Speakers:    Ambassador Lalit Mansingh
                    Air Marshall (Retd.) Vinod Patney
                    Maj Gen (Retd.) Dipankar Banerjee

Amb Lalit Mansingh: 'India's Global View'

India certainly has a strategic perspective but it does not announce it. It is interesting to note that in pre-independent India there existed a global view that was a blue print for independent India. During the colonial rule, the British worked out a system of strategic thinking on India. This is evident from Viceroy Lord Curzon's views that India holds the key to Asia. To keep India safe, it was recommended that India have dominance over Iran and Afghanistan in the West, over Tibet in the North and over the seas in the South. However, independent India rejected this blue-print.

Indian thinking on this after independence can be divided into three periods - 1947-1967; 1967-1997; and 1997-2007 - reflecting how India underwent changes in dealing with the world outside India. The first period (1947 - 1967) was dominated by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru who was a great strategic thinker. He articulated and gave us the foundations for India's foreign policy. There was a large dose of idealism in our foreign policy because of our experiences with our freedom struggle. It reflected Mahatma Gandhi's moral principles of non-violence and peaceful resistance. Nehru inherited a country that was ravaged by the partition and was struggling with enormous domestic problems, poorly equipped defence forces and lack of basic necessities. At this critical juncture, Nehru decided that India was going to play a global role by staying non-aligned and spearhead the cause of every nation under foreign occupation.. India took the initiative against poverty and tyranny wherever it existed. India was successful in its approach and this was evident when India's formulations to deal with the 140,000 prisoners of war that emerged after the Korean War of 1952 were accepted. The lesson that was derived in this period was that idealism was fine but it had its limitations. This was discovered by India in the face of the Chinese invasion in 1962.

The next phase (1967 - 1997) was dominated by Indira Gandhi. A realist to the core, Mrs. Gandhi laid emphasis on two areas: domestic strength based on economic and industrial development, and building scientific technology. In the area of foreign policy, she relied on two things - India must become a strong regional power and in spite of our non-alignment India will not refuse help from any country. The opportunity for this came in 1971 when India faced a hostile combination of US, China and Pakistan. Despite contending forces, Mrs. Gandhi championed the cause of the East Pakistanis and helped in the creation of Bangladesh. India was joined by Soviet Union in that critical hour. This was the phase when Mrs. Gandhi had given the clearance for India's first nuclear test in 1974. The message she was sending out was that despite global non-cooperation, India can devise the technology on its own. Mrs. Gandhi's policies were continued by Rajiv Gandhi. His enduring contributions included his focus on Africa. He spearheaded the decolonization of Namibia started by Nehru. He also took cognizance of the apartheid in South Africa. His other contribution was the path-breaking visit that he made to China in 1988. He broke the logjam of 26 years after the China invasion and he devised ways of pursuing normalization of relationship while dealing with the intractable problems of border disputes. PV Narasimha Rao was credited for giving India a soft landing with the disappearance of Soviet Union from the world map. His second achievement was the 'Look East policy'. It was under Rao that India developed cordial relations with thus far neglected ASEAN members.

The last phase (1997- 2007) is the most significant period. In contrast to the first two periods of idealism and realism respectively, the current period is more of activism. The turning point of our foreign policy came in 1998 when India conducted its nuclear tests and declared itself as a nuclear weapon state. It marked a psychological change in India's foreign policy. There has been a shift from politics to economics and New Delhi has accepted a new order of priorities in its foreign policy making. India now makes discrimination between countries that are more important and less important; she considers any strategic partnership as important.

The current global view of India is that there is recognition of the transition from a unipolar to a multi-polar world. In the given situation, India confirms that it will play a global role. The Indo-US nuclear deal is an illustration of India's global view and the role that it wants to play globally. India also wants to feature in the top leadership forums of the world. India is also keen on campaigning for global issues like stopping the production of WMDs and combating terrorism. The present Indian Government places importance on economic development and believes that globalization is an opportunity for development. India's foreign policy can thus be called a success.

Air Marshall Vinod Patney: 'A Strategic Overview'

The essence of foreign policy is far more complicated. There is no clear-cut division between friends and enemies anymore. The concern over China is hyped more than it should be. India's area of interest extends from the straits of Hormuz to that of Malacca. However, these areas of interests do not indicate any hegemonistic tendencies. India has refrained from being part of any power blocs or military pacts. India has sought cooperation and coordinated progress. In fact, in recent years India has been far more active in its foreign policy approach. South Asia is rife with inter-state rivalries and intra-state conflicts. Varied forms of governments are still developing democratic institutions. The area is marked by ethnic and religious violence and characterized by low human development indices. There is growth of Islamic fundamentalism, arms and drugs smuggling, terrorist havens and sanctuaries. However, of late there has been much greater global interest in the region. India occupies a central position in the area and for that India requires continued high economic growth.

Apart from food, shelter, clothing, care for the environment, the major area of concern is "war on terrorism". Unfortunately, this concept lacks universal appeal. This must be rectified. India is also facing the problem of Kashmir, left wing extremist violence and the Maoists in Nepal. Another area of concern includes the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Six of the nine nuclear capable states are in this region. Pakistan is strife with internal problems and the possibility of its nuclear weapons falling in the wrong hands remains a major area of concern. There is a need to engage China on many planes including security issues from cooperation to confrontation and much in between. The Indian Ocean region is also vulnerable to piracy, armed robbery, and drug running. There is a natural link between drugs and subversive activities as also smuggling, terrorism, and illegal migration of humans. There is thus a need for a formal or informal regional security mechanism, preferably locally controlled and led.

As regards military requirements, it must be supported by economic progress. These must be further strengthened by data processing, miniaturization and communications. Air power is inescapable. It can control escalation and exercise graduated responses; it also permits flexibility of approach. Change is possibly the only certainty. Any alteration of status quo in international relations will be accompanied by inevitable tensions and upheavals. Unconventional thinking is needed to deal with non-state actors. Planning for the future will be far more difficult and, therefore, far more interesting. A regional security organization and a multi-polar Asia is needed.

Maj Gen Dipankar Banerjee: 'International Terrorism - An Indian view'

Terrorism can be defined as an act of indiscriminate violence, causing maximum damage to civilians, leading to innumerable casualties, to achieve political objectives. However, there is a difference between terrorism and insurgency. The latter has clear political objectives, code of conduct, a uniform, and attempts to win the hearts and minds of people. Terrorists are global and their action varies from individual acts of violence to the possible use of WMDs by an organized force.

Terrorism has a long history and is unlikely to disappear in the near future. It is difficult to point out the proximate causes of the present nature of terrorism. The global "War on Terror" has just begun and its duration will be measured in decades. The nature and particularity of the current form of international terrorism is related to the geographical area it covers and its Arab-Islamic nationalism. The final battles of the global "War on Terror" are likely to be fought on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

The post-independence Indian army has been involved in counter insurgency operations since the mid 1950's. In recent decades, it has participated in operations such as the IPKF in Sri Lanka and in Punjab (1980s-early 90s). In Jammu & Kashmir, terrorism began since 1989, and since mid 1990's, was linked to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. In recent years, it has spread to the rest of the country.

Significantly, there is no evidence of Al Qaeda recruits from India for its international terrorism. India is the second most populous Muslim country. Minority grievances exist but none of the international Jihadis are from India. Some lessons can be learned from this. Notwithstanding the drawbacks in Indian democracy, people have avenues to address their grievances. Rule of law, Secularism and Equality are upheld by the state and are fundamental to its existence. Sufism influenced all religions and castes in India and is presently encompassed within India's 'Unity in Diversity'. An independent foreign policy also contributed to the Indian response to national and international issues.

The current status of terrorism can be assessed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, it is pretty dire and questions are being raised on national will, resources available, and national determination or staying power. In Afghanistan, NATO forces are facing enormous challenges over issues of employment of national forces and the imposition of national 'caveats' by member countries, making meaningful operations difficult. The war is winnable yet slipping out of control. On the global scale, there are more successes and the ongoing war can definitely be won.

In this context, global consequences of failure are hard to imagine. There is a need to build a genuine global coalition, agree on the nature of a clear and determined counter terrorism policy, an internationally accepted legal response, and finally tackle the battle within Islam. The Indian military forces have been dealing with these challenges and under proper conditions will engage in it again on a global scale. However, there is a need for greater international cooperation.

Discussion

India & Defence

While we are talking about India's strength, there are various internal problems within the country - left insurgent movement, public services are poor - we must also keep an eye on the downside aspects too. Given these challenges India cannot afford to spend $640 billion on its defense budget like the United States. Even China cannot reach this budget. Defense strategy is not only weapons produced or purchased by a country at a given time but also the capability to produce more.

India's Counter-terrorism Policy

Identifying root causes of terrorism is viable and fundamental to address the issue. 'Killing' the phenomena is embedded in the Indian counter-terrorism policy. Poverty is endemic in India but people are aware that they will not be discriminated on that basis. Grievances are addressed by law and members of minority population reach high government posts. In India, rule of law exists in a multi cultural and multi ethnic society. However, there is a growing Left wing Extremist movement in India. Economic causes are important but not the only cause. Maoists also play on the local grievances like seizure of land, forests and women being dishonored. India has not been able to counter Left wing ideology and counter it effectively. The Indian PM acknowledged this threat and the State needs to act fast and find solutions. Reevaluation of the motives listed after 9/11 is necessary given the rising number of well educated suicide bombers.

India's Foreign Policy

As we move into a multi-polar world, it is necessary not to be doctrinaire. In dealing with emerging nations, there will be areas of agreement and disagreement but it has to be worked out. India does not want to become a global power but its responsibilities towards the region should increase. It needs a stable environment with economic potential which sustain development and growth. A sphere of influence has to be developed instead of a sphere of annexation. It is important to have a cooperative relationship with its neighbours especially in view of the finite resources existing within South Asia. The Indus water resources is one of those areas that calls for cooperation within South Asia. Hence, effort must be made to extend the treaty that will transform the economy of both India and Pakistan.

India and Non-proliferation

India did not join the NPT for different reasons. Iran going nuclear will be a violation of its NPT commitment because it is a member. India favors total universal, supervised disarmament. However, it is not possible to ensure the same. However, there is no plan 'B' for non proliferation.

India-US-China

China is a big economy. It is the second largest trading partner of India. Although there exists areas of concern with China's increasing defence budget, military installations in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Gwador. In spite of these concerns, India would prefer giving emphasis on dialogue with China rather than adopting any confrontationist approach. Unlike the US, India does not view China as a threat. In case of a direct confrontation between US and China over Taiwan, India would not have anything to do with it just as it refuse to send any troops to Iraq in the absence of any formal request from the UN Security Council.

US may have the power of succession but new nations are also emerging in the global scenario. Hence US passing the crown of succession to India may not happen that way. India will emerge as strong power to play a substantial role in combating terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Unilateral Action and Intervention

The world has become more complex. If India or other states want to control people, they are likely to fall on their face. If states want to access or control resources, annexation is not necessary. There are limits to unilateral action and intervention. In Sri Lanka, Indian intervention proved to be a failure.. In Nepal, India decided to build an international coalition to decide on collective measures and abjured violence. However, an international agreement under the auspices of an international organization is necessary if there is to be a forceful interdiction. For India, the purpose or motive is important. For example, India supported the cause of the minorities in Sri Lanka due also to domestic political considerations. However, if the issue is related to an internal situation in another country, then the government's decision may vary. In Sri Lanka, the IPKF became a peace enforcing force and this change of role led to disaster. Nevertheless, unilateral action like that of the US is not possible. Failing states can be buttressed by encouraging economic growth.

Concluding Remarks

In future, intervention will become more difficult. Indian armed forces are likely to be more involved in dealing with internal security issues. There are opportunities for cooperation and coordination between India and US globally. The nature of warfare is changing and is likely to affect the role of the armed forces. In India, threats have changed, limits of intervention are underlined and there is maturity in decision making. Apart from military aggression, armed forces can play a number of other stabilising roles in the vicinity. Regional peace-keeping will be significant in the future. India and US will continue to play significant roles.