Maj General Dipankar Banerjee (Retd), Director, IPCS, welcomed the delegation to the Institute. This was followed by a brief response by General Donald G Cook who spoke briefly on the US Air War College. This was followed by an introduction of participants. The briefing consisted of five presentations in the following order.

An Overview of Indian Security Environment - Maj Gen Dipankar Banerjee

India's strategic environment can only be understood in the context of history and its geo-strategic location. India is centrally located atop a region spanning the Suez Canal, northern Indian Ocean and the Malacca Straits. India's strategic environment comprises this large area whose geo-strategic significance is great and growing. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this entire region was dominated by the British and the British Indian Army. British expeditions to Basra and even China and subsequent garrisons to Singapore and others were provided by India and comprised mainly Indian troops. Historically India has been vulnerable to large-scale invasions from the north-west particularly through Afghanistan. Pre-independence India was divided into some 600 small kingdoms, a few being as large as France while some merely small towns. This patchwork of states was allowed to exist till independence in order to allow the colonial power to maintain its hold over the country at minimum costs. At independence India was divided into two large entities viz., India and Pakistan, but India inherited both the name and the strategic mantle. After the independence of Bangladesh this became even more manifest.

Although, India's security environment has changed somewhat, there is still continuity in its geo-strategic interests which were pursued by British India. The only major difference in the post-independence era is the China factor. Sino-Indian relationship has undergone enormous changes. Though neighbours, India and China were separated by Tibet which acted as a buffer between the two nations and two civilizations. With Tibet's reoccupation by China in the 1950s this buffer was lost and brought them in to direct confrontation. Both nations are yet to grapple and deal with the consequences of this development. It also led to a major confrontation in 1962 which has imposed a territorial question in this relationship. Considering the geo-strategic and military significance of the region these issues need to be addressed urgently. This is largely happening, though not entirely satisfactorily. Sino-Indian relations need to mature and be resolved in the interests of both the countries and the world.

The bifurcation of India into Pakistan and India and later Bangladesh, split a single economic entity that was India, into three parts that ceased all economic cooperation amongst themselves. This termination of normal trade and economic cooperation left a deep impact on the whole South Asian system. The complexities of the partition can never be underestimated. Eventually, this breakup may have benefited India. The problem of assimilating such a diverse population, particularly given today's reality, would have indeed been a severe challenge.

There were internal instabilities in the initial period of nation-building. The insurgencies and the separatist movements existing in the country are the result of historical and cultural differences and the internal instabilities that characterized the early phases of nation-building. There was a separatist movement by the Nagas in the East. The Tamils in the southern part of the peninsula and other movements elsewhere developed rapidly. Many were socio-economic problems that develop into political questions. All these ideas of separatism have ultimately vanished, but it took a long time and enormous effort to bring about this national unity. In spite of serious differences, India and Pakistan makes consistent efforts to resolve their differences by virtue of their common historical and cultural ties.

Significant Strategic Imperatives

• To maintain territorial integrity. India is basically a status quo power and its strategic policy is primarily defensive. It has no outstanding territorial claims.

• To ensure internal cohesion within and forge a national identity maintaining the diverse traditions of its many peoples and identities. There is consensus that major challenges within need to be addressed not through force but by dialogue and discussion.

• Safeguard maritime interests. Seas are the lifelines of India. About 95 percent of its trade is sea-borne. Seas are also vital to meet the vast energy requirements of India. As India's GDP grows at 7 to 8 percent per annum, its energy requirements too will increase dramatically. This will severely challenge India's ability to maintain supply routes as well as seek additional supplies. Trilateral gas and oil pipe cooperation in the east as well as in the west are being arranged, which in turn will lead to regional cooperation.

• India has approximately 2 million square kms of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) which are of vital importance to our future economic needs. It is essential that it maintains an effective control over this area.

India's strategic posture is essentially defensive and dissuasive. Its military capabilities are meant to meet the challenges emerging from the North and the West that threatens its security. Its defence capabilities consist of a deterrent component that dissuades adversaries from launching an offensive on India. Adequate steps to counter new threats of terrorism have emerged over the last two decades as major challenges that constitutes today pivotal components of India's strategic posture.

India-China Relations - Ambassador C V Ranganathan

India is perceived as a regional power by the world community as well as by the Indians themselves. Its interests spread over a wide arc. This region is rich in resources and also a potential source of problems for India. The juxtaposition of India and China reveals that the interests of both nations intersect. In recent times, it is amazing how the international perception of the political and economic perception about India and China have been discussed. The two nations are perceived as the drivers of the Asian political economy as well as the global economy. In recent years, particularly after the development of China's policies in the reform era, there has been a change in its perception of India. China has no hesitation in referring to India as a hegemon. In December 1988, former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi visited China. This was followed by a series of high-level exchanges between India and China. Sino-Indian relations were marked by a greater sense of maturity, mutual concerns and a gradual rise of similar concerns to influence the international order. Greater salience has been shown in bilateral relationship. China has expressed deep concerns towards the Indo-Pakistan imbroglio and believes that the impasse can be resolved only through bilateral dialogue. This is a significant shift in Sino-Indian ties.

In recent years, China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have emerged as major trading partners. From an economic point of view this is of vital interest to India. The Asian picture is characterized by the emergence of multilateral organizations like the ASEAN and ARF where both India and China are members. They have learned to respect each other's interests in the region. At present, the big challenge for diplomacy is the resolution of India-Pakistan imbroglio. There has been a tremendous popular upsurge for a resolution of the Kashmir irritant and developing amity in Indo-Pakistan bilateral relations. This has been generously welcomed by China. Beijing is well aware of the fact that having two intractable neighbours will inevitably draw China into the conflict. Hence it is in the interest of China to encourage cordial relations between New Delhi and Islamabad.

The unique characteristic of the region is that the domestic problems of small neighbours become India's problems. The present trend in Pakistan is the opposite of moderation due to reasons of political and economic instabilities. Nepal's political system is characterized deeply by a high degree of capriciousness due to ideological differences prevailing in the country. The political system in Bangladesh is opposed to moderation. As a result, South Asia is marred by frequent instabilities. China is motivating for the solution of these problems through regional multilateral forums like SAARC. Effective multilateral regional organizations can lead to the establishment of a better world order.

Sino-Indian relations are inextricably linked with the United States. During the first administration of President George Bush a prevailing misperception was that America was strengthening India as counterpoise to China. This was a false expectation. The importance of China to India is self-evident. India has an equally vested interest in stable Sino-US relations.

India is also aware of the problem of proliferation in Asia. There are strong possibilities of proliferation from North Korea and Iran. As responsible powers, India, China and the US must undertake adequate steps to convince the international community that our region is not a source of proliferation.

Outstanding Problems

Sino-Indian relations are marked by territorial disputes. India lays claim to vast territories of land that is in the possession of China. These territories are of vital interest to India because of its water resources, population and strategic value. China has similar accusations against India. In spite of these differences, both sides have instituted enough CBMs since the 1990s to ensure peace and tranquility in the region. Hence the Sino-Indian border dispute though an important question is not an urgent question. Also it would be in US interest to promote good China-India relations. In South East Asia, India shares long borders with Myanmar, Bangladesh and Bhutan. This is of enormous interest to India considering the fact that New Delhi is seeking transit routes through these countries. Its salience is further increased because of the fact that China has invested enormous infrastructure projects for development of Yunan and Xinjiang. India and China can benefit immensely from this region if there is enough connectivity between them. Developments of roads and rail will facilitate the provision of gas and energy requirements not only to India and China but also to the international community. It is a bold item in our agenda that has to be supported by both powers. India has a vision for larger connectivity in Asia and is trying to build on this.

Jammu & Kashmir Situation: An Overview - Prof P R Chari

I will begin by making three points on Jammu & Kashmir.

• J&K is one of the most important hotspots in the world, the other being Palestine.

• J&K lies at the heart of Indo-Pakistan instability. It was the major cause of conflict between India and Pakistan in 1947, 1965, 1971 and as recent as 1999. The current Indo-Pakistan peace-process and composite dialogue focuses mainly on the Kashmir issue which is the main irritant in India-Pakistan bilateral relations. The most recent aspect featuring in the dialogue process is the Baglihar dam issue. This shows the importance of Kashmir in the Indo-Pakistan conflict and its relevance in effecting stability in bilateral relations.

• J&K is identified as the centre of nuclear flashpoint in South Asia. Although denied by the Indian government, I think it has the potential of flaring into a nuclear quagmire. In this context, the Kargil conflict that broke out between two nuclear adversaries is important. Conceptually, the Kargil conflict is the second exception to the proposition that nuclear powers do not conflict with each other, the first being the Ussuri River clash in the spring of 1969. There was an apparent movement of nuclear assets as quoted by Strobe Talbott in his book Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb. Given the situation, J&K lies in the heart of Indo-Pakistan conflict.

Strategic Imperatives

Need for a resolution of the J&K issue as a nuclear flashpoint is centred along the ceasefire of November 1993. Cross-border terrorism has reduced considerably.

Two points have coalesced; the dynamics of the Kashmir dispute - contention between India and Pakistan and contention between the governments in Srinagar and New Delhi. So far as the first contention is concerned, there is broad-based engagement between India and Pakistan on a wide variety of issues including the nuclear issue. Srinagar-Muzzaffarabad road links is one result of such bilateral engagements. On the second dispute, unlike the previous political arrangement of a Congress government at Srinagar and an NDA led government at the New Delhi, the present political dispensation comprises of a Congress led UPA Government in New Delhi as well as in Srinagar. In 2002 elections to the Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly and local bodies were successfully held. This indicates that the democratic process in Jammu and Kashmir is moving. Militants are gradually losing grounds. Cross-border terrorism and infiltration is greatly reduced due to the fencing of border and sophisticated technology used by the Indian Army. People are in favour of normalcy and stability.

India has to work on two fronts: first, strengthening the democratic process in Srinagar; and second, consistent firm action against militancy in J&K.

Counter Insurgency in India - Maj Gen Dipankar Banerjee

Maj Gen Banerjee initiated his talk by mentioning how counter insurgency was not a new phenomenon to India and had a long, deeply rooted history within the country. The Indian army, which really traces its history to more than 400 years ago, has maintained this historic continuity and adapted its strategic thinking and doctrines to suit the changing circumstances. In the 1960s and 1970s, India's counter insurgency operations were largely focused on the North Eastern parts of the country, while the 1980s saw a shift to Punjab and later to J&K.

According to Banerjee, India's counter insurgency doctrine was essentially developed along the lines of the Emergency in Malaysia. He stressed that the Indian Armed Forces and the Government of India were committed to winning the hearts and minds of the insurgents, whom they regarded as "misguided" Indian citizens and that the best way of achieving this was through development and civic measures. He reiterated that because insurgents were mainly Indian citizens, the army adopted a policy of selective and minimal use of force, and the use of air power was limited to medical evacuations and transportation. There was also an emphasis on discovering the supply routes of arms and ammunition to insurgents as well as re-habilitating them into society.

While the essence of India's counter insurgency ethos lay with winning the hearts and minds of the people, Banerjee pointed out that individual operations were based on the situations that prevailed in each case and was "special", posing new problems and requiring a different approach to deal with them successfully. For instance, in Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian army has been continually engaged in a proxy war with the insurgents, who have a large amount of weapons and other supplies continually flowing in. The treacherous terrain has further complicated the army's efforts at thwarting insurgency, although the fencing along the LoC, (while nowhere near as formidable as Israel's defenses), has acted as a deterrent.

Kashmir's insurgency problems are rooted in the notion of a sense of injustice, who feel that their grievances have not been adequately addressed by the state and national governments. The terrorists operating within Kashmir are a highly motivated and well paid force, with links to terrorist groups from around the world. However, there has been considerable success in curbing the terrorist activities and that the fencing along the border is a "cause for hope", with his projections putting an end to terrorism in Kashmir by the end of 2008.

Air Power in the Indian Context - Air Marshal Vinod Patney 

Air Marshal Patney described India's air power as "significantly strong", saying that there was a mutually appreciative understanding between the Indian and United States forces. He believes that the Indian Air Force has a very important role to play in our contemporary world, and that there is every reason for the forces to maintain complete preparedness in order to deal with potential aggressors. Patney emphasized that while India was a peace loving nation, the threat posed by terrorism was very real and, while the military had to be used to combat the terrorists, it had be used well in order to be an effective tool.

Patney acknowledged that while it was important to deal with terrorism both politically and economically, it was vital not to lose sight of the role of the military. He stated that since both Bangladesh and Pakistan were failed states to a certain degree, it was vital that the Indian armed forces and especially the air force maintained high levels of preparedness, not to gain territory, but to ensure that the repercussions of a disintegrating neighboring state do not spill over into India.

The name of the game, in Air Marshall Patney's view, is 'escalation control', which can only be achieved through maintaining air superiority. While using ground troops as an effective and formidable means of fighting a war, it is often influenced by the terrain and the weather. In this regard, the use of air power is able to circumvent these potential obstacles while delivering a powerful and swift blow to the enemy. Patney believes that the Kargil war presented an opportune time to use the air force to cross the border and deliver a major strike, in what he termed as 'naked aggression' by Pakistan. In the event of Pakistan retaliating with nuclear weapons, Patney believed that India would have struck back with greater intensity, ensuring that the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction would act as a deterrent to a full scale war. He also emphasized that while the likelihood of war with China was remote, the air force would be the best suited and equipped to deal with this situation, should it arise.

Patney made the point that despite the Indian Air Force being a relatively new arm, it was well equipped, motivated and a professional branch of the Indian Armed Forces, which was actively involved in humanitarian as well as military situations. He said that there was a reliance on outside powers for sophisticated equipment, so that the Indian Air Force could continue along the path of deterrence with an offensive posture.

Discussion

1) If instability between China and Taiwan did arise, what would be India's likely position? And, what would stop China from adopting a more pro-active approach in gaining Indian territory which it also claimed?

In response to the first question, General Banerjee and Professor Chari made the point that in India's view, Taiwan was a part of the Mainland. However, India agreed with the international consensus that Taiwan had its own identity and that its separate existence should continue as it was an integral element of world stability. They acknowledged that Beijing was still determined to re-unify Taiwan with force, if necessary, but deemed this as a major de-stabilizer to world order. Both felt that the onus lay on the United States to ensure that peace was maintained along the Taiwan Straits by maintaining confidence with China and seeking restraint from Taiwan not to push for independence. Ensuring that the status quo between Beijing and Taipei remained, was extremely important for both India and the United States.

Chari made the point that apart from the US, he did not see any other country taking on China if it did pursue re-unification with Taiwan. He believed that every country had far too great an interest in the Chinese economy and more importantly, no one was willing to take on the emerging power militarily. Chari believed that China would not attempt to take Indian territory by force, because its policies worked on the principle that economic and political developments could not co-exist with the use of force.

2) Would greater transparency, along the lines of the US-Russia 'Open Skies Policy' help India and Pakistan to achieve peace and stability in the sub-continent?

Professor Chari responded to the question by saying that while something along the lines of the US-Russia 'Open Skies Policy' would be a step in the right direction for India-Pakistan relations, it was too pre-mature to implement such steps. He believes that there is a lot of ground which has to be traversed before an agreement of this sort can be reached.

3) The US Administration believes that India and Pakistan were on the brink of a nuclear disaster during the Kargil War, with Islamabad activating several nuclear capable weapons. What confidence building measures have the countries adopted to ensure that this situation does not arise again?

Air Marshall Patney addressed this question by saying that during the Kargil War he was actively serving and commanding the Air Force units along the border. He believes that if Pakistan had activated its nuclear weapons it was a secret which both the ISI and the Indian Army were not aware of. He stated that it was in the interest of the United States to say that the sub-continent was a nuclear flashpoint for the benefit of non-proliferation. However, if the sub-continent was on the verge of disaster, India would have been aware of it and would have been highly concerned as well.

4) Does India have an offensive strategy and is it willing to take pre-emptive strikes?

Chari addressed this question by saying that India had a 'no first use' policy, thus ruling out the option of pre-emptive strikes. While the Indian Armed Forces were essentially a defensive tool, they also had elements of offensive capabilities. Banerjee went further to say that America's 9/11 was India's 12/13 and that the Indian government and military responded with coercive force to pressurize Pakistan to stop aiding terrorists. He said that there was an offensive posture, although defense was the main issue and that the Indian leadership was aware that the use of conventional force must not escalate to the use of nuclear force. He made the point that India was not a war mongering nation and would not carry out pre-emptive strikes, because it did not believe in invading and occupying another nation's territory.

Professor Chari added to say that terrorists were not stopped or deterred by international borders. He said that the Indian army was aware that terrorists were crossing the LoC and that India saw it as perfectly justifiable to cross the border to successfully pursue them. However, with both countries becoming nuclear powers, India has no intention of crossing the border or carrying out pre-emptive strikes. Banerjee believes that in certain situations pre-emptive conventional attacks are justifiable and that the US had a legitimate reason to carry out pre-emptive strikes on Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan because they had credible evidence of possible future attacks.

5) Insurgency cannot exist without some degree of support from the indigenous population. What steps has the Indian government taken to control this problem?

Banerjee responded to this question by acknowledging that he agreed with the idea that insurgency does require some degree of indigenous support. However, he went on to point out that in Kashmir the local population had not resorted to suicide attacks and that it was mainly people from outside the state who were responsible. He said that efforts at surveillance and patrolling must be stepped up, although these were not the main areas of focus. He said that the issue of 'lumpen' insurgency was a potentially dangerous problem which had to be addressed through the provision of jobs and education. However, it was important to note that outside Indonesia, India had the second largest Muslim population in the world and that Muslims in India were successful people, with the potential to achieve a great deal, thus encouraging them to work within the confines of the state, rather than against it. Indian Muslims are the only Muslim group in the world not to have participated in the jihad in Afghanistan. There has to be something in this that says how Islamic terrorism may need to be addressed.

Chari made the point that it was important to hold regular, free and fair elections, no matter how difficult the situation was. He believes that elections give the people an opportunity to take an active role in shaping their future and that by not providing them this basic right, the government would be responsible for not only social deprivation but injustice as well.