Events

Col. Manish Rana, SM, has kindly agreed to speak on "The Scenario Building Process: An Introduction" on 2 December 2022 at 1100hrs in Seminar Hall I, Second Floor.

Col. Rana, SM, was involved in a scenario building program as part of his Higher Defence Management Course, and has undertaken a Net Assessment Exercise.

Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), New Delhi in collaboration with the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India, organised a Seminar ‘India and the Arctic: Prospects for Partnership’ on 29 November 2022. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA delivered the opening remarks. The day-long seminar was divided into three sessions.

The first session on ‘Arctic Science and Climate Change’ was chaired by Dr. Thamban Meloth, Director, National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research (NCPOR), Goa. Dr. S. Rajan, India’s representative to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (UNCLOS) and Dr. Sandip Rashmikant Oza, Senior Scientist, Space Application Centre, Ahmedabad, were the two panelists.

The second session on ‘Arctic Geopolitics’ was chaired by Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha, Centre Coordinator, Non-Traditional Security Centre, MP-IDSA. The two panelists included Dr. Arvind Gupta, Director, Vivekananda International Foundation, New Delhi and Professor Sanjay Chaturvedi, Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, South Asian University, New Delhi.

The third and final session on ‘India’s Arctic Capacity Building’ was chaired by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy. Capt. Anurag Bisen (IN),  MP-IDSA and Dr. Rahul Mohan, Scientist F, International Cooperation and Outreach, NCPOR, Goa, were the two panelists.

The vote of thanks was delivered by Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA.

Participants included officials from the concerned ministries, armed forces personnel, members of the diplomatic corps, representatives from the media, think-tanks and the academia.

Executive Summary

The Arctic is emerging as a region of high geopolitical and geo-economic activity. As per recent scientific estimates, the Arctic is warming at a rate three to four times the average normal. An emerging interconnection of ‘Science’ and ‘Geopolitics’ makes the Arctic a region of global interests. With the release of India’s Arctic Policy, its interest in the region from scientific, geopolitical and national capacity building perspectives requires careful evaluation. The seminar covered critical emerging issues in the Arctic and concluded with some key recommendations and policy perspectives for India’s future engagement in the region.

Detailed Report

The Seminar began with welcome remarks by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy. He discussed the Arctic’s immense resource potential and its crucial role in maintaining global climate balance by acting as a virtual thermostat. The Arctic is a bellwether of climate fluctuations that the world is witnessing today and therefore, according to Amb. Chinoy, there is need for greater scientific understanding of the region. He highlighted the recent COP 27 Summit and its agenda on meeting the challenges of global warming and opined that the impact of indiscriminate materialism on the ecosystem cannot be escaped. He viewed the event of Arctic becoming ice-free as an apparent conundrum which attracts commercial activity and provides an alternative shipping route as well as worsens the climate change crisis.

Amb. Chinoy raised the need for enhanced governance structures, greater resource management, and environment and cultural protection. He also discussed the relevance of India’s Lifestyle for Environment (LiFE) campaign and reiterated the importance of India's Arctic policy. Speaking about India's ethos of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, Amb. Chinoy informed the audience that India’s Arctic policy displays its intent and readiness to play a global role and contribute to the global good. He observed that the Arctic is emerging as a theatre for geopolitical contestation and that it is antithetical to the very foundation of the Arctic, which was envisioned as a zone of peace since the end of the Cold War.

The first session on ‘Science and Climate Change’ in the Arctic was chaired by Dr. Thamban Meloth. He highlighted that global warming has led to irreparable changes in the Polar Regions and drastic reduction in sea-ice with severe implications for the Arctic indigenous populations. In addition, the Chair observed that an ice-free Arctic will lead to several geopolitical ramifications and impact the resources, including the global fishing industry. Dr. Meloth noted that global engagement with the Antarctic pened the doors for Polar Studies and that the Himalayas and the Arctic are deeply connected through the global climate systems, thawing of permafrost and the Indian monsoons. The increasing number of natural disasters, including landslides and cloudbursts, can also be attributed to the same. During his remarks, Dr. Meloth familiarised the audience with the activities of the NCPOR, the Indian research stations and the various scientific expeditions to the Polar Regions. He particularly noted that the NCPOR acts as an ‘Indian gateway to the Polar Regions’ and that all activities related to the Arctic should also consider the welfare of the indigenous populations.

Speaking on ‘What Ails the Arctic Climate?’ Dr. S. Rajan explored the balance between the scientific and non-scientific elements of the Arctic. He discussed the climate system and the related oceanic variability and atmospheric circulations and thereon addressed the link between the Asian monsoon and the Polar Regions. He indicated that several studies have explored the link between cold episodes in the North Atlantic and the Asian monsoon during the Holocene, and concluded his presentation by highlighting the challenges due to limited knowledge about the natural processes within the climate system and the inability of climate models to reproduce  observations accurately.

Dr. Sandip Oza made his presentation on India’s research in ‘Remote Sensing of Arctic Cryosphere’. He explored the role of space to understand the dynamics of the Arctic region and its support in analysing the interconnectivity of multiple issues. The speaker discussed ice sheet elevation, mass balance, and assessment of surface melt processes, and as evidence displayed several maps of the change in sea-ice masses in the Arctic. He brought forth to the audience the web-based services for archival material and dissemination of information related to the Arctic like the VEDAS (Visualisation of Earth Observation Data and Archival System) Portal. Dr. Oza discussed several potential and existing international collaborations for niche studies in the Arctic, for example the advanced Arctic weather monitoring system and energy balance in the region. He then focused on the role of several future space missions like NISAR (L&S dual frequency) and TRISHNA (ISRO-CNES Optical & Thermal) in cryosphere studies. Dr. Oza concluded by highlighting the joint Earth observing mission between NASA and ISRO (NISAR) and the prospects of collaboration of several national and international agencies for the exchange of knowledge, capacity building, and advancement in techniques and infrastructure in the Arctic.

The second session on ‘Arctic Geopolitics’ began with a detailed introduction by Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha. The Chair highlighted that the Arctic region witnessed cooperation since the formation of the Arctic Council but has now started witnessing political fissures between the states as a result of emerging geostrategic realignments. He observed that the power shifts might possibly make the Arctic Council redundant or at best limited in its function. Calling India a Tri-Polar state, Dr. Sinha highlighted that India’s engagements in the Arctic are historic. He also referred to the classical work of the great Indian nationalist and freedom fighter Bal Gangadhar Tilak to make aware India’s civilizational connect with the Arctic region.

Dr. Arvind Gupta, in continuation of the Chair’s remarks, emphasised the strategic importance of the Arctic, more so with the ongoing Russia-Ukraine crisis. Commenting on the Arctic Council, Dr. Gupta mentioned that the Council set up in 1996 was an important mechanism that provided a model for Arctic governance and cooperation between states in the region. He pointed out that Arctic seven (that are or will be NATO members) decision to not participate in any of the Arctic Council’s meetings under Russia’s current chairmanship has seriously impacted its functioning and that the Arctic governance structure will consequently be under severe stress. The speaker observed that China’s emerging presence in the Arctic will redefine the Arctic geopolitical and geoeconomic dynamics. As NATO tries to isolate Russia in the Arctic, China-Russia cooperation would naturally tend to gather momentum. Speaking from his experience and first hand observation, Dr. Gupta elaborated on China’s emerging investments in energy, mineral resources, tourism, shipping and other related projects in the Russian Arctic. On India’s approach, the speaker asserted that India needs to develop the required polar infrastructure capabilities and should further strengthen its relations with all the Arctic states. He highlighted that India-Russia cooperation remains critical in fulfilling India’s interests in the Arctic and both countries need to take adequate steps. He recommended that the Indian Navy should ensure naval presence in the Northern Sea Route (NSR) by frequently sending its ships. Dr. Gupta concluded that if India seriously needs to take a leadership position in the world, then it needs to have positions on every major global issue. The Arctic is no exception.

Prof. Sanjay Chaturvedi spoke on ‘Geopolitics of Connections and Disconnections in the ‘Circumpolar Arctic’: Opportunities and Challenges before India’. He emphasized that the Arctic region needs to be seen through a de-securitisation context rather than the securitisation framework. He mentioned that the region is currently witnessing re-securitisation or greater military buildups. Prof. Chaturvedi noted that the ‘Connectivity’ aspect in India’s Arctic Policy is far more important than the security aspect. By 2048, the opening up of the Northern Eurasian Rimland would enable greater connectivity between East and West via North. This could enable the northern expansion of China which, as a result, could add to greater geopolitical complexities. The speaker highlighted that India’s Arctic engagement will depend much on how India imagines the Arctic as a space and place. Since “No Country will ever own the North Pole”, it justifies India’s narrative of the Arctic as a Global Commons. While concluding, Prof. Chaturvedi noted that the Arctic will witness unilateralism, bilateralism, multilateralism and minilateralism to address emerging challenges and that the key challenge before India’s Polar diplomacy is how to translate India’s globally acclaimed Polar science achievements into geopolitical influence in pursuit of India’s national interests.

The final session of the Seminar on ‘Capacity Building’ was chaired by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy. He emphasised the need to adopt a strategic view at the national level that increases India’s Arctic engagement.  He reiterated the importance of capacity building in promoting both strategic and scientific interests. The current challenges faced by the Arctic Council and the choice before India whether to coordinate between Russia and the Nordic states were highlighted by the Chair. He also raised the issue of the Arctic as a ‘global commons’ and the Chinese involvement in the region. Amb. Chinoy asserted that India needs its own Polar Ice Breaker vessel to support its ongoing scientific research and other related activities in the region. He further noted that as discussions on the Arctic unfold, the focus also has to be on the Antarctic Treaty System. He discussed the need to build supply chains, logistical capabilities, and for budget enhancement, and increasing domestic academic capacity and skilled workforce in the region. The Chair opined that India’s vision of ‘SAGAR’ and Blue Economy also need to be promoted in the Arctic.

Capt. Anurag Bisen (IN) in his presentation differentiated between capacity as material adequacy and capability as possession of domain-specific expertise and skills. He opined that the two domains also differ in the timeline required to acquire them. He discussed the motives for developing capacity in the Arctic. These include the impact on monsoons and rising sea-levels subsequently leading to a migration crisis, the opening of new shipping routes, energy security and mineral wealth, and strategic contestation. Capt. Bisen added that India has legitimate credentials to facilitate cooperation in the region. Thereon, the speaker compared India’s capacity building activities with that of China, Japan, and South Korea, which became Arctic Observers in 2013 along with India. The parameters of comparison included setting up of research stations, expeditions, membership of the International Arctic Science Committee, Nordic Summits, release of national Arctic policies, and Polar research vessels. Capt. Bisen also compared the participation of the four nations in the Arctic Council Task Forces. He highlighted that India has only actively engaged with three and pointed out that thirteen Chinese institutions are affiliated with the University of Arctic, whereas NCPOR is the only institution from India. The speaker also compared Arctic-related international collaborations of India, Japan, China, and South Korea and reiterated the need for India to increase the budget for research and development. He introduced the audience to a budgetary comparison between the Polar engagements of India, South Korea, and China and opined that national academic capacity needs to be built to strengthen the contributions of India’s scientific community. He made recommendations to increase capacity and capability in the region. These included the setting up of Polar research institutions in India, the introduction of university-level programmes and increased bilateral cooperation with the Arctic states.

In his presentation, Dr. Rahul Mohan emphasised that the impact of climate change cannot be debated and politics should not be intermingled with science. He highlighted that NCPOR’s Polar Science engagements include the Antarctic Programme, the Arctic Programme, and the Himalayan Cryosphere Programme. Other thrust areas of the NCPOR include ocean sciences, geoscience, and operations and management. He added that NCPOR runs two research stations named 'Maitri' and 'Bharati' in the Antarctic, a research station in the Indian Himalayas and the Himadri research station in the Arctic. He also presented a timeline of India’s Arctic engagement since the signing of the Svalbard Treaty in 1920. Elaborating further, the speaker highlighted that India has undertaken fourteen expeditions to the Arctic with nearly 600 participants and noted that the major research areas include Arctic precipitation and cloud monitoring, long-term monitoring of Kongsfjorden, the impact of glacier melting, mass balance dynamics and the impact of pollutants in the region. Dr Mohan also displayed images of India’s first underwater multi-sensor mooring in the Arctic (IndARC). He added that India also utilises the Gruvebadet Atmosphere Laboratory and has contributed instruments to the facility, and that India has introduced the Polar Aerosol Network to monitor and connect the Three Poles through scientific equipment. In his recommendation, the speaker opined that a pan-Arctic approach needs to be adopted and that under India’s Arctic Policy, NCPOR is aiming to develop online courses and is conducting workshops with several academic institutions.

The seminar ended with a formal vote of thanks by Maj Gen (Dr) Bipin Bakshi (Retd), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA.

Key Takeaways and Policy Recommendations

1. The Himalayas and the Arctic are deeply connected through global climate systems, thawing of permafrost and the Indian monsoon systems.
2. Limited knowledge about the natural processes within the climate system and the inability of climate models to reproduce accurate observations challenges scientific research in the Arctic.
3. The Arctic region maintains immense resource potential in terms of minerals and hydrocarbon resources that India needs to factor in the near future.
4. The ice-free Arctic will lead to several geopolitical ramifications and impact  resources, including the global fishing industry.
5. As NATO tries to isolate Russia in the Arctic, China-Russia cooperation will strengthen.
6. India is a Tri-Polar state and its engagements with the Arctic are prehistoric that find its acknowledgements in Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s book 'The Arctic Home in Vedas.'
7. India's ethos of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, as mentioned in India’s Arctic Policy, displays its intent and readiness to play a global role and contribute to the global good.
8.  ‘India’s Lifestyle for Environment’ campaign can bring in new ideas to promote sustainable development in the Arctic.
9. India needs to develop adequate Polar infrastructure capabilities, especially a Polar research vessel or an ice-breaker ship and should further enhance its relations with all the Arctic states.
10. India should consider increasing its budgetary allocation for Polar research. 
11. Russia maintains the largest territorial extent in the Arctic. India-Russia cooperation in the Arctic could open new avenues for further strengthening bilateral relations between the two countries.  
12. Cooperation with all the Arctic seven countries remains equally crucial for India to fulfil its national objectives and emphasise its independent foreign policy in the region.
13. Indian Navy should ensure naval presence in the NSR by frequently sending its ships to the region. 

Report Prepared by Mr. Bipandeep Sharma, Research Analyst, Mr. Pintu Kumar Mahla, Research Intern and Ms. Richa Kumaria, Research Intern, Non-Traditional Security Centre.

Watch Complete Video [+]

Download Concept Note [PDF]

Programme Schedule [PDF]

The East Asia Centre at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) is holding a bilateral dialogue (online) with the National Institute for Defense Studies (NIDS) in Japan on Thursday, 17th November at 10.00 am.

Please find the agenda attached. NIDS is the host of the dialogue and the medium of online connection will be Zoom. Kindly find the link below.

Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) and the Indian Pugwash Society (IPS) jointly organised an in-person roundtable discussion on "Dangers of Tactical Nuclear Weapons" as part of the Nuclear Roundtable Series on 16 November 2022 at 1500 hrs in Room Number 005. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA and Convener, IPS chaired the session. Air Marshal Rajesh Kumar, PVSM, AVSM, VM, ADC, (Retd.), Former Commander-in-Chief, Strategic Forces Command; Dr. G. Balachandran, Independent Scholar; and Dr. Rajiv Nayan, Senior Research Associate and Centre Coordinator, Nuclear and Arms Control Centre, MP-IDSA participated in the discussion as panellists.

Executive Summary

Brainstorming was done at the roundtable discussion on the implications of the use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNW)s in the Russia-Ukraine war as well as in the various theatres of the world. The speakers brought out various factors related to TNWs right from its definition, the issue of command and control, nuclear doctrines, the demonstrative role of TNWs, and factors related to radiation among others. Also, that there was the least possibility of Russia using TNWs against Ukraine. In the India-Pakistan context, Pakistan’s threat to use TNWs was bluff and bluster and India needs to enforce deterrence through actions such as the Balakot strikes.

Detailed Report

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy set the ball rolling by providing a brief background to the topic. He reminded the audience about the P-5 Joint Statement at the beginning of 2022, that abjured the use of nuclear weapons. But just a few weeks later, Russia put its nuclear forces on alert amidst the Ukraine crisis. However, the United States (US) did not react with a similar counter-action. Broadening the scope of the topic, Ambassador Chinoy spoke about the risks of escalation, retaliation and miscalculation with the TNWs being in the action. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) Treaty was drawing to an end and new negotiations were yet to begin. China is loathe to get involved in any nuclear arms control treaty. Russia, even today, contains a large number of TNWs. However, the lack of consensus on the definition of TNWs adds to the problem of putting TNWs in meaningful arms control negotiations. With these initial remarks, the Chair invited Air Marshal Rajesh Kumar to speak on the topic.

Air Marshal Rajesh Kumar began by stating that the TNWs are weapons meant to be used on the battlefield. Their yield varies from 1 – 50 Kilotons. Tactical weapons should be judged based on size, range and doctrine. There were so many TNWs before the advent of the START treaty but over a period of time, their numbers have been reduced. However, there is no treaty limiting TNWs. The US has drawn down tactical nuclear weapons because of the advent of precision weapons. However, the Russian Doctrine requires TNWs to have escalation control in the event of war as Russia doesn’t match up to the combined might of the NATO forces. For Russia, TNWs can be used to return the aggression, prevent conflict from expanding, pre-empt damaging strikes that pose an existential threat to Russia and terminate hostility. They have a strategy of escalating to deescalate.  The US had a similar strategy when the Warsaw Pact was alive. Air Marshal Rajesh Kumar mentioned the Kalibr and Iskander missiles of Russia and the B61 air-delivered gravity bomb of the US. The US has not developed TNWs because their doctrine says that the use of TNWs will escalate the war in the nuclear ladder and there will be Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). In the case of MAD, the US doctrine mandates to respond with strategic weapons. Russian assertion on 2 November 2022 that the nuclear war should not be fought has come out of a realisation that the nuclear war cannot be stopped after firing a single tactical nuclear weapon. The war would inevitably escalate.

According to Air Marshal Rajesh Kumar, TNWs had limited utility when it came to achieving specific objectives such as stopping the war or stopping the enemy's advances. A study suggested that Pakistan would require 35 TNWs of 1-2 Kilotons each to stop the advancing Indian Armoured Division in its tracts by destroying at least fifty per cent of the tanks in a hypothetical situation. Targeting is a big problem with TNWs which is not the case with precision weapons. With the use of precision weapons, the objectives of TNWs can be achieved with conventional weapons. Later, the speaker highlighted the issue of command and control vis-à-vis TNWs. In the case of TNWs, command and control is delegated to the person on the ground unlike the case of strategic weapons where Command and Control is in safe hands. Therefore, there is a big risk of miscalculation in the case of TNWs. After dwelling on the theoretical issues related to tactical weapons, the speaker put forth his thoughts on the Russia-Ukraine war. Moscow’s action of putting nuclear forces on alert was a warning to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to not get involved. Surfacing of the Ohio-class Sub-surface Ballistic Nuclear Submarine (SSBN) in the Arabian Sea and the port visit of another Ohio-class SSBN to Gibraltar was a signal from the US to Russia. The US signalled that they would respond to TNWs with strategic nuclear weapons. The speaker, further, contended that the supporters of disarmament as well as those of deterrence were making strong arguments according to their respective positions with TNWs in the news.

Air Marshal Rajesh Kumar dwelled on TNWs in various theatres across the world. He called out Pakistan’s threat to use TNWs and asserted that it was just bluff and bluster. Pakistan knows that if they use TNWs, the war will certainly be escalated to a full-fledged nuclear war. Additionally, they have inadequate fissile material for the consequential use of TNWs to meet their objectives. Therefore, India should make its doctrine of massive nuclear retaliation credible. According to the speaker, TNWs will be ineffective in the case of the Korean Peninsula. In the India-China context, both are No-First-Use states, so the question of TNWs does not arise. In conclusion, Air Marshal Kumar said that TNWs do not work. There is an issue of command and control. Any use of TNWs will lead to a full-fledged nuclear war. Therefore, any talk of normalisation of the use of nuclear weapons should be discouraged.

Dr. G. Balachandran endorsed the arguments of Air Marshal Rajesh Kumar. He said that a dispersed delegation of command and control in the case of TNWs involves multiple actors. The more actors involved, the more the anarchy. He contended that distance became an important factor in distinguishing between strategic and TNWs because of the US-Russia dynamic. He defined strategic weapons as weapons that take out an opponent’s retaliatory weapons. If there is a first strike then strategic weapons take out the opponent’s strategic weapons. Whereas TNWs are used for tactical purposes. Thus, on average, strategic nuclear weapons have a higher yield than TNWs.

Further, the speaker stated that if a nuclear weapon state uses TNWs against a non-nuclear weapon state, then a non-nuclear weapon state has to depend upon a nuclear-weapon state for retaliation. In the case of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, if Russia uses TNWs, the command and control would be vested only with the president rather than delegated to the local commander. TNWs can either be used against a large enemy formation or to create a radioactive barrier to slow down the advances of the enemy. Referring to JASON advisory group’s report regarding the use of TNWs in the Vietnam War, Dr. Balachandran asserted that the study concluded that the use of TNWs would not have been effective as conventional weapons could have achieved the same objectives. Additionally, the use of TNWs would have turned international and domestic opinion against the state that was using it. The same logic could be applied in the case of Russia today which is a rational state, therefore it would not use TNWs. However, if TNWs are used, it will be to send a strategic message to the opponent. Coming back to the use of TNWs, the speaker asserted that TNWs used in massive quantities could be effective. Moreover, they are effective in erecting radioactive barriers for advancing opponent forces. But even then, TNWs of a specified yield have to be continuously used as the radiation level drops after some time.

Dr. Rajiv Nayan in his opening remarks stated that there was no universally accepted definition of TNWs. Broadly, missiles below a range of 550 km are considered tactical weapons. However, there was no limit to the yield of the weapon. Therefore, even weapons with a yield of 200 Kilotons could be termed as TNWs. In 2010, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) tried to reach a consensus regarding the definition of TNWs but failed.

Talking about the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Dr. Nayan asserted that western media, western think tanks, research institutes, and western leadership had created hype about Russian TNWs. One-third of Russian nuclear weapons are always on alert. So, there is nothing unusual. Rather Russian actions vis-à-vis nuclear weapons are according to their doctrine. In the Ukraine crisis, TNWs are not in the picture except maybe for signalling. Russia has always denied the use of TNWs but the western strategic community has projected the Russian threat of TNWs against Ukrainian infrastructure and NATO forces.

Dr. Nayan, further, spoke about the implications of the use of TNWs after the Ukraine conflict. He foresaw a demand for the deployment of TNWs in Europe. Although some European countries were not in favour of the same, the changed equations may lead to the redeployment of the weapons. Then there is a possibility that nations will try to modernise their respective TNWs. The Russian threat projection can be used for securing modernisation funding by the US. Further, the concept of graduated deterrence might come into vogue. The speaker predicted that there could be a verification problem in coming times. The world will have to grapple with how to deal with stored nuclear weapons as they are likely to come into play. Unless there is overall disarmament, TNWs are unlikely to fade away. Nations are likely to take a fresh look at the doctrines to make necessary changes.

In the ensuing discussion including the question and answer session, Ambassador Chinoy argued compellingly that tactical and strategic nuclear weapons were conjoined. The use of one would involve the other. There was no doctrine for TNWs. Taking over from him, Dr. Balachandran argued that if Russia were to use TNWs, it won’t face any counter-action from NATO. However, the use of nuclear weapons would certainly lead to the collapse of the international non-proliferation regime. Responding to questions and comments, Air Marshal Rajesh Kumar opined that India’s nuclear doctrine is very well crafted. However, it is not studied well by practitioners and academicians. There is an air of secrecy about our strategic weapons. Sometimes political and military leadership work in silos, as a result, they speak differently as there is a difference in understanding of strategy and doctrine by the two. Our programme does not appear to be credible because many stakeholders speak at cross-purposes. We should set our narrative right so that the world interprets it as we want. Further, the cold-start doctrine is no longer required. Rather Generals are worried about so many soldiers being deployed on the border as there is a possibility of tiredness at the beginning of the war. Bringing back the debate on the Russia-Ukraine crisis, Dr. Nayan drew the attention of the audience to the fact that Uranium can be accessed by countries in indirect ways and Russians were not pondering using TNWs. In the India-Pakistan context, Dr. Nayan contended that India needs to take action like at Balakot to achieve deterrence. If actions is not taken, Pakistan will get emboldened. In the end, Ambassador Chinoy complimented the panel and the audience for intense brainstorming.

The report was prepared by Mr. Niranjan Chandrashekhar Oak, Research Analyst, MP-IDSA.