Siang Dialogue 2.0: Charting a Secure and Resilient Future in a Transforming Global Order (Both Days Brief)
Untraditional Security

Siang Dialogue 2.0: Charting a Secure and Resilient Future in a Transforming Global Order (Both Days Brief)

TR

Team Red Lantern Analytica

Directorate of Intelligence

Share:

New Delhi, February 8-9, 2025

Red Lantern Analytica successfully inaugurated its flagship event, Siang Dialogue 2.0, at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club – South Asia, bringing together policymakers, thought leaders, academics, and practitioners to discuss pressing geopolitical challenges shaping the global order.

 

Inaugural Session: Global Horizons – Addressing Current Concerns in an Evolving World

The event commenced with a ceremonial lamp lighting, followed by the inaugural session moderated by Dr. Ayanjit Sen.

Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), emphasized India’s expanding soft power and its increasing diplomatic engagements on the global stage. He highlighted how India’s strategic partnerships and international outreach are shaping its position in global affairs.

Mr. Vahan Zanoyan, an Armenian expert, provided a comprehensive analysis of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and its implications for India-Armenia relations. He elaborated on the geopolitical significance of the region and how India’s growing ties with Armenia could play a role in the broader Eurasian landscape.

Mr. Abdulhakim Idris, Executive Director at the Centre for Uyghur Studies, addressed the ongoing human rights violations in Xinjiang. He critically analyzed China’s engagement with the Uyghur community, shedding light on the challenges faced by Uyghurs and the broader international response to these concerns.

Dr. Rajiv Nayan, Senior Research Fellow at MP-IDSA, examined global arms control and disarmament efforts in the context of shifting power dynamics. He discussed the impact of emerging security challenges, the role of multilateral agreements, and how global realignments are influencing arms control policies.

Mr. K.P. Fabian, Former Indian diplomat, underscored the urgent need for inclusive climate initiatives. He stressed the importance of implementing the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) principle, which advocates for a fair distribution of climate responsibilities among nations based on their historical emissions and capabilities.

Aadil Brar, a journalist based in Taiwan, provided a detailed assessment of India’s border security challenges, with a particular focus on China’s military build-up along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). He highlighted the evolving nature of border tensions and their implications for India’s strategic defense policies.

Mayank Singh, a senior journalist, expressed deep concerns regarding the credibility crisis in modern journalism. He examined the shift from print to digital media, analyzing its impact on journalistic integrity. Additionally, he explored the growing role of artificial intelligence in information warfare, highlighting both the opportunities and risks it presents in shaping public narratives.

Dr. Sen concluded the session by thanking the esteemed panelists for their valuable contributions.

 

Plenary Session 1: Navigating the Indo-Pacific – Strategic Maritime Security Dynamics

Moderated by Dr. Sriparna Pathak (Associate Professor, O.P. Jindal Global University), the first plenary session featured key discussions on regional security and strategic maritime developments.

Dr. Roger Chi Liu, Assistant Professor at Sun Yat-sen University, highlighted the significance of India-Taiwan collaboration in marine research, data sharing, and disaster management. He elaborated on Taiwan’s triple security framework, emphasizing its role in enhancing regional stability and fostering cooperative scientific research between the two nations.

Mr. Jaydev Ranade, President of the Centre for China Analysis and Strategy (CCAS), provided an in-depth analysis of President Xi Jinping’s foreign policy strategies, particularly the concept of the ‘China Dream.’ He examined its implications for Taiwan and broader regional geopolitics, detailing how China’s strategic ambitions influence power dynamics in the Indo-Pacific.

Mr. N.C. Bipindra, Editor of Defence Capital, discussed India’s cyber defense measures in countering China’s expansionist policies and cyber threats. He highlighted India’s ongoing efforts to strengthen its cybersecurity infrastructure, focusing on policy frameworks, defense collaborations, and emerging threats in cyberspace.

Ms. Aarti Tikoo Singh, Editor-in-Chief of The New Indian, critically examined media biases influenced by foreign funding, particularly within the Indo-Pacific context. She discussed how external influences shape media narratives, the implications for national security, and the challenges of ensuring journalistic integrity in an era of information warfare.

Mr. Ayanjit Sen, Chief Advisor at Red Lantern Analytica, elaborated on Pakistan’s role in information warfare, emphasizing its strategic use of pre-emptive information tactics. He analyzed the methods employed to manipulate narratives, influence public opinion, and challenge India’s position in the regional and global information ecosystem.

Dr. Aparna, Assistant Professor at Central University of Jharkhand (CUJ), explored India’s position in the global AI race, contrasting it with China’s academic investments and technological advancements. She examined India’s growing AI sector, the need for enhanced research and development, and the challenges posed by China’s rapid technological progress.

Dr. Tilak Jha, Associate Professor at Bennett University, emphasized the importance of narrative-building as a critical tool for shaping public opinion and power dynamics. He discussed how narratives influence policymaking, global perceptions, and geopolitical strategies, highlighting the role of media, diplomacy, and soft power in crafting influential narratives.

The session provided valuable perspectives on regional security, technological advancements, and strategic communication.

Plenary Session 2: Shaping the Future – India’s Role in a Transforming Global Order

Moderated by Siddhartha Ghosh (Director, RLA), the second plenary session focused on India’s evolving role in global governance and strategic partnerships.

Dr. Sriparna Pathak analyzed India’s economic ties with Southeast Asia, with a special focus on the technology sector. She highlighted India’s expanding trade partnerships, digital connectivity, and collaborative ventures in fintech and artificial intelligence, positioning India as akey player in regional economic growth.

Major Amit Bansal, a defense strategist, examined India’s territorial disputes with China, assessing the strategic implications of growing military tensions. He also discussed the evolving China-Pakistan-Bangladesh nexus, highlighting how regional alliances impact India’s security landscape and necessitate a proactive defense strategy.

Mr. Tenzin Tsundue, a Tibetan activist and poet, provided deep insights into Tibet’s ongoing struggle for independence. He discussed the political and cultural significance of the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation process, explaining its role in shaping Tibetan resistance against Chinese control and maintaining Tibetan identity.

Mr. Vahram Ayvazyan, Founder & Chairman of The Network State, shed light on India-Armenia civilizational ties, tracing historical connections and their relevance in contemporary diplomacy. He also underscored the role of the Armenian diaspora in strengthening economic and cultural relations between the two nations.

Dr. Devender Kumar, Assistant Professor at Reva University, elaborated on India’s knowledge diplomacy efforts in South Asia. He discussed initiatives such as educational exchanges, research collaborations, and capacity-building programs that position India as a leader in regional knowledge-sharing.

Lt General (Dr) Rakesh Sharma, Distinguished Fellow at CLAWS, explored the emerging dimensions of information, electronic, and space warfare. He emphasized the critical need for strategic preparedness in countering cyber threats, misinformation campaigns, and the militarization of space.

Dr. R. Evan Ellis, Research Professor at the U.S. Army War College SSI, assessed India’s trade and economic engagements with Latin America and the Caribbean. He particularly focused on space technology collaborations, showcasing India’s potential in satellite launches, remote sensing, and communication infrastructure for Latin American nations.

Air Commodore S.P. Singh VSM, Senior Fellow at CAPS, discussed India’s strategic influence in global maritime security. He examined the QUAD and QUAD-Plus frameworks, the significance of Indian Ocean chokepoints, and how these play a crucial role in countering China’s naval expansion and securing critical maritime trade routes.

Siddhartha Ghosh concluded the session and delivered the vote of thanks, expressing appreciation for the contributions of all speakers and participants.

Date: February 9th 2025

DAY 2

New Delhi, February 9, 2025 – Red Lantern Analytica successfully inaugurated the second day of its annual flagship event, Siang Dialogue 2.0, held in a hybrid mode at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of South Asia. The day featured high-impact discussions across three sessions, gathering global experts, policymakers, and thought leaders to deliberate on pressing geopolitical and economic issues.

Plenary Session III: Building Resilient Economies – Strategies to Diversify Global Supply Chains

The day commenced with an insightful session on the resilience of global supply chains in an era of geopolitical and economic volatility. Prof. (Dr.) Nagalaxmi M Raman (Director & Head, AIIS, Amity University U.P.) delivered the opening address, emphasizing how regional and global geopolitics lead to supply chain disruptions. She advocated for strategic trade policies to future-proof economic systems.

Mr. Paul Antonopoulos (Editor, Greek City Times) highlighted the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) as a viable alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), warning against the strategic risks posed by Chinese economic expansionism. Ms. Diana Nthabiseng (Political Analyst & Author, Africa Wake Up) examined Africa’s economic dependencies, stressing that most of the continent’s raw materials are exported to China without local processing, benefiting China’s economy at Africa’s expense. Mr. Akash Kumar Singh (The Asian Chronicle) concluded the session by critiquing China’s self-serving trade policies, contrasting them with India’s approach of global cooperation and resilience-building.

Plenary Session IV: Cyber Frontiers – Mitigating Threats in an AI-Driven Landscape

The second session focused on emerging cyber threats and AI-driven security risks. Mr. John Nomikos (Director, Research Institute for European and American Studies) reiterated the strategic importance of IMEC, advocating its extension to African economies. Mr. Jayanta Kalita (Senior Editor, The Times of India) exposed how Chinese AI models like DeepSeek are programmed to suppress politically sensitive topics, reinforcing the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) influence.

Ms. Namrata Hasija (Research Fellow, Centre for China Analysis & Strategy) elaborated on China’s disinformation campaigns, a key pillar of its global information warfare strategy. Prof. Pavnesh Kumar (IGNOU) addressed China and Pakistan’s cyber-hacking operations, used to manipulate public perception on elections and religious matters, thereby undermining India’s democratic fabric. Dr. Madhukar Shyam (Assistant Professor, Christ University, Delhi) provided insights into the evolution of cyber warfare and the risks posed by AI-driven cybersecurity threats. The session concluded with Dr. Tilak Jha (Associate Professor, Bennett University) emphasizing the urgency of strengthening cyber resilience in an AI-dominated world.

Valedictory Session: The Final Word – Countering Authoritarianism and Strengthening Global Alliances

The final session of Siang Dialogue 2.0 began with an address by Mr. Ninong Ering (MLA, Arunachal Pradesh; Co-Chair, IPAC India; Mentor, RLA), who underscored the need to counter Chinese authoritarianism and bolster regional resilience.

Ms. Ingrid Leary (Member of Parliament, New Zealand) delivered a powerful message on human rights violations, calling for global unity in addressing these challenges. Ms. Youdon Aukatsang (Parliamentarian, Central Tibetan Administration) expressed gratitude to India for supporting Tibetans in their struggle against Chinese aggression.

Major Amit Bansal highlighted China’s expanding influence in the Indo-Pacific, advocating for India’s role as a Net Security Provider. Dr. Sonali Singh reinforced India’s position as a nation committed to global growth. Mr. Manishankar Prasad discussed China’s monopoly in semiconductor manufacturing, warning of its economic and geopolitical consequences.

Dr. Honey Raj emphasized the strategic importance of integrating knowledge from Tibet and Himalayan states in countering China’s expansionist policies. Ms. Gunjan Handa concluded the session by stressing how China is not just expanding financially and politically but also actively attempting to militarize infrastructure under the BRI initiative.

A Successful Conclusion to Siang Dialogue 2.0

The two-day Siang Dialogue 2.0 witnessed over 50+ distinguished speakers and experts across six thematic sessions, facilitating high-level discussions on India’s geopolitical challenges, economic strategies, and security landscape.

Red Lantern Analytica remains committed to fostering informed discussions and shaping global policy dialogues. With insightful deliberations and thought-provoking engagements, Siang Dialogue 2.0 has successfully laid the groundwork for future collaborations and strategic policymaking.

About Red Lantern Analytica:

Red Lantern Analytica is a premier international observers’ group dedicated to analyzing global security, economic resilience, and strategic affairs. Through research, dialogues, and expert discussions, the organization provides insights to policymakers, analysts, and global stakeholders on emerging geopolitical trends.

End of Release

Related Intelligence

UNTRADITIONAL SECURITYOCTOBER 13, 2026
01

Why Calls to Revive SAARC Are About More Than Regional Cooperation

Why Calls to Revive SAARC Are About More Than Regional Cooperation Geopolitical positioning, institutional paralysis and the case for practical South Asian cooperation Rationale Founded in Dhaka in December 1985, SAARC brings together Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Its charter seeks to improve living standards, accelerate economic and social development, and strengthen collective self-reliance. Yet the organisation’s last summit was held in Kathmandu in November 2014. The 2016 Islamabad summit did not take place amid deteriorating India–Pakistan relations and the withdrawal of several participating states from the process. The result has been a prolonged institutional freeze, even as cross-border problems have become harder to manage in isolation. [1][2] The article notes call from Bangladesh and Maldives for SAARC to return to the negotiating table, alongside support for renewed regional engagement from Nepal and Bhutan. Bangladesh has also argued that SAARC and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) should work alongside one another rather than be treated as alternatives. Such statements matter, but a call for revival is not the same as an agreed roadmap, and neither necessarily indicates a willingness to resolve the political disputes that have paralysed the organisation. 1. The central obstacle is political, not merely administrative SAARC’s institutional design makes political goodwill indispensable. Article X of its charter requires decisions at every level to be unanimous and excludes bilateral and contentious issues from deliberations. The exclusion was intended to protect regional cooperation from being overwhelmed by disputes between neighbours. In practice, however, the combination of unanimity and deep bilateral mistrust has made it difficult to move forward when even one member is unwilling to participate. [1] This is the organisation’s central paradox: SAARC is designed to keep contentious disputes outside the room, but those disputes can determine whether the room is convened at all. India–Pakistan tensions have repeatedly obstructed summit-level engagement, while the deterioration of Pakistan–Afghanistan relations adds another layer of friction. The consequences are not confined to diplomacy. When leaders cannot meet, it becomes harder to secure political direction, approve ambitious initiatives and reassure officials that cross-border projects will survive the next crisis. Still, it would be too simple to attribute SAARC’s paralysis exclusively to one bilateral relationship. The consensus rule gives every member a veto, and weak implementation, limited institutional resources, uneven political commitment and low levels of regional economic interdependence have also constrained the organisation. A serious revival therefore requires more than a summit announcement. It requires a minimum political understanding that technical cooperation should continue even when high-level relations are strained. 2. Regionalism is also a tool of geopolitical balancing Smaller South Asian states do not make foreign-policy choices in a vacuum. They seek investment, infrastructure, security partnerships, market access and diplomatic support from multiple partners. China’s economic presence, the continuing importance of the United States, ties with Gulf countries and links with Southeast Asia all shape the choices available to governments across the region. Building such relationships is not, by itself, evidence of disloyalty to South Asian cooperation. It is a normal form of strategic diversification. The geopolitical question is how governments use these relationships. A renewed appeal to SAARC can help a state demonstrate that it wants a voice in regional affairs, avoid being seen as dependent on a single partner, or signal dissatisfaction with the limits of existing bilateral arrangements. It may also be a way of reminding India, the region’s largest economy and most geographically central state, that neighbouring countries value multilateral forums in which they can participate on a more formally equal footing. Bangladesh’s and Maldives’ efforts to deepen relationships beyond India illustrate the wider strategic setting described in the original draft. Chinese-backed infrastructure, potential security partnerships and engagement with Gulf states can expand policy options for these governments. But the inference must be handled carefully: external partnerships do not prove that calls for SAARC are insincere. A more defensible conclusion is that regional cooperation and geopolitical hedging can occur simultaneously. The real test is whether governments are prepared to translate their rhetoric into funded programmes, negotiated rules and sustained participation. For India, this creates a strategic dilemma. It may be reluctant to invest political capital in a forum where progress can be blocked and bilateral disputes may dominate the agenda. At the same time, prolonged disengagement can leave neighbouring states with fewer region-wide channels and make alternative groupings or external partners more attractive. A regional institution that is unable to deliver results can weaken India’s influence; an institution that works predictably could instead reinforce India’s role as a provider of regional public goods. 3. The economic case for cooperation remains compelling The weakness of SAARC is particularly striking when measured against the economic opportunities available to South Asia. The World Bank reports that intra-regional trade accounts for only about 5 per cent of South Asia’s total trade, compared with roughly 25 per cent in ASEAN. It estimates current trade among South Asian economies at around US$23 billion, well below an estimated potential of at least US$67 billion. High tariffs, non-tariff barriers, restrictions on investment, poor transport links and a persistent trust deficit all contribute to this gap. [3] These figures suggest that the region’s problem is not a lack of economic logic. It is the failure to convert geographical proximity into lower costs and dependable connections. Businesses can face more expensive and complicated trade with nearby countries than with distant markets. For landlocked Nepal and Bhutan, access to ports and efficient transit routes is especially important. For Bangladesh, improved links with India, Nepal and Bhutan can widen markets and make ports and transport corridors more productive. For India’s border states, regional commerce can support local firms, jobs and supply chains. The South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA), which came into force in 2006, has not delivered the depth of integration originally anticipated. A tariff agreement alone cannot overcome closed or inefficient border crossings, inconsistent standards, weak logistics, payment constraints and political restrictions. Nor can regional

A
AdminAnalyst
arrow_outward
UNTRADITIONAL SECURITYAUGUST 14, 2026
02

Myanmar at a Crossroad: Mapping Political Evolution & Future Pathways

Myanmar at a Crossroad: Mapping Political Evolution & Future Pathways Red Lantern Analytica presents a new research report, “Myanmar at a Crossroad: Mapping Political Evolution & Future Pathways,” authored by Lt Col Ujjwal Abhishek Jha, Retd. The report traces Myanmar’s political evolution from independence in 1948, examining the country’s transition from an early parliamentary democracy to prolonged military rule and the recurring cycles of political upheaval and resistance. It explores the historical foundations of Myanmar’s political fragility, the legacy of colonial rule, the country’s post-independence trajectory, and the major turning points that have shaped its contemporary political landscape. The analysis seeks to map Myanmar’s present political crossroads and examine the possible pathways shaping its future, offering a structured perspective on the forces influencing the country’s political evolution. To Download PDF of this report click here

A
AdminAnalyst
arrow_outward
UNTRADITIONAL SECURITYAUGUST 12, 2026
03

Europe Without Russian Energy

How far has Europe actually moved away from Russian energy? In this report, Aadvik Chauhan examines the EU’s transition from political commitments to legally binding restrictions on Russian gas imports, while assessing the continuing role of Russian energy in Europe’s supply structure. The analysis explores energy security, divergent positions among EU member states, infrastructure constraints, renewable energy growth, and the strategic implications of Europe’s attempt to reduce dependence on Russia. The report also examines the paradox of rising Russian gas imports during the early stages of the 2026 phase-out and considers why 2027 could prove decisive for assessing the depth of Europe’s energy transition. To Download PDF of this report click here

A
AdminAnalyst
arrow_outward