The Indo-Pacific has gained significant prominence in strategic and geopolitical discourse, essentially replacing the term ‘Asia-Pacific’ to convey the regional views of many countries and expand the scope of economic and security cooperation. The Indo-Pacific covers a vast region that includes many sub-regions, including the East Coast of Africa, the Indian Ocean Region, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Oceania, and the West Coast of the United States. It outlines the power shift towards Asia and acknowledges the growing interconnectedness between Indian and Pacific developments. India’s strategic construct is of considerable importance to India, with it playing a key role in what some are calling the newly defined “theater of strategic competition.” This is clearly encouraged, if not based, on China’s competition and security concerns and its expanded economic, political and military engagement over the past decade.
To strengthen its strategic position within the Indo-Pacific, India has established ‘issues-based’ partnerships that will serve to foster regional order while maintaining India’s strategic autonomy. India’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific region is driven by the desire to find a balance between geopolitical competition with China and a new partnership with the West. India favors multipolarity and has strengthened its foreign policy engagement in multilateral forums such as BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation), Mekong Cooperation, Quad, and East Asia Summit. There are groups that aim to build bridges between the Indo-Pacific sub-regions, such as the Indo-Pacific Island States Forum. Over the past decade, India has developed stronger economic and security cooperation with major powers including the United States, Japan, France, and Australia, as well as countries in the Southeast Asian region. For India, the Indo-Pacific provides an important pathway to improve economic ties with regional partners and promote India as a significant investment destination. The new security partnership in the Indo-Pacific will see a renewed focus on conducting joint military exercises, military exercises to improve defense interoperability and strengthen domain awareness among Indo-Pacific powers with an active focus on maritime security, particularly the Indian Ocean. . – This is an important area of interest for India.
Political leaders, diplomats and foreign policy officials have been relevant actors influencing India’s security policy in the Indo-Pacific, but Scott notes: “Strategic Discussion” Collectively, the think tank has been providing traction to a framework that has highlighted India’s place within the Indo-Pacific since the mid to late 2000s. They highlighted India’s security considerations in the Indian Ocean, noted the need for maritime diplomacy and worked with other countries in the region to further develop India’s maritime capabilities. For example, the initial emphasis on the Indian Ocean was a sustained interest of think tanks such as the National Maritime Foundation (NMF), which was affiliated with the Indian Navy. Other Indian think tanks, such as Developing Country Research and Information Systems, had established programs for the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) before its founding in 1997. The association has been representing India and acting as a nodal point for the IORA Academic Group (IORAG). He played a key role in leading IORAG activities during his term as India Chairman in 2011-2012. With the Indian government currently focusing on the Indo-Pacific, sinks such as Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defense Research and Analysis (MP-IDSA), Indian Council on World Affairs (ICWA) and Indian Foundation (IF) Tanks are focused on the Indo-Pacific. ) were at the forefront of the discussion.
Through its research, the think tank has helped amplify the prevailing narrative on the Indo-Pacific region and highlighted India’s strategic value within this framework. The think tank’s research and policy engagement provided a forum for discussion on key initiatives that India has developed with Indo-Pacific partner countries, including strategic partnerships and various defense exercises, exercises and dialogues. The think tank has been engaging in multi-directional dialogue and key government initiatives through its existing network with government agencies such as the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Ministry of Defense (MoD) and Prime Minister’s Office. Events hosted by the think tank also provide a platform for multi-stakeholder engagement and public debate on India’s security policy in the Indo-Pacific region.
Think tanks have been prominent actors, as evidenced by their active research and public engagement on Indian security issues in the Indo-Pacific region, but why should we care about them? To answer this question, it is important to consider some important aspects about Indian think tanks more generally and about think tanks specifically. In terms of definition, a think tank can be identified as an actor, agent, or simply an institution that focuses solely on academic research. A generally accepted definition describes a think tank as an organization distinct from government, the purpose of which is to provide advice on a variety of policy issues through the use of expert knowledge and enabling networks. It is often referred to as a civil society organization or policy research institute, but its definition has also changed depending on its development history. For example, American definitions emphasize civil society backgrounds, while European scholars define think tanks as action-oriented, science-based organizations. The bridging role of think tanks is characterized by organizations engaging in research and advocacy on policy-related issues, and is a dominant theme in the academic literature, with think tanks acting as a bridge between knowledge and power, or between civil society and formal government organizations. It was. For example, Scott highlighted the role of think tanks in promoting the Indo-Pacific discourse in India, calling think tanks such as ORF and NMF “a semi-official bridge from external governments to the government, and the Indo-Pacific conferences include ministers.” “Often, they are civil servants and diplomats.”
But Diane Stone challenged bridge-building because of “the dualism that places science on one side of the bridge and the state on the other to address the complex relationships between experts and public policy.” Emphasizing the symbiotic and interdependent relationship between knowledge and policy, Stone concludes that “think tanks are not bridges but expressions of the knowledge/power nexus.” Think tanks promote policy ideas and provide a way for those ideas to gain supporters and inform a substantive basis for policy debate, but they are not benign entities and do not exercise their power and agency to serve their own organizational interests in policymaking transactions.
Within South Asia, India has the longest think tank history, with 612 think tanks, the third largest number of think tanks in the world. Think tanks in India are primarily understood as informal or non-governmental policy actors, but are better characterized as hybrid actors with visible links to formal policy-making institutions. The funding patterns and membership composition of these institutions indicate their proximity to government actors, which greatly enhances their relative ability to influence foreign policy. Think tank professionals often have similar professional backgrounds and experience with common training methods. In India, there has been a role for the government in supporting these experts and institutionalizing foreign policy think tanks. Think tanks in India often rely on government support for funding or are vulnerable to government control due to restrictions on foreign funding. You may then be asked questions about research autonomy or research independence.
However, the relationship between the state and think tanks in India is not linear. For example, with regard to Indo-Pacific security, think tanks have provided direct policy input to this new framework through institutional linkages with MEA and PMO. For example, since 2007-2008, think tanks such as NMF have been emphasizing the Indo-Pacific in relation to maritime cooperation with Japan and competition with China. Think tank events organized annually by ORF in partnership with MEA and structured dialogues, such as the prestigious Raisina Dialogue, have contributed significantly to public debate on security policy in the Indo-Pacific. Military think tanks including MP-IDSA, NMF, Center for Land Studies (CLAWS) and Center for Air Force Studies (CAPS), funded by the Indian Ministry of Defense and the Navy, Army and Air Force, organized the event and discussion. He showed keen interest in military engagements in the Indo-Pacific region. Indian policymakers have been using think tanks as a platform to promote and amplify policy narratives on India’s Indo-Pacific engagement in the Quad or the Indian Ocean region. Besides directly benefiting from government funding, Indian think tanks such as Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF) and IF, which are ideologically aligned with the ruling BJP, provide an excellent platform for amplifying the Modi government’s defense and foreign policy preferences. The close relationship between Ajit Doval, India’s current National Security Advisor (a position that works closely with Modi and the Foreign Secretary) and VIF’s founding director, has greatly strengthened VIF and IF’s ongoing links with India’s foreign policy establishment.
Although powerful, think tank involvement needs to be viewed with caution. Simply focusing on the ideas promoted by think tanks presents an incomplete picture. It is equally pertinent to examine and highlight how these think tanks are embedded in the Indian foreign policy structure, which influences the value and ability of their ideas to reach policymakers. The independence of think tank research enhances their ability to advance policy influence, but they are highly dependent on support from formal institutions with unstructured lateral links with government actors, which raises questions about their ability to provide constructive criticism of government policy direction. Policy implications must therefore be understood within these constraints.
Additional Resources on E-International Relations
