What’s the single takeaway from each of our panelists? Summing up, individually, how do we feel, what’s the most important understanding from this discussion?
Ambassador Ajay Bisaria: By way of answering your question and a partial summary of this very interesting discussion on our neighbourhood, what is emerging is we are in a very tough and a very complex neighbourhood. We have two tough adversaries and now who are acting collusively. So, we have seen the trilateral China Pakistan Bangladesh, we have seen the trilateral China Pakistan Afghanistan and they are dredging in the other neighbours. We have the reality of an Asian hegemon who is 5X our capacity in military terms, in economic terms, in national capacity, who we are competing with and we have the reality of the smaller neighbours who have their own dynamic but are willing to play the game of using the China card against India and playing the two sides against. So, this is the environment in which we have to function. The point is well taken which we are repeatedly making is that we have to strengthen our national capacity and keep growing, recognizing that the other guys will also keep growing at least proportionately.
But I think what we need to be really talking about is that national strategy for the neighbourhood which will have elements of smart diplomacy, of smart military tactics in order to punch above the weight that we have right now. And I think it’s alright to be saying that Bangladesh is not currently with us, but we built certain equities in Bangladesh that it will likely be back with us and we have to keep working towards that objective. We were saying Maldives has gone, we were saying Sri Lanka has gone and it got reversed. So, all this will get reversed. We have to be the China plus one if you will, in case China manages to throw money at the problem and be there.
I think we need not be excoriating ourselves for not having a good policy. It is a tough neighbourhood, a tough situation and given our capacity we have to keep at it and keep dealing with these neighbours by being that attractive neighbour which is giving them disproportionate. At this point I would not recommend alliances or having the United States or the major powers Russia or Europe here except on a case-by-case basis. We saw the role the US played in Bangladesh, not in our favour. You know it was a role that the conspiracy theories will tell us was certainly planting Mohammed Yunus on us over our objections, even if that is not 100% true, the role those powers will play will not necessarily always be in our favour. So, we have to be the power that in our neighborhood is the dominant player and playing the game and even if we are spending additional resources.
Navin Berry: Just a related question to you on that because it was a part of my question which I shared. How is our multipolar foreign policy playing out? When we had Pahalgam and we were talking about us as being victims of terror, I think general understanding is that nobody bought your narrative, and we felt quite marginalized. Whereas there were three, four countries which put themselves right behind Pakistan. We had nobody behind us, except perhaps Israel. So, will we have to accept the fact that if we are saying we are not with you then they are saying they are also not with us when we need them. Is that how it works?
Ambassador Ajay Bisaria: I will make a different argument. I would make the argument that Op Sindoor showed that we had diplomatic support. After Pahalgam, we had support and a lot of the support is privately coming. In the public statements just like we do, people will balance. But privately the Americans would tell us, look do, what you have to, you are facing terrorism. When Op Sindoor was launched on 7th May, we did not have voices condemning India’s attack on a sovereign country. But saying, please exercise restraint, which should be good enough for us.
When you are talking of the multipolar policy, we are talking of what we call multi-alignment, which means a multi-vector engagement, which means I should be able to get Russian energy while getting defense technology from the United States. If I am able to do that, I have balanced those two powers. If I am dealing with Israel and Iran at war, I can get my defense technology from Israel and my oil from Iran. I feel I have balanced it enough and had this benefits of this multi-vector, multi-alignment. So, I think, I wouldn’t say that our diplomacy did not work. I thought it did. The fact that you can get an S-400 triumph system from Russia and it serves you very well in your air defense in Op Sindoor, while at the same time getting equipment from Israel from the US, I think it is a marker of success.
AVM Rajiv Hora: How nimble is an acquisition? I will just give you a very small example. For finalizing our Hawk aircraft deal, the country took 18 years, one eight, from the time we envisaged we must have a fighter. The Omanis finalized their deal in 18 days. They got an engine which was better than us. They got an HMI which was better than us. They had a deal with BAE system that they will deliver it ahead of the Indians although they did the deal after us.
Now today if there is a threat which is developing, an arms threat which is developing, you need to respond to it. Big ticket items are fine, you know it will take 18 years,17 years whatever it is and that has to be put in the process, I am not denying but there is so much which has to be bought now immediately as of yesterday and that takes us, our systems are all built on suspicion that someone is going to make money on this. The other side, look at the other side, the Pakistan side, they bribe the general, he takes two crores in his pocket and the acquisition deal is signed next day. So, they are nimble because of corruption. That is something which is aiding them in military warfare.
General P S Rajeshwar: I have always been asked this question about acquisition and everybody is frustrated, right? And having been part of the system, it has its ills. The bigger challenge, I think, often is, the way we seek to induct technologies, platforms and the entire processes. So even at the military levels, the process is long. Thereafter there is a longer chain as you go over through the bureaucracy and then upwards because bigger ticket things will be decisions at the highest level. And then of course acquiring it from another country whether they want to give it, not give it, you may have finalized everything, but if it does not work, it does not work. So, it is good, in hindsight we can say that we are doing balance actually, it happens like that. And a lot of places we have been firm, like what the ambassador said S 400, we went for it in spite of cuts. So, that is a great thing. So, sometimes we can see much far ahead if we are very clear that this is the system to acquire and it is going to be better for the next 10 years. And I think we have to be patient, nothing is built in one year’s time. You have to have a perspective plan. You cannot be like a lot of other countries which do all kinds of shortcuts. They may work, they may not work, but it won’t work for us.
Because we are very big armed forces. And the smaller things, there is an emergency procurement which people have gone into now. That is speeding up to some extent, not very much. But then even the Americans, today we are in awe of all these six big players and all that. They are reforming. The latest, if you see this year’s directive by the Secretary of Defense, even there is a reform which is going on. So, there is a defense reformation system which is going. So, these players, private players are coming in even faster, like Palantir, Enduril and a lot of others are coming in because they are seeing that the private sector’s technologies are going faster than the bigger giants. And maybe the bigger systems are going to get obsolete soon. So, warfare itself is changing. So, it’s actually in place for this. I would say there is of course much that can be done.
Iqbal Malhotra: We are moving from the fifth Industrial Revolution into the sixth Industrial Revolution. There are two powers or centers of technology in the world, the US and China. To my mind, strategic autonomy has failed and our foreign policy has also failed.
To make an example, Germany before the Ukraine war, was buying gas from Russia and weapons from the west, from France or from their own European consortium. So, they were also strategically autonomous while being within the ambit of the NATO alliance. So, the point is that today, you have to, in order to build up your capabilities, and in order to be strong and have a firm base, you have to choose a side. Because there are only two sides. There is no third side yet. The third side is Germany which in three years, given the fact that they have got rid of their fiscal deficit constraint, and they are spending 990 billion euros on rearmament. They will be the third superpower. So, pending that, you have to choose your sides today. Are you on the Chinese side or are you on the US side? I don’t think there’s a middle path.
Kamal Malhotra: I think we’re at one of those geopolitical crossroads where we are moving quite fast to a bipolar world. Trump 2.0 is accelerating that. It’s accelerating US decline and China’s rise. And India cannot compete with China technologically, economically, politically, or militarily. These are the four areas. In East and Southeast Asia, I believe China’s already the hegemon. It has control to a considerable extent of South China Sea. Taiwan has an existential threat to it. And the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says that out of 64 cutting-edge technologies of the future, China leads in 57. This is huge. Given what Trump is doing to US academia and universities, China is the only beneficiary. So, the only country smiling under Trump 2.0 is China.
India is going have to find a way to find what kind of relationship going forward to have with China, that’s the reality. I agree that the neighborhood is crucial. India cannot afford to give up the South Asia neighborhood. And I think it has got huge challenges there. It really doesn’t have too many friends. And even the slight thaws with Maldives, Sri Lanka, this is hard to say that these are going to be sustainable. So how is India going to redefine its relationship with China economically, given that its trade dependency on China is huge? The trade deficit with China is approximating $100 billion now. And India is dependent on China for huge amounts of intermediary products. So, this I think is the big challenge that we have to see for India.
AM Sanjeev Kapoor: Sir, two quick points. One, in my opinion, the niche defense manufacturing should directly go under PMO. Like we have space, nuclear, missiles, the key areas the PMO should be driving. There is no dearth of funds. Decision making is fast and it is monitored. Second, we need to put professionals on top. Case in point, just giving example of Indigo and Air India. They have ordered 800 commercial airplanes to be delivered in 10 years, but nobody in the civil aviation has a knowledge about aviation. Hence, we could not impress upon Boeing and Airbus to set up even an MRO here in our own country. We are buying 800 airplanes. There is no negotiating ability with the professionals at that level, which we need to look at.
Third point, the country as a policy now should go in with massive, massive incentives for reverse brain drain. Indians who are working abroad in the defense and niche technologies should be given swaps by the government to bring them back to our country. I don’t know whether it will be successful or not but an effort, all-out effort will have to be made in case we have to set up our own industry in our country.
General Ashok Shivane: Three quick points. Firstly, at a national level, we have graduated from strategic restraint to strategic assertion, but we need to go on to the next level of strategic preemption because we still have a reactive and a defensive mindset. And therefore, when we talk of equipping policy of threat capability, I have been hearing it for last two decades and I have been part of this in a PP directorate. Threat capability is a wait for threat to manifest and then you start making a capability.
Should we be talking of capability-cum-opportunity approach? Because today, the opportunity in my belief, if you look at capability and matching technology cycle and acquisition cycle, not only defense reforms and defense budgeting, but also an impetus to the start-ups. Start-ups are going to decide your future as far as the technology is concerned and within the private sector, the big fish are the one who won’t allow the start-ups. I have done some research on it. 95% of the startups find themselves into skeletons in the first five years.
There is no support system and this is exactly what even all countries have faced. Unit X came up because of this to support startup and they found a total difference. Similarly, our deterrence, deterrence by punishment, why should we be talking of deterrence by denial and deterrence by domination? You got to look deep, you go more proactive, more preemptive and more dominative. So, automatically when you do that you will cater for your threats which are coming up.
And last but not the least when we look and pardon me for repeating it again, but I think it’s a very important point. Along with the battlefield geometry, we have to look holistically at the cognitive geography and both being matched with this. Otherwise, while we would be tactical in our mindset, operationally and strategically, we would be found wanting.
General Jagatbir Singh: Firstly, what I see after Sindoor is that the Pakistan army is back at the center of things and that was clearly on display when the Chief went and met President Trump and not the elected representative. And the second issue is that China and Pakistan have, since 1963, the relationship has grown deeper and deeper and deeper and be it ‘65 be it ‘71, the linkages were always there and these are only increasing with the amount of investment China has done in Pakistan today. So, whenever you look at this, you have to look at this combined threat as one.
And just to explain, like what happened in 62, post 62 we started deploying more and more troops to the east. What happened after Galwan, again we move formations that side and you literally dismantle certain strike elements of yours, literally dismantle. So, there is a void created. So, I mean they are working in some sort of concert and we should see their long-term game and how they choreograph this amongst each other, whether they will physically come in or not, but there is something at play.
The next issue is that technology matters and technology is outpacing the pre-orderment process. And that’s something we have to overcome. I have unfortunately heard recently people from the ministry and that lady was talking more of the processes being important rather than purchasing equipment being important. And she said it very openly that my job is to safeguard the tax payers money, to that degree. That’s what was said. So, I mean, if this thing remains, then you know you will be again languishing with you, may have things but you will have voids within the structures you have created and that is going to be a huge challenge.
And the next thing is that you know private sector you speak to them, they say yes, we are willing to put in money into defense but if we invest are you going to guarantee our order. So, I mean that is a game which is business sense. And the DPSUs have always been protected and they’ve always rushed in to take the order but they are unable to deliver.
Ambassador Ajay Bisaria: If I may, a quick last point because I think there was an important point that Iqbal and Kamalji raised on strategic objective and strategic vision for India. And you know the argument is that you have to choose a Chinese or US side because you will end up with a world with Pax Americana or Pax Seneca and I think it is a dangerously defeated notion. You are the third largest economy, you have an objective of becoming a major power in 25 years and Viksit Bharat and so on. So, we should act as the third pole and really speaking have an India way that is available and not be tempted into joining either of these camps. On the limited point of technology I would concede in sixth generation on one side you have AI industry 5.0, another green technology, we should be aligned with the Americans. But otherwise, I think the objective should be that third largest economy which is also third largest major power and a pole by itself in a multipole.
Navin Berry: I was checking with Ambassador Bisaria earlier, before we started this discussion, that my memory, reacting with my college friend, former NEA, MOS, Salman Khursheed, and I was talking to him, this is like 30 years, 35 years ago, and he said, Humare aise nahi hota hai. You know, diplomacy was an act in itself. Either we didn’t have an economy as large as what we have today, but there were no economic delegations being led by MEA. If my memory is right or my understanding is right. But that time and era has gone. We have world over delegations coming with Prime Ministers, Presidents, the whole industry lobby is there.
So, when the American President comes, the Boeing chief comes, the Microsoft chief comes, all of their industry comes. So, that came stage 2 when MEA or diplomacy embraced trade and commerce as part of their objective to kind of multiply the force of India through commerce and trade.
I think the last 2-3 months have pushed military up front as part of diplomacy. And I think somewhere in the beginning also we did exchange this little nuance that there is no longer compartments. It’s all got merged somewhere. Your military prowess, your economic prowess, your diplomacy, they all have to work in tandem between each other. And I think that’s what came out through this discussion.
I did ask this question and I think Ambassador Bisaria echoed my line somewhere there that we do tend at times or too easily to fall prey to a statement or two being made in a neighboring country. Let time play out. We have seen President Trump from January 20th to now, so many of his declarations are just getting repeatedly postponed. A deadline is now 9th of July, then God knows it will get delayed and it gets softened out, that blow. So let time play out, I think we get too prematurely upset at a remark made somewhere on the other hand.
So, I think the fall guy is the media. Frankly, the mainline TV channels, the moment somebody says something, out they come and then they will convene a session on it and they will make it look like it’s become reality. It hasn’t. It’s only been talked about at random somewhere. So, I think this Yunis character also somewhere, it will play out.
We have our strengths, our inherit strengths. I don’t know whether we are capable of being a third power globally or not. That’s relative, I think. But India has its own strengths. I think our neighbors can’t wish us away. It’s not as if suddenly they will antagonize us and say they couldn’t care. I mean it’s not going to happen. Am I right? It’s not going to happen. So, I think we need to remain resilient ourselves. And somewhere, I think one of you, I think General sahb mentioned, more than Viksit Bharat, to ensure Viksit Bharat, we need Surakshit Bharat. And somewhere there are time spans in terms of acquisition, having the kind of things that we need today, you can’t wait till tomorrow. For Surakshit Bharat, I think it’s time to create a new ministry.
Iqbal Malhotra: For Surakshit Bharat, it’s time to create a new ministry. The Ministry of Defense is no longer relevant. There should be a Ministry of War instead of the Ministry of Defense. Because the Ministry of War then takes decisions on how to actually be proactive because the Defense Ministry is sociologically and psychologically the bureaucrats will be unable to respond to the compulsion of the government.
Navin Berry: And how about this bit about me being only reactive and not proactive.
General Ashok Shivane: And the core of Surakshit Bharat will rest on having a national security culture. Because today, the society is the target and society is the protector also. So, minute you have a psyche of a national security culture where every citizen feels empowered to be a stakeholder in the security of the nation, you will see a change.
Navin Berry: With that, may I thank each one of you for being here this evening for a very enlightened discussion. And I hope we are going to meet again soon and carry on this wonderful initiative. Thank you very much. Thank you.
