Partners in Progress: How Does the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Matter? 

Inaugural Session Speakers: Vice Chancellor, Dr. Fr. Jose C.C, RAdm Nirbhay Bapna ACNS and Rear Adm. Micheal L. Baker 

Coordinators: Dr. Deepa Ollapally, Dr. Manoharan N 

Date: 10 June 2024 

Time: 09:00 – 10:00 hrs IST 

The two-day International Conference "Partners in Progress: How does the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Matter" was held at Christ University, Bengaluru, on 10 and 11 June 2024, organised by the Centre for East Asian Studies, Christ University, Bengaluru, in collaboration with George Washington University. The inaugural session began by welcoming the dignitaries and expert participants. 

Dr. Manoharan N, Director, Centre for East Asian Studies, Christ University, welcomed the gathering and expressed his deep gratitude to George Washington University, Christ University and the U.S. Consulate General Chennai for their guidance and support in successfully organising this event. He drew the event's significance by stating, "We chose this project invoking John F Kennedy, not because it was easy but hard. We hope this project will take the two democracies a step closer towards cooperation for a better world". 

The inaugural address of the session was delivered by Dr Fr. Jose C.C., Vice Chancellor of Christ University, Bengaluru, in which he outlined the deepening relations shared by democratic values, mutual strategic interest and a collective vision for peace and stability, especially in the Indo-Pacific region. He mentioned that it is essential to acknowledge the remarkable progress in U.S.-India relations. The rise of China and shared threat perceptions in the Indo-Pacific have been significant drivers of this relationship. It is imperative to recognise that the partnership transcends mere strategic calibrations. It is rooted in a commitment to democracy, pluralism and the rule of law. He further elaborated on geopolitical issues, such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the rise of China, which have driven this partnership and underscored the necessity for more transparent communication and deeper understanding. Dr. Fr. Jose C.C. elaborated on the strength and resilience the two nations share as partners in progress and the necessity to foster meaningful dialogues in the coming days and years. He outlined the project's objective, a collaborative effort to bridge the gaps between the nations and develop a deeper appreciation of the U.S.-India defence and strategic partnership through dialogue and increased awareness of this bilateral partnership. He then highlighted the importance of laying the foundation for a more robust and enduring partnership to work towards a future of peace by enhancing the understanding of American contributions to Indian defence and security. He concluded his inaugural address by expressing his heartfelt gratitude to the members of the partner institutions for their contributions to conducting the event, Admiral Tripathi and Rear Admiral Nirbhay Bapna, for the support they have exemplified in this event. 

RAdm Nirbhay Bapna, Assistant Chief of Naval Staff, Foreign Cooperation and Intelligence, provided the conference's keynote address. He commenced his speech by appreciating the two institutions that enabled the exchange of academic ideas that demonstrated the convergence of interests in these troubled times when the world was reeling toward conflict. He enumerated the deepening bilateral relations spanning over 75 years that have matured and advanced into a comprehensive global strategic partner covering almost all areas of human endeavour driven by shared values and convergence of strategic interests. For him, the most significant point of convergence among the two nations is the shared vision of peace, prosperity and inclusivity in the Indo-Pacific region. He then quoted Hon. PM Narendra Modi's 2018 Shangri La Dialogue keynote address: "The Indo-Pacific is a natural region. It is also home to many global opportunities and challenges." RAdm Bapna firmly agrees with the statement by denoting the importance of a free and open Indo-Pacific for ensuring regional stability and security. He also quoted President of the U.S., Joe Biden, in his speech on the necessity for a free and open Indo-Pacific to endure and flourish in the decades ahead. He connected the two dialogues and pointed out the convergence in thoughts and actions, considering the Indo-Pacific as the centre of gravity of geopolitics and geoeconomics. 

RAdm Bapna highlighted the interest in the region, which encompasses numerous countries and their economies and also throws light on the issues of piracy, smuggling, terrorism, trafficking, and disputed borders on land and sea that are yet to be settled. His keynote address discussed the uncertainty in the region arising due to issues such as global warming, the presence of non-state actors, and the rising geopolitical aspirations of dominating countries. He mentioned the contributions of the Indian Navy, such as conducting anti-piracy operations, helping ships in distress, and intervening in maritime incidents. 

He emphasised how the partnership, which is built on shared democratic values and interests, is underpinned by the signing of 4 key agreements- Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (2016), Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (2018), Industrial Security Agreement (2019); and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (2020). He said they have facilitated deeper operational cooperation, information sharing and logistical support between the two countries. He noted the various dialogues that facilitate regional security, such as the 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue, India-U.S. Strategic Security Dialogue, and India-U.S. Maritime Security Dialogue, as they engage the countries in communicating regional security challenges and promoting cooperation. 

He elucidated the bilateral, multilateral and quadrilateral engagement formats with the U.S. and forums comprising India, the United States, Japan, and Australia, the four like-minded democracies. He suggested that their involvement and cooperation in the QUAD Maritime Security Working Group to support regional partners and respond to climate-related events are essential for deepened defence cooperation where the nations could synergize their efforts in tackling regional concerns. He further shed light on the Defense Industrial roadmap, leading to a defined defense industrial ecosystem in both countries for defense cooperation, facilitating technology sharing and supply chain resilience. The speaker argued that the cornerstone of the multifaceted U.S.–a wide range of dialogues and military exercises of increasing complexity, such as the Malabar exercise, Tiger Triumph, etc implements the Indian partnership. They enhance interoperability and mutual understanding between the armed forces through information sharing, which, according to the speaker, is a priority area for cooperation. Further, initiatives like the Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness (IPMDA) for cooperation along the Indo-Pacific are also necessary to enhance surveillance and facilitate information sharing, ensuring peace and security in the region. 

For him, both countries look forward to identifying more pathways to promote stronger service-to-service ties to address various challenges in the maritime and undersea domains. India's full membership of the multinational U.S.-led Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) in November 2023 represents a significant change in the U.S.-India bilateral relations as it provides India greater interoperability with other members of CMF. Looking ahead, he said, the U.S.-India partnership is said to deepen further. He stated that both nations look forward to collaborating in cyber security, space, artificial intelligence, and underwater spaces. Cooperation in these domains underscores a strong Indo-U.S. naval partnership that is enhanced through joint exercises, operational cooperation and logistical support. Therefore, according to the speaker, the two nations have developed a comprehensive understanding. He concluded his address by stating that it is the need of the hour for like-minded countries to tackle common challenges, find opportunities to share perspectives and deepen the collective understanding of the India-U.S. Strategic partnership. 

The final speaker of the inaugural session, RAdm Micheal L. Baker, a senior defense official in the U.S., provided a special address in which he put forth new ideas for strategic vision between India and the U.S. He stated that as the two militaries bring enormous power to the Indo-Pacific, it is imperative to take the strategic progress of the India-U.S. partnership into operational reality and work closely on vital priorities. He quoted U.S. President Joe Biden: "Our relationship with India is one of the most consequential relationships". He affirmed this statement and recognized India as a leading global power and as a vital partner in ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific. His perspective emphasized the bonds shared by the nations through mutual security and mutual prosperity, addressing the climate crisis and upholding the order grounded in international law. It is also enriched by warm bonds of family and friendship, solid people-to-people ties, diaspora and educational exchanges that provide a strong foundation for the partnership. He outlined the U.S. missions in India to build peaceful societies and secure the future of the people in the nation. 

He argued that the defence partnership had become a pillar for global peace and security as the countries make substantial progress through joint exercises, the reinforcement of military-industrial cooperation and annual 2+2 ministerial dialogue, among others, that contribute to building a comprehensive defence partnership. Signifying the fact that both nations are maritime democracies, RAdm Baker highlighted the military exercises that get more advanced year after year, signifying the efforts made to ensure a free, prosperous and open Indo-Pacific. He shed light on the amount of co-production that has been happening between the nations, which strengthens the Indian defence industrial base and connects them with countries around the world as partners. He stated that the U.S.–India security partnership extends beyond acquisition to commence real industrial cooperation. Now, both countries look forward to the co-production and co-development of defence equipment through the defence industrial cooperation roadmap that provides a framework for creating a defense ecosystem. He outlined the shared progress marked by Indian PM Modi's visit to the White House in June 2023 and the launching of the India-United States Defence Acceleration Ecosystem (INDUS X). He argued that it promotes resilience in the supply chain, supports startup companies, businesses, and investors in both countries as they embark on shared joint challenges, and promotes academic research to further the ongoing efforts of both nations. Simultaneously, the QUAD moves forward by bringing in collaboration between the four QUAD countries that are mutually reinforcing, wherein the countries can multiply their power to understand threats at sea better and offer to safeguard the Indo-Pacific. Through IPMDA, the QUAD is also responsible for contributing towards stability and prosperity. The speaker concluded his speech by reinstating the necessity for close collaboration to deter conflict, respond to crisis, and ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific. 

Dr. Deepa Ollapally, Professor of International Studies at George Washington University, Washington DC, and the Director of Rising Powers Initiative, gave the vote of thanks for the session. In her short speech, Dr Deepa outlined that the individuals' vision, commitment, and hard work seal such relations between the U.S. and India. She extends her heartfelt gratitude to all those who are present and have contributed to conducting this conference and honored the guests with mementos. 

Plenary Session 

Plenary Session Speakers: Dr. Satu Limaye, Amb. Arun K. Singh 

Moderator: Dr. Deepa Ollapally 

Time: 10:00 – 11:00 hrs IST 

The plenary session aimed to provide the U.S. and Indian perspectives, respectively. The first speaker of the plenary session, Dr Satu Limaye, Vice President and Director of the East-West in Washington and Research Program, provided the U.S. perspective of geopolitical and strategic context in U.S.-India relations.

According to Dr Limaye, there were over three strategic changes at the global level. The first is the increasing fragmentation between states, for example, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China's expanding aggressiveness throughout the Indo-Pacific region, and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. This period of fluidity and contestation at the domestic and international level, though it may not be new, is particularly acute due to the nature of authoritarian regimes and the fast rise of technology, among other issues. According to him, the second variable that has an impact at the global level is the domestic factors playing an increasing role, such as authoritarian actions domestically and among each other. This year, more countries have had elections or have upcoming elections than in any recent years. For instance, elections in Japan, the U.S., the U.K., and Australia play an important role in U.S.-India relations as a growing sense of nationalism and populism supplements these domestic changes. The third factor having relevance to the U.S.-India partnership is the increasing four international fragmentations– decreasing sense of globalization, power diffusion among states, drift in international governance (increasing contestation in UNSC & UNGA, WTO) and the U.S.-China decoupling/de-risking strategy undertaken by the U.S. Government. According to him, these three factors, as stated above, have significance in driving the U.S. Strategic partnership, now more than ever. 

In his address, Dr. Limaye also identified the three factors in the Indo-Pacific that are primarily beneficial for U.S.-India cooperation. He recognized that the U.S. remains a key player in forming alliances and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region, such as South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam, India, Philippines, Indonesia and Pacific Island countries. The U.S. is viewed as the most diplomatic and influential country that holds power in relationships. In the U.S.-China relations, the countries have moved from no relations to somewhat highly competitive strategic competition. The China-Asia relationship is exponentially enhanced, and there is concern, worry, and outright conflict. Meanwhile, the U.S. has established its allies and partners in Asia and inter-Indo-Pacific relations have also thickened bonds, such as between India and Australia, India and Japan, and India and South Korea. Therefore, he concluded that the relationship balance in the Indo-Pacific is hugely in favor of the U.S.-India partnership and provides numerous opportunities for cooperation. 

He also factors in the U.S. interests in trade, investment and technology in the Indo-Pacific, resulting primarily from the decline in globalization by inward-looking economies, due to which economies in the Indo-Pacific are starting to show signs of fragmentation and, therefore,

realignment. He mentioned that despite the U.S. departure from the TPP, there has been more alignment in the last few years that supplements U.S. partnership with these countries on a bilateral basis. This opening provided an important opportunity for the U.S. to play a constructive and innovative role in what they can supplement in the supply chain, leading to the development of the Indo-Pacific region. Dr. Limaye also recognized the different management mechanisms for cooperation. There are multiple pathways or mechanisms to implement and take forward this partnership, starting from bilateral, multilateral and quadrilateral arrangements. In these partnerships, he identified two models – the Spokes model, which is a straightforward and treaty-bound relation and the Coalitional configurations, which are flexible and informal. Because of their vitality, these management mechanisms offer several domains in which the U.S. and India can engage. While there are mechanisms under the Spokes model, such as the QUAD grouping, he suggested that the U.S. and India can engage and take on niche agreements rather than full agreements. He suggested this can be vital to probe the nations to move forward into operational capacity without facing technical barriers. He further stated that the U.S. and India can utilize the sticky strategic partnership and competition between the U.S. and China to wedge and navigate a fluid international environment. This sticky strategic partnership has a lot of continuities that drive the relationship between the U.S. and India. A few of them include partisan support for the continuing ties, India's strategic weight that cannot be overlooked, stakeholders' interests in the emerging relationships and looking for opportunities with other partners for defence cooperation. He concluded his speech with these observations, the first being that the ceilings have gotten much higher for U.S.-India relations. The second one is that individuals must supplement them and that the management mechanisms must be engaged in moving these strategic opportunities into operational terms. His third observation encourages the nations to acknowledge that much more work must be done to deepen progress. The narrative of the U.S.-India relationship has only now embarked on a strategic partnership. Sharing ideas to build on that narrative and encourage the relationship is necessary. 

The next speaker on the panel, Ambassador Arun K. Singh, former Indian ambassador to the United States, France, and Israel, provided the Indian perspective by drawing lessons from history to understand the relationship that has converged over the decades. He sought to provide the context of the Indian side since India attained its independence and how the relations have been shaped. Soon after India's independence, the earlier phases of the relations were marked by

the onset of the Cold War, which was characterized by a bipolar global structure. During this bipolar phase, the U.S. policy decisions that phase were guided by two considerations – to form military alliances to push back against the communist threat from the USSR and China. This negatively impacted the U.S.-India relationship as India, which had just become independent, did not want to subjugate its decision-making authority. Its leaders wanted to retain decision-making autonomy in India's pursuit of interests. Pakistan saw this as an opportunity and became a part of the U.S.-led military alliance system. This enabled Pakistan to get military supplies from the U.S., which it used to challenge India. This alliance structure made the U.S. support Pakistan politically, including the Kashmir conflict, which complicated the U.S.-India relationship. Despite a lack of mutual understanding between the nations, the success of democracy and success in delivering economically has a significant weight in challenging the communist party in China and promoting the idea of democracy. From that perspective, the U.S. was supportive of India in some instances, including the 1962 war with China. When India launched the green revolution, the U.S. partnered with India to support technological advancements, such as becoming self-sufficient and exporting food grain. 

The speaker delved into the historical context of the geopolitical situation from when the Soviet Union moved to Afghanistan. The U.S. intended to contain Soviet influence in the region and this mission saw Pakistan as its close ally and partner. As a result of this, Pakistan's intelligence built up capabilities that were subsequently used against India, due to which India faced terrorism. This turn of events had implications for India and U.S.-India relations. However, soon, the Bipolar gave way to a unipolar phase after the disintegration of the USSR. During this phase, the role of the U.S. was to establish norms and rules that promoted the global good. They pushed globalization of trade and production and argued that production and trade efficiencies and opening up to global markets would lead to higher GDP worldwide. The service sector in India benefitted while manufacturing in India took a hit as China dominated the trade markets. This globalization led to the rise of China, which emerged as a challenge not only for India but also for the U.S. 

According to the speaker, the second effort made by the U.S. was to globalize norms with its influence as a unipolar power. It was an indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1995, which was seen as unfavorable from India's perspective. The U.S. signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996. India's position to not sign the CTBT and

declare it a nuclear power by conducting nuclear tests in 1998 saw a divergence in interests and marked the peak of complexity in India-U.S. relations. This led to the imposition of sanctions against India. The new phase of India began, and a new geopolitical context was formed after this period when the U.S. saw an advantage in building bilateral ties with India as it showed strength and resilience and could weather the sanctions. Gradually, the U.S. recognized that its unipolar phase ended, paving the way for a multipolar one. Since 1999, the U.S. has viewed China not as a strategic partner but as a strategic competitor. Thus, a new relationship was built with India. In 2000, India-U.S. relations have been sustained on a positive trajectory. The speaker identified two main reasons for the same: the strengths in bilateral relations between India and the U.S. and the second are the rise of China and the challenges it poses in the Indo-Pacific and the Indian Ocean. They had a convergence with the rise of China and the challenge that China's unilateral and assertive behavior poses to the world—India's position, as identified by Amb. Singh is to sustain a relationship with Russia, and consolidating relations with the U.S. became a priority for India as they have a growing convergence in the current geopolitical situation. 

He advised India to strengthen itself, retain its agency before a crisis or situation could develop, and have autonomy while responding. The U.S. sees value in a strong India and can benefit from a strong partnership with India while handling crises. Beyond that, China remains a primary technological and military challenge in replacing the U.S. in the international system. Therefore, the speaker suggested that a partnership with India will remain vital because of its global capability, its value in the supply chain, and critical new and emerging technology. He also suggested domains such as artificial intelligence, quantum, 6G, defence technology, biotechnology, space, semiconductors, etc., as areas for cooperation as they undergo new methods of production in which the countries can mutually work together to set norms and standards while increasing their capabilities. The new production methods carry a lot of scope, especially in building technology partnerships, norms and partnerships, and mechanisms to promote trade between the two countries. He reflected on the defence partnership and technology transfer, stating that it had once been unthinkable and that the nations have now facilitated such cooperation is evidence of the growth of partnerships between the nations. He concluded his speech by stating that the current geopolitical content provides impetus to the India-U.S.

relationship, where both countries can mutually benefit as they have emerged as top trading partners and could extend their partnership in other areas. 

Questions posed by participants: 

● What is the intent and the content of the trilateral relations between India, China and the U.S. and what are the pinpricks in the operational capacity of the relationship? 

Ambassador Arun Singh addressed the first question by stating that the U.S. is looking for changes in its relations with China. As the U.S. reworks its relations while primarily working on its interests, it must consider the implications for India. To answer the pinpricks in the relations, he provided three challenges that the nations may face due to different viewpoints. 

i. The first one is the concern from the U.S. as India imports energy from Russia during the ongoing Ukraine conflict. The U.S. has shown an understanding of India-Russia relations and of India's compulsion to buy energy from Russia. Suppose U.S.-Russia relations do not move towards cooperation. In that case, there will be concerns about how India-Russia relations will play out in areas such as high technology, and the continuing conflict may act as a guardrail to the seepage of technology. 

ii. The U.S. has its challenges today as a democracy. There is a fair amount of election denial happening in the U.S. Hence, the U.S. is facing its own set of challenges in the functioning of its democracy. 

iii. The growing Indian-origin diaspora, around 4-5 million strong, in the U.S., which is viewed as a strength, can also be seen as a challenge as there are differences in viewpoints in the Indian-origin community in the U.S. According to Amb. Arun Singh said the Indian government dissatisfies them and seems to be acting against India. 

Dr. Satu Limaye supplemented the answer by stating that the U.S. and India are not unique in facing bilateral challenges. Even in close, intricate relationships, some challenges might need to be worked through and sorted out. The challenges can be worked on by looking at what kinds of results we can expect from cooperation through constant negotiations and discussions between the two governments.

● During the Cold War, it made sense for India to remain neutral. What if India now goes entirely into the U.S. fold and abandons its neutrality? How would it work, if at all? 

Ambassador Arun Singh addressed the question by remarking that he is confident that India will always want to make its own decisions in its interest after watching the Indian diplomatic process in the last four decades. He argued that India would never be a part of the structure that will take decisions made by someone else elsewhere and that India has also shown its autonomy. He also suggested that the India-U.S. relations will take place on a deeper level if they provide India space for differences of opinion. Where there is a convergence, they will grow together and there is also a greater opportunity for convergence. However, he also cautioned that he should be prepared for the divergence that may arise between the countries. 

Dr Satu Limaye added to the answer by showing an example that the U.S. has good relations with Indonesia, Japan and many other countries and there have been challenges, but these countries are not entirely in the U.S.'s camp. He also stated that no country does not take action on its own. If the fundamental narrative is independent, there is a difference of opinion. They can also be allied outside an alliance. For example, many Southeast Asian nations are closely allied outside U.S. alliances. Therefore, both sides are learning to navigate the partnerships and make decisions independently.

Symposium 1- 'U.S. - India: Defence Technology Transfer & Production'- Outlining the Challenges 

Expert Participants: Dr. Ramnath Reghunadhan, Mr. Sidharth M.P., Dr. Sneha Bhagat, Ms. Appu Gapak & Dr. Pragya Pandey 

Chair: Prof. Rajaram Nagappa 

Mentors: Dr. Sameer Lalwani & Mr Aditya Ramanathan 

Time: 11.20 am - 12.00 pm (IST)

Key Takeaways 

Expert speakers outlining the challenges presented the consolidated points on behalf of the expert speakers. With a good overview in the plenary session, the speakers jumped into the various challenges and outlined each with illustrations and examples. 

Dr. Sneha Bhagat started by outlining various challenges, including bureaucratic, regulatory, Strategic and operational differences. Under bureaucratic hurdles, the complex procurement process was flagged as a significant issue. The system can lead to substantial delays in decision-making and execution. Then came the export control regulations, and the stringent export control regulations of the U.S. were highlighted. These regulations are designed to protect the U.S. national security. These regulations hinder bilateral cooperation and incur significant compliance costs for Indian entities. The technology transfer restrictions were highlighted as the next challenge, and the U.S. is cautious about sharing its most advanced technology over concerns about Intellectual Protection Rights and the potential for logical proliferation. The High-end technologies are often protected at the highest level and this caution limits the scope of technology transfer. The trust and security concern was another point raised, highlighting the degree of mistrust between both sides. Another central point on indigenization goals was raised, possibly creating friction in the defence technology collaborations. The next point addressed was balancing indigenization with the need for foreign technology. India wants to build a robust defence technology industry but also needs cutting-edge technology to address immediate security issues. 

Another central point highlighted was the issue of intellectual property rights and enforcement, which is a concern for U.S. companies and makes joint ventures even more complicated. He mentioned geopolitical balancing is another central point, and the balancing act is delicate. and the domestic political changes in either country may change the previous arrangements and shift policy priorities. The aspect of workforce training was touched upon, where the U.S. firms bring advanced manufacturing techniques, and the Indian workforce needs to be trained adequately. The financial viability is also a concern highlighted by the speaker. 

The next speaker, Mr. Sidharth MP, highlighted America's journey as a technology leader and elaborated on the Indian scenario without consistency and long-term planning. America's healthy

competition in the private sector has had a significant bearing on the progress of the U.S., which is lacking in India. The speaker delved into the nuances of engine deals and highlighted that it's not just the transfer of technology but also the question of whether India will have access to design drawings. The speaker complemented this model with an example of Indo-France collaboration on the Liquid engine. He also stressed the importance of the 'know-why' aspect, the workforce's capacity, and existing technology's ability to absorb high-end technology. The quality and standards are also a concern. As far as India is concerned, the ISO ISI standards are being followed, but the NATO standards followed by the U.S. are much higher. So, the question that needs to be deliberated upon is how to bridge the abovementioned gap. The speaker also raised bureaucratic concerns. 

The mentor's remarks from Mr. Aditya Ramanathan were conveyed in three main ways. They have started acknowledging several vertical problems, starting with procurement problems. It begins with poor JSQRs and India's risk management hedges causing fragmentation; the Indian system prioritizes the lowest bidders, and the defence acquisition system cannot support R&D in its current form. The consequences are fragmented and delayed acquisitions and procurement. The speaker also emphasized looking into some success stories, such as TATA technologies, where a legacy company is taking the business risk and a foreign company is bringing in the technology. The third point mentioned was that we can wait for cutting edge. India needs better battle tanks, artillery, etc. India also has particular requirements and needs products that cater to those. Another reason to come into co-production, as mentioned by the speaker, is that, though India and the U.S. will never agree on something like Russia, India does need to reduce the exposure to Russian military pieces of equipment. 

Dr Sameer Lalwani, Mentor for the expert speakers, started with a history of technology transfer with Polaris Missile Systems. The speaker also commented on the incentive structures and is of the opinion that they will prompt states to transfer their technology. Regarding export controls, the speaker believes that one of the most important questions to pose is how to circumvent the current controls by legal means in the U.S. The best way to control it is to go through it. The speaker also highlighted a few progress and challenges. They emphasized that the technology transfer process does not come with design transfer alone but also organizational knowledge

shared in building it together. A new way forward that is coming up right now is the testing consortium between the U.S. and Indian companies and academic laboratories. 

The chair, Prof. Rajaram Nagappa adjourned the session and moved on to discuss the way forward. 

Defence Technology Transfer and Production- Identifying Opportunities and Way Forward 

Expert Participants: Mr. Yusuf Unjhawala, Dr Anurag Tripathi, Mr. Snehesh Philip, Ms. Akhila Premachandran and Ms. Kriti Chopra. 

Mentors: Prof. Soundar Rajan P.M., Dr. Sameer Patil, Shibani Mehta 

Time: 12.00 PM -12.45 PM (IST)

Key Takeaways 

In the second part of Symposium I on 'Identifying Opportunities and Way Forward', the first speaker, Ms. Akhila Premachandran, Chief Broadcast Journalist of Asianet News T.V., stated that the U.S. and India must fortify their alliance against the backdrop of a least trusted China which calls for a deliberate effort to collaborate more successfully. She stated a few areas wherein the partnership could be more efficient, where major advancements can be driven by the transfer of creative ideas from startups and the privatization of businesses. Akhila Premachandran also reiterated that significant studies and more capital are required to get researchers involved in developing these concepts, especially when using A.I., especially in the defence sector. This collaboration is a powerful engine for creativity because both countries are home to some of the brightest brains. Another area, she stated, is encouraging private sector participation that can give government initiatives the boost they need to become implemented. According to the speaker, the utilization of international expertise can also be improved by looking into partnerships with other nations and these efforts can be further supported by a more connected U.S supply chain. This all-encompassing strategy will promote a stronger and more dynamic defense industry and improve relations between the United States and India. 

The second speaker, Mr. Yusuf Unjhawala, an adjunct scholar from Takshashila Institution, Bangalore, stated that Admiral Michael Baker emphasized the importance of using defence to deepen ties between the United States and India. He stressed that building cooperative relationships with the U.S., India, and other allies can strengthen India's defense capacities and offset China's sway over the market. Technology transfers should be the main priority, especially in aviation, marine and terrestrial propulsion systems. It is imperative that these fields, which include kinetic energy and all other types of energy, be developed together. According to the speaker, the U.S. has already helped India acquire spares from other nations, which are resource-poor in areas like metallurgy. Establishing India as a material supplier to source and create weapon systems at a reduced cost depends on this partnership. Underwater systems also offer tremendous possibilities for cooperation and overcoming obstacles like the Russian use of drones, and this is stated by integrating the private sector, making them another exciting field for collaboration.

Similarly, Mr. Unjhawala stated that another crucial area is space, particularly considering China's development of kinetic and non-kinetic technologies to demonstrate its superiority in this domain. To tackle these obstacles, collaborative endeavors and pooled knowledge are essential. Furthermore, the speaker stated that India has the potential to develop into a critical, low-tech alternative sourcing hub and making India a center for low-tech, low-cost solutions can increase its strategic significance and help the same defense industry create more resilient, diverse supply chains. 

Mentors further discussed this. First, Prof. Soundar Rajan PM, head of the International Strategic and Security Studies Program, NIAS, Bengaluru, stated that technology transfer is the first concern raised; this should be a two-way street involving both providing and taking. As demonstrated by a shared achievement in which Americans helped with the process, this is a crucial component of the partnership. The speaker shared a story in government laboratories wherein his team collaborated to write specifications through mutual agreements and consultations. He stressed the need to improve the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) and that it is imperative to determine the reasons behind its ineffectiveness and resolve its shortcomings. The DTTI was implemented in 2016. He further added that the capacity to work on collaborative initiatives is the second problem. To make this happen, the speaker suggested that it is imperative to identify shared issues and cooperate with nations such as the United States and Germany. If specifications cannot be independently established, we must address this, Prof. Ranjan added. Using cutting-edge technology like artificial intelligence (A.I.) is essential, and it is crucial to profit from these developments. Verified software facilitates collaboration in the development of vital and safe systems. He also reiterated that Unjhawala's remarks highlight the necessity of assistance in these undertakings, particularly emphasizing that it ought to be exclusively on high-tech solutions. The speaker stressed the need to focus on areas where cooperation can significantly enhance both nations' defense capacities. 

The second mentor, Ms. Shibani Mehta, Senior Research Analyst at Carnegie India, stated that the idea of enhancing India's technology absorption is crucial way ahead. She also suggested that developing joint systems with countries is significant, as mentioned as an example of Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. (AUKUS), for which more workshops are required to support this, either by helping the government in other ways or by bringing the public and private sectors together for funding and support. Talking about the "how" and "why" essential, and these is conversations need to happen often. Case studies like the ones the previous mentor, Aditya Ramanathan, Research Fellow and Head of Takashila Institution, Bengaluru, had discussed, she continued how crucial it is to have regular interactions to resolve issues and guarantee productive teamwork. 

The third mentor, Dr. Sameer Patil, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, stated that India's defence exports could be accentuated with collaborations with the U.S. and for the U.S. to step into this and work with India. He shed light on the matter with an example of China and how it has flourished in expanding its export base and has brought about a political influence. The startup industry is one of the main areas of this cooperation. Businesses that are not yet well-known can benefit from this alliance. The speaker added that startups can spur growth and innovation, particularly those based in Silicon Valley and India. He also reiterated that the relationship between India and the U.S. must develop naturally, as in their military cooperation. The Indian privatization process is one of the crucial factors to consider. In the past, the speaker added that the U.S. has prioritized the private sector. Now is the time to broaden this emphasis to encompass joint ventures across the defense and civilian sectors. 

Discussions and Questions posed by participants 

● RAdm Michael Baker, U.S. Senior Defense Official, stated that resolving and minimizing potential frictions is imperative to optimize opportunities between the U.S. and India. First off, he stated India has the potential to emerge as a major provider of necessities like weapons. The speaker added that both countries can guarantee a consistent supply of essential resources by fortifying the defense supply chain. Second, it is imperative to create jobs. The goal should be to create more white-collar and blue-collar jobs, mainly through partnerships that promote economic expansion. He added that by encouraging industries like services and manufacturing, forming alliances is essential; it is an essential component of influence and strategy. 

● Furthermore, the need to tackle the issues facing the Indian aerospace technology industry is emphasized by Air Marshal Matheshwaran, Former Deputy Chief of the Integrated Defence Staff. He contends that India will significantly increase its labor force and manufacturing capacity if it implements technology like the 414 engines. He did, however, issue a warning that high export levels may eventually result in inefficiencies owing to technology shortcomings. The speaker stated that nations like the U.S. and France may not share their designs, resulting in a lack of consistency and constantly forcing India to change technologies. As a result, it is critical to consider the timeline and guarantee steady growth. The speaker added that India can advance and improve its technology and production efficiency by seizing the present chances and studying the approach to the strategy of nations such as China. 

● Dr. Anuraj Tripathi, Associate Professor at Christ University, Bengaluru, stated that the U.S. has introduced the National Defence Industrial Strategy (NDIS) to promote collaboration with allies. A noteworthy potential outcome of this project is increased cooperation between the U.S. and India. The speaker added to this argument by stating that by fostering reciprocal advancement in defense-related businesses and technology, this collaboration can fortify the strategic alliance between the two countries. Adding to it, the speaker said that India and the U.S. can collaborate under the NDIS framework and take advantage of each other's advantages to tackle shared difficulties and accomplish mutual objectives.

Symposium II- Security and Military Dialogues- Outlining the Challenges 

Expert Participants: Dr. Kanneganti Ramesh Babu, Dr. Saurabh, Mr. Syed Mohammed Bilal, Ms.Urbi Das, Dr. Pournamy 

Chair: Lt.Gen.Prakash Menon 

Mentors: Dr.Dhanuraj , Dr. Satu Limaye and Prof. KP Vijayalakshmi 

Time: 2 PM - 2:45 PM 

Key Takeaways 

Symposium II featured a panel discussion titled "Security and Military Dialogues". The primary objective of this session was to provide a comprehensive understanding of the security concerns and collaboration on Military dialogues between the two countries, mainly focusing on outlining the challenges faced by the bilateral relationship. The meeting aimed to explore the significance of the U.S.-India strategic partnership and facilitate cooperation on strategic security affairs. The discussion aimed to provide information on the underlying security threats and collaboration efforts through military dialogues to promote cooperation on the ground. The meeting brought together distinguished panelists, experts and participants to discuss these issues and share insights through discussions, questions and suggestions that experts believe should be addressed. 

Lt.Gen.(Dr.) Prakash Menon acknowledged that challenges and finding solutions to solve them is why all the dignitaries present are in the positions in which they are. He addressed that growing military, political and diplomatic interactions between the U.S. and India are vital for the power balance in Asia. According to him, cooperation between the U.S. & India and the projection of combined strength and unity is essential to deter international rule-breakers like China. He also left us with a reminder that such deterrence efforts are being made under the shadow of nuclear weapons, and that should always remain in the thoughts of the parties involved. 

The first speaker, Dr Kanneganti Ramesh Babu, an expert in human security, emphasised the importance of making human security the focal point of the national and bilateral security dialogue. He set the context of his argument by reminding us about the vastness of the Indian land and maritime border, which stretches across various geographic terrains and encompasses people coming from different ethnicities & walks of life. He further reminded us about the world's different flashpoints, how they impact humans on the ground the most, and how their voices are often left out of these security and military dialogues. He addressed the military challenges that the U.S. and India have faced in the Indo-Pacific and how the U.S. has been helping India with operational capacity building. According to Dr Babu, India has had a reactive defence policy since the 1970s, which has become proactive since 2000, and, since 2014, has become predatory in nature on the defence and foreign policy front. He mentioned that successive Indian governments have collaborated with the U.S. on different fronts, like LEMOA (Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement). Still, collaborative efforts on the human security front have been insignificant. He mentioned that the national security perspective has been explored by India and the U.S. over 70 + years with successes and failures but the human security perspective of the collaboration has been neglected. He doubled down on his argument and stated that, according to him, the non-traditional security issues like water, food, shelter, and energy poverty women and their partnership with growth have become more important than traditional security issues. According to Dr. Babu, a human-centric approach is necessary for a global comprehensive partnership between the U.S. and India while dealing with diplomatic and military dialogues. He proposed a bottom-up approach that simultaneously worked with a top-down approach to achieve a holistic human-centric approach to security and military dialogues. He encouraged integrating the rural folk, tier-1, and tier-2 demographics within the security and military frameworks as their voices, concerns and expectations have, till now, been neglected and disregarded. He gave the example of how fishing communities have had bonhomie with the sea and how they should betegrated with our security and military dialogues as they have as much ability to understand socio, political and natural phenomena as a politician, diplomat or armed forces general might have. To justify his point, he gave the example of UPI and online money transfer adoption rate and scale in India. 

In conclusion, Dr Babu mentioned how strategic continuity of these perspectives is essential for the country's holistic growth and how the country's youth should also be integrated within the security and military framework through educational institutes and think tanks. 

The next speaker, Dr. Saurabh, mentioned how, being the largest democracies, the belief in peaceful co-existence has led to growing strength in their partnership for the last two decades. U.S. and India have been building this partnership to leverage the bond the two countries have finally created. This partnership should be especially leveraged to deter a common threat, i.e., China. Whether it be the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean, or the Himalayas, the collaboration of both the U.S. and India is vital in deterring China and being a symbol of resistance in South and East Asia against mighty China. According to Dr Saurabh, China has managed to cater to its interests through the Belt and Road initiative, Gwadar port, Maldives and ports in Sri Lanka, and its strategic presence in the Red Sea region without taking international responsibilities. 

According to Dr Saurabh, due to these developments, U.S. demand for India to join it in patrols in the South China Sea might not be ideal and possible as it might further damage India-China ties and lead to escalation on the India-China border. The Quadrilateral dialogue also cannot be militarised due to the likelihood of an India-China border conflict arising because of it. The U.S. access to Andaman and Nicobar Island for military stationing would strengthen India's deterrence effort against China. According to Dr Saurabh, due to the Russia-Ukraine Crisis, Russia has been recognised as an aggressor state. It has become a point of contention between the U.S. and India due to historically close Indo-Russia ties. India fulfils its need for cheap energy and defence supplies from Russia, which it needs to address to gain U.S. support and trust. Strategic diversification in energy and defence imports is necessary for India to leverage its partnership with the U.S., transferring critical technologies effectively. This would be another gain for India if it could sow seeds of trust and become a responsible user. Efficient and impactful collaboration between India and the United States will pressure China psychologically, leading to a balance of power in the region. 

Mentor Dr. Satu Limaye brought an East Asian perspective regarding growing India-U.S relations. According to Dr Limaye, India-U.S military dialogue has been viewed positively in East and Southeast Asia except China. Deepening India-U.S. relations have made East and South Asian countries confident and have seen it as a net benefit to the balance of power in the region. Due to these developments, India's image as a Russian ally during and after the Cold War changed in Southeast Asian countries. Dr Satu Limaye said India's presence in non-traditional security dimensions in East Asia would be highly desirable and recommended India address counter-piracy, illicit trafficking and other maritime issues through its naval diplomacy and combined task forces and joint naval patrols with the U.S. would strengthen India's regional presence because, security and military dialogues should not always be stretched to the question of autonomy as they are part of capacity building, defence cooperation and intelligence sharing. He also suggested maritime diplomacy audits like those done for ASEAN members should be adopted for confidence building. These audits showcase how each country managed different situations in the region, leading to transparency and accountability on behalf of the countries in sharing their standard practices and military and security exercises. India can adopt such practices to build trust with the United States and achieve net deterrence. 

Mentor Dr Dhanuraj emphasised that a robust economy is essential to support all military and bilateral dialogues in response to Dr Babu's comments on traditional and non-traditional security issues. According to Dr Dhanuraj, until India's per capita income is 2500 dollars, India might not realise its interests and see the converging points. India needs to initiate security dialogues with South Asia and ASEAN countries. In the short run, India and the U.S. have a common threat to tackle in the region, so their interests converge. In the long run, though, India's capabilities should strengthen to influence and, to an extent, dictate the regional security framework by incorporating ASEAN countries in a security dialogue, which India has been reluctant to do for so long. To become a regional superpower, India needs to put effort into regional collaborations. Dr. Dhanuraj agreed that these security and military dialogues should integrate the local stakeholders at the bottom of the pyramid and simultaneously pursue a bottom-up approach to boost bilateral security relations. Integrating environmental issues like ocean health and marine life habitat to support local lives impacted by it should also be part of the dialogue. 

Mentor Prof. KP Vijayalakshmi proposed that traditional inflexion points must change regarding what is expected from a nation's foreign policy. She mentioned U.S. President Joe Biden's shift towards a foreign policy for the middle class, which has been championed by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as well. This is to create an Indian way of understanding the complexities of geopolitics. According to her, news being out before an official statement in the current era indicates the top-down and bottom-up approaches are beginning to coincide. According to Prof. KP Vijayalaxmi, a significant challenge for security dialogues is understanding what the two states need to discuss regarding current challenges or focusing on future threats. Future threats are challenges as they force nations to decide their future roles in a particular conflict. Future threats also give rise to the challenge of the extent of information sharing and how these nations should discuss their future capabilities. 

According to Prof. KP Vijayalaxmi, military capabilities of the future should be discussed, with the focus being on the U.S. as their developmental efforts lead to capacity building in partner nations and to what extent they can share their future technologies with partners like India. The U.S. and India also needed to smooth technological differences with military equipment in collaboration. She said it is also necessary to understand how China views India and U.S. military dialogues and their increased collaborative efforts. According to Prof. KP Vijayalaxmi, these efforts should be considered cooperative dialogues for regional peace. They should not be viewed in a negative and destructive light against common threats as they would lead to more instability. Protractive conflicts in the regional theatres of the world should also be kept an eye on due to their impact on every other sphere of policy-making by India and the U.S. She suggests the two countries strategise solutions and come up with response expectations from each other to make cooperation over global issues more coordinated, efficient and impactful.

Symposium III: 'Military Operational Cooperation'- Outlining the Challenges 

Expert Participants: Dr. Shreya Upadhyay, Dr. M.J. Vinod, Dr. Shreejita Biswas, Mr. Anuj Das and Mr. Velmurugan Paranjothi 

Chair: Air Marshal (Dr.) M. Matheswaran 

Mentors: Dr. Timothy Walton & Adml. Karambir Singh 

Time: 3.15 - 3.45 PM (IST)

Key Takeaways 

The first speaker, Dr. Shreejitha Biswas, started with the challenges of India and the U.S. and military operational engagement and cooperation. For global strategy cooperation to function, defence and security cooperation is one corner element encompassing multi-sectoral engagement. The team has divided certain challenges into two parameters or two spheres, domestic and international. One of the significant problems in the domestic sector pointed out by the speaker is how India situates itself in the global order through its strategic autonomy and multi-alignment. Regarding resource allocation, the Make in India project, or the Atmanirbharta project, primarily focusing on indigenous production, has remained a critical obstacle to building the relationship between India and the United States. Since 2020, defence acquisition procedures (the DAP) have significantly promoted domestic arms manufacturing. The second hurdle at the domestic level is the diversification of the partners, which has remained one of India's key cornerstone policies because India does not want dominance or, rather, to undermine the dominance of a single supplier. A lot was discussed about Russia, but from 2019-23, other key partners, such as France, Israel, South Korea, Ukraine and South Africa, have emerged to be key players or critical suppliers when it comes to domestic arms. So, this has created a trust deficit within partners like the U.S. regarding technology sharing. 

The next speaker, Prof MJ Vinod, looked at some of the more significant regional and international structural issues in India-U.S. strategic relations. He mentioned the China factor, the Indo-Pacific factor, the Russia factor, the Iranian factor, Pakistan factor. The speaker mentioned China's threat as the most significant threat these two countries face: militarily, culturally, and economically. Prof MJ Vinod mentioned a variety of perspectives. Firstly, India cannot choose its neighbours, so there is no choice but to handle this issue unilaterally or collaboratively. Secondly, the world is witness to the type of expansionist trend shown by China, and mainly since the turn of the century, India has been at the receiving end in this context. As far as India is concerned, India realises its interests are much beyond South Asia. Thirdly, India's economic and strategic interests are much beyond South Asia. There is a vast diaspora outside India, and we have different political and strategic equations in countries across the global landscape. China's rise is perceived as a strategic challenge by both India and the U.S., which brings the two countries together. In this context, India must balance China with the U.S. in its Indo-Pacific strategy. 

Dr Shreya Upadhyay mentioned the five regulatory challenges. The first is looking at the defence technology initiatives and how they pertain to interoperability. The speaker mentioned that the DTTI learnings must be pushed to use now. If procedural interoperability is being managed, technical interoperability remains a challenge, especially in naval and air operations, where we have desperate naval systems that obstruct seamless cooperation. India has many Russian-origin platforms that are technologically incompatible with the U.S., making interoperability far-fetched. Secondly, the issue of intellectual property rights remains a challenge. American companies are concerned about keeping China and Russia out from stealing their proprietary technologies, especially in current times. Russia, Ukraine, and India-Russia ties also come under speculation. The speaker comments that India has a stable status quo power, which is excellent for the country. However, the challenge remains somewhere convincing: India has a system of surveillance, production, and protection of that technology. The third is looking at the transfer of low technology versus high technology. India and the U.S. must realise that India has an end-user responsibility and then deal with it. 

Regarding procurement, the speaker mentioned that India likes its defence acquisition procedure, but a mismatch remains. American firms have always complained about the Indian administration's laxity when granting offset credits or restrictions, like investment gaps and ownership limits. India is also mentioned to have a degree of what Americans call over-cautiousness about national security, which often concerns the U.S. and other international investors. The last point the speaker mentioned was the Research and Development undertakings. The speaker mentioned that using a product does not automatically lead to the capacity to produce it unless that technology is absorbed and developed, which requires R&D. India has increased its budget for defence technology programs, but it's still in the R&D programs. 

Mentor's remarks by Adml. Karambir Singh mentioned that, beyond leading and diversification, it also leads to a trust deficit. India has to work intelligently on how they define self-reliance, and the U.S. has to be forward-leaning, and they have been forward-leaning on helping India move up this defence food chain. The speaker also agreed with the point raised that China is a significant factor in collaboration with the U.S. But there are ways that India has done pretty intelligently to make sure that containing China rather than confronting it is a perfect example of how India has selected the larger view of security and the fact that public goods are essential to contain China. Commenting briefly on the DTTI, he mentioned how The Indian Navy has gained from it. He adds that it is a foundation, providing a base for whatever you want to build on. The speaker also added the interaction of the private industry-led startup ecosystem as an opportunity to look at it.

The Mentor's Remarks by Mr. Timothy Walton started with acknowledging the geopolitical context and bureaucratic and regulatory challenges to military operational cooperation. The speaker pointed out the operational environment we're finding ourselves in as a partnership in which China is gaining increasing localised superiority regarding the correlation of forces. The speaker stressed strengthening partnerships and explicit alliances with other countries to increase the perceived quantity of troops that China must consider. This approach ensures that military cooperation is not just for presence's sake but is directed toward deterring Chinese aggression. By forming a robust network of alliances, the collective force becomes a significant consideration for China's strategic calculations. The speaker said that gaining a deep understanding of the PLA (People's Liberation Army) and CCP (Chinese Communist Party) decision-making processes, particularly at the joint theatre command level, is crucial as it focuses on how China plans to execute its operational systems to gain an advantage. He suggested that India can better anticipate their moves and develop counter-strategies to disrupt their plans by enhancing military alliances and partnerships, which is crucial to deter Chinese aggression and influence their strategic thinking. It involves understanding Chinese operational strategies, increasing force considerations, deepening cooperation, and improving communication and command linkages. By doing so, the India-U.S. partnership can create uncertainty for China and deny them any clear operational advantages, ultimately deterring conflict initiation. 

The session proceeded to the second part, Understanding the Way Forward.

Military Operational Cooperation- Identifying Opportunities and Way Forward 

Expert Participants: Dr Subramanyam Raju, Mr Purushendra Singh, Dr Debangana Chatterjee, Dr Amrita Jash, Ms Gurvinder Kaur 

Mentors: Ms. Lisa Curtis, Captain Gurpreet Khurana 

Time: 4.15–5.00 PM (IST) 

Key Takeaways 

Air Marshal Matheshwaran, Former Deputy Chief of the Integrated Defence Staff, chaired the session. Under the second part of Symposium III, on Identifying Opportunities and Way Forward, the first Speaker, Mr. Purushendra Singh, Assistant Director, CUTS International's Washington DC Centre, talked about the prospects and future paths over the next 25 years, and several significant geopolitical developments are projected. Over the next ten years, India will pursue its vision of "Viksit Bharat" (Developed India), with the U.S. and China occupying significant positions. When it comes to military cooperation, there are a few main areas of focus: first, integrating emerging technologies like semiconductors, space exploration, and critical minerals; second, improving port partnerships in the Indian Ocean and expanding its influence beyond the traditional Indo-Pacific region to include strategic frameworks like the QUAD. Third, aircraft advancements, particularly in UAV technology, will be crucial, especially in conflict settings. He added that the QUAD must also be involved in the Western Indian Ocean and engage with Pacific Island Countries (PIC) more, acknowledging their strategic significance. India can lead cooperative operations in Africa and bolster its position in international security because it has the second-largest land military in the world. 

The second speaker, Dr. Subramnyam Raju, Professor and head of the UGC Centre for Maritime Studies at Pondicherry University, said that to preserve regional stability, the U.S. and India are attempting to strengthen their community collaboration. The speaker emphasised that the main concern for the U.S. is India's import of weapons from Russia; however, it is anticipated that this would decline because of the "Make in India" campaign. India has chosen not to turn the QUAD into a military or defence alliance, but it is eager to have France as a member because it understands the strategic significance of France. The speaker also stated that although China's influence is a major worry in setting the U.S.-India ties, both countries should see beyond China. The speaker emphasised that the U.S. and India must work together militarily to maintain global supply chain stability and regional security, which is of mutual concern. Furthermore, the speaker stated that there is still controversy surrounding American military supplies to Pakistan. Further concluding, the speaker added that the U.S. gains from collaborative strategic efforts in India, highlighting the significance of their collaboration in tackling global issues. 

This was followed by the mentor's remarks wherein Ms. Lisa Curtis, Senior Fellow and Director, Indo-Pacific Security Program, Centre for a New American Security, quoted Mr. Singh underlined the significance of the Indian Ocean. He recommended that the QUAD broaden its purview to encompass the underwater marine domain and East and West Africa. Although relations between India and Russia have been steady, she said Mr Raju emphasised the need to lessen India's reliance on Russian weapons. He also mentioned the possibility of future problems. He also said that India's openness is important if more nations join the QUAD and that the U.S.

needs to be aware of India's sensitivities towards Pakistan. Strong U.S.-Indian collaboration is evident in the growing frequency of joint exercises, especially regarding maritime security in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. Setting up markets in these areas is essential. Using the Andaman and Nicobar Islands' strategic importance and fortifying relations with Southeast Asian countries present another possibility. She also referred to Ambassador Arun Kumar Singh, who emphasised the need for cautious collaboration to avoid historical pitfalls as India retains its dominant role in the Indo-Pacific region, particularly regarding Afghanistan and the development of ISIS and concluded that both countries must work together to combat terrorism and protect human rights, with a focus on ongoing collaboration. 

The second mentor, Captain Gurpreet Khurana, Former Executive Director of the National Maritime Foundation, stated that a more thorough and sophisticated approach is needed to address problems like port security, legal threats, and piracy operations. For him, one possibility is to jointly create large patrol boats in the Indo-Pacific and Western Pacific regions at a reduced cost. The speaker added that the U.S. decided that, in the wake of COVID-19, its focus on the QUAD should include human and holistic security. Even though the U.S. and India may disagree on the South China Sea's expansion, this raised attention to regional problems. He questioned whether India would engage in belligerent behaviour in the event of a conflict in the Western Pacific remains, and U.S. politicians must have faith in India's position on this. The speaker stated that the South China Sea presents enormous risks for both countries, necessitating close coordination with a formal military alliance. Given that the Modi administration may hold office for an additional five years, the speaker stressed that India possesses the fortitude to undertake audacious measures that may resolve the South China Sea dispute during that period. 

Discussions and Questions posed by participants 

● Why is India on the U.S. 301 list for intellectual property rights abuses, and what is the significance of the U.S. being a proponent of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) in this context? What issues arise from the U.S. not fully acknowledging the variety of the Indian market, and how could improved IPR standards potentially strengthen bilateral commercial ties and economic security between India and the U.S.? What substantial obstacles to policy harmonisation exist between India and the U.S., particularly regarding divergent views on IPR enforcement and the variety of India's market? Does the growing trade between India and the U.S. offer both opportunities and challenges, according to Ms Urbi Das, and what are these potential opportunities and challenges? 

Captain (Dr.) Gurpreet Khurana answered that the numerous interrelated threads of bilateral relations between India and the U.S. present opportunities and difficulties shaped by the country's national interests. Notwithstanding tensions during the Trump administration, Ms. Lisa Curtis pointed out that U.S.-Indian trade is robust. However, if the Trump government is re-elected in November, there may be fresh difficulties, which would exacerbate tensions. Air Marshal Matheshwaran also noted that IPR may be utilized as an instrument of politics, with Western nations frequently using it to dominate other regions. It demonstrates how intricate IPR is as one of several strands in bilateral ties that, subject to the strategic environment, are sometimes emphasized and other times not. 

● Whether India must decide whether to contain or oppose China in the maritime sphere where the Indian Navy functions. There are concerns over possible setbacks with the selection of naval fighters, especially the choice to use Rafales. 

Admiral Karambir Singh addressed this issue and underlined the need to restrict China via various strategies, with the QUAD being a key component. He pointed out that there are benefits to both the F-18 and the Rafale and that mutual compromise and more significant strategic factors would ultimately determine which option is chosen. The F-18 might win if the Combat Management System (CMS) is opened, demonstrating the significance of strategic trade-offs in such choices. 

● Who has the potential belligerent role for India, particularly regarding U.S. expectations? 

Ms. Lisa Curtis responded by highlighting the cautious expectations that the U.S. has for India's participation in a Taiwan contingency. According to Ms. Curtis, the U.S. does not anticipate significant military assistance from India, but it would value India's awareness and monitoring of the area in the event of a conflict. The U.S. recognizes that India's top priority is border security in contrast to its partners' strategic objectives in Australia and Japan. The speaker added that

India's expectations are reasonable and mindful of its regional goals. Gurpreet Khurana restated that the U.S. does not expect India to provide significant direct military support, particularly in the event of a blockade of the South China Sea. Still, the U.S. would look to India to help keep China in check. In some ways, which are aligned with U.S. goals, India's strategic focus continues to be on limiting Chinese dominance in the area. 

At the end of the session, Air Marshal Matheshwaran gave a brief overview of the development of military drills, pointing out the notable expansion of the 29th edition of the Malabar exercise. After being initially met with some skepticism, the number of multilateral exercises has significantly expanded, supported by the QUAD and U.S. intelligence collaboration. This partnership has reinforced the Indo-QUAD alliance. Additionally, the speaker drew attention to the geopolitical conundrum in which the U.S. unipolar worldview undermines India's penchant for multipolar governance due to its technological dominance. These dynamics highlight how difficult it is to balance strategic alliances and divergent worldviews.

U.S.-India Defence and Security Cooperation 

Simulation & Negotiation Exercises 

Moderator : Dr. Manoharan N. 

Date: 11th June 2024 

Time: 09.55 am - 10.45 am 

The simulation delved into what the U.S. could offer India with specific defense and security assistance in a crisis situation and the challenges and opportunities. The simulation sought to combine the findings from the four thematic discussions and apply them to the crisis and negotiation toward resolution. The fictitious crisis scenario tests the bilateral strategic relationship under conditions to be specified that could well mirror their current domestic and external uncertainties and pressures. Generally speaking, the three elements of the simulation can be seen as (1) the unfolding of the crisis, (2) its climax and (3) its negotiated de-escalation/resolution

Crisis Scenario 

The Indian Prime Minister has returned from a QUAD meeting in Washington, where a stern joint statement was made against Chinese actions in the South China Sea (SCS). The Indian military reports potential Chinese troop movements near Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh but cannot verify due to severe snowstorms. U.S. intelligence is urgently needed. China also reinforces military installations in the Spratly and Paracel Islands, raising concerns for the U.S. allies. The U.S. is increasing its Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS) in the SCS and seeking joint patrols with India, including the Straits of Malacca, which India has resisted. 

In parallel, Russia is proposing investments in the Chabahar port, complicating India's relations with the U.S., as Congress demands sanctions on Iran and Russia. China is fortifying its presence at Gwadar port, threatening Indian and U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf. Additionally, Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, backed by Iran, have resumed, with Houthis demanding a Gaza war ceasefire to stop their strikes. 

Domestic Context in India and the U.S.: 

India: 

● PM Narendra Modi has been re-elected but relies on a coalition government with two key, unpredictable partners. 

● These coalition partners can destabilize the government if their domestic priorities are unmet. 

● Modi remains popular but has lost some of his perceived invincibility. U.S.: 

● The upcoming election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden is too close to call. ● If Trump returns, his "America First" policy will likely emphasize more burden-sharing and quid pro quo with partners, potentially less confrontation with Russia, and increased support for Israel. 

These domestic contexts significantly influence foreign policy, particularly India-US relations.

Questions to Consider Along the Lines of Project Themes Each 

The teams should generate assumptions regarding their country's core interests, preferences, priorities, redlines, dealbreakers, domestic political calculations, or any other guiding principles that will affect their actions and decisions in the simulation. More than what decisions are made, why the decisions are made and what their rationales are important. 

The Teams 

U.S.: President: Mr Yusuf Unjhawala, Secretary of State: Dr Sneha Bhagat, Secretary of Defence: Dr Shreya Upadhyay, Opposition Leader: Mr Rishi Suri and Senate Majority Leader: Dr Stuti Banerjee 

India: Prime Minister: Ms Lisa Curtis, Defence Minister: Mr Siddharth MP, External Affairs Minister: Dr Sameer Lalwani, DRDO Chief: Dr Shreejita Biswas, 

Opposition Leaders: Ms Akhila Premachandran (Congress) and Dr V. Anand (CPI-M) 

China: President: Dr Satu Limaye, Foreign Minister: Dr Ramnath Reghunathan, Chinese Ambassador to India: Ms Kriti Chopra and Defence Minister: Dr Sameer Patil 

SQUAD: Prime Minister of Japan: Dr Subramanyam Raju, Prime Minister of Australia: Dr Rajeev Ranjan and President of Philippines: Dr Pragya Pandey 

Pakistan: Prime Minister: Dr. Ramesh Babu, Army Chief: Mr. Snehesh Philip. ISI Chief: Capt. Gurpreet Khurana Russia, President: Dr Anurag Tripathi/Dr. Pournamy and Foreign Minister: Dr Amrita Jash 

International Community: U.N. Secretary-General: Mr Purushendra Singh, E.U. President: Dr. K.P. Vijayalakshmi, NATO Chief (France): Amb. Latha Reddy and ASEAN: Mr Aditya Ramanathan

Dissenters: Iran: Prof. Sundar Rajan, North Korea: Ms Shibani Mehta, Afghanistan: Ms Appu Gapak, Turkiye: Mr Syed Mohammed Bilal, ISIS: Dr Urbi Das, Houthis: Dr Saurabh and Al Qaeda: Dr Dhanuraj 

CONTROL: Mr Tim Walton, Dr Deepa, Lt. Gen. Prakash Menon, Air Marshal Matheswaran, Adml Karambir Singh, Prof. Rajaram Nagappa, RADM Michael Baker and Dr Manoharan 

Presentations by teams 

The session commenced with a warm welcome address from Dr. Manoharan N., Director, Centre for East Asian Studies (CEAS), Christ University, Bengaluru. 

The U.S. 

Team U.S. began the presentation by being extremely clear about their desire for regional peace. The United States also assured that they would provide all forms of assistance to India during this crisis, whether it be intelligence, military support and defense capacity building. However, this support from the United States will come with certain expectations from India. These would include diversification efforts undertaken by India and steer away from Russian military and energy imports. The U.S. would expect India to turn down Russian investment interest in the Chahbahar port. The U.S. would encourage India to join it in joint patrolling in the South China Sea and the Malacca Strait. Keeping the recent developments in Western Asia in mind, the U.S. would want India to increase its presence in the Red Sea region to safeguard its economic interest. 

China 

Team China started by defending itself and called out the U.S. for its 'Cold War mentality' for hurling false accusations at China. China clearly wants peace in the region and respects the territorial boundaries and sovereignty of its immediate neighbors and other countries. China then went on the offensive and called out the U.S. and its allies for manufacturing a negative perception of China worldwide, leading to further deterioration of its ties with countries it is involved in trust-building initiatives with. China further adds that it promotes multilateral

power-sharing in this new world order, unlike the United States, which still views the world through a lens tinted with Unilateralism. 

India 

India began by addressing its expectations from the U.S., asking for intelligence on the Line of Actual Control to know what China was up to and other sensitive border areas. India addressed the Chahbahar question and informed the United States that during this tumultuous period with a lot of uncertainties, it would not take Russian investment in Chahbahar, but it would not support sanctions on Iran related to the Chahbahar port. India reminded the U.S. that the port could help drive a wedge between Russia and China because China's Gwadar port was competing against Chahbahar; however, it would not entertain Russian interest at that time. Chahbahar could have been a good listening post for India to keep a tab on developments in the Islamic world. Joint sails in the Malacca Strait at that point would not have been feasible as it would have led to more aggression from China on the borders. The U.S. could have provided India with weapon systems for its patrols in the strait while providing all sorts of intelligence necessary for India to defend itself. India wanted to collaborate on cybersecurity with the United States. India would have also asked its old friend Russia to mediate between China and India and test Russia's commitment to India to see whose partnership was more lucrative for India concerning the China situation, Russia or the U.S. 

Indian opposition 

It would side with the Indian government on any decisions that it takes, as when it comes to national security, the Indian political fraternity stands united. 

Russia 

Russia stated that it caters to the needs of everyone in the Russian world, wherever the Russian diaspora is. Russia wants its partners, India and China, to work together and cooperate to bring a new world order with multilateral power sharing and frameworks of international order that are not just under the influence of the United States and the West. Chahbahar is an important strategic goal for Russia to achieve in which they will cooperate with India and Iran. Russia states that it would support China's activities in the South China Sea and Gwadar Port, but

regarding the LAC, China and India need to sit down and negotiate and employ diplomatic tools to resolve their issues. China, India and Russia can unite against the United States to topple its dominance in today's world order. 

Pakistan 

Pakistan held a reflective tone to begin its presentation, focusing on evaluating its internal situation and listening to all the stakeholders involved. It would welcome help from all corners to improve their domestic situation. It would not want the spillover of tensions between China and India to cross the Line of Actual Control. Thus, it was concerned over the Indian military build-up on its borders. 

SQUAD 

SQUAD strives for peace and stability in the region and vouches for the protection of freedom of navigation. It also promotes the health of the oceans as they suggest, "Ocean health is Ocean wealth." SQUAD proposed beginning military exercises in the Bay of Bengal while joining with ASEAN. 

International Organizations 

U.N. – The United Nations wants peace to prevail and all parties involved in skirmishes to adhere to international law and avoid spillover. U.N. supports freedom of navigation in open seas and begins negotiations for a global framework on non-proliferation of advanced weapons to non-state actors like being seen in the western Indian Ocean around the Red Sea area. 

E.U.- E.U.'s role would be as negotiator between Iran and the U.S. while it supports Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression. E.U. would want to partner with India in developing its military capabilities but is concerned about India's relations with Russia. E.U. promotes multilateral dialogues and wants a world order in which Europe's interests are preserved. 

ASEAN- ASEAN is concerned over the current situation in the South China Sea and considers current developments to threaten peace and security in the region. ASEAN also wants to accelerate discussions over the code of conduct in the South China Sea. ASEAN members also want to push for a meeting with China over these developments

Dissenters 

Iran expected the U.S. not to intervene in matters of Russian and Indian sovereignty and to allow them to collaborate on the Chahbahar port. Iran suggests that India having a strategic listening post in West Asia would be essential to India's intelligence-gathering efforts, which would benefit U.S. interests. 

Round 1- Cross-questioning within teams 

Pakistan: Will India also deploy troops on the North Western borders during this military build-up on the Line of Actual Control? 

India: India is still figuring out what China is up to on the LAC. India is collecting intelligence from its partners, strategizing its next step and focusing on de-escalation efforts instead of planning a military build-up in the region. 

India: If India works on a back channel with Russia to help mediate its conflict with China, would the U.S. still provide all the promised help to India? 

U.S.: Yes, providing help to Indian defence is in the U.S. interest. The information provided to India by the U.S. will be calculated, but the U.S. will provide all possible help to India during this period of turmoil regardless of whether India is also seeking Russian help. There could be discussions in private on it, but currently, we shall provide our unwavering assistance to India. 

Russia- Will any QUAD members come to India's rescue if it vocally supports the anti-China rhetoric and faces a response from China on the borders because India is the QUAD country closest to China? 

U.S.: Would be glad to add a military dimension to the QUAD dialogue and come to India's defence if such a situation arises 

India: We would not support the militarization of the QUAD Dialogue as we believe that the QUAD grouping might cause increased Chinese aggression in the South China Sea region.

Pakistan: We would like to ask our Chinese partners to provide us with military support and tactical direction as we are suffering domestically and must handle this situation on the borders. Pakistan is looking up to its Chinese partners for direction. 

China: Pakistan is our all-weather partner and ally and we will always be supporting Pakistan in its endeavors. Regarding providing direction, we would provide Pakistan with intelligence, depending on the ongoing developments. 

Iran: The Chahbahar port is highly critical to us with India's support. We want to inquire why the U.S. would not like Russia to invest in the port. 

Pakistan: On hearing the U.S.'s promise of unwavering support to India, would Pakistan come under U.S. crossfire in the case India amps up its military presence on our borders? 

The U.S.: On Iran's question on why it doesn't want a Russian presence in Chahbahar, we respond that it is a matter between the U.S. and India. We do not believe in discussing it on open forums like these, but our response to Pakistan is that it needs to focus on its domestic issues and improve its economic health. We advise Pakistan not to pursue any actions of aggression on its border with India as the U.S. has no evidence of India amping up its military presence on Pakistani borders. Currently, India is only gathering information, and we provide India with information based on what is asked for and at our discretion. 

Round 2 – CONTROL Questions 

● While providing India with assistance and military support in the conflict, what would be the U.S. priority ask from India in return? 

U.S. – Decoupling from Russia would be United State's priority ask from India. We offer India alternatives to Russia to support its energy and military equipment needs. We know the deep India-Russia relations and would like India to steer away from Russian dependence in these sectors gradually. We want India to join us in joint patrols in the Malacca strait, but we expect only information sharing from both sides.

● Due to the Russia-Ukraine Crisis, U.S. and Russia relations have nosedived. So, what does India expect from Russia in helping its causes against China? This could be when India could test its friendship with Russia and their commitment to India. 

India – We recognize that Russian-Chinese relations have considerably improved in the last couple of years, so we are not entirely sure what to expect from Russia. As the Russian Indian partnership has always been strong, we want Russia to vouch for India and mediate between China and India. We don't intend to test our relations with our partner Russia. 

● How does China view the U.S. promise of intelligence sharing with India and its demand for joint patrols in the South China Sea and the Malacca Strait? 

China – China expects peace and non-aggression from state actors who are planning to conduct such drills in the region. China would be forced to retaliate in the case any state actor pursues any acts of aggression in any part of Chinese land and marine territory. Such a situation won't be favorable for the global power structure and would lead to massive complications in all spheres of cooperation between China and the world.