high cost of government.  To give an analogy, if a family has to make a choice of borrowing money to fund the children’s education or to support the man’s drinking habit, the rational choice is obvious. The children’s education will have a long-term payback, while the booze gives instant gratification. But unfortunately, our governments have always been making the wrong choices.

    If borrowed money is used productively and creates growth and prosperity, it must be welcomed.  What we want to hear from the government is not about fiscal deficit targets, but economic growth, value addition, employment, and investment targets.  Our governments have hopelessly been missing all these targets.

    Modi’s Options – Need for Bold Decisions

    So, what can Modi do now to get us out of this quagmire?  If the regime abhors a stimulus financed by deficit financing there are other options that can be exercised.  But he is hamstrung with a weak economic management team with novices as the two key players, the Finance Minister and RBI governor.

    India has over $490 billion nesting abroad earning ridiculously low interest.  Even if a tenth of this is monetized for injection into the national economy, it will mean more than Rs.3.5 lakh crores.  At last count the RBI had about Rs.9.6 lakh crores as reserves.  This is money to be used in a financial emergency.  We are now in an emergency like we have never encountered or foresaw before. Even a third of this or about Rs.3.2 lakh crores is about five times the present plan.

    There is money in the trees, and all it needs is a good shake up to pick the fruits. The pain of the lockdown must not be borne by the poor alone.  The government can easily target 5% of GDP or about Rs.10L crores for the recovery fund as an immediately achievable goal.

    There are other sources of funds also, but tapping these will entail political courage and sacrifices. Our cumulative government wages and pension bill amounts to about 11.4% of GDP.  After exempting the military and paramilitary, which is mostly under active deployment, we can target 1% of GDP by just by cancelling annual leave and LTC, and rolling back a few DA increases.

    The government can also sequester a fixed percentage from bank deposits, say 5% of deposits between Rs.10-100 lakhs and 15-20% from bigger deposits for tax-free interest-bearing bonds in exchange.  The ten big private companies alone have cash reserves of over Rs.10 lakh crores[ix].

    There is money in the trees, and all it needs is a good shake up to pick the fruits. The pain of the lockdown must not be borne by the poor alone.  The government can easily target 5% of GDP or about Rs.10L crores for the recovery fund as an immediately achievable goal.

    This money can be used to immediately begin a Universal Basic Income scheme, by transferring a sum of Rs.5000 pm into the Jan Dhan accounts for the duration of the financial emergency; fund GST concessions to move the auto and engineering sectors in particular; begin emergency rural reconstruction projects to generate millions of new jobs and get our core infrastructure sectors like steel, cement and transportation moving again.

    Getting money to move India again is not a huge problem.  What comes in between are the philosophical blinkers.  Call it Chicago economics or the Gujarati mindset.

    Notes

    [i] https://www.businesstoday.in/sectors/jobs/india-unemployment-rate-hits-26-amid-lockdown-14-crore-lose-employment-cmie/story/401707.html

    [ii] https://www.financialexpress.com/economy/farm-wages-growth-fell-to-a-four-quarter-low-in-q3-fy-20/1789235/

    [iii] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/wealth-of-indias-richest-1-more-than-4-times-of-total-for-70-poorest-oxfam/articleshow/73416122.cms?from=mdr#:~:text=Wealth%20of%20India’s%20richest%201%25%20more%20than%204%2Dtimes%20of,total%20for%2070%25%20poorest%3A%20Oxfam&text=The%20Oxfam%20report%20further%20said,particularly%20poor%20women%20and%20girls.

    [iv] https://www.prsindia.org/policy/discussion-papers/state-agriculture-india

    140 million hectares of land is used as agricultural area, as of 2012-13.  Over the years, this area has been fragmented into smaller pieces of land.  As seen in Table 3, the number of marginal land holdings (less than one hectare) increased from 36 million in 1971 to 93 million in 2011.  Marginal and small land holdings face several issues, such as problems with using mechanization and irrigation techniques.

    [v] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/demographic-time-bomb-young-india-ageing-much-faster-than-expected/articleshow/65382889.cms

    [vi] https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-minimum-support-price/article7342789.ece

    [vii] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/in-video-conversation-with-rahul-rajan-suggests-65k-crore-aid-for-poor/story-CtrtvW6HErR16L9m1t9wHP.html

    [viii] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/rahul-gandhi-in-conversation-with-abhijit-banerjee-india-needs-a-bigger-stimulus-package-like-us-japan-to-revive-economy/videoshow/75549770.cms

    [ix] https://www.screener.in/screens/2551/Cash-Rich-Companies/

     

    Image credit: Adobe Stock

  • Vietnam: Bright Economic Outlook post-COVID

    Vietnam: Bright Economic Outlook post-COVID

    COVID-19 is truly a ‘Black Swan’ event and its impact is being felt across the globe. There is widespread worry about the future of economic growth in the post-pandemic period and the World Bank has observed that the pandemic caused the deepest global recession since Second World War. [i] There are at least three reasons which triggered and added to the current crisis. First, it has involved the US and China in a trade war since July 2018, when US President Donald Trump imposed wide-ranging tariffs on China for its alleged unfair trade practices. In August 2019, Trump ordered U.S. companies to “immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing your companies home and making your products in the USA.”[ii] China responded in a similar manner with counter tariffs on US goods. Since then numerous negotiations between them have been held, the last in June 2020 at Hawaii, did not yield any breakthrough. This revengeful tariff war has now blown into a full-fledged trade war and President Trump aggravated with the renewed threat of a “complete decoupling from China.”

    There is widespread worry about the future of economic growth in the post-pandemic period and the World Bank has observed that the pandemic caused the deepest global recession since Second World War.

    Second, amid the trade war, the Corona-19 pandemic made matters worse for the two protagonists. The US accused China of withholding information about the Wuhan virus which was detected in December 2019 and Beijing did not make public the information till January 2020 after which it spread across the globe from Europe to the US. The pandemic has caused massive disruptions in supply chains and some countries have decided to shift businesses out of China. For instance, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe government announced US $2.2 billion stimulus package to help companies shift production out of China back to Japan or elsewhere.[iii]

    Third, the new security law in Hong Kong has triggered an exodus by several companies to move out of China. The Law “targets acts of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces, with life in prison for those committing the most serious offences”[iv] has scared common people. Many technology companies, startups, entrepreneurs are now confronted with uncertainty and are exploring alternative destinations.[v]

    many companies are being forced to shut down their operation in China and rethink-reevaluate-reinvest in new destinations to remain buoyant for the time being and slowly make their networks more resilient across sectors for the future.

    Furthermore, the pandemic exposed the weaknesses and susceptibilities of many organizations, business houses and industries particularly those that are intimately connected and dependent on China to fulfil their need for raw materials or finished products. Consequently, many companies are being forced to shut down their operation in China and rethink-reevaluate-reinvest in new destinations to remain buoyant for the time being, and slowly make their networks more resilient across sectors for the future. According to a leading business research and advisory company, “tariffs imposed by the U.S. and Chinese governments during the past years have increased supply chain costs by up to 10% for over 40% of organizations” and “popular alternative locations are Vietnam, India, and Mexico.” [vi]

    Vietnam and Thailand have a very good scorecard in their fight against COVID-19 and are rearing to attract investments and kick start the economy.

    Even before COVID-19 pandemic crisis, in 2019, five Asian countries i.e. Malaysia, India, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam (MITI-V) or “Mighty Five” had been identified as “up-and-coming players” with high potential for being world’s next manufacturing hubs.[vii] Among these, Vietnam and Thailand have a very good scorecard in their fight against COVID-19 and are rearing to attract investments and kick start the economy.

    According to the World Economic Forum, Vietnam’s economic rise is marked by trade liberalization, domestic reforms through deregulation, lowering the cost of doing business and investments made in human resource development.[viii] During the first six months of the current year, FDI commitments was at over US$15 billion which is a positive outlook for the country. In fact, Vietnam has attracted FDI from 136 countries and territories with nearly 32,000 projects with a combined value of US$378 billion. Among these Japan is the second largest investor with over US$60 billion. Last month, Vietnam’s Ministry of Planning and Investment, Embassy of Japanese at Hanoi, Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO), and Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) held a virtual conference to explore FDI investments “especially in the context of Japanese government providing a US$2.3 billion aid package for Japanese firms to diversify their supply chains”.[ix]

    Vietnam has many common export products from China such as broadcasting equipment, and could emerge as the “top exporter of broadcasting equipment to developed countries” but is constrained by “smaller GDP and workforce”; but its   progresses in infrastructure could potentially make it a more appealing option.[x]

    Vietnam has attracted FDI from 136 countries and territories with nearly 32,000 projects with a combined value of US$378 billion. Among these Japan is the second largest investor with over US$60 billion.

    Besides, there are other contenders such as Thailand and India to attract FDI and these two countries offer attractive FDI policies and manufacturing infrastructure. In mid-2019, as many as 200 American companies were planning to move their manufacturing base from China and were looking at India.[xi] Similar trends have been reported from South Korea [xii] and Japan [xiii] who could migrate to “production-conducive economies like India, Vietnam and Thailand”.[xiv]

    According to one estimate, FDI “across the globe may decline by 40% this year due to the Covid-19 crisis”[xv], but by all counts and accounts, Vietnam is a resounding success story.  It is a stable economy, possesses necessary infrastructure and facilities, and above all it enjoys “multilateral and bilateral agreements with foreign countries”[xvi], which makes it a popular destination in the post-COVID economic revival outlook.

    Notes

    [i] “Global Economic Prospects”, https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects (accessed 16 July 2020).
    [ii] “Trump says he’s ordering American companies to immediately start looking for an alternative to China”, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/23/trump-says-hes-ordering-american-companies-to-immediately-start-looking-for-an-alternative-to-china.html (accessed 30 July 2020).
    [iii] “Coronavirus Impact: Japan to offer $2.2 billion to firms shifting production out of China”, https://www.businesstoday.in/current/world/coronavirus-impact-japan-to-offer-22-billion-to-firms-shifting-production-out-of-china/story/400721.html (accessed 30 July 2020).
    [iv] “Hongkongers contemplate a second exodus”, https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3093517/home-and-away-after-national-security-law-hongkongers (accessed 30 July 2020).
    [v] “Tech Firms Begin to Abandon Hong Kong over Security Law”, https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tmQW3Yjx5vcJ:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-20/tech-firms-begin-to-abandon-hong-kong-because-of-security-law+&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in (accessed 30 July 2020).
    [vi] “Gartner Survey Reveals 33% of Supply Chain Leaders Moved Business Out of China or Plan to by 2023”, https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-06-24-gartner-survey-reveals-33-percent-of-supply-chain-leaders-moved-business-out-of-china-or-plan-to-by-2023 (accessed 30 July 2020).
    [vii] “5 China Sourcing Alternatives In Asia”, https://www.intouch-quality.com/blog/5-alternatives-to-sourcing-from-china (accessed 30 July 2020).
    [viii] “Vietnam races ahead of China in economic growth: opportunities and challenges for Vietnam in the post-COVID- 19 period”, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/ChanakyaCode/vietnam-races-ahead-of-china-in-economic-growth-opportunities-and-challenges-for-vietnam-in-the-post-covid-19-period/ (accessed 30 July 2020).
    [ix] Ibid.
    [x] “COVID-19: Developing countries and shrouded opportunities”, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/covid-19-developing-countries-and-shrouded-opportunities/ (accessed 30 July 2020).
    [xi] “About 200 US firms aim to move manufacturing base from China to India post-general election: USISPF”, https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/about-200-us-firms-aim-to-move-manufacturing-base-from-china-to-india-post-general-election-usispf/story/341011.html ( 30 July 2020).
    [xii] “Korean companies keen to move out of China to India”, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/75130387.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst (30 July 2020).
    [xiii] “Global firms look to shift from China to India”, https://www.livemint.com/industry/manufacturing/global-firms-look-to-shift-from-china-to-india-11587494725838.html  (30 July 2020).
    [xiv] “India isn’t ready yet for foreign companies that want to quit China”, https://theprint.in/opinion/india-isnt-ready-yet-for-foreign-companies-that-want-to-quit-china/415040/ (accessed 30 July 2020).
    [xv] “1,000 Japanese firms looking for investment opportunities in Vietnam”, http://hanoitimes.vn/1000-japaneses-firms-looking-for-investment-opportunities-in-vietnam-313133.html (accessed 30 July 2020).
    [xvi] “Vietnam races ahead of China in economic growth: opportunities and challenges for Vietnam in the post-COVID- 19 period”, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/ChanakyaCode/vietnam-races-ahead-of-china-in-economic-growth-opportunities-and-challenges-for-vietnam-in-the-post-covid-19-period/ (accessed 30 July 2020).

     

    Image: Ho Chi Minh city and Saigon River – Credit: Adobe Stock

  • India-Australia Strategic Partnership: Leveraging Aerospace Capacity

    India-Australia Strategic Partnership: Leveraging Aerospace Capacity

    Category : India India’s, Military, India-Australia Relations
    Title : India-Australia strategic partnership: Leveraging aerospace capacity
    Author : M Matheswaran 02-06-2020

    The forthcoming virtual summit between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison assumes considerable significance for an India-Australia strategic partnership, particularly as it comes against the backdrop of heightened friction with China for both countries. Enhanced defence cooperation between the two countries could be an important signal to Beijing of the costs of overly assertive strategic behaviour – whether in the Himalaya or in trade. For some years, defence cooperation has largely focused on the naval relationship. Now is the time for enhanced air-power cooperation.

    Read More

  • Daulet Beg Oldi: Operating from the World’s Highest Airfield

    Daulet Beg Oldi: Operating from the World’s Highest Airfield

    [vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1594635921306{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]

    Daulet Beg Oldi (DBO) is a historic campsite in Ladakh on an ancient trade route connecting Ladakh to the Tarim Basin. It is named after Sultan Said Khan (Daulet Beg), who died here on his return journey after the invasion of Ladakh and Kashmir. DBO is strategically significant as it is close to the Siachen Glacier, the Karakoram Pass, and China’s Xinjiang-Karakoram highway. The Chip Chap river flows just to the south of DBO from east to west. It has an airstrip at an altitude of 5064 meters (16,614 ft), the world’s highest airstrip. India activated DBO as a military base and Advanced Landing Ground (ALG) following the border dispute with the PRC in the late 1950s. The IAF activated DBO airfield in 1962 and it became a crucial ALG since then. DBO continued to be in use till 1966. The airfield was damaged following an earthquake in 1966, which put a stop to its further use. The IAF maintains many of the forward posts and villages in the himalayan regions through airdrops using a string of ALGs. Following increased belligerence from China, DBO was reactivated in 2008. The completion of the Darbuk-Shyok-DBO road added immense logistical strength to the Indian military in the region. Since 2013, China has intensified its probing incursions in this region. The recent clash in the Galwan valley is a high point of increasing tensions along the borders.

    Operations from the DBO have been a huge challenge, given its high altitude, mountainous terrain, and loose soil conditions. Group Captain A G Bewoor VM (Retd), an air force veteran with immense transport flying experience, describes the challenges overcome by the IAF in activating the DBO through first landings spaced out by 46 years.

    Download Full Paper

    The Law of Armed Conflict and its continuing relevance to the South Asian Region[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

  • POST COVID 19: RE-IMAGINING THE NEW WORLD ORDER

    POST COVID 19: RE-IMAGINING THE NEW WORLD ORDER

    As the world grapples, rather unsuccessfully so far, with its worst pandemic in a century, COVID 19, it would be an understatement that the world, as mankind has known for decades, will ever be the same again! The Coronavirus is not just a medical emergency which has afflicted the entire world, already caused over 125,000  fatalities and  with its rampage  continuing alarmingly,   the socio-economic-political consequences for the world, in the near future, are likely to be as horrendous as the employment of a weapon of mass destruction(WMD).

    Post COVID 19, whenever that period dawns, what the new world order or disorder would be is agitating the minds of governments and analysts the world over. Though it is rather premature today to crystal-gaze as to when the world can rejoice that COVID 19 is now part of history, it is equally imperative for governments and global institutions, the world over, to frankly analyse the ramifications of  the aftermath of such an apocalyptic event. It will be better to be prepared for the after-results now than be found ill-prepared as the world was when this pandemic struck in full surprise and ferocity.

    The onslaught of this coronavirus was indeed a Black Swan event and hence it found the world, including the most powerful nation on the earth, US and most of the technologically advanced nations, like in Europe, grossly under-prepared – a fact that will puzzle future historians. For the uninitiated, a Black Swan event is a metaphor for an unpredictable event that is beyond what is normally expected of a grave situation and is characterized by both extreme rarity and equally severity in occurrence. Events like the Black Death plague which had engulfed the world 600 years back and took a toll of 25 million lives, the Spanish Flu a hundred years back which took millions of lives, the atom bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan by the US Air Force at the near- end of World War II  or the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in the US could be categorized  as Black Swan events.

    Prior to ascertaining through the prism of uncertainty the contours of the “new normal” or the “next normal”, it will be in order to study what all went grievously wrong in the globe’s response to the pandemic. Firstly and, unquestionably, was the emerging superpower China’s total disdain for the fallout of the coronavirus. Reliable reports in the western media point out that as early as 17 Nov 2019, the virus was detected in the Wuhan laboratory in China’s Hubei province. It was attributed to the major animal market of Wuhan which sells dead bats, dogs, cats, fish, seafoods and many other forms of animal produce for the Chinese palate. Once the virus started spreading uncontrollably, it was only on 31 Dec 2019 that China cared to inform the WHO regards the spread of an “abnormal pneumonia”.

    From the beginning of Jan 2020, the pandemic rapidly spread its tentacles to the US and most nations of Europe with devastating effect. Amazingly and regrettably, the US and most nations were rather sluggish in their response mechanisms to combat this dreadful virus. No stringent lockdowns or social/physical distancing or curbs on travel or congregations was enforced—- the tragic results were for all to see with medical systems collapsing and no drugs/vaccines available, no hospital beds or ambulances, as  required, available. It was only that by end Feb/ mid-March some emergency measures were enforced—much too late though. The world expects all fellow nations to share critical information with each other in the event of such emergencies as such viruses do not recognize any international borders.

    In India too, there is a view that we may have been a bit late in enforcing lockdowns and other stringent measures. Nevertheless, PM Narendra Modi’s much awaited 21 days lockdown announced on 24 March (and its subsequent extension till 03 May 2020), though necessary, could have been better implemented with some advance planning. Though the centre and state bureaucracy did step up subsequently to resolve the teething problems, especially of migrant labour, many helpful interventions from well-meaning NGOs, gurdwaras, temples, the public and others, the humanitarian problems have been overcome to a large extent. Overall, the nation’s response, cutting across religious lines, to this medical emergency has been encouraging and embellished with humanitarianism.

    The other major fall-out of the COVID 19 pandemic will, in all certainty, be the catastrophic economic costs the world will have to bear. The IMF has stated that the current crisis is the most horrible in a century and will be likely worse than the “Great Depression” (1929-1939). It visualizes the global GDP to shrink by a whopping 3 percent though it forecasts that next year could witness an improvement. As observed all over the world, stock markets have tumbled to abysmally low levels, production facilities come to virtual shutdowns, staff laid off, air and rail travel shut, supply chains both international and intra-nation disrupted etc. In addition, oil prices have had a dangerously steep decline throwing the world trade and economy out of gear. The US with its financial muscle ultimately, despite being financially badly mauled, is expected to slowly bounce back. President Donald Trump, now in his crucial re-election year, may take some out-of-the box fiscal initiatives to bring the US economy back on track. The ongoing trade war between China and the US may witness contours of a rivalry not witnessed so far. Anyway, China needs to be globally chastised for its unethical practices.

    It will be a natural fall-out for most nations now to take a fresh look at their trade relations with China. Japan has already announced a US $ 2.2 billion package for their industrialists to pull out of China. Others like Taiwan may do so too. Some of the industries moving out of China may prefer to re-locate to India and here is a good chance for India to welcome them here and give a fillip to India’s currently near-stagnant “Make in India” programmes. However, the Indian establishment will have to shed its hollow big talk, traditional lethargic attitudes and genuinely encourage foreign investments into India. India’s private industry is modern, robust, and skilful enough to work together with foreign collaborators.

    The world now must rise and strengthen global institutions like the UN and its various agencies to combat global challenges. No country, however powerful, can exist as an island as witnessed now. Nations like China, notwithstanding its deep pockets, must be cautioned not to disturb the economic equilibrium of the world, most of which is reeking with poverty and under-development. China’s intransigent attitude not even allowing a discussion on the pandemic at the United Nations Security Council last fortnight is unacceptable to the world.

    In the coming years, it is certain that owing to the gruesome after-effects of COVID 19, nations, both the powerful and the poor, are going to take far more seriously their public health preparedness and emergency standard operating procedures. Medical infrastructures, rightly so, demand far greater thought, planning and investments than hithertofore.

    It is well on the cards that even the militarily powerful nations will look into the various nuances of biological warfare. It is now clear to the entire world that a virus can prove to be far more lethal than many megatons of explosives and modern weaponry. According to many western journalists, China may deny its botched-up bio warfare experiment, but it is a matter of time when the bitter truth will unravel. India as a signatory of the Geneva Convention of 1972 (effective since mid-1975) to eschew production and experimentation of  WMDs including bio weapons should not only  use its moral authority to make nations be sincere adherents of existing UN protocols  but, importantly, for its own safety put into place  adequate defensive mechanisms to thwart such challenges. The lessons to be drawn from COVID 19 must be taken seriously. In addition, the UN must draw up contingency plans to prevent, contain and manage and ultimately defeat such likely challenges in the future. It will have to be a synthesis of health, economic, political, and even military measures.

    The new world order, in all likelihood, will be drastically differing, more sobering, additionally fiscally prudent, and conservative and with nations becoming isolationist and inward looking. China’s image and its economy will certainly take a sound beating. Though the pandemic is world-wide and global problems, unquestionably, require global solutions, yet in the coming years we may witness the rise of hyper-nationalism and authoritarianism in most nations including democracies. Nevertheless, as India strives to do its bit to get its economy back on track and takes various prophylactic measures for the future, it must do its bit to strengthen global institutions.

    This article was published earlier in ‘USI – Strategic Perspectives‘. Views expressed are the author’s own.

    Image credit: Tehran Times

     

  • COVID-19: India’s Friendly diplomacy and SAARC Initiative

    COVID-19: India’s Friendly diplomacy and SAARC Initiative

    The corona virus is now a worldwide pandemic that is threatening or impacting populations across over 160 countries. India has initiated robust measures to tackle this most disruptive threat. Keeping in mind the safety of its citizens abroad, India has acted swiftly in evacuating Indians in Wuhan  and other affected provinces in China. India, in tune with its neighbourhood first policy, has pitched in to provide support to other SAARC nations in evacuating their nationals as well. In the early stages of the pandemic, on 3 February 2020, India evacuated 323 Indians from Wuhan including 7 Maldivians. “My thanks and gratitude to PM @narendramodi, EM @DrSJaishankar and the Government of India for expeditiously evacuating the 7 Maldivians residing in Wuhan, China. This gesture is a fine example of the outstanding friendship and camaraderie between our two countries”, tweeted Maldivian President Mr.Solih expressing his sense of gratitude for this help. The Indian Embassy in Maldives tweeted regarding the synergy between both the countries, “Pandemics do not know national boundaries, which makes it even more essential to reach out to neighbours and stand by them in this global fight against the #CoronaPandemic #NeighbourhoodFirst.”

    Focus on Safety and Evacuation through Friendly diplomacy

    A week later, as evacuation efforts were still underway, Embassy of India in Beijing tweeted on 17th February – “GOI will send a consignment of medical supplies on a relief flight to Wuhan later this week to support China to fight the COVID 19 pandemic. On its return, the flight will have limited capacity to take on board Indian citizens wishing to return to India from Wuhan/Hubei”. Upon China’s request for medical masks, gloves and suits India sent a consignment of 15 tonnes of medical supplies aboard C-17 Globemaster—the largest military aircraft in the Indian Air Force’s inventory. This was not only an act of humanitarian assistance but also a move regarded as friendly diplomacy by India. According to MEA’s spokesperson, “India had also received requests from Bhutan, Maldives, Iran and Italy, for assistance and essential supplies such as surgical masks and protective gear which are being processed.”

    By February 6, India began to restrict entry of foreign nationals as a precautionary measure. Notification by an immigration official stated, “Foreigners who have been to China on or after 15th January 2020 are not allowed to enter India from any air, land or seaport, including Indo-Nepal, Indo-Bhutan, Indo-Bangladesh or Indo-Myanmar land borders.” The official also added, “All visas issued to Chinese passport holders coming from anywhere in the world, including regular(sticker)& e-visa issued before 5 Feb, have been suspended with immediate effect.” India had also offered to step in to help Pakistanis. The Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson stated that India was willing to evacuate Pakistani nationals “if such a situation arises.”

    Leading  the SAARC Initiative against COVID-19

    In an act of pragmatic diplomacy that promotes regionalism and addressing the need of the hour for combating COVID-19 in South Asia, PM Modi hosted a SAARC Meeting with his counterparts on video on March 15th. In this meeting, he emphasised the importance of the region coming together for battling the COVID-19. This brings SAARC back into the picture after several years of stagnation, and at a time when the regional organisation seemed to be losing its importance. With India sharing borders with certain SAARC countries, it became imperative for India to pool in its neighbours. PM Modi chalked out a common strategy for the countries to combat the virus and set an example for the rest of the world. He added that the guiding mantra should be “prepare, not panic.” He had several initiatives to offer to fellow South Asian countries — from online training capsules for emergency response teams, to common research platforms to conduct research on controlling epidemic diseases and keeping a rapid response team of doctors and specialists onstand-by at the disposal for our neighbouring nations. PM Modi also asked experts to come together to assess the economic impact, “long-term economic consequences of COVID-19, and how best to insulate internal trade and local value chains from its impact.” India proposed to create an COVID-19 Emergency Fund based on voluntary contributions from all the countries with India pooling in the first US$10 million for the fund. This fund has been active for the past one week with funds flowing in from  South Asian countries—Nepal has contributed 10 crores, Bhutan US$100,000, Bangladesh US$15,00,000, Maldives US$ 2,00,000, Sri Lanka U$15,00,000 and the Afghan government offering US$1 million. This has revitalised the functioning of the SAARC and has brought collective responsibility to the table. How the region continues to battle and win the pandemic might be a pilot test for collaborative efforts in the future. All heads of states of SAARC attended the virtual conference with the exception of Pakistan. Considering that the Special Assistant to Pakistan Prime Minister (on Health) was assigned for a Head of States meeting, India might well consider exercising the option of providing Pakistan with participating and observing the meeting stopping short of addressing the head of states. Afterall, as usual the habit of raking up the Kashmir issue at multilateral forums, was witnessed again.

    In follow-up to the live video conference, India has received requests from neighbouring countries for aid from the Emergency Fund which was set up. According to an MEA spokesperson, “The quantum of assistance, which has been requested so far, has crossed $1 million USD. Supplies to Bhutan and Maldives have been dispatched.”

    Apart from evacuating Indians, GOI has sent a 14-member medical team and supply of consignments to Maldives wherein the medical team did a successful knowledge transfer. As on 23 March, India has continued its efforts to bring back Indian nationals from abroad, 121 stranded nationals in Uzbekistan have been flown back to India. A total of 590 people from Iran who have been evacuated are currently being quarantined in Jaisalmer.  Embassy and consulate in Iran have begun supplying essentials to approximately 1000 Indian fishermen from Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Kerala in Iran’s southern provinces of Bushehr & Hormozgan. Similarly, 218 Indian students were evacuated from Italy, while transit passengers (Indian nationals) were brought back to Delhi via special flights. A 24×7 MEA COVID-19 control room has been set up with hotlines for Indians in distress abroad and the ministry has also reached out to Indians abroad by sharing hotline numbers using social media handles for easy access.

    As India announced a 21-day lockdown on 24 March to control the contagion, WHO praised PM Modi for his efforts.  “India stands at an important turning point in its fight against COVID-19. Extraordinary situations demand extraordinary measures. The Prime Minister has taken bold and decisive steps to break the chain of transmission. It is equally vital that this window is used for further ramping up measures to find, isolate, test, treat and trace. WHO stands together in solidarity with India and its people and is committed to providing all the support that is needed,” said Dr Henk Bekedam, WHO Representative to India.

     Views expressed are author’s own.

  • A discourse in Refugee Policy and National Decisions : The Indian context

    A discourse in Refugee Policy and National Decisions : The Indian context

    South Asian states have experienced refugee movements since independence from the British colonial rule and yet once again in 1971 when East Pakistan was split from West Pakistan. The territory of India as it is today has been at the forefront of this influx along with two other nations in the region – Pakistan and Bangladesh while Afghanistan has been a state that has sent out its citizens as refugees all along due to the state of prolonged internal conflicts, and in its immediate neighborhood.

    According to the United Nations, the projected number of refugees is estimated to be around 2.5 million in South Asia, with India alone hosting around 2,00,000 (number registered with UNHCR). Unofficially, India is said to have nearly 437,000 refugees. It is not only the regional atmosphere but also the volatility of the countries in neighboring regions – Syria, Iraq, Tibet and Myanmar that have led to an exodus of populations into South Asia. Apart from wars and persecution, economic deprivation and climate change are driving people out of their home countries. India, sharing borders with all of the South Asian countries where Maldives being contiguous in the Indian Ocean Region, has inevitably been the first or second destination for refugees fleeing their homes. However, India has failed to adopt a legal framework to confer refugee status to people who have fled home countries for a well-founded fear of persecution, discrimination or deprivation of any kind thus blurring the lines between migrants who have entered illegally and refugees.

    Recently, India passed the Citizenship Amendment Act that seeks to grant citizenship to Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jains, Parsis and Sikhs who entered India before the 31st of December 2015 from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. The Act has an arbitrary cut-off date, omits the mention of Muslims, does not convincingly explain the rationale behind grouping the three countries, thus any argument of replacing the ad hoc refugee policy would only stand frail. This article, with this premise at the crux will attempt to examine why India has to work towards formulating a holistic refugee policy framework followed by a law and how there is a need for one to ensure the domestic population does not turn hostile to refugees.

    Understanding Refugees in India

    India has allowed for the entry of refugees under the Foreigners Act, 1946; The Foreigners Order, 1948; Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939; and The Passport Act (Entry into India), 1920; The Passport Act, 1967. Refugee populations from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Eritrea, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Tibet among many other countries have crossed borders to enter India due to sectarian conflicts, political instability and even economic and climate change.

    South Asia is one of the most disaster-prone regions of the earth and has in recent years witnessed droughts, heatwaves, floods and rise in sea levels threatening both human lives and livelihoods for indefinite periods. Around 46 million people are estimated to have fled their homes in South Asia due to natural disasters between 2008 and 2013 despite a lack of precise estimate in how many have solely migrated due to climate change other than seasonal migration. This thus creates an intersection between economic and climate-induced migration. An estimated 20 million have been migrating from Bangladesh to India every year due to environmental adversities.

    However, it has only been the discourse on traditional security that has dominated the discussions outside of academia questioning the preparedness of India in managing the influx of refugees in the run-up to global and regional crises due to non-traditional securities such as environmental degradation and resulting ‘environment-economic’ splinter effects.

    Diplomacy vis a vis domestic governance

    While we are already witnessing how different sections of the society have not taken it well to religious narrative embedded in the Act, several other factors have also threaded themselves to the dismay of locals due to lack of concentrated effort to treat refugees. Refugees who fear deportation and brutal treatment under the law may disguise themselves as residents and thus in the long run contributing to the alarm and insecurity amongst the locals. This has been very evident in Assam that has for decades agitated over the growth in population in the state due to illegal migration from Bangladesh. It was more to do with struggle for resources, fears of demographic changes and losing control of governance, and less about religion. By resorting to naturalizing refugees and not resorting to repatriation agreements, India today maybe adding fire to the already burning fuel of ‘more mouths to feed and fewer resources’.

    India’s ad hoc policy has given it a leeway to treat refugees based on the country of origin depending on the geopolitics of the day. Today by sealing this arbitrariness as a law India has threatened its own scope to rectify its position in the wake of contestations. It is uncertain even being a signatory to The New York Declaration of Refugees and Migrants 2016, the precursor to the Global Compact on Refugees can realize India’s image as a responsible power while denying Rohingyas and Sri Lankan Tamils the due recognition as refugees.

    On the global stage, India’s treatment of refugees had until recently attracted a fair share of appreciation despite the lack of a national refugee law and notwithstanding the fact that the country is a non-signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention nor the 1967 Protocol.

    India may not have an official reason on why it has not signed the convention, but sufficient correlative studies show us India’s skepticism arising due to the Euro-centrism of the convention, a threat to sovereignty and a narrow definition of refugees that does not cover the economic, social, and political aspects. Apart from this, the episodes of 1971 influx of refugees and earlier in 1945 linger over India’s unpleasant memories.

    Conclusion

    No refugee policy or domestic law remains an internal concern especially in South Asia where not only are the territorial borders porous but so are the divisions between communities. Due to its relatively better availability of economic opportunity and being a secular state, Indian policymakers are challenged by protracted refugee situations.

    Given the pressure on India’s resources from its huge and growing population, it does not have the capacity to host large refugee populations. India, therefore, has to evolve a 21st-century diplomatic mechanism with both the global community and the sending states to create opportunities for resettlement of refugees. With evolving geopolitics and rise of non-traditional security, it would be in India’s best interests to formulate multifaceted refugee policies bilaterally and multilaterally.

    Jayashri Ramesh Sundaram holds a masters in IR from RSIS, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She focuses on refugee issues and policy analysis. Views expressed are the author’s own.

    Image Credit: A Refugee special train during Partition. commons.wikipedia.org

  • India and Nepal: Energy Cooperation

    India and Nepal: Energy Cooperation

    Introduction

    Sustained availability of energy at affordable cost is an essential prerequisite for the growth of a country. Currently the energy consumption per capita in case of Nepal is134 KWH per capita per year, as against world average of 2674 KWH per capita per year.

    GDP Per Capita in $ (PPP)

    Country Energy Consumption in kWh per capita per year GDP Per Capita in $ (PPP) GDP Per Capita in $ (Nominal)
    World Average 2674 11673 11673
    Bhutan 2779 3392 3392
    India 1122 1980 1980
    Maldives 1122 9802 9802
    Pakistan 471 539 539
    Sri Lanka 414 4135 4135
    Bangladesh 351 1564 1564
    Myanmar 193 1256 1256
    Afghanistan 141 538 538
    Nepal 134 900 900

    Table-1: Energy Consumption Vs Gross Domestic Product
    Source:  1.GDP figures for 2017 vide https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita
         2.World Fact Book: Power consumption for various countries of the World.

    Although correlation between energy consumption and the prosperity depends on a number of factors like population but a fact which clearly overshadows others is that as energy consumption increases the prosperity increases. This relationship is equally valid for reverse relationship, i.e. as prosperity increases the necessity for additional energy becomes obligatory. Another interesting observation can be made based on the content of this table. Bhutan is a land locked country which has hardly any major industry in that country, yet their GDP per capita is more than India’s. An examination suggests that Bhutan has adequate hydro resources and hydroelectricity generated exploiting her indigenous resources is far more than her requirement. This surplus generation is sold by Bhutan to India. Revenue thus earned has transformed the country from a poor developing country to a prosperous country quite distinct from other South Asian countries. For the record Bhutan’s revenue from hydro power is 27% of the entire govt revenue and is 14% of Bhutan’s GDP. This also flags an approach which can also help other South Asian countries to improve their economic strength by exploiting their indigenous resources. Another country of South Asia; Nepal can benefit from the model which Bhutan is currently following for sharing its energy resources with India in a ‘win-win’ situation.

    Topography of Nepal

    topography-of-nepal

    Map1: Nepal and its Rivers and Physical features
    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Nepal 

    A report of International Hydropower Association, “Bhutan” uploaded on https://www.hydropower.org/country-profile/bhutanography_of_Nepal 

    • Lie of the country is such that all the rivers flow from Nepal to India.
    • High Himalayas separate Nepal from Tibet, whereas southern side of the country is having  a terrain which is plain and that separates Nepal from India therefore while Northern Areas of Nepal act as a barrier between Nepal and Tibet, plains in southern side of the country lends itself for cooperation between India and Nepal. Recent operationalization of an oil pipeline from Motihari in Bihar to Amlekhganj in Nepal is a manifestation of such a cooperation (Little more about it a little later.)
    • Nepal has a huge hydropower potential. In fact, the perennial nature of Nepali rivers and the steep gradient of the country’s topography provide ideal conditions for the development of some of the world’s largest hydroelectric projects in Nepal. Current estimates are that Nepal has approximately 43,000 MW of economically feasible hydropower potential. However, the present situation is that Nepal has developed only approximately 753 MW of hydropower. Therefore, bulk of the economically feasible generation has not been realized yet. Besides, the multi-purpose secondary and tertiary benefits have not been realised from the development of its rivers. Nepal is utilising only 2% of it (i.e., 98% remains unutilised). It may be noted that an optimum exploitation of the hydro resources will contribute substantially to the financial well-being of Nepal. However, it is also a fact that Nepal neither has the financial muscle nor technical knowhow to harness its hydro resources. Therefore, support from friendly foreign countries becomes essential. China has been trying to make inroads into Nepal but whether it can be cost-effective or not is something that needs to be examined in carefully. India, on the contrary, has everything in her favour to support hydro power exploitation by Nepal. In fact power generated in Nepal can also be shared with Bangladesh using Indian grid system, which will be an excellent example of Nepal-India-Bangladesh cooperation, and still better as a BBIN (Bhutan-Bangladesh- India-Nepal) initiative and will be a ‘Win Win’ situation for all three countries.  India will have to use all its traditional heft with Nepal, its diplomatic skills, financial support to beat China who is trying hard to gain a foothold in Nepal’s Hydro energy exploitation domain as they are desperately wanting power.

    Map-3: River Systems of Nepal
    Source: Firoz Alam et al, “A review of hydropower projects in Nepal1st International Conference on Energy and Power”, presented during ICEP2016 at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, 14-16 December 2016 and Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 110 (2017) 581 – 585

    • While planning hydro power plants in Nepal, some extra care would be required to be undertaken. Nepal’s topography is unstable due to seismic activities. Hence, all hydropower plants with dam must be well planned and designed to mitigate the environmental impact. Also most Himalayan Rivers contain huge quantities of sediment with hard abrasive particles. The region’s climate and tectonic conditions as well as human activities are highly conducive for erosion and sedimentation. Therefore, sediment management is paramount for the safety, reliability and longer life of infrastructures (hydropower dam, equipment, roads, bridges, irrigation systems and drinking water).

    As close neighbours, India and Nepal share unique ties of friendship and cooperation characterised by an open border and deep-rooted people-to-people contacts of kinship and culture. There has been a long tradition of free movement of people across the border. Nepal shares a border of over 1850 km with five Indian states – Sikkim, West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950 forms the bedrock of the special relations that exist between India and Nepal. Nepalese citizens avail facilities and opportunities at par with Indian citizens in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty. Nearly 6 million Nepalese citizens live and work in India. However Nepal is still not well developed and as has been explained earlier suffer from lack adequate energy to fuel its development. India has been a major partner in exploiting its indigenous energy resources and also making up the shortfall on this account.

    Potential and Scope of Hydro Power Cooperation

    Certain studies have been done to ascertain scope for the Indo-Nepal Cooperation in the domain of energy. It has been concluded that in the high build scenario, Nepal’s hydropower capacity is estimated to be 4551 MW. The generation cost in an arrangement of Indo-Nepal combined system would fall by approximately US $106 billion per year. This enhanced capacity will help Nepal to increase her power export to India by 60%. However Nepal’s high build out hydro resources would be fully utilised if operations between Nepal and India are further coordinated and an economic union strategy adopted by the two countries. Effectively, this would mean that trade with Nepal is institutionally is same as trade is between Indian States. Such enhanced power generation will help Nepal to become net exporter of power during dry as well as wet season, with reduced generation cost. On the contrary India ranks 81st in overall energy self-sufficiency at 66% in 2014 . Primary energy consumption in India grew by 7.9% in 2018 and it happens to be the third biggest consumer after China and USA, with 5.8% global share.

    Details of Completed Projects for Energy Cooperation between India and Nepal

    Motihari-Amlekhgunj Oil Pipeline: On 10th September 2019, the Prime Ministers of Nepal and India jointly inaugurated a cross-border oil pipeline through video conferencing. This line will transport fuel to the landlocked country. The aim of this pipe line is to cement India-Nepal ties in the face of major inroads made by China into the Himalayan nation, and seeks to repair the trust deficit between the two countries due to an economic blockade allegedly imposed by India in 2015 to persuade Nepal to change some provisions in its new constitution. Basically the protests at that time were done by people of Madhesh (region bordering India) as they felt that there were certain provisions of the constitution of Nepal which were discriminatory against them. India said at that time that the trucks laden with fuel and medicines, besides other essentials, were stopped by sections of Nepalese population (Madheshis) unhappy with some provisions of their constitution, which they felt were practically disenfranchising them. Nepal, however, viewed it as if India was blocking the supplies to compel Kathmandu to amend the provisions of the constitution that was seen as disenfranchising almost half of the Nepalese population. Therefore, the current initiative seeks to rebuild the confidence between the two countries and will help to bind Nepal closer to New Delhi, economically and strategically. The development comes against the backdrop of recent plans for a rail link between Nepal and China cutting through the Himalayas. There were also plans to link Nepal and China through an energy pipeline running through the Himalayas. Both were seen as means by Nepal to find an alternative to its dependency on India. The 69 km pipeline will transport fuel from the Barauni refinery in Bihar to Amlekhgunj in south-east Nepal and is the first cross-border petroleum products pipeline in South Asia. The Motihari-Amlekhgunj oil pipeline project was first proposed in 1996. The project was put back on the agenda during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Kathmandu in 2014. The two governments had signed an agreement to execute the project in August 2015. Construction had begun in April 2018. Construction of the pipeline was undertaken by the Indian Oil Corp. Ltd (IOCL), India’s largest refiner, with an investment of over ₹324 crore, in collaboration with Nepal Oil Corp. Ltd (NOCL). The two sides are also working on building additional storage facility at the Amlekhgunj Depot, wherein NOCL has committed an estimated ₹75 crore. The pipeline can carry up to 2 million metric tonnes of petroleum products each year. Currently, petroleum products are carried from India to Nepal using oil tankers as part of an arrangement which has been in place since 1973. The NOCL not only hopes to save ₹200 crore annually with the new pipeline but will also ensure the transportation is no longer vulnerable to any kind of blockade.

    Power Supply from India to Nepal: India and Nepal have a Power Exchange Agreement since 1971 for meeting the power requirements in the border areas of the two countries, taking advantage of each other’s transmission infrastructure. There are more than twenty 132 kV, 33 kV and 11 kV transmission interconnections which are used both for power exchange in the border areas and for power trade. For enhanced transmission of electricity, the first high-capacity Muzaffarpur (India) – Dhalkebar (Nepal) cross-border power transmission line (initially charged at 132 kV), with GoI Letter of credit (LoC) funding of US$ 13.2 million, was completed in 2016. Two additional 132 kV cross-border transmission lines between Kataiya (India) – Kusaha (Nepal) and Raxaul (India) – Parwanipur (Nepal), built with GoI grant assistance, were completed in 2017. India is currently supplying a total of about 450 MW of power to Nepal. An Agreement on ‘Electric Power Trade, Cross-border Transmission Interconnection and Grid Connectivity’ between India and Nepal was signed on 21 October 2014. The Agreement is aimed at facilitating and further strengthening cross-border electricity transmission, grid connectivity and power trade between Nepal and India. The Agreement provides a framework for power trade between the two countries, import by Nepal from India until it becomes power surplus and subsequent import by Indian entities from Nepal, on mutually acceptable terms and conditions. Two mechanisms, Joint Working Group (JWG) and Joint Steering Committee (JSC) envisaged under the Agreement have been established. Joint Technical Team (JTT) was formed for preparation of a long-term integrated transmission plan covering projects up to 2035.

    Cooperation in the Domain of Hydro Energy: Cooperation in water resources primarily concerning the common rivers is one of the most important areas of bilateral relations. A large number of small and large rivers flow from Nepal into India and constitute an important part of the Ganges River basins (Refer Map-3 above). These rivers have the potential to become major sources of irrigation and power for Nepal and India. A three-tier bilateral mechanism was established in 2008, to discuss issues relating to cooperation in water resources, flood management, inundation and hydropower between the two countries. A Development Authority was set up in September 2014 to carry out the Pancheshwar Multipurpose project. A Power Development Agreement (PDA) for the 900 MW Arun-III hydroelectric project between India’s Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited and the Investment Board of Nepal (IBN) was concluded in November 2014. Also, a PDA for the 900 MW Upper Karnali hydroelectric project was concluded between IBN and M/s GMR in September 2014.

    Projects under Planning/Execution

    Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project: India and Nepal had signed a Treaty known as Mahakali Treaty in February’1996. Implementation of Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project is the centerpiece of the Mahakali Treaty. Required field investigations for the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project have been completed by a Joint Project Office (JPO-PI) in 2002 (except for some confirmatory tests). But mutually acceptable DPR of Pancheshwar Project is yet to be finalised. The constitution of Pancheswar Development Authority has already been notified. Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project (PMP) is a bilateral project, primarily aimed at energy production and augmenting irrigation in India and Nepal. A Treaty known as “Mahakali Treaty” concerning the integrated development of the Mahakali River, which included Sarada barrage, Tanakpur barrage and Pancheshwar Dam Project, was signed between the Government of Nepal and the Government of India on February 12, 1996. During the year 2009, pursuant to the Article-10 of the Mahakali Treaty, the Government of India and the Government of Nepal agreed and framed draft ToR for setting up the Pancheshwar Development Authority, as an independent autonomous body, for development, execution and operation of the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project. To accomplish this shared goal, the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the PDA as agreed upon by the two Governments and as may be amended from time to time, were created. As per the Statute of PDA the administrative organs of the authority are the Governing Body (GB) and the Executive Committee (EC). In order to execute the specific tasks assigned to the Governing Body, five meetings of GB have taken place so far. Pancheshwar Main Dam is proposed on River Mahakali (known as River Sarada in India), where the river forms the international boundary between the Far Western Development Region of Nepal and State of Uttarakhand in India. The dam site is around 2.5 km downstream of the confluence of River Sarju with River Mahakali. The project would comprise of a rock-fill dam with central clay core of 311m height from the deepest foundation level. Two underground power houses at Pancheshwar dam, one on each bank of Mahakali River, each with a capacity of (6×400 MW) with the total installed capacity of nearly 4800 MW are proposed to be constructed. The power plant at main dam will be operated as the peaking station to meet energy demand in India and Nepal. A re-regulating dam at Rupaligad is proposed around 27 km downstream of the main dam to even out peaking flows released from Pancheshwar power houses for meeting downstream irrigation water requirement. Here, two underground powerhouses on both sides of river with total installed capacity of 240 MW (2 x 60 MW on either bank) are envisaged. The main dam (when impounded with water up to Flood Regulating Level (FRL)) will form a reservoir of around 11,600 hectare area with a gross storage volume of about 11,355 million cubic metres. The submergence area on Indian side is 7,600 hectare, covering districts namely Pithoragarh, Almora and Champawat in the state of Uttarakhand whereas remaining 4000 hectares of submergence will be in Nepal. The project aims at producing hydro power and enhance the food grains production in both the countries by providing additional irrigation resulting from the augmentation of dry season flows. Year round irrigation will be possible in agricultural land in Kanchanpur district in Nepal due to enhancement in flows during non-monsoon months. The project will generate Two underground power houses at Pancheshwar dam, one on each bank of Mahakali River, each with a capacity of (6×400 MW) with the total installed capacity of nearly 4800 MW are proposed to be constructed. The power plant at main dam will be operated as the peaking station to meet energy demand in India and Nepal. Power generated will be shared equally between both the nations as per Treaty. Irrigation benefits in form of annual irrigation will be about 0.43 Mha, out of this, annual irrigation in Nepal would be 0.17 Mha and remaining 0.26 Mha in India. In addition, due to moderation of flood peak at reservoir(s), incidental flood control benefits for both the countries are also envisaged from the project. Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project is one of the top priority projects to be implemented in phased manner to reap the benefits of the project as early as possible. The work of preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) was entrusted to Water and Power Consultancy Services Limited (WAPCOS) by PDA and WAPCOS have in turn submitted the draft final DPR of the project to PDA in November, 2016. At present the finalization of Detailed Project Report (DPR) of the project is underway. A Team of Experts/Officials has been formed by both the countries for discussing and resolving all issues towards finalization of the DPR. After finalization of DPR, the Pancheshwar Development Authority shall undertake the execution, operation and maintenance of the project, including the work of re-regulating dam at Rupaligad site in an integrated manner.

    Sapta-Kosi High Dam Project and SUN Kosi storage cum diversion scheme: After exchange of letter of Understanding between the two Governments in June’ 2004, a Joint Project Office (JPO) was set up in August’ 2004 to undertake detailed field investigations for preparation of DPR of SaptaKosi High Dam Project at Barakshetra in Nepal.  DPR is under progress.

    Kamla and Bagmati Multipurpose Projects The JPO-SKSKI has also been entrusted to undertake the feasibility study of Kamla Dam and preliminary study of Bagmati Dam Projects. These studies are in progress.

    Project Completion Prospects

    Hydro power projects have a long gestation period and therefore, it can safely be assumed that the export from Nepal of power will not be able to commence before 2025. Nepal will be able to export 18 billion kWh in 2025 which will go up to 93 billion kWh by 2035 and then will start flattening and by 2040 it would be 115 trillion Watt hour because by that time it is anticipated that because of the growing prosperity domestic consumption will also pick up. In rainy season when the reservoirs will be at their peak capacity, it is estimated that by 2030 13 GW would be available for export.

    Conclusion

    Notwithstanding the political division within South Asia, it is important to appreciate that the energy resources are monolithic in nature. Due to topography of the country most of the hydropower resources are concentrated in the Himalayas; spanning Nepal, Bhutan and Indian states of Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh. Hydro power is a form of green energy and it would be ideal in case a mechanism can be evolved to exploit it for common good. It is essential that India, in conjunction with Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh, needs to make attempts to make use of energy resources available in all these countries; hydro power is one such resource. In this connection the platform of BBIN (Bhutan-Bangladesh-India-Bhutan-IndiaNepal) needs to be exploited. In fact recent pipeline laid by India between Motihari in Bihar and Amlekhgunj in Nepal is great example of cooperation that benefits the region and the parties involved.

  • Conference Report- India and the Indian Ocean Region: Dynamics of Geopolitics, Security, and Global Commons

    Conference Report- India and the Indian Ocean Region: Dynamics of Geopolitics, Security, and Global Commons

    TPF Team                                                                                                    August 19, 2019/Conference

    The Peninsula Foundation held its first international conference titled “India and the Indian Ocean Region: Dynamics of Geopolitics, Security and Global Commons” on the 12thand 13thof July at the Women’s Christian College, Chennai. Fifteen papers authored by research scholars from various institutions and backgrounds were presented during the course of the two-day conference comprising five sessions.The inaugural address was delivered by the Chief Guest, Vice Admiral N Ashok Kumar AVSM VSM, Vice Chief of Naval Staff (VCNS). In an eloquent speech, the VCNS highlighted the growing importance of the Indian Ocean Region and the need to debate and discuss issues relating to chokepoints and the trade routes. He spoke about historical evidence of the criticality of the trade routes in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), and related it to the present context of ship movements in vital sea lanes of communications (SLOCs) that are vital for economic growth of countries in the Asia-Pacific Region. India’s geographic location gives it a dominant strategic position, as seventy-five percent of international shipping links go through the IOR. He pointed out that China is deeply focussed on safeguarding its interests in the IOR since more than seventy percent of its energy requirements are dependent on Indian Ocean sea lanes. Stressing on the importance of the IOR, the VCNS highlighted the vulnerability of chokepoints and the need to ensure freedom of the seas.

                The keynote address was delivered by Professor Kanti Prasad Bajpai, Vice Dean and Wilmar Professor of Asian Studies at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. He focused on the contemporary understanding of the term ‘region’ and its context with regards to geopolitics and international relations, stating that when we refer to a region in the geopolitical context, we essentially refer to a zone of conflict, a war-zone or an area of potential conflict. Thus, South Asia often implies the India-Pakistan conflict, Middle East or West Asia the Arab-Israeli conflict, or the conflict between North and South Korea when talking about Korea as a region. Similarly, the Indian Ocean region is one of geopolitical contest amongst the great powers. It is a strategically important region where interdependence is inevitable amongst the nations that have vested interests in the IOR.

                Professor Bajpai further elucidated the fundamentals of trade development in the region and substantiated a case for the IOR as a strategic zone, citing the consistency with which external powers compete to control the region. He highlighted the three forms of culture that govern or define power positions in the IOR: classical culture, popular culture and strategic culture. India, aspiring to position itself as an important player in the region, has to evaluate the choices that are available to it: accept one dominant power to manage the region in a rule-based order or actively participate in the dialogue for a negotiated order that can be achieved through multilateral trade agreements. In conclusion, Professor Bajpai raised questions to be addressed in the upcoming sessions. The inaugural session ended with a special lecture on the cultural legacies of the Asia-Pacific Region, delivered by Indian classical dancer and Padma Bhushan awardee, Dr Padma Subrahmanyam.

    Session One: ‘Indian Ocean: Culture, Civilizations and Connectivity’

                The topic of the first session chaired by Cmde. C. Uday Bhaskar, Director of the Society for Policy Studies (SPS), was ‘Indian Ocean: Culture, Civilizations and Connectivity’. The speakers discussed the history, culture and impact of trade on the IOR. G Padmaja, an independent researcher, emphasised India’s maritime heritage and argued that policies do not move beyond mere talk with respect to the IOR. Dr Vijay Sakhuja, Trustee of The Peninsula Foundation, stated that the IOR is the busiest trade route in terms of development and commodity exchange. He elucidated the importance of digital shipping and the scope of 5G technology and reliance on Artificial Intelligence in driving the trading ecosystem. The third speaker Dr D Dhanuraj, Chairman, Centre for Public Policy Research (CPPR), explored the idea of the modern political economy influencing the flow of men and commodities, and talked about the possibility of India reclaiming its rights over the IOR.

    Session Two: ‘Power Politics in the IOR: Geostrategies and Geo-economics’

                Through his paper “Competing Pivots in the Indian Ocean Region”, Dr Lawrence Prabhakar, Associate Professor, Madras Christian College, highlighted that the region can be constructed and contested through a maritime mandala that goes beyond security and economic factors to include cultural, governance, transnational and other aspects. Dr Arvind Kumar, HOD, Department of Geopolitics, Manipal University, in his paper “Stability of Trade and Commerce: Energy Corridor” discussed the potential of energy resources in the IOR and the need to include energy security as a significant feature in global trade and growth drive. In his paper titled “China’s BRI: Responses in the IOR and Implications for Regional Order”, Dr Jabin Jacob, Associate Professor, Shiv Nadar University, focussed on smaller nations affected by the Belt and Road Initiative and the responses by the Chinese government. Chairperson Dr TCA Raghavan, DG, ICWA, summarised the session by observing that the actions of regional states cannot be categorised as malicious but are rather reactions to Indian and Chinese policies over time.

    Session Three: India’s Strategic Interests in the IOR

                In the final session of the day, speakers discussed maritime security, power projections and evolving ties with littoral states in the region.  The session was chaired by Vice Admiral Shekhar Sinha (retd), Trustee, India Foundation. Cmde Somen Bannerjee, of Vivekananda International Foundation, pointed out in his paper titled “Maritime Security and Power Projections” that China is set to become the biggest power in the IOR in the next fifteen years. He also discussed the need for India to strategize power projection as a necessary course of action in order to secure importance on the global stage.  Through his paper, “Strategic Partnerships: India & ASEAN”, Ambassador Antonio Chiang brought to attention the strategic partnership between Taiwan and China, and the implications of China’s rise to power on Taiwan. Group Captain PB Nair spoke about the role of the Indian Air Force (IAF) in the context of the IOR, providing assistance in navigating sea routes, and the significance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology in carrying out sea operations.

    Day Two: Panel Discussion on India’s Approaches in the IOR

                Day Two commenced with a panel discussion on India’s strategic approaches in the IOR, its aspirations and the contradictions. The panel consisted of Dr TCA Raghavan, Ambassador Antonio Chiang, Lt Gen S.L. Narasimhan, Cmde Uday Bhaskar and Professor Kanti Bajpai. The session, moderated by Air Marshal M Matheswaran, addressed three main points: the power struggle in Asia, India’s inadequate investment with regard to being a rising power, and India’s engagement with multilateral institutions.

                The discussion focussed on the ramifications of Chinese economic power and military strength in the region, its effect on India’s policies, as well as the need for utilization of soft power and soft balancing techniques by smaller countries to level the international playing field.

                With regard to India’s investment activities, Dr TCA Raghavan mentioned that ineptness in domestic spheres would spill over and reflect in international projects.

                On the topic of India’s engagement in multilateral institutions, Professor Kanti Bajpai noted that while it cannot be said that India doesn’t deliver, there is a certain level of ambiguity about what the expectations are. The delay in finalising the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was discussed; Lt Gen S L Narasimhan explored the reason behind India’s hesitancy to the agreement, stating that RCEP only covered the free movement of goods and not of services. Thus, India being a service-strong nation would be at a disadvantage.

                With regard to China’s technological advancements and its potential economic superpower status, Ambassador Chiang stated that intellectual power would be a game-changer for India. He noted that China resorts to hard and fast action for solving problems as opposed to the kind of strategic decision-making employed by India.

    Session Four: International Cooperation and Global Commons

                Session Four of the conference was chaired by Dr Joshua Thomas, Deputy Director at the North Eastern Regional Centre of the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR). The first speaker, Dr Suba Chandran, spoke on the topic of “Cultural Legacies & Competing Zones of Influence: India, China and External Powers.” His talk addressed two questions: who the actors are and their nature of influence, and how India can respond.  Embracing our shared religious and cultural history and strengthening the education system in India were among the measures suggested by Dr Chandran to build bridges and enable India to assume a more central position of power in the region. Rear Admiral S Shrikande presented a paper on the subject of “International Institutions: SLOCs, Chokepoints, Freedom of Navigation”, and shared insights on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The final speaker of the session, Rear Admiral K Swaminathan, spoke on India’s role as a net security provider in the region, and mentioned several instances of the Indian Navy providing assistance to neighbours in times of need and contributing to preserving international security. While Dr Chandran spoke about cultural connectivity across countries in the IOR through a ‘Bring East Policy’, the naval officers emphasised on the need for connectivity, capacity and credibility in the international sphere.

    Session Five: Transnational Issues, Threats and Challenges in the IOR

                In his paper titled “International and Regional Cooperation in Disaster Management”, Air Vice Marshal Ashutosh Dixit underlined the vital role played by the UN and Armed forces in mitigating the risks of disasters. While the UN plays a multifaceted role of being the interface between local and international responders, it is most often the armed forces that promptly and efficiently mobilize resources to the disaster-struck nation, as their reach has no limitations. Dr Arabinda Acharya, Associate Professor, National Defense University, Washington DC, in his paper “Non Traditional Security Threats: Piracy, Maritime Terrorism, Climate Change, Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing, Illegal Immigration, and Smuggling of Arms and Drugs” explored challenges to good order at sea and proposed investment in resources to thwart non-state actors on land so as to reduce their power at sea. Through his paper, “India and the Blue Economy: Evolving Partnerships,” Dr R P Pradhan, Associate Professor at BITS Pilani, Goa Campus, emphasised the critical role of the Big Push Theory in developing the blue economy. Investing in strategic assets such as seaports similar to China, Indonesia, South Korea, etc. is vital for realising India’s aspirations for a larger role in the region. In his closing remarks, Lt General SL Narasimhan, Director General, Centre for Contemporary Chinese Studies, Ministry of External Affairs, emphasised the need for states and regional organizations to collaborate rather than compete in order to address challenges that transcend national borders.

                Lastly, in his valedictory address, Dr TCA Raghavan identified crucial points with respect to the theme of the conference, including the difference between military and diplomatic thinking, and strategic and tactical strength. Dr Raghavan stressed the need for developing dialogue forums and intergovernmental organisations in the Arabian Sea littoral with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran, among others, to focus on pressing issues in the region.

    [sc name=”donte”]

  • TPF Conference India and the Indian Ocean Region

    TPF Conference India and the Indian Ocean Region

    TPF Conference

    “India and the Indian Ocean Region: Dynamics of Geopolitics, Security, and Global Commons”

    Venue: WCC, Chennai

    Registration

    08:15 to 09:00

    Speakers

    Inaugural Session (9:00 to 10:45)

    dr-lilian-i-jasper
    Dr Lilian Jasper

    Principal, WCC, Chennai

    Dr Lilian Jasper
    Welcome Address
    air-marshal-m-matheswaran-avsm-vm-phd-retd
    Air Marshal M Matheswaran

    President, The Peninsula Foundation, Chennai

    Air Marshal M Matheswaran AVSM VM PhD (Retd)
    Presidential Address and Overview
    ashok-kumar
    Vice Admiral Ashok Kumar

    AVSM VSM Vice Chief Of Naval Staff HQ

    Vice Admiral Ashok Kumar AVSM VSM Vice Chief of Naval Staff
    Inaugural Address

    Prof Kanti Bajpai

    LKYS of Public Policy, NUS, Singapore

    Prof Kanti Bajpai
    Key Note Address

    COFFEE BREAK

    10:45 to 11:10

    Special Lecture 11:15 to 12:00

    Dr. Padma Subrahmanyam, Padma Bhushan awardee/Classical Dancer
    India’s Art & Culture in IOR

    Session I (12:00 to 13:30)

    Cmde Uday Bhaskar (Retd) – Director, Society for Policy Studies, New Delhi

    Indian Ocean: Culture, Civilizations and Connectivity

    Mrs G Padmaja – Former Regional Director, National Maritime Foundation, Vizag

    Topic: Historical and Cultural Dynamism of the Indian Ocean

    Dr. Vijay Sakhuja – Trustee, The Peninsula Foundation, Chennai

    Topic: Cargos and Commodities: Then and Now

    Dr. D Dhanuraj – Chairman, Centre for Public Policy Resrarch. Cochin

    Topic: Impact of Trade and Migration Flows: Past and Present

    LUNCH BREAK

    13:00 to 14:15

    Session II (14:15 to 15:45)

    Dr. TCA Raghavan – Director General, Indian Council for World Affairs, New Delhi

    Power Politics in IOR: Geostrategies and Geo-economics

    Dr Lawrence Prabhakar – Associate Professor, Madras Christian College, Chennai

    Topic: Competing Pivots: China, US, Japan, Russia, India and the EU

    Dr Arvind Kumar – HOD, Department of Geopolitics, Manipal University

    Topic: Geopoltics of Energy in the IOR

    Dr Jabin Jacob – Associate Professor, Shiv Nadar University, Noida

    Topic: China’s BRI: Contrasting Responses

    COFFEE BREAK

    15:45 to 16:00

    Session III (16:00 to 17:30)

    Vice Admiral Shekhar Sinha (Retd)- Trustee, India Foundation, New Delhi

    India’s Strategic Interests in the IOR- Maritime Security, Power Projections and Evolving Partnerships

    Cmde Somen Bannerjee – Senior Fellow, Vivekananda International Foundation, New Delhi

    Topic: India’s Maritime Security and Power Projection

    Amb Antonio Chiang – Policy Advisor to the President; Board Director, Institute for National Defence and Security Research

    Topic: Strategic Partnerships: India and ASEAN

    Group Captain PB Nair – Directing Staff, Defence Services Staff College, Wellington

    Topic: Air and Space: Dimension of India’s IOR Strategy

    End of Day 1 – 17:30

    Network Dinner (By Invitation)

    19:30 to 22:00

    Gold Sponsors

    Event Sponsors

    Speakers

    Panel Discussion (9:00 to 11:00)

    Topic – India’s Strategic Approaches in IOR: Between Aspirations and Contradictions

    Moderator

    Air Marshal M Matheswaran AVSM VM PhD (Retd)

    Prof Kanti Bajpai – Panelist

    Dr TCA Raghavan – Panelist

    Amb Antonio Chiang – Panelist

    Lt Gen SL Narasimhan – Panelist

    Cmde Uday Bhaskar – Panelist

    COFFEE BREAK

    11:00 to 11:15

    Session IV (11:15 to 12:45)

    Dr. Joshua Thomas – Deputy Director, ICSSR, NERC, Shillong

    International Cooperation and Global Commons

    Dr Suba Chandran – Professor and Dean, School of Conflict and Security Studies, NIAS, Bangalore

    Topic: Cultural Legacies and Competing for Zones of Influence: India, China and External Powers

    Rear Adm S Shrikande AVSM (Retd) – Goa

    Topic: International Institutions: SLOCs, Chokepoints, Freedom of Navigation

    Rear Adm K Swaminathan – FOST, Southern Naval Command, Cochin

    Topic: India’s Ability to Provide Net Security and Balance Global Public Goods

    LUNCH BREAK

    12:45 to 13:45

    Session V (13:45 to 15:15)

    Lt Gen SL Narasimhan – Director General, Centre for Contemporary Chinese Studies, MEA

    Transnational Issues, Threats and Challenges in the IOR

    Dr R P Pradhan – Associate Professor, BITS, Goa

    Topic: India and the Blue Economy: Evolving Partnerships

    Dr Arabinda Acharya – Associate Professor, International relarions, NDU, Washington

    Topic: Non Traditional Security Threats: Piracy, Maritime Terrorism, Climate Change, Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing, Illegal Immigration, and Smuggling of Arms and Drugs

    AVM Ashutosh Dixit – AD Commander HQ, Southern Air Command, IAF, Trivandrum

    Topic: International and Regional Cooperation in Disaster Management

    COFFEE BREAK

    15:15 to 15:30

    Valedictory Session (15:30 to 17:00)

    Air Marshal M Matheswaran AVSM VM PhD (Retd) – Chairman and President, The Peninsula Foundation, Chennai

    Topic: President’s Introduction

    Dr TCA Raghavan, IFS (Retd) – Director General, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi

    Topic: Valedictory Address

    Brigadier Albert Pakianathan VSM and Bar – Director- Research and Admin, The Peninsula Foundation, Chennai

    Topic: Vote of Thanks

    View Event Gallery

    [sc name=”donte”]