Events | Page 83

Fourth MEA-IISS-IDSA Foreign Policy Dialogue’ on the theme ‘Towards Stability in Asia’ November 21, 2011 Conference

Venue: IDSA Auditorium

Press Release

Programme

09:40-10:00 hrs: Arrival of Participants; Tea/Coffee served

Inaugural Session
10:00-10:10 hrs: Welcome Remarks by Director General, IDSA
10:10-10:40 hrs: Keynote Address by Foreign Secretary Mr. Ranjan Mathai
10:40-11:10 hrs: Discussion

11:10-11.30 hrs: Tea/Coffee Break

11:30-13:00 hrs: Session 1: Asymmetric Warfare and International Security
Chair: Dr. Arvind Gupta, Lal Bahadur Shastri Chair, IDSA
IISS Speaker: Mr. Nigel Inkster, IISS Director of Transnational Threats & Political Risk
Indian Speaker: Dr. S. Kalyanaraman, Research Fellow, IDSA

13:00-14:00 hrs: Working Lunch

14:00-15:30 hrs: Session 2: Towards Stability in Pakistan & Afghanistan?
Chair: Amb. Yash Sinha, Joint Secretary (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran), MEA
Indian Speaker: Dr. Ashok Behuria, Research Fellow, IDSA
IISS Speaker: Brig. (Retd.) Ben Barry, IISS Senior Fellow for Land Warfare

15:30-16:00 hrs: Tea/Coffee Break

16:00-17:30 hrs: Session 3: Engaging a Rising China
Chair: Mr. Gautam Bambawale, Joint Secretary (East Asia), MEA
IISS Speaker: Mr. Adam Ward, IISS Director of Studies
Indian Speaker: Dr. C. Raja Mohan, Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research

17:30-17:45 hrs: Concluding Remarks
by Amb. Pinak Chakravarty, Special Secretary (Public Diplomacy), MEA
by Mr. Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, IISS Senior Fellow for South Asia

Rapporteur Report

Second YB Chavan Memorial Lecture – India and China: Can the Giants of Asia Cooperate? November 30, 2011 Kanti Bajpai 1630 hrs Speeches and Lectures

Chairperson: His Excellency, Shri N N Vohra, Governor of Jammu & Kashmir

Programme

1630-1635 hrs
Welcome Address by Dr Arvind Gupta, Lal Bahadur Shastri Chair, IDSA

1635-1640 hrs
Address by Representative of Yashwantrao Chavan Pratishthan, Mumbai

1640-1725 hrs
Talk by Prof Kanti Bajpai on “India and China:Can the Giants of Asia Cooperate?”

1725-1730 hrs Observations by Shri NN Vohra

1730-1800 hrs Question and Answer Session

1800 hrs Vote of Thanks by Cdr Sarabjeet Parmar, Research Fellow, IDSA

1805 hrs Refreshments

First India- Africa Strategic Dialogue November 24, 2011 to November 25, 2011 Conference

Click here to download Concept Note

Click here for Event Report

Programme

November 24, 2011, Thursday

0945h-1015h: Registration

1015h-1045h: Inaugural Session
1015h-1025h: Welcome Remarks by Dr Arvind Gupta, Lal Bahadur Shastri Chair, IDSA
1025h-1040h: Inaugural Address by Shri M Ganapathi, Secretary (West), Ministry of External Affairs
1040h-1045h: Vote of Thanks by Ms Ruchita Beri, Senior Research Associate, IDSA
1045h-1115h: High Tea

1115h-1245h: Session 1: Global Strategic Issues

Chair: Shri Shashank, Former Foreign Secretary, MEA
Speakers:
Prof Abednego Edho Ekoko, Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria
Dr Arvind Gupta, Lal Bahadur Shastri Chair, IDSA

Discussion/Q&A

1245h-1400h: Lunch

1400h-1545h: Session 2: Regional Issues – UN Peacekeeping and Prospects of Conflict Resolution
Chair: Shri HHS Vishwanathan, Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation
Speakers:
Mr Festus K Aubyn, Senior Research Fellow, Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping and Training Center (KAIPTC), Ghana
Gen (Retd) Satish Nambiar, Distinguished Fellow, IDSA
Discussion/Q&A

1545h-1600h: Tea

1600h-1730h: Session 3: Regional Issues – Piracy
Chair: Vice Admiral (Retd) Pradeep Kaushiva, Director, National Maritime Foundation
Speakers:
Mr Richard Barno, Senior Researcher and Policy Advisor, IGAD Capacity Building Program Against Terrorism (ICPAT), Ethiopia
Cdr S S Parmar, Research Fellow, IDSA
Discussion/Q&A

November 25, 2011, Friday

0930h- 1100h: Session 4: Bilateral Issues – Economic
Chair: Ambassador V B Soni, Chairman, Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Speakers:
Ms Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, National Director, South African Institute of International Affairs, South Africa
Dr Sachin Chaturvedi, Senior Fellow, Research and Information System for Developing Countries
Discussion/Q&A

1100h-1115h: Tea

1115h-1300h: Session 5: Bilateral Issues – Security
Chair: Ambassador R Rajagopalan, Member, Executive Council, IDSA
Speakers:
Prof Paul Musili Wambua, University of Nairobi School of Law
Ms Ruchita Beri, Senior Research Associate, IDSA Discussion/Q&A

1300h-1400h: Lunch

1400h-1530h: Session 6: Bilateral Issues – Diaspora
Chair: Shri J C Sharma, Former Secretary, MEA
Speakers:
Prof Phillip O Nyinguro, University of Nairobi, Kenya
Prof Sanjukta Bhattacharya, Jadavpur University, Kolkata
Discussion/Q&A

1530h-1545h: Tea

1545h-1730h: Panel Discussion: India-Africa Strategic Partnership: Way Forward
Chair: Shri Vivek Katju, Former Secretary, MEA
Speakers:
Ms Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, National Director, South African Institute of International Affairs, South Africa
Prof Abednego Edho Ekoko, Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria
Shri HHS Vishvanathan, Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation
Prof S N Malakar, Chairperson, Centre for African Studies, JNU
Ms Ruchita Beri, Senior Research Associate, IDSA
Discussion/Q&A

Africa, Latin America, Caribbean & UN 5th South Asia Conference: Cooperative Security Framework for South Asia November 15, 2011 to November 16, 2011 Conference

Concept Note

In an era of globalization, countries are facing enormous and multifaceted challenges. Incidents in a particular region of the world have trans-national ramifications. As a result, a single country cannot face the challenges effectively without the support or cooperation of other countries. What makes the situation even more daunting is the expanding scope of security, and the interconnection between traditional and non-traditional security concerns. The complex security situation around the world has compelled many countries in different regions of the world (for example, Europe and South East Asia) to adopt a cooperative security framework (CSF) to fight common challenges together. Of late, there has been some realization about the need to evolve a cooperative security framework in South Asia with the emergence of common challenges in the region. For example, Pakistan, which was hesitating to act against terror, has itself become a victim of it and displayed its willingness to be part of a common regional effort to fight terror under SAARC. The impact of climate change (flash floods, tsunami, drought, sub-continental cyclone, rising of sea levels in the Indian Ocean) has become so severe that the countries in the region are now working towards a common platform to mitigate that. However, no serious efforts have yet been made towards the evolution of a “cooperative security framework (CSF)” in South Asia.

Since the end of the cold war, some debates and discussions have taken place in the region on this theme. Available literature focusing on challenges argue that the notion of cooperative security in South Asia has not taken roots due to the following factors: absence of an external aggressor, peculiar geographical situation, historical baggage, fear of gradual Indianisation of the sub-continent, lack of trust amongst the countries in the region, perpetual enmity between India and Pakistan and last, but not least, the non-alignment movement in the 1950s. While the cold war contributed to and sharpened the process of regional cooperation in Europe and South East Asia, it fomented instability in the South Asian region. Instead of working together and developing a regional outlook, India’s neighbours have sometimes chosen to rely on external powers to augment their security. Efforts to tackle issues of common concern in a collective and cooperative manner were held hostage to mutual mistrust which also led sometimes to inter-state conflicts.

Some scholars have observed that SAARC could be the right platform towards this endeavor. Certain steps have already been taken. For instance, during the SAARC 2004 summit a resolution whereby terrorism could be discussed within the ambit of SAARC was passed. Progress on SAFTA and the India-Pakistan dialogue held on the sidelines of various SAARC summits also suggest that SAARC could be the right platform. However, others have observed that SAARC is inherently incapable of being a substituting for a much-needed common cooperative security architecture in South Asia. It does not deal with regional security issues and therefore it has focused only on non-traditional security issues. Most importantly, the debate on the CSF in South Asia is mostly centered on the problems between India and Pakistan and other issues are usually neglected. Much of the literature argues for the evolution of a comprehensive security system, which could provide a mechanism for identification of issues and challenges in the region. They do not talk about the need for any institutional mechanism for ensuring cooperative security in the region.

While the concept of collective security and collective self-defence evolved during the cold war era with the objective of mitigating traditional security concerns of states, concepts like common security, comprehensive security, and human security, mostly came to the fore in the post cold war period by bringing traditional and non-traditional security (NTS) issues together in international politics. Cooperative security as it is understood puts emphasis on interdependence and cooperation both at intra- and inter-regional levels.

Radical political changes have taken place in South Asia after the cold war. Almost all countries have adopted democratic structures and are making efforts to check the influence of non-democratic forces in their societies. Two major internal security challenges, i.e., the LTTE and Maoist insurgency in Nepal, have been, more or less, resolved. Except Pakistan and Afghanistan, other conflict theatres in South Asia are relatively under control. Terrorism has surfaced as a common challenge for all countries in the region, including Pakistan. Economic relations between South Asian countries, except between India-Pakistan, have improved. India is inviting its neighbours to participate in its growing economy and benefit from it. It has expressed its willingness to engage Pakistan despite subversive activities with known cross-border linkages. The fact remains that in spite of all this a workable cooperative security framework, which could enable regional cooperation on an expanding range of security issues, is yet to be developed.

However, with such positive political transformation taking place in different countries, the region might be at the cross-roads of a major change. The objective of the conference is to discuss various concepts relating to cooperative security, critically analyse such frameworks in different regions and explore whether it is possible and practicable in the South Asian region.

The 5th South Asian Conference being organised by the IDSA this year aims to bring together scholars, experts and analysts to reflect on the issues related to the prospects of evolution of a cooperative security framework in South Asia. Following research questions will be discussed in the various sessions of the conference.

1. What is the status of debate on cooperative security architecture in South Asia and what are the various concepts related to it?
2. What are the enabling factors for the emergence of a cooperative security framework in South Asia? What are the common challenges confronting the states and what steps they are taking at the individual and collective level to meet them?
3. Given the history of conflict and cooperation in South Asia, is it practical to expect that South Asian states can evolve a cooperative security frame work in the region? What are the factors inhibiting progress towards cooperative security framework despite positive changes in the region and at the global level?
4. What role can SAARC play to enable an effective dialogue on cooperative security in south Asia? Will Track-II initiatives be of any help?
5. What are the existing models of cooperative security in different regions of the world? What model would be appropriate for South Asia?

Programme Schedule

Day 1- Tuesday, 15 November 2011
0900 – 0930	Registration Ground Floor of IDSA
0930 – 1000	Inaugural Session
	Opening remarks	Shri N S Sisodia, DG, IDSA
	Book release and Inauguration	Shri A K Antony, Hon’ble Raksha Mantri
	Vote of Thanks	Dr Arvind Gupta, LBSC, IDSA
1000 – 1030	Tea
Session I: 1030 – 1300 hrs Is there a need for cooperative security framework in South Asia? This session will focus on the concept of cooperative security in South Asia and will also explore the need of cooperative security architecture in South Asia context Chair: N. S. Sisodia
Security Architecture in South Asia: Conceptual Parameters		S. D. Muni
New Opportunities for Populous Asia		Shahid Javed Burki
Cooperative Security Framework in South Asia: A Bangladesh Perspective		Farooq Sobhan
Maritime Security Cooperation in South Asia: A Maldivian Perspective		Ahmed Shaheed
Prospects of Cooperative Security Framework for Afghanistan		Daoud Sultanzoy
Cooperative Security Framework for South Asia: A Sri Lankan Perspective		W. I. Siriweera
	Question and Answer
1300 – 1400	Lunch
Session II: 1400 – 1630 Security Challenges for South Asia: Traditional and Non-Traditional Security What are the key non-traditional security challenges to South Asia? How do these impact South Asian securities as a whole?  What is the nature of interaction between non-traditional security and traditional security? Chair: I P Khosla
Should India and Pakistan Look Beyond Indus Water Treaty? Why and How?		Shaista Tabassum
A Cooperative Security Framework – Environment and Climate Change		PK Gautam
Non-Traditional Security in Afghanistan		Saifullah Ahmadzai
Cooperative Security Framework for South Asia: Economic Development and Regional Integration		Dushni Weerakoon
Climate Change Security: A Case Study from Bhutan		Chhimi Dorzi
Engaging ‘Water’ in South Asia: Is Cooperative Security Plausible?		Medha Bisht
	Question and Answer
Day II – Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Session 1: 0930 – 1300 hrs Is cooperative security feasible in South Asia? Given the history of conflict and cooperation in South Asia, what are the challenges to evolving a cooperative security framework for South Asia? What are the possible models? Are they feasible? How to realize them? Chair-Tan Tai Yong
Regional Integration in South Asia: Possibility or Pipe Dream		Srinath Raghavan
Cooperative Security in South Asia: Prospects and Challenges		Rajan Bhattarai
Cooperative on Maritime Security in South Asia		Chaminda Dilhanake Hettiarachchi
Does South Asia Need a Cooperative security Architecture?		Smruti S Pattanaik and Nihar Nayak
Cooperative Security in South Asia: An Elusive Dream or the Need of Hour		Mahwish Hafeez
	Question and Answer
1300 – 1400	Lunch
Session II (Panel Discussion): 1400 – 1600 hrs The Way Ahead 1400 – 1600                Panel discussion What are the mechanisms? Panelist will give their views on how they see the way forward. They will also interact with audience. Chair- S. D. Muni
Daoud Sultanzoy – Afghanistan Shahid Zaved Burki – Pakistan Farooq Sobhan – Bangladesh Anjoo Sharan Upadhyaya – India Hla Than Moung- Myanmar
1600 – 1610	Vote of Thanks
1610 – 1620	Tea

South Asia South Asia Conference Internal Security Lecture Series – Kashmir : The Present and The Future October 12, 2011 Wajahat Habibullah Speeches and Lectures Terrorism & Internal Security Video Internal Security Lecture Series – Manipur : The Way Out September 26, 2011 G.K. Pillai Speeches and Lectures

September 26, 2011

Terrorism & Internal Security Video US Nuclear Weapons Policy and Practice in the Shadow of 9/11 August 26, 2011 S. Samuel C. Rajiv Fellows’ Seminar

Event: Fellows Seminar

Chairperson: Ambassador Arundhati Ghose
Discussants: Professor Jeffrey Legro and Dr. Manpreet Sethi

The paper is an attempt to explore US nuclear weapons policy and practice in the shadow of 9/11. In the first part of his presentation, Rajiv provided an examination of the major US national strategy and nuclear policy documents after 9/11 and their policy prescriptions regarding the ‘twin threats’ of proliferation and terrorism. Among the documents he examined included 2002 National Security Strategy, 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), 2006 US National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, 2006 National Military Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, 2008 National Security and Nuclear Weapons in 21st Century, QDR 2010, and NPR 2010. Citing pertinent portions of these documents, he stated that they reinforce the importance of nuclear deterrence in US grand strategy and the imperative need to fine-tune its defence capabilities to face the twin threats. He noted that new type of weaponry was sought be developed such as conventional-cum-nuclear ‘bunker-busters’ to tackle the challenges posed by underground facilities (UGF’s). Other strategic innovations included transforming nuclear weapon platforms like the 4 Ohio-class SSBN’s to perform conventional roles and Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) which envisages the use of ICBM’s tipped with conventional warheads to strike high-value “time-sensitive targets” as incoming Defence Secretary Panetta noted.

Rajiv then points out that while the initial policy response to the twin challenges of proliferation and terrorism by US was to strengthen/fine-tune its deterrence postures, there has been a reduction in its arms control/disarmament obligations. In this context, Rajiv provided relevant details about BMD, FMCT and CTBT across US administrations since 9/11. The latter two have however been put on the front-burner as it were by the Obama administration but it remains to be seen what progress can be achieved. Subsequently, Rajiv provided an assessment of the reductions in US nuclear arsenals – including in warheads and strategic delivery vehicles (SDV’s). He pointed out the analyses by Hans Christensen and others about the role of negative security assurances (NSA’s) and nuclear targeting war plans on the size of the arsenal. In this context, he pointed out that the US for the first time in NPR 2010 pledged that it will “continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attack.” The document however states that “there remains a narrow range of contingencies in which US nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring a conventional or CBW attack against the United States or its allies and partners.”

In the last part of his presentation, Rajiv discussed pertinent aspects relating to US policy initiatives at the bilateral and multi-lateral levels to deal with the ‘twin threats’, such as PSI, 2006 Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT), G8 Global Partnership Initiative, Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI), Obama’s chairing of the Special Session of the UN Security Council in September 2009 – the first by any American president that resulted in UNSC Resolution 1887, April 2010 Global Summit on Nuclear Security, and the entry into force of New START.

Rajiv concluded his presentation by noting that despite significant reductions in the numbers of US nuclear warheads during the decade after 9/11, coupled with continuing successful bilateral and multilateral efforts to secure vulnerable material and prevent terrorists from acquiring WMD material/know-how, there has not been a concomitant reduction in the ‘role’ of nuclear weapons in US grand strategy and that there are limited prospects of any change in the foreseeable future.

Points of discussion and suggestions

• The paper is a sharp-edged critique of US nuclear weapons policy but could be improved with beefed up analyses and assessment of some of the issues involved. Aspects relating to ‘role’ can be further delineated into ‘centrality’ and ‘dimensions’ of nuclear use for greater clarity.
• The author can more closely look at whether there has been an evolution/change in US nuclear weapons policy as a result of 9/11 and examine specifically those aspects where these changes have/have not occurred. The author’s own assessment of his reading of US nuclear weapons policy can be expanded.
• A distinction could be drawn between ‘nuclear weapons policy’ and ‘nuclear policy’. If the former, aspects relating to FMCT, CTBT, and US policy activism at bilateral and multi-lateral fora may not be included.
• It would appear that Obama has succumbed to the nuclear weapons establishment with regards to arms control and disarmament.
• The increasing linkages of conventional weapons policy on nuclear weapons policy needs to be highlighted, especially in the light of the fact that US has superior conventional power/assets at its disposal.
• The author can look more closely at the debates on US nuclear weapons policy in the aftermath of 9/11 to provide a better context and set the tone for the rest of the paper.
• An examination of the alternative explanations regarding role of nuclear weapons in US grand strategy, the challenges that US has faced in implementing some of its policies, could be better highlighted.
• The mismatch between US policy objectives and practice can be highlighted. This is especially visible in the context of US relationship with Pakistan and in US efforts to secure vulnerable material worldwide, most recently highlighted by the case of Belarus refusing to honour its commitments to return material to the US in the face of economic sanctions.
• In his response, Rajiv thanked the Chairperson and the Discussants and participation from the floor for the valuable comments and suggestions and promised to incorporate them as much as feasible while finalising the paper.

Report prepared by Sanjeev Kumar Shrivatsav, Researcher at IDSA.

Forum on Hi-Tech Defence Innovation July 14, 2011 Round Table

Programme

0930-0945 hrs

Opening remarks: Shri N.S. Sisodia, Director General, IDSA
Inauguration: Air Vice Marshal M. Matheswaran AVSM VM PhD, ACAS OPS (Space)

0945-1130 hrs

Panel 1: Government: MOD, Armed Forces & DRDO

Chair: Air Vice Marshal M. Matheswaran AVSM VM PhD. ACAS OPS (Space)

Tri-Services Perspective: Air Vice Marshal M. Bahadur, VM, ACIDS (WSOI), Integrated Defence Staff HQs, Ministry of Defence

Presentation: Dr. G. Balachandran, Distinguished Fellow, IDSA

Panelists

• Shri Gyanesh Kumar, Joint Secretary (Shipyards), Ministry of Defence
• Commodore R.K. Rana, Principal Director, Integrated HQs of Ministry of Defence (Navy), Directorate of Indigenisation
• Shri Manik Mukherjee, Director G-Fast, Scientist G
• Major General (Ret) P. K. Chakravorty, VSM, Advisor, Strategic Studies, Brahmos, DRDO
• Brig. Gurmeet Kanwal, Director and CEO, CLAWS
• Anit Mukherjee, Fellow, IDSA

Q & A

1130: Tea break

1145-1300 hrs

Panel 2: Industry

Chair: Shri Gyanesh Kumar, Joint Secretary (Shipyards), Ministry of Defence

Panelists

• Shri Anjan Mukherjee, CEO, HyCa Technologies Pvt Ltd.
• Shri Ashok Kanodia, MD & Chairman of Precision Electronics
• Shri Rajinder Bhatia, CEO Defence, Bharat Forge
• Shri Rahul Chowdhury, CEO Tata Power Strategic Electronics Division
• Shri Bharat Singh, Deputy Director General DG / OF Board
• Mr. Sanjay K Agarwal, Group Managing Director, CbS Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
• Dr. M. Venkatraman, Vice President Essar Steel
• Shri Ajai Shukla, Defence Correspondent, Business Standard
• Shri A.S. Pundle, Advisor, Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers Association

1300-1330 hrs – Lunch break

1330-1430 hrs

Panel 2: Industry (continued)

Chair: Dr. Rajiv Kumar, Director General FICCI

Q & A

1430-1530 hrs

Panel 3: International comparisons

Chair: Ambassador Prabhat Shukla, former Ambassador to Russia
International Speaker: Prof Tai Ming Cheung: “Catching Up in Defence Innovation: The Lessons From China and other Late Industrializers”

1530-1630 hrs

Panel 4: Education and Brainstorming on Final Recommendations and Action Plan

Chair: Ambassador Prabhat Shukla

• Is the Indian educational system nurturing innovation?
• Reforms/action suggested

Speakers:

• Dr Anil Wali, CEO, Foundation for Innovation and Technology Transfer, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
• All participants
• Wrapping up – Smita Purushottam, Senior Fellow and Joint Secretary (MEA)

1630 hrs

Closing address: Dr. V. Bhujanga Rao, Ph.D., FNAE, FAEFCT, CC R & D (HR), DRDO

Oil Factor in India – Nigeria Relations July 29, 2011 Ruchita Beri 1030 to 1300 hrs Fellows’ Seminar Africa, Latin America, Caribbean & UN Reforming India’s Defence Acquisition Structure and Procedures July 22, 2011 Laxman Kumar Behera Fellows’ Seminar

Chairperson: Shri N S Sisodia
Discussants: Shri V K Misra, Shri Amit Cowshish and Shri Ranjan Kumar Ghose

Laxman Kumar Behera’s paper examines the structural and procedural weaknesses afflicting India’s defence acquisition system. In particular the paper focuses on three issues: acquisition planning, ii) accountability in acquisition, and iii) formulation of features of weapons system. According to Behera these three crucial factors have received least or half-hearted reforms. In the paper, he argues that for expeditious acquisition, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) needs to overcome these weaknesses.

In his presentation, he began with the Bofors controversy that according to him set the foundation of India’s defence acquisition system which was again got the boost by the recommendations of the Group of Ministers (GoM) and subsequent procedural reforms. He was of the view that the Bofors controversy was a watershed in the India’s procurement history not because it had significant political cost to the then Central government, but because it stimulated a massive public debate on defence acquisition issues. The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), which was instituted by the government under the Chairmanship of B Shankaranand, did an extensive inquiry into the then Army’s existing procedures for procurement and key decisions involved in Bofors purchase. Behera said that although the JPC did not point out any serious deviations from then existing procedures followed by the Army and other stake-holders, it nonetheless brought into open several practices which were prone to subjective interpretations, and subsequent charges and counter charges. One such practice was the non-requirement of formulation of General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQRs) for the weapons procured from abroad.

Mr Behera noted that following the recommendations of the GoM, which was set up to review the national security in its entirety and the recommendations of the Kargil Review Committee (KRC) in particular, the government initiated the process which led to the creation of present procurement organisation, consisting of five main bodies such as i) Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), ii) Defence Procurement Board (DPB), iii) Defence Production Board, iv) Defence Research and Development Board, and v) Acquisition Wing. With the setting up of defence procurement organisation, the MoD has also undertaken periodic review of the procurement procedures. Till now the MoD has carried out six rounds of major revisions, with the Defence Procurement Procedures DPP-2011(DPP-2011) being the latest in the series. He held that the changes in the DPPs have created a streamlined system that is now much more methodical, objective and process-oriented.

Behera argued that despite MoD’s reform measures undertaken so far, the acquisition process has not moved at the desired pace. This is evident from repeated surrender of funds under the capital head of defence budget, much of which is accounted for under the modernisation/acquisition head meant for procurement of ‘big-ticket’ items such as tanks, fighter, submarines, frigates, radars and missiles among others. Moreover, the delays and cost-over run is also a matter of concern to national security, especially when India’s adversaries are acquiring capability at a faster pace.

In the presence dispensation, Mr Behera pointed out that the acquisition planning is a major handicap. The GoM’s idea behind creation of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) for a strong planning mechanism has been diluted in the set up of HQ IDS, which is constrained to force itself in articulating a truly integrated perspective plan for the three services, with due diligence towards capability development through inter-and intra-Service prioritisation, matching defence plan with available resources and hand-holding of domestic defence industry. Because of its lack of authority vis-à-vis COSC and due to the superiority of services chiefs over the CISC, the defence planning is constrained. The long term plan is also constrained in the absence of the resource commitment by the government. He said that in order to move towards a truly integrated perspective plan the creation of CDS is vital.

The paper argued that Qualitative Requirement (QR) formulation is concerned, which is the most vital part of the acquisition cycle, has not given required attention through out DPP’s nearly two-decades of operational history. The vital element is continues to be performed by Services personnel who are not trained to so such a specialised job..Moreover, the oversight of the vital part of acquisition is not so strong enough. Given the vitality of a QR in choosing the most cost-efficient selection in a time-bound manner, it is necessary that the job be performed by specialised body, preferably by an external agency. Given that the HQ IDS is tri-service body it would seem most logical that the function is transferred to it. However, the efficacy of HQ IDS would comeby its strong positioning vis-à-vis Services, which would come by putting a CDS as head its head.

Behera noted that contrary to the GoM’s recommendation for creation of “a separate and dedicated institutional structure to undertake the entire gamut of procurement function” what has been created is an Acquisition Wing which performs a part of acquisition functions. Several crucial functions having a strong bearing upon the cost and timeliness of procurement are being carried out beyond its command and control, thereby robbing the system of benefits of the single point of accountability. He pointed out that the organisational shortcoming in accountability has also not been compensated by the procedural means, both because of the professional shortcomings of acquisition functionaries and the lack of courage of the system to own up responsibility in cases which run into oversight problems. He stressed that given the importance of single-point accountability in the vital aspects of weapon procurement, it would be logical, as pointed out by GoM, to move towards an integrated procurement organisation.

Major Points of Discussion and Suggestions:

• Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) should be the principal authority for approval of acquisition plan of the services.
• The paper needs to define acquisition and differentiate it from procurement.
• There is misconception that the MoD is not utilising the money allocated to it. However, in recently years, the inability to spend money has changed. Now, it has even over-spent money allocated to it.
• So far as the 11th defence plan is concerned, there has been a marked improvements compared to previous plans. It is wrong not to cite in the paper the improvements in this regard.
• The level of infrastructure development in the country, R&D, and capacity building also need greater attention. In addition, there is need of a Defence Planning Board for the defence acquisition.
• The institutional structures further needs to be strengthened for better defence acquisition.
• It is not fair to compare India’s system with Pakistan’s acquisition system.
• The scholar rather needs to focus on how to strengthen the present structure and procedure of defence acquisition system.
• India is more dependent on Russian even for the maintenance of defence equipments. This should be changed in its present defence acquisition system.
• The present acquisition system is good but it needs further to be strengthened by way of more manpower.
• The Bofors case needs to be put in the right perspective; otherwise a wrong conclusion would be drawn.
• If one takes a comprehensive view of the defence acquisition system in recent years, things have improved very much.

Report prepared by Dr Saroj Bishoyi, Research Assistant, IDSA

Defence Economics & Industry