Chairperson: Prof. V. P. Dutt
External Discussants: Amb. Rajiv Sikri & Amb. T.C.A. Rangachari
Internal Discussants: Brig. (Retd.) Rumel Dahiya and Dr. Shamshad Ahmed Khan

Dr. Rajaram Panda presented his paper titled India and Japan: Exploring Strategic Potentials on Friday, April 16, 2010. The paper’s main focus was on maritime cooperation between India and Japan and more specifically on the strategic dimensions of this cooperation. Dr. Panda argued that the looming Chinese shadow is the rationale behind this cooperation. First, he defined what a ‘strategic partnership’ means, arguing that the canvas of a “strategic relationship” was much larger than mere “political relationship”. A strategic partnership includes “defence, economic, and security dimensions in the relationship.”

Dr. Panda emphasized that there was a great convergence of interests between India and Japan in the maritime domain. He highlighted India’s unique geographical position, which makes its cooperation extremely critical for Japan in securing its sea lanes. Much of Japan’s international trade is dependent upon safety of its sea lanes that pass through the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea. He argued that security of Japan’s maritime and energy supplies prominently figured in its security calculus.

Dr. Panda discussed two high-level important visits in detail: the first being Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony’s visit to Japan, and the other Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama’s visit to India, which he characterized as a landmark visit. During this visit, an Action Plan to Advance Security Cooperation Based on the Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation was adopted. This plan delineated a host of issue-areas in which a meaningful strategic partnership could be built. However, he highlighted the Japanese stand on India’s nuclear programme as a major irritant in what is an otherwise cordial relationship.

Discussion

Amb. Rajiv Sikri argued that the economic aspect of the strategic partnership should be part of this paper. He further argued that the China factor was an important factor shaping this strategic partnership, but it was not the only factor. There are other important factors also which require due focus. Besides, the importance of China factor will keep varying depending upon who is in power in Japan. The India-Japan relationship is not that undifferentiated as it is being considered. There are more nuances involved in it. He was of the view that the US-Japan alliance had not outlived its utility and should not be underestimated. As to the definition of strategic partnership, he said that India had very loose definition of the partnership. He further argued that a strategic partnership basically meant macro-level understanding, not micro. It should be dealt with on that level only. On the question of Japanese investment in India, he said that Japanese businessmen should understand how business was done in India. He argued that there was no point in Japanese businessmen constantly complaining about India’s business environment. They should follow the example of Korean businessmen and introspect how they have succeeded in India.

Amb. T.C.A. Rangachari raised some fundamental questions. He asked: if Japan was considered to be a declining power then why there was a need for an India-Japan strategic partnership. Similarly, why have a strategic partnership with the United States if it is actually declining. If the argument behind these strategic partnerships is a rising China then one must ask as to why China would not be a responsible power. Expressing doubts about China’s rise as a responsible power reflects the influence of Western thinking. He also said that the sea lanes had never been disrupted since World War II, thus, the security of sea lanes is not the biggest issue. He argued that we should not be uncritical of Western wisdom, which had actually projected India as a maritime threat in the 1970s. He further argued that the strategic partnership between India and Japan was ambivalent and Japanese perception of India was changing very slowly. Incidentally, he said that there was a minority view in Japan that favoured India’s nuclear programme.

Brigadier Rumel Dahiya argued that the geostrategic importance of Japan must be assessed while exploring any strategic partnership. Dr. Shamshad Ahmed Khan mentioned that the economic aspect needs to be probed more. He further argued that India-Japan defence cooperation has not been strong. He argued that we should also try to understand Japanese laws and constitution, which prevents Japan from participating in any collective security mechanism.

Concluding the discussion, Professor V.P. Dutt said that he felt that Japan’s new foreign policy was dubious, ambiguous and uncertain. He was of the opinion that Japanese leaders were making very vague statements about their foreign policy and they themselves may not be very clear as to what they want. He raised a larger philosophical point – the Japanese public seems to have lost interest in foreign affairs. Now, the question is whether Japan will remain confused or it will become even more confused.

Report prepared by Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Research Assistant, IDSA