Course Feedback

30 Maio 2018, 16:00 • Shiv Kumar Singh

Students provided written feedbacks on the course. These have been handed over to Professor Shiv Kumar Singh.

This seminar- style module involved intensive readings, preparation of topics and classroom presentations. The next step was informed discussion, concluding with the instructor’s summation. The format was student- led, encouraging independent thinking, articulation, and responsibility. “It forced us to think,” wrote one student in the feedback.

One student said that, instead of listening to long lectures, it took time to get accustomed to a teaching style that “was more interesting than the traditional one, with excellent summations.” Students said they found this method novel, structured, interactive, challenging and greatly beneficial. It shifted focus from culture to foreign affairs. “The professor was demanding without making learning stressful,” one student wrote in the feedback.

According to a feedback (written and oral), the course had “triggered” (to use a student’s word) interest in India, and has made students look at India strategically. Readings were “excellent”, and students gained knowledge of lesser- known subjects (such as India- Bhutan relations).

Starting with limited knowledge of India, students gradually shifted focus to strategic issues, gained confidence, and showed deeper understanding of India. Perfunctory class discussions transformed into lively debates. Students had a better grasp of India’s place in the world.

One student felt that, while this was “one of the best courses with a useful format and independent learning,” having two professors with a compressed time line was challenging. The course could be better organized. For better research, readings should be given in advance, In future, due care is needed in scheduling.

Two students wanted maps and visual materials (a failure in the electronic system prevented a visual presentation). This is a lesson for the future.

One student wanted a second exam for better balance in grading. The module can be further refined, taking into account such inputs.

Once they were reasonably informed, students began to challenge themselves and their peers, “getting to know one another”, as a student said in the feedback.

The final class- room discussion on India: Global Power or Regional Behemoth, on May 23, was the best, showing the progress made. Students doubted triumphalist commentators on India’s rise. High levels of poverty, with poor indicators in health, infrastructure and education, made them skeptical about India’s rise as a global power. In soft power attributes, India was a great power, they asserted.

In the beginning, there was insufficient appreciation of India’s hard power: political cohesion, democratic politics, management of diversity, and scientific achievements. When lack of information creates doubt, it is the instructor’s job to remove it. By the end, according to the feedback, there was a much better understanding of India’s foreign relations and hard power.

A question asked was how a poor country like India could be considered a great power. Yet, there was recognition that India had the potential to be one. Illustrating the examples of China and Russia, two students felt that, regardless of poor developmental indicators, military power was the starting point for great power status.

One student said that Europeans obsess with India’s poverty because it confirms their own superiority, and because Indians, unlike Europeans, are happy even in poverty. This was “glorification of poverty.” By the end of the class, there was understanding of India’s strengths.

Students expressed curiosity about becoming an ambassador. Some felt connections make the difference. The instructor gave an explanation of the fair and transparent selection process for the Indian Foreign Service, adding that, in the real world, we need to face disappointments with a smile.

There was no discernible difference in English language skills between the Portuguese students and Erasmus exchange students.

Two of fourteen registered students are Portuguese of Indian origin. One felt the course was an invaluable opportunity to strengthen roots in India. 

End of Semester Examination

28 Maio 2018, 16:00 • Shiv Kumar Singh

This class was dedicated to the end of term examination. The attachment is the examination paper.

India: Global Power or Regional Behemoth

23 Maio 2018, 16:00 • Shiv Kumar Singh

Jose Pires began his presentation on India: Global Power or Regional Behemoth with an overview of India’s relations with Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar. He said that India’s demographic profile would bring about higher growth compared to China. India’s democracy, soft power and secularism are strengths. However, India requires huge energy imports, faced food and water shortages, and had infrastructure bottlenecks. Although in economic and military indicators India is a global power, these challenges hold it back. Thus, India is a regional power. It needs strong leadership.

In the discussion, Maria Beatriz Couto Lopes agreed with Jose Pires, noting that the P- 5 countries accused India of human rights violations. Jose Pires responded that there are human rights violations in China and Russia, but India does not comment on it because China and Russia are powerful (implying that being less powerful, India, unlike China or Russia, faces criticism for human rights violations).

To this, Megi Jalagonia added that human rights are linked to poverty. Being poor, India is not a great power. To this, Jose Pires pointed out that there is poverty in China and Russia also. The instructor said that, raising “human rights” is more the furtherance of national interests, than promotion of human rights.

Agreeing with Jose Pires that India is not a great power, Simona Juskaite said that India is a regional bully. In military power, it is the equal of the P- 5, but if one considers poverty, education and infrastructure, it is a regional power. India is part of the Global South. Andrea Kovacevic agreed with Simona Juskaite.

Moving to culture, Nino Machaidze said that, in soft power attributes, India is a superpower. Maria Beatriz Couto Lopes observed that western culture is negative and pessimistic. Comparing the West with India, Andrea Kovacevic said that Europeans see India’s poverty in a way that makes them feel “better.” To this, Maria Beatriz Couto Lopes responded that Indians are happy even while being poor. Agreeing, Nino Machaidze said that Indians feel happiness in small things. Jose Pires agreed, noting that even the poor in the West are happy. It was assessed that there could be no generalisations on happiness.

Revisiting an earlier point made by Simona Juskaite, Jose Pires said that India couldn’t be faulted for developing military strength. The P- 5 had become the P- 5 by developing military strength. India could follow a similar path. Megi Jalagonia said that, even with nuclear weapons, India is not a global power. India was “forced” to become a nuclear power.

Andrea Kovacevic said that the strength of the India diaspora made India a great power. Indian Americans influence U.S. elections, an example of India’s soft power attributes.

In summation, Maria Beatriz Couto Lopes said, “India was a great power, regionally,” and a “great power of paradoxes.” Nino Machaidze said that poverty and poor education indicators hold India back. The instructor concluded that, in some respects India is a great power, and in some respects it isn’t. 

India- Portugal Relations, Guest Lecture by Professor Shiv Kumar Singh

21 Maio 2018, 16:00 • Shiv Kumar Singh

India- Portugal Relations, Guest Lecture by Professor Shiv Kumar Singh: Monday, May 21, 2018

Professor Singh began by saying that international relations were unpredictable and constantly changing. He gave the examples of the India- U.S. civil nuclear agreement, and Saudi Arabia allowing Air India flights to Israel through its airspace.

Turning to India- Portugal relations, he said that, as a non- controversial power and natural ally, Portugal can speak up and be counted for India.

He said that India is very diverse. In the last five years India’s influence has increased. In 1992 the economy was liberalised. This boosted economic diplomacy, and India’s marketing.

He said that Prime Minister Antonio Costa had received a “rock star” welcome in India, and the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had paid a reciprocal visit within five months. This was unusual, because nations want existing initiatives to be implemented in full before another round of visits takes place. As evidence of chemistry between the two, Prime Minister Costa had seen off Prime Minister Modi at the airport.

Prime Minister Mario Soares had been the Chief Guest at India’s Republic Day in 1992, Professor Singh asserted. In 2000, Prime Minister Vajpayee had visited Portugal for the India- EU summit. The extradition of Abu Salem in 2005 had been an important development. Portugal supports India’s candidacy as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

He said that there had been visits by parliamentarians, ministers, and secretaries of state. A Portuguese minister had visited India for a study of Aadhar cards. An agreement of cooperation in outer space had been concluded. For the first time, India was the Guest Country in Science 2017. However, trade was small.

He said that the two countries needed to seize the moment. Ambassdor Jorge Oliveira had held a wine- tasting festival in India. Ambassador Jitendra Nath Misra had been instrumental in transforming the idea of the Centre for Indian Studies in the University of Lisbon to reality.

He said that the Indian Council for Cultural Relations provides scholarships for M.Phil. and Ph.D. scholars in India, and for Hindi language study. University of Lisbon had introduced Hindi language courses in 2008- 2009.  The Portuguese Cultural Centre had opened in Delhi in 1991. Seven to eight Indian universities teach Portuguese. Goa University offers a Masters degree in Portuguese, and University of Delhi might possibly do so. University of Lisbon, University of Minho and ISCTE had concluded MoUs on co- operation with Indian universities. Ambassador Misra had negotiated with Portugal the conclusion of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Establishment of Nalanda University, and had signed the agreement on India’s behalf.

In the discussion, Beatriz Lopes noted that Portugal trades very little with India. To a question from Jose Pires on potential export items to India, Professor Singh replied that olive oil could be an item, but Portuguese olive oil is exported from Spain as a Spanish product. The instructor added that Portuguese businesses are daunted by India’s size and complexity. Esporao’s efforts to export wine had not succeeded because of high Indian import tariffs. It was noted that language was not a barrier to conducting trade, since the Portuguese have good English.

To a question from Jose Pires as to why Portugal has an agreement with India on co- operation in outer space, when it can rely upon the European Space Agency, Professor Singh said that the agreement with India is an example of bilateral co- operation. India’s relations with individual members of the European Union, such as France and Germany, are much stronger than its relations with the European Union.  

Jose Pires said that the Indian diaspora is much bigger in the U.S. than in Portugal. The instructor clarified that the Indian diaspora in Portugal is the third largest in Europe, after the U.K. and the Netherlands.  

The Causes and Consequences of India’s Nuclear Tests: Monday, May 21, 2018

In a presentation on The Causes and Consequences of India’s Nuclear Tests, Nino Machaidze said that India’s call for disarmament had been ignored. India wanted nuclear disarmament, or equal security for all. China had proliferated nuclear weapon technology. The Nuclear Non- proliferation Treaty had been extended in perpetuity. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty had an entry- into- force clause, meaning it could not come into force unless India acceded to the treaty.  In conducting nuclear tests, India had not violated any treaty obligations.

She said that, after initial anger, the U.S. had entered into dialogue with India, with talks between Jaswant Singh and Strobe Talbott. Under the Civil Nuclear Agreement with the U.S., India had separated its civilian and military reactors, and put civilian reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The 123 Agreement had been concluded. The civil nuclear deal does not prevent future nuclear tests by India, although the agreement would collapse in such an eventuality.

The instructor said that Jawaharlal Nehru had developed nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, but India had never abandoned the weapons option, should a need arise. No security gurarantees were forthcoming after defeat to China in the 1962 war, and China’s nuclear test in 1964. India was not a status quo power on the nuclear issue. After agonizing over the issue, India conducted a nuclear test in 1974.

The extension of the NPT in perpetuity and the entry- into- force clause in the CTBT forced India’s hand. After the initial fury following India’s 1998 nuclear tests, the U.S. and India began a nuclear dialogue, culminating in the civil nuclear agreement with the U.S. The promise of civil nuclear co- operation did not materialize, owing to India’s Nuclear Liability Act and the Fukushima nuclear accident. 

He said that India observes a voluntary moratorium on nuclear tests, but reserves the right to resume nuclear tests. There is nothing to the contrary in any written document.

In the discussion, Megi Jalagonia said that India, sandwiched between China and Pakistan, faces a tough security dilemma. Simona Juskaite, joined by Jose Pires, felt the reasons for the tests were unclear. Maria Beatriz Couto Lopes, supported by Andrea Kovacevic, felt nuclear weapons are a currency of power. To Jose Pires’ question on how nuclear weapons advance diplomatic interests, Beatriz Lopes said that a negotiation between a nuclear and a non- nuclear state is not equal. 

India- Pakistan Relations

16 Maio 2018, 16:00 • Shiv Kumar Singh

Before this lecture, the instructor transmitted a reading on India’s nuclear tests by Jaswant Singh, and chapters from T.C.A. Raghavan’s book, The People Next Door.

Continuing her presentation on India- Pakistan Relations, Maria Beatriz Couto Lopes said that the reality of Pakistan had strayed from the idea. Pakistan had many paradoxes. As an Islamic state, it refused to take in Bihari Muslims. It was founded on the principle “I am a Pakistani because I am a Muslim.” But after Pakistan came into being, Jinnah had himself said that all citizens were equal before the state, and religion was a private matter. Wouldn’t Pakistanis be confused between a Muslim identity and Jinnah’s proclamation of the equality of all, she asked? She noted that there had been forcible conversion of Hindus.

She said that Pakistan, which had talented scholars and administrators, had become an “armoured democracy.” Tactically, the Pakistani army was capable of innovations, such as in the 1999 Kargil war. After 2003 Pakistan had become less aggressive.  

The instructor said that, although there had been a tactical softening of Pakistan’s policy in 2003, subsequent policy had hardened. The Mumbai terrorist attacks had taken place in 2008. Whenever relations improved under civilian governments in Pakistan, terrorist attacks had taken place.  The relationship has fluctuated between highs and lows. The Simla Agreement of 1972 was very important, and had been a factor in stabilizing the relationship.

He said that it was the hunger for power that had caused Partition. Leaders on both sides, who had fought the British all their lives, finally sensed independence was near, and took the opportunity. India’s leaders never accepted the Pakistan ideology, but accepted Partition, to prevent further bloodshed.

It was decided that Professor Shiv Kumar Singh, director of the Centre for Indian Studies, would be the guest speaker in the next class, on India- Portugal Relations. Nino Machaidze would make a presentation on The Causes and Consequences of India’s Nuclear Tests.