Indian Council of World Affairs

 

Keshav Verma: Good afternoon, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. It is my pleasure to welcome you all to the Indian Council of World Affairs for this panel discussion on the theme “Charting Futures: India's Evolving Role in Antarctic Governance and Exploration”. May I request you to keep your phones on silent mode? Thank you. We will start this afternoon's program with Ms. Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, Additional Secretary, ICWA, delivering her opening remarks. There has been a change in the composition of our panel today. Professor Sanjay Chaturvedi and Dr. Sulekha Chattopadhyay are unable to join due to unforeseen circumstances. The panel will be now chaired by Dr Rasik Ravindra, Former Director, National Center for Polar and Ocean Research, and the panelists include Professor N C Pant, Senior Professor (Retired), Department of Geology, and Honorary Visiting Scientist, National Center for Polar and Ocean Research; Dr Rajoshree Ghosh, Research Fellow, Science and Geopolitics of Arctic and Antarctic – LIGHTS; and Dr Stuti Banerjee, Senior Research Fellow, ICWA. The discussion will be followed by a brief Q&A session moderated by the chair. May I request Ms. Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, Additional Secretary, ICWA, to kindly give her welcome remarks.

Nutan Kapoor Mahawar:  Distinguished experts, students, and friends. India was a late entrant in the race to reach the poles, in the race for Antarctica. We achieved the first successful expedition to Antarctica in 1981, and became a consultative party of the Antarctic Treaty System in 1983, committing ourselves to its principles. The ATS came into force two decades earlier, in 1961. Recall that this was the 1980s, the time when Wing Commander Rakesh Sharma also became the first Indian cosmonaut. These were clearly very special times, holding much significance for our scientific fields and human imagination.

Antarctica is a precious natural meteorological and ocean science lab. It has provided the space for man to quench his thirst for adventure, lift his spirit for exploration, and hone his scientific temperament. Conditions in Antarctica have formed an important part of the decades-long climate change debate. Indeed, Antarctica is the barometer for global atmospheric and oceanic forces. And as if that was not sufficient, it is also an important platform for the study and understanding of earth and atmospheric sciences, glaciology, and biodiversity.

India has progressed significantly in the past few years in its Antarctic mission. The upcoming Maitri-2 station that India is going to set up in 2029, alongside Dakshin Gangotri, Maitri-1, and Bharati stations, are milestones in our scientific journey. Each station has contributed immensely to developing India's understanding of glaciology, oceanography, and biodiversity.

The core principles of the Antarctic Treaty System are to make Antarctica a zone of peace and a continent that is solely used to conduct scientific research. While it is difficult to say that Antarctica is devoid of geopolitics, it can be said that ATS has allowed the continent to be characteristically unique while allowing for scientific and exploratory activities and environmental protection.

The Indian engagement in Antarctica goes beyond science. It is holistic and deals with diplomatic and political aspects as well. Within the Antarctic Treaty System, India always looks for decisions which balance national interests of countries with their international obligations. India's environmental impact assessments and tourism management proposals exemplify this balanced approach.

As one of the consultative parties, India has been part of Antarctica's governance framework. India organised the 46th Consultative Party Meeting at Kochi in 2024, which was yet another milestone in India's Antarctic journey. This meeting demonstrated India's efforts to build international consensus on polar issues that currently the world is engaged with.

Friends, the India Antarctic Act was adopted in 2022 and is a major legislation that India has introduced with regard to the establishment of a legal framework for activities in Antarctica. It applies not only to India's scientific endeavors, but also sets the standards for the tourists and other visitors to the region. It coincides with the major goals of the Antarctic Treaty System, namely demilitarisation of continent, nuclear-free region, and a place where scientific research is valued.

Antarctic is facing various problems and these are not confined to the continent itself, thus establishing a need for synergetic efforts. India has always considered international cooperation a fundamental aspect of its Antarctic program. This collaborative participatory approach is a testament to India's engagement with the science and research output as well as with the governance of the region.

India does not endorse any of the territorial claims within Antarctic on account of the central theme of the treaty which advocates that the continent is a global common which ought to be peacefully explored without any sovereign claims over it. This shows India's commitment to multilateralism as well as peace in the governance of the polar region.

Antarctic is a global common where one aims towards cooperative coexistence and that is how we have to bequeath it to our progeny, that is as a model of a global common with peaceful coexistence and whose issues have been successfully looked after by the previous generations including the present one.

However, current challenges of resource exploitation, access and sharing of resources, increased tourist activities, climate change and militarisation risks pose hurdles in Antarctica's governance. It also entails that it is time for India to take the lead as a responsible stakeholder and work together with others concerned to deliver what is most cared for within the Antarctic Treaty System principles, namely peace, tranquility, cooperation, environmental sustainability and all with the objective of a pristine Antarctica, with the least human intervention, that safeguards the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and climate. Indeed, India has been so vocal about the need to protect Antarctica's pristine environment, the use of renewable energy in our research stations is a testimony of our support to the cause.

Friends, sustainability is about the continuation of the human race in an environmentally conscious way. At this juncture of science, sustainability and humanity's responsibilities, it is important to recall that Antarctica is not just a piece of land, it is a commitment to our future generations, an example of mankind's spirit of adventure and exploration, quest for a better understanding of his environs and the urge to answer mother nature's summons.

Man has conquered Antarctica, it has proved its point. Now let us pause and rethink. A pristine Antarctica with the least human intervention can also be an example of what collective effort and understanding and commitment to Mother Nature can achieve.

I am confident that this panel discussion with leading Indian experts on Antarctica will come up with many such observations and suggestions. I look forward to a thoughtful and lively discussion. I wish the panelists all the best. Thank you.

Keshav Verma: Thank you, ma'am. May I now request Dr. Rasik Ravindra to give his remarks and conduct the proceedings. Thank you.

Rasik Ravindra:  Thank you. Good afternoon to all. The introduction of Antarctica and its uniqueness has already been given by Dr. Mahawar, so I won't add anything to that. But I wish to tell you that Antarctica is such a unique continent which doesn't fall under anybody's sovereign control. So how does this huge continent of the size of India and Australia, about 12 million square kilometers, is governed? And this size, you know, it goes to 24 million square kilometers during winters when the Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, gets associated with this continent. So such a huge continent without any government, how it is controlled? Why there is no conflict? Why there are no murders, no violence, no crime? I think the credit goes to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959.

It's already 50 years, and the treaty has tested the time. It has come out nicely. And people quote this Treaty of only 14 Articles. You just imagine a Treaty of 14 Articles has been there for 50 long years, and it has established its preamble very well that Antarctica will be governed for peace and science, and there will be no conflict. And then in 1998, we had the Madrid Protocol, a protocol on environmental protection of Antarctic, which again, India is a signatory. And that established a committee on environmental protection, and it has done a great job in safeguarding the environment of Antarctic.

Now, when we talk of this panel discussion, it has got three components that come to my mind. The one is India's evolving role in Antarctic governance. Second is its role in exploration. And third is the future prospect, how it is going to have a future insight, or what India is going to do in future when we talk about Antarctic. Well, regarding governance, the Treaty is doing an excellent job, but we have to consider that this is not the time when Treaty was formulated, ’59 and 2025 is a long time span. A lot of water has flown. The countries, 12 countries, which signed this Treaty, and they're called as 12 main signatories. Now we are nearly 57 countries who have signed this Treaty. And in that, 29 countries hold the consultative status. That means they have the power of voting.

Now in a world which has grown considerably since 1959, the entire socio pattern has changed. The geopolitics has changed. Can we still say that whatever our forefathers in 1959 tabulated, will it hold good? We should stand for some changes, welcome the aspirations of newly formed countries. Many new countries have come up after 1959. They have their own aspirations. And the strict exclusiveness that was there in the Antarctic Treaty, I think it should give way to inclusiveness. And that goes very well with the Indian concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. We have to follow some democratic pattern.

Why I say this? Because in the recently held Antarctic Treaty Consultative Committee meeting in Cochin, we found that the comradeship and that trust which was there in the entire treaty nations, it was no longer perceptible. There were two definite groups were demarcated. On one side and the other on the other side, one the NATO group and the other the non-NATO group. So whatever the NATO group wanted to say, the other group wanted to say no. And whatever they had to propose, the other group used to say no. There was a, I will just take two more seconds to highlight this point. There was a question, there was a proposal of granting consultative status to Belarus and Canada. Now Canada belonged to the NATO group, Belarus belonged to the other group. So the both proposals were turned down. And there was no possible reason for that because Canada is there in Antarctic for the last 40 years. Belarus has got its own station. They are doing excellent science.

The prime condition of the article which gives you the consultative status is that you should have done good academic work in Antarctic and you should prove yourself that yes, you are in Antarctic. And both the countries, they were qualifying on that. But then the proposal was shut down only because of the geopolitical reason. Well, that was geopolitics is okay, but scientific-- when you come to the scientific reasons, that is very pathetic. Now the International Union of Council, IUCN, and some more countries, Britain and US, they are taking a lead to declare Emperor penguin as a endangered species because of the loss of the sea ice, as all of you know, the penguins are losing their habitat. So these countries, along with some other people, those who were running with them, they wanted to support this proposal that well, Emperor penguin should be granted a status of endangered species. But that was objected by the other group. There was no scientific ground for objecting.

But China and Russia, they stood on one side and they said no. And since in ATCM we have to go by consensus, the proposal was dropped. So this situation that we are heading towards is not very congenial, but India has got a great role in play under these circumstances because we are neither aligned to the NATO group nor we are aligned strictly to the non-NATO group. So we managed or we took this conference very amicably to the satisfaction of all the groups and it has to be seen how the chairman of the ATCM, who was Ambassador Pankaj Saran, he guided the entire ATCM in a very, very amicable means and to the satisfaction of all. So India has got a great role to play under this geopolitical situation. And I think my other colleagues will speak on the exploration of resources and other patterns so I will not decide on that. But when we come to the question and answer, possibly we will get more time to discuss our feelings and whatever we have to say. Over to you, Dr Pant.

N C Pant:  Thank you, Rasik Sir. He is my senior colleague and friend of 40 plus years. Thank you, and thank you for being present in such a large number. And I read the title of this panel discussion, Charting Futures: India's Evolving Role in Antarctic Governance and Exploration. I go back because there are many young people here and I've been a teacher, so you always tend to speak to them first rather than addressing what is actually required for you to address. The reason is that why governance is an issue for Antarctica from the perspective of a country like India, which is located in northern hemispheres at low latitudes and a continent which is in southern hemispheres and in high latitudes. The reason is there has to be some reason to connect us and that linkage should be good enough to justify our involvement in that. I'm not going to talk too much about that but in doing that and how do we establish that is done by very few number of people who inhabit that continent. So 12 to 14 million square kilometer, the maximum populations during summer is about 5,000 people in that.

Now governance of a totally uninhabited domain, why it should again, as I say, concern so many of us, so many countries, compare this with Arctic, where there are several countries which are part of the icy domain. So there people are living, communities are affected, and the impact is actually felt at the first and a primary level. And look at Antarctica, two kilometer average thick cover of ice. This is what actually drives the interest and the reason the governance concerns not only the countries which are adjacent to that domain, but to the entire globe. Because if the concern of something happening to this ice cover takes place, it is going to affect the entire population. There are some estimates, IPCC, etc., which say 40% of global population, which is huge. It is going to, and that is only numbers. So that is one aspect.

But the thing is this, that how do we actually control that, or how do we derive the parameters of governance? And you see, there are currencies and cryptocurrencies. For Antarctica, the currency, the only currency is science. That is, the health of that continent, which is not habited by any indigenous population, is a function of how well we know that, and how well we know how it is going to behave. And that, as I say, comes from science, and it affects not only the physical aspect of melting of ice and raising of sea level, but it affects the way the global marine population, the fishes and the way the water circulates, everything will be affected. So each bit of science is very important in working out how the decisions regarding governance of Antarctica should be taken.

And then we refer to ATCM, which is a yearly mechanism of looking at these parameters, we are looking at the science inputs for last year or preceding year or accumulative science inputs, which are contributing to what decision should be taken. The decisions taken should be enforceable or of the nature of advice. Over and above that, of course, the geopolitics takes place, but fundamental data or fundamental input is from the scientific studies. So when we look at this, India's role in Antarctic governance and exploitation or exploration, what matters if India has to do a significant role is to elevate its Antarctic or polar science to a level where it matters to others, where it is providing unique input.

The data could be of observational level, because that primary data is also missing in many fields, or it could be of a significant level, which is leading to instabilities, which is working out the tipping points of how the structure of that icy continent is going to change. So therefore, the most important aspect of how India can influence the governance of that icy continent is to enhance first the role where it is providing the critical science input. And that critical science input in its physical sciences context, that is the ice and meteorology, etc., the way the pollution is being registered there. See the far off, there are many good studies which indicate that the aerosol pollutants which are present, what we are encountering here, are also there, of course, with very little impact at the moment, but it could increase.

And I'm telling you with a lot of experience of what is happening in Indian context and global context, that none of us know what are the tipping points which will change this balance, no one knows. The uncertainties of what we are doing are still very high, though we talk of papers published in the best of the journals, etc., but the level of uncertainties in those are still very high. We know, for example, the Arctic situation is beyond control, but we don't know that about Antarctic.

I will give you one simple example, that whatever estimates of overall accumulation, or what is called as mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet, normally everywhere the ice is going down, whether it's Himalayan glaciers, Alpine glaciers, Arctic, of course, but in Antarctica, there has been a lot of conflicting data, but some of the data suggests that it is actually either stable, or it is slightly increasing. So you see, it's a very great paradox, and they are good studies, they are best of the studies, actually. So that currency, in my first opinion, the currency which is most important for us to be relevant, for us to be contributing in governing and exploring Antarctica, is good science. I'll conclude at this moment, and we can discuss later on, thank you. 

Rasik Ravindra:  Thank you, Dr Pant. Actually, we have a lot more points to be added to this, because a lot of exploration has been done in Antarctica since 1981, then there was a quantum jump, from 1984- 85 onwards, when we took up detailed investigations in the main area of Antarctica, covering 20,000 square kilometer, then shifting to a new area in the last many years, where we had the third station, Bharati, covering the Princess Elizabeth land, so all that we'll cover possibly next time, but in the meantime, I request Dr Ghosh to come up and speak to us.

Rajoshree Ghosh: Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm delighted to be speaking at the ICWA and share the stage with Dr Rasik Ravindra, Professor N C Pant, and Dr Stuti Banerjee. Today, I'm here to speak on a brief history of India's engagement with the Antarctic. Now, human presence in Antarctic has assumed a geopolitical dimension as international interests begin to be exerted through territorial claims. Based on the ability to draw historical legacy, it was Great Britain, Norway, Argentina, Chile, Australia, France, and New Zealand that laid territorial claims on the continent. The US also proceeded to the continent with the intent to claim a share, but as it was unexpectedly drawn into the Second World War, the plan had to be discarded. In the years following the war, tensions continued to simmer in Antarctica, especially between the UK, Argentina, and Chile over their overlapping territories.

To ease equation between these claimant nations, the US proposed an international administration of Antarctica by the seven claimant nations with her emerging as the eighth one. It presented an eight-power trusteeship under the United Nations. However, upon realising that the absence of inhabitants in Antarctica made the trusteeship scheme unworkable, it would also not have prevented the entry of the Soviet Union. Please remember, this is also the time of the Cold War.

Now, the other countries also did not agree to it. It was the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58 with which the focus shifted to science endeavors in the continent. USA, USSR, Britain, Norway, France, Argentina, Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Belgium, Japan, and South Africa. They operated around 60 stations in Antarctic undertaking significant scientific research. Now, these countries also became the original signatories of the Antarctic Treaty System, which came into force on June 23rd, 1961. It also allowed new consultative parties to join if they could prove a substantial research activity. The treaty's two primary components were to ensure Antarctic's peaceful use and foster of scientific cooperation. It also froze all territorial claims where none of the claimants could generate new rights, nor they were forced to renounce their previous rights.

Now, as far as India is concerned, the first expedition reached Antarctic on 9th January, 1982, and it was subsequently inducted as a consultative party on 12th September, 1983. But if we look at the history of India's engagement with Antarctic, it goes back to February, 1956, when the Indian delegation to the United Nations proposed a dialogue on the Antarctic question. Noting the dangers of leaving a delicate and resource-rich region unregulated, where countries had already run into contested territorial claims, some had identified it as a site of conducting nuclear tests, India believed that environmental threats was not the only cause of concern.

The 20th century had already brought unimaginable destruction in the form of the world wars, which was followed by the Cold War that split the world into two blocks. Aware of its potential to escalate into an open worldwide aggression, India advocated the principle of non-alignment, and as Jawaharlal Nehru preferred to define it, it was an area that does not want war, works for peace in a positive way, and believes in cooperation. Now, although it was in tandem for India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Arthur Lall, to submit a proposal highlighting Antarctic's significant position, and the need for all nations to agree and affirm that the area would be utilised for peaceful purposes, and general welfare becomes very important.

India's initial proposal to the United Nations noted the territorial contention, the intensification of rivalry between the USA and the Soviet Union, and the rapidly advancing, but politically driven scientific research. Therefore, the possibility of depriving others of the continent's potential mineral and oil resources, of using it as a nuclear testing ground, and subjecting it to the outdated politics of colonialism, were some of India's expressed concerns. However, the strong reaction of many countries was not anticipated. The British Foreign Office, the British Commonwealth Relations Office, sent out very strong statements. India did not also receive support from the French and the Norwegian representatives, but it was Argentina and Chile's opposition that caught India off guard. They went to the extent of raising questions on India's territorial integrity, to the extent of advising her to place the contested territories like Goa and Pondicherry under UN trusteeship.

Although India clarified her stand by abandoning the idea of placing Antarctic under the UN trusteeship, and altered the title of its proposed inscription to the peaceful utilisation of Antarctic, it could not contain the suspicion that had been set in motion since February 1956. Now, multiple attempts were made to convince India to withdraw the proposal. Though countries with little or no interest in Antarctic remain neutral, members of the non-aligned movement stood in favor of a discussion at the UN. An uneasy alliance developed between the British Commonwealth and Latin America in opposition to the Indian proposal. This ability to work together for common goals, despite their differences, set an important precedent for the Antarctic Treaty that would be signed on 1st December, 1959.

On 14th November, 1956, India withdrew the proposal, but simultaneously clarified that it was neither abandoning the issue nor undermining it. With the ATS being signed by the countries who had participated in the International Geophysical Year, India half-heartedly welcomed its formulation. But India stood by her resolve to have a say in matters related to the continent after being included as the ATS's 15th consultative member on September 12th, 1983.

So basically, after India gets a membership in the United Nations, we see that the UN noted the advantages-- India notes the advantages of being a party to the ATS, because it gives her the window to participate in relevant discussions, to exchange scientific information, and display her commitment to science. She also becomes a member of the SCAR, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. If we have a brief look at the first expedition, which was codenamed as Operation Gangotri, it was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs, and Indira Gandhi was herself at the helm of all affairs. So she selected the team. Dr S Z Qasim led the team of 21 members from different institutions.

So the first two expeditions saw India making forays in the fields of meteorology, atmospheric physics, radio wave propagation, glaciology, magnetic measurements, and geology. Shortly thereafter, Dakshin Gangotri comes up under the leadership of Colonel Pavan Nair from the EME, and then Maitri comes up by 1989. The other very important development that happens is the establishment of the Antarctic Study Center. So the Antarctic Study Center had very modest beginnings at the National Institute of Oceanography, and with the joining of Bhaskar Rao, we see that all logistical needs of the expeditions begins to be managed by him. And it is subsequently that this organisation evolves to be NCPOR, which now has its headquarters in Goa, which was actually a garbage dump, and the Supreme Court actually had to intervene for the Vasco municipality to evacuate the land.

Rasik Ravindra:  Please conclude.

Rajoshree Ghosh: Yeah, so basically the NCPOR today stands as the nodal agency, which looks into the maintenance of station, it looks into the logistics, it heads all international collaborations, and it has emerged as the nodal agency. And today we are looking at Bharati, which is considered to be one of the finest research stations, and we are also looking forward to the construction of Maitri-2, which will have more rooms, more laboratory facilities, and will follow all environmental protocols, and is expected to sustainably run for minimum of 30 years, right? So I've given a brief overview of how it all came to be. Thank you so much.

Rasik Ravindra: Thank you, thank you very much. We now have Dr Stuti.

Stuti Banerjee:  I speak from here only. Thank you so much, everyone, and you already have an overview of the science of Antarctic, as well as the history of India's engagement here. I will briefly look at the geopolitics and how it comes about in the Antarctic. Now when we're looking at, when we talk about geopolitics, essentially with respect to the poles, one always thinks of the Arctic. It is primarily because the Antarctic's distance away from landmass, coast, borders of nations have made it seem like that the southern continent and the surrounding oceans are detached from international politics. However, as has been pointed out by the previous speaker, that is not really true, and there has been a political aspect to this continent, and the political arena has a very complex history.

Apart from the Cold War years, which was elaborated, Antarctic's political, or the political interest in the Antarctic goes to its early years, when nations have raced towards the South Pole to essentially lay territorial claims here. There are seven Antarctic traditional territorial claims that still remain a bit suspended, and two, the US and Russia have a basis on claim, which derives from their early expeditions and exploration of the continent. Now as has been pointed out, these are the seven countries and roughly the areas that they claim for themselves. The continent is regulated by the Antarctic Treaty, which has been hailed as a milestone in terms of international cooperation, and this is largely because of three reasons.

First, it brought the East and the West together at the height of the Cold War to come together and cooperate with each other to ensure that the continent research remains for peaceful purposes. Second, it enables the seven countries to actually come together and suspend the territorial claims, which was a big deal. And third, it has been remarkably successful as a disarmament regime. The Antarctica Treaty specifically says there is going to be no military presence there, it is not going to be used for nuclear weapons deployment or testing or dumping of radioactive waste.

Now, the treaty system itself has these other conventions, but as was pointed out, it is not just limited to them. There are various committees, there are various meeting groups within these conventions which feed into the larger impact and implementation of the provisions, and they together now are considered to be part of the treaty system. Now, India's polar expertise is essentially based on the foundation of its research in Antarctic. These are the two operational bases that we have today. India has conducted 42 missions and is currently on its 43rd mission there. And we hosted the ATCM in Kochi last year where we have announced that we will establish a new station by 2029 to replace our old infrastructure.

Now, India has been a consultative party to the Antarctic Treaty since 1983, and with the 28 other countries that are party to this, India has a critical role in governing the Antarctic science exploration environment protection norms. It has the right to propose and vote on decisions and resolutions made during the ATCM in matters of administration, scientific research, environment protection, and logistic cooperation, and ensuring that the continent remains free from military activity. India's participation in these meetings is important as India strives to ensure that the continent remains a zone of peace.

Now, in 2022, India's parliament passed the Indian Antarctic Bill. This highlight India's importance given to the continent in India's policy thinking and the objective that India has set for itself with respect to the white continent. Now, the question arises, how does a national bill underscore India's interest in a very faraway continent? Firstly, if you look at this map, it kind of lays the connection because the Indian Ocean connects Antarctica to India. And secondly, I would say that there is geological evidence to prove that the hypothesis that the subcontinent was actually connected to the white continent long ago.

Now, the very fact that India has this Antarctic Bill shows that it is not a bystander and that it has interest in it, in the continent, and will work from not just within because the bill is a national regulation framework but also with partners to protect its interest in the Antarctic. The bill can be looked at three very broad themes which I will highlight as the first is India's recognition that the White Continent has a very strategic potential, particularly with respect to the nations of the Southern Hemisphere, with whom India shares very close relations. As these nations continue to grow in economic and political stature, the strategic potential of the White Continent is likely to expand, leading to more political and economic re-alliances, and India is well aware of these developments.

As an emerging power with considerable political, economic, military, and soft power, it is only necessary that India remain engaged in the developments overall with respect to the continent. Second, the bill, along with India's Arctic policy, is a sign of its growing awareness and increasing strategic relevance of the polar regions to India's interest. It indicates that India would like to use its role as a consultative party in the treaty to bring about positive developments in an effort to preserve the continent. And lastly, India today is more aware of the fact that there is a need to expand its knowledge on polar regions, especially with respect to protecting the Himalayas, and define its interest in order to build stronger partnerships with other nations to protect fragile ecosystems globally.

Now, the ATS has been a success, and that was already pointed out. I will highlight four challenges that the treaty system faces today. The first is with respect to climate change. We find that global temperature rise is affecting migration and living habits of large marine species, which is detrimental to the overall health of the maritime ecosystem, not just around the continent, but globally. Economically, it has an effect on the marine living resources, which affects economic activities in other parts of the world. The other effect of climate change has been geopolitical tensions, with the possibility of states looking at alternate shipping routes.

Now, the hypothesis is that as states look at alternate shipping routes above the 60th degree line, which defines the Southern Ocean, which is a protected area, there will be more commercial shipping leading to more environmental issues, as well as the fact that these commercial shippings would, at a later date, lead to more deployment of naval assets. Stemming from the first concern is tourism. Antarctica has seen a rise in tourism, and this has led to concerns about increased environmental hazards hindering scientific research, and posing an overall threat to the conservation of the wilderness around here. The treaty system, as of now, does not govern or look at regulations with respect to tourism.

The third concern is the use of, or the factored in is the dual use technology and its rapid development. Now militarisation, as I stated, is prohibited under the treaty system, but military personnel and hardware are allowed to be deployed here if they support scientific research. And many countries essentially rely on the militaries to support their scientific research here. Now the question is how do you determine whether they have been sent there just for scientific reasons or there is an ulterior motive, because the entire treaty system works on a trust basis. So you have the issue of air power, space power, new developments, deep sea mining, which are essentially to help the treaty system implement its position and to gauge the developments in terms of environmental impact in the continent, which can actually be also used for projecting hard military power if states so desire to do so. So it's a difficult dilemma before the treaty system and the states to resolve as equipment on infrastructure that has been placed is essentially for peaceful non-military use, but there are different inferences that you can get from their very placement there.

The fourth and the last concern that I highlight is one which was already mentioned, and that is of growing political distrust. Now the chair has already pointed out some of the examples in that which were with respect to new parties, new nations coming into the treaty system. I point to one more, which is with respect to the recent inauguration of a Chinese base. Now China says that its recent base is just for scientific purposes, there is no ulterior motive. However, Australia looks at it very differently because it's placed very close to the Australian continent as such, and they feel that it is going to be used as a surveillance because Australia is a US ally. So now there is this fear of what they call politicisation of science, which is coming in respect to the continent.

Now all these developments, if you look at them in terms of geopolitics, raise the question of whether the treaty system in itself is healthy and can survive, what will happen if territorial claims are revived, and what happens if non-parties to the treaty system decide to violate the provisions? A very simple answer to all of this is that the treaty system is not going to fail, there is no termination date, and it is not easy, as it sounds, to just violate provisions in it because there are a lot of checks and balances that have been built in. The other major issue here is that states themselves do not want this treaty system to fail, and are working towards, they know the concerns, and the fact that they're working towards addressing these gaps and loopholes is a positive development.

Rasik Ravindra: Now please conclude.

Stuti Banerjee:  So that is where I conclude, thank you.

Rasik Ravindra: Excellent. The house is open for question and answers. Please raise your hand and introduce yourself, and shoot the question, if you have any.

Sarvajit Dudeja:  Sir, what is the possibility of oil exploration? Do we have any collaboration with any countries for oil exploration? And what form of oil is available there?

Rasik Ravindra: I'll answer that question. Well, all around Antarctic, the sedimentary basins are known. But the treaty doesn't allow any exploitation. So even if oil is there, you cannot exploit it. Exploration is okay, but you cannot exploit it.

Amb. Ashok Sajjanhar: Thank you very much to all the panelists for an excellent presentation. I had a couple of, because this is a very, very new subject, nothing much is, except for the experts, nothing much is really known or written or discussions take place. So a couple of questions I had, and maybe they are quite simple questions. I think Stuti mentioned that there are no bases, no militarisation of the continent. But still, I think you mentioned that there are two countries, US and Russia, who maintain some sort of, no bases.

Stuti Banerjee: So they have a claim on basis. That is, they feel that at a later date, they can claim territory if the other states decide to claim.

Amb. Ashok Sajjanhar: One question following, what was in terms of oil, mineral resources, etc. Meaning, the exploration is done, you can find out what the resources are. Because, this would be very, very different from what has happened in the Arctic. In the Arctic, there is so much of a scramble for the riches, minerals, fisheries, etc. What is the position here? Because in terms of,  if they are available, and the world is really looking for newer sources. The last point I would have is, we are doing all this scientific exploration. Is there any cooperation that is taking place between different countries? Or are they really working in silos? Are they doing their own research and that's it? Or is there any under the ATC or under any other umbrella, there is some possibility of sharing that knowledge, information? After all, we say it's global commons. But global commons would mean that you have, whatever information or science or knowledge that comes out, it should be made available to everyone else. And the last point is, we see about the melting, we hear about the melting of the glaciers. And I think that was mentioned. But here it is also mentioned that it is expanding. That the Antarctic is expanding rather than shrinking. So how does that there is no melting of glaciers, but there is an additionality to its area of the continent.

Rasik Ravindra: Okay, just a minute, just a minute, please. Let us finish this question. I'll answer the last question and then I'll pass over to Dr Pant, who will speak on the collaboration in the exploration. You see, when you say that the ice in Antarctica is expanding, that is a misnomer. The recent papers and the recent reports by the British Antarctic Survey, it has very clearly shown, and there are documents on that, that we, a couple of years back, the last decade, we used to think that the East Antarctic is getting accumulation of the ice and snow and it is expanding, but recent data in the last decade has very clearly brought out that East Antarctic also is suffering loss of the ice. So it is no longer, you can say that the East Antarctic is adding ice or there's accumulation of ice on the continent. It has been proved that the ice is also going down, receding, and the ice sheet itself is deteriorating. So that is number one.

And number two was your Arctic, because exploration I'll leave to him. Arctic and Antarctic cannot be compared, because if you see the United Nations Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, if you start from the territory of the countries, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Russia, they all come to the North Pole, and there's hardly any area which is left for the global common. If you take 200 nautical miles as EEZ, then you extend it to 350 nautical miles as extended continental shelf, so nothing is left. And all these areas, starting from the edge of the coastline of these countries to the EEZ, extended EEZ, nothing is left. And the fuel is known there, the petroleum is known there, the hydrocarbons are known there.

But in Antarctic, that's not the case, because whichever country has given the claim that this is our extended continental shelf, because you know, as she said, there are some countries which have put claims on Antarctic. So once you have a claim on the Antarctic, they've also claimed the extended continental shelf of those claims, and they've gone up to 350 nautical miles to say that this is also our area, and we can claim the resources, but that has been turned down. It has not been taken up by the CLCS, Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. They don't consider that. India also has objected to that. So the Arctic and Antarctic, they cannot be put on the same ground. They're entirely different, right? And regarding the collaboration, well, I think Dr Pant is the right person to answer that.

N C Pant: Two things. First of all, thanks for asking a very, very important question. The thing is about resources, about oil. Probably in 60s and 70s, there were some not sort of secret, let us say not very declared surveys done for hydrocarbon. So there are two, three domains in Antarctica. There is a big area, Ross Sea, close to which American Station is there. Weddell Sea area, where British Station is there, close to that. And also further towards east, the Australian Station is there. So the presence of hydrocarbon is quite certain. No doubt about that. However, everyone knows the risk, or most of the people, since that time realise the risk. So everyone is sticking to not extracting anything. Antarctica was adjacent to Africa, India, Australia. So the resources which are present in these countries, like iron ore resources, coal. Coal, of course, is exposed also in Antarctica. So they are there. Only thing is that there is a total sort of ban on exploiting this. So there is no issue about it.

Rasik Ravindra: Dr Pant, you speak on the collaboration. They were asking whether there is any scientific collaboration.

N C Pant: Yes. So then we come to the science. So the science is done in Antarctica through a body which was created post-Antarctic. It is SCAR, Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. It has three groups, sciences group, geosciences, physical sciences, and biological sciences. Each is headed by three chief officers. So they sort of coordinate. And this is also aided by what is called science research programs, SRPs. And there are two more terms, action groups and expert groups. So they are essentially the question which you asked, whether that width is there, spread is there. So the aim is always in these, is to have as many countries as possible participating. So as far as the science or scientific data from Antarctica is concerned, it is generally very well shared and discussed and distributed. The forums also honor that. There's no two issues about that till now.

The future contexts are in terms of stabilities of, as it was mentioned, that if the ice sheet becomes unstable, we don't know the tipping point. The issues of science and technology which will come is geo-engineering. That is how, whether there can be bigger things which can control that, whether that can be done. So those are the bigger science issues. However, just one second, one more point. The thing is this, that these are all relatively longer term issues. Elections are four year, five years issues. So in many of these contexts, because they are all participating nations and their science groups are participating. So the influences of what is happening in individual, in each countries, including funding, etc., that is affecting, that is one major concern because there is no actual real return in terms of, you can't show that one has earned something like that. So that is one thing which is there.

But for our survival, the thing is that the science is needed, and this consensus is needed.

Rasik Ravindra: Thank you. I think there was a question from here.

Unidentified Speaker: How much of the research we are doing in Antarctica is original, and it's not kind of reinventing the wheel?

Rasik Ravindra: Antarctica is a new continent. It's a unique continent. So whatever you do there is new. So there's nothing to say that it was known earlier. You put your foot on the terrain, you may be the first person who is doing so. So that is the beauty of doing science in Antarctica, because whatever you do, possibly it is the first time that you are doing it. Yeah, there is some more time. Yes, please, go ahead.

Unidentified Speaker: Antarctica is the biggest continent. So do you think this area is also distributed in different countries? How claim of any country is this area?

Rasik Ravindra:  No, this is not distributed. You saw a slide. Stuti, can you bring that slide again? The territorial claims? They are all frozen. Yeah, yeah, next, next. Territorial claims. You had that overlapping claims you had?

Stuti Banerjee: Yeah, I'll just get to that.

Rasik Ravindra:  Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You see, this is the map of the Antarctic. Can you turn a bit, please? No, I think they'll bring down the screen. Okay, if they can, if they can. Anyway, I'll start, and they can do it later on. There are slices like pizza? Pizza slices are there. And you can see that biggest slice of orange color, which you'll see here. Yeah, this is a total map of the Antarctic continent, right? And you can see different slices, pizza slices. So all these slices are claimed, territorially claimed by these countries, like France, Australia, Norway, UK, Argentina, Chile. And this area is unclaimed. So it is not that

Unidentified Speaker: Yes, sir. Can you clarify this area?

Rasik Ravindra: See, in 1957, ’58, when there was an international geophysical year, many countries, leading 12 countries were there. They went to explore Antarctic. And they established nearly 50 stations all over Antarctic. And then after the success of the data that they collected, they decided, okay, this is my territory. This is your territory. And when the treaty was signed, these claims were not accepted. But since there was a huge crisis, the treaty would not be signed unless this question was solved. So they froze these claims. That these claims are frozen. You cannot put new claims, and you cannot also exert these claims. So they are just lying under the carpet. That's all.

Unidentified Speaker: Is there any UN rule also here?

Rasik Ravindra: No, no UN rule. Antarctic, it doesn't come under the UN. That's why they say there's exceptionalism in Antarctica. 60 latitudes beyond is the Antarctic Treaty, and north of 60 degrees latitude is the rule of the UN. There was some other question somebody wanted.

Unidentified Speaker: So I had a question for Professor N C Pant. Where does our need for understanding of the scientific acumen of Antarctic overlap with someone's thought of exploitation of the Antarctic?

N C Pant: The exploitation of Antarctica is banned. So that issue is not there. The thing is that once we start exploiting, the possible damage which can come from the loss of ice, I mean, one single factor if you take, will be enormous, affecting, as I said, the estimates are high, about 30% to 40% of present global population, 8 billion people. So it is most of the sane people realise this. And as I said, despite four-year, five-year election, this is something which everyone. So how does one do that is that from 1957 onwards, when the international geophysical year was held, they said the best way to do this is to keep Antarctica isolated, not get influenced by what is happening elsewhere. But this has been compounded right now by two things.

One, the global warming, which is not human-generated. I mean, some part of it is human-generated, anthropogenic. Some part is not. So anthropogenic component is something which we can control. That is why all the Paris Agreement, etc., are towards that, which has already failed. I mean, we have already crossed that limit. So the thing is this slightly longer term, let us say end of the century, it could be very bad. So the idea is, all of us ultimately, that we need to stick to things which we can control. Anthropogenic warming component.

Rasik Ravindra: Fine, yeah, please, please. The last question. Yes.

Unidentified Speaker: So you mentioned that there is no indigenous population in Antarctica. But at the same time, Dr Pant mentioned that about 5,000 people come and live there during summers. So who are these people? Under whose permission they come and sort of live there?

Rasik Ravindra: It's a very nice question. You see, what happens is, Antarctica is a lab, it’s a laboratory. So every country which is a member of the Antarctic Treaty System, they send expeditions to Antarctica. And there are two types of expeditions, either the summer only or the winter. So the summer is only for six months maximum because it is in the southern hemisphere. So you go there during month of November, December, when the sea ice is melted and you have to return back by the month of March or April because, again, the sea will freeze. So there are some expeditions and because summer is more easy to go, more comfortable to work, there are more people who go in the summer. They do their research and they come back to their respective countries. During winters, when the sun is not there in Antarctic from March till next October, but some people have to maintain the stations. Like India maintains two stations. So we have 25 people in Maitri and there are 20 persons in Bharati. They stay put there during the winters. So naturally, the population of these people, the rotating people, it will differ.

In winters, there are a lesser number of people. In summer, there are more people. But it's not permanent habitation. Once that project is over, they have to come back and to be replaced by a new team.

Unidentified Speaker: And then small second question is about the governance structure. As for the act, is there an executive body or something like that which really governs that entire region or it is left to the whims and fancies of the individual states?

Rasik Ravindra: Are you talking of individual country or you are talking of the entire?

Unidentified Speaker: No, I'm talking of the entire Antarctica being governed. Is there any executive committee or some board of members or some who really execute the things on the ground or prevent its damage or control the scientific research or whatever means of governance it really means to you or me? Is there any executive body to implement it or is left for the as and when situation arises?

Rasik Ravindra: No, no. There is an executive body and that is the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Committee or the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Nations who have a veto power, consultative power. So there are 29 members which constitute this ATCM and they have the power to do whatever you are saying. And who supports this committee, ATCM? There are two bodies. One is SCAR, Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, which oversees the scientific research items and all that. And there is the Committee on Environmental Protection, CEP. It has got huge powers under the Madrid Protocol. It can inspect your station. It can give a report to ATCM. If there is any violation, the country can be put to blame and then there's a liability annex. The liability will come to you and then you may have to pay whatever charges are there. So there is a mechanism for all these things. And India is part of that mechanism. Thank you.

Unidentified Speaker: I enjoyed thoroughly all the presentations but my eyes are on charting futures that is really good to celebrate the success of ATS, but when I look at the future, I have concerns. Like for example, ATS, a treaty is great, but history is replete with examples of treaty violations, number one. Number two, at one time, we also talked about global commons on the high seas. Now we know what is happening on the high seas and that area is shrinking. At another time, we talked about the outer space. There should not be any militarisation. We know what is happening there. So I think we have to be really careful of how to continue the ATS not getting violated in the future, because the human nature, the nature of the state, the nature of politics itself is so dangerous that things may go wrong in the future. I thought I would add this comment. Thank you.

Rasik Ravindra: Yeah, it's very true, very true, because after when we talk of future, it is all hypothetical. You never know which consultative party will move in which direction. The only thing is that the well-being of Antarctic is the prime interest in all the countries, so that's what is keeping us together. So once this cohesiveness is broken, I leave it to you to think what can happen. But let's not think in that lines. Well, I think question and answer is over, unless, because I can give my two or three minutes to the, I have closing remarks, but if anybody has any other question relevant, I think we can ask one or two more questions. Yes. Please go ahead, quickly. We have to finish by 4:15. Five more minutes.

Unidentified Speaker: So, sir, you recently mentioned in the answer to sir that the UN is not the governing body and the UN has no role beyond 60 degrees Southern. So if there is no particular organisation which takes care of the militarisation, as ma'am mentions, and there is no supposed militarisation, yet bases have come up which might be used for dual methods, in such times, is de-militarisation for its peace a possibility which can be looked upon? Or is it also not a part of the current future that we are looking at?

Rasik Ravindra: See, Dr Stuti raised this point. Actually, the presence of army, military means defense, Navy, everybody, is limited only to the logistic part. We also have taken army in the initial years. A big contingent of around 80, 90 people used to go, but that was the time when we were building Dakshin Gangotri, or we were building Maitri, or Bharati. Bharati was of course not built by the military's help. But then, these things are only for the logistic support. You can't send a military with a weapon. He can't take a gun. So, strictly speaking, when we talk of military, we are talking only of logistic personnel. We are not talking of army as such, or navy as such. So that has to be kept in mind. And since it is banned, so if you violate the treaty, then the other terms and conditions will come up. Right? But as such, the military is not allowed. Only there are Chile and Argentina, they used to maintain some army camps or small hospitals and all that, but weapons are not allowed, so you can't have any sort of a conflict and all this. It's very clearly mentioned. But I think now is the time to sum up.

And as I said, there are three things in this panel discussion. One was the role of the exploration, the governance, and third was the future aspect. Future is already covered by our respected audience from. And scientific collaboration, I think that was not very well described, but we didn't have the time. India itself has got six major international projects which are going on with the other countries. You wanted to ask that particular question. Now, there's a program which is called as Mad Ice. There are certain ice sizes which are grounded onto the shelf, and then these do not move. And they do the sort of a buttress to the ice sheet. It stops the ice sheet from coming down and going to the sea. So there's an international project, along with Norway and the United Kingdom and India, because ours is a coastal station. So we provide the logistic, we provide the scientific equipment, for example, ground-penetrating radar and satellite imagery. And then people from UK and from Norway, they come and they do drilling and all that. And then we collect the data on how deep is this ice size. And once we collect the ice core, we get the idea of what was the climate when that snow was falling.

So you know that each time a snowfall is there, it goes down, and then subsequently it comes and it compresses it. So once we drill about, say, 100 metre or 200 metre, we are taking out an archive of climate for the last 10,000 years or 15,000 years. So that is a very crucial example of paleoclimatic history that we are doing. And we have got huge collaboration with all these countries. That is number one.

Bioprospecting is another issue which is still pending in Antarctic, because it has got commercial aspect. And ATCM has not been able to take a clue on that. It has not solved that issue. There are several patents which India has also filed, because Antarctica is known for the cyclophilic bacteria, the cold-loving bacteria. And these bacteria have got a lot of potential for the pharmaceutical industry. The only issue comes that, supposing you take out such a bacteria, you generate some sort of a medicine from it or a pharmaceutical product from it, what will be the jurisdiction? Who will get the intellectual property right on that? So these things are not being able to solve. That's why this is still under discussion.

Otherwise, Antarctica is still a place which you will love to have as a common ground for doing collaborative research, international research, because even in the peak of the Cold War, US and Russia, they were together. They gone to Antarctica together and established the IGY. And then South African apartheid was there, but their station was next door to us. And when we had a tragedy in ’89, they were the first people to come and offer us, do you want us to help you? So in Antarctica, we are not Indians or Chinese. We are just polar men. We call ourselves polar men. And here you have got two endangered species, Dr Pant and myself, we are there right from ’87 onwards. He was there in 1986, ’87, and he did his doctorate in Antarctic. I was, right from ’87 onwards, I have done six or seven expeditions. I stayed in Antarctic for one winter. So, Antarctic is such a place, it's called a bug. If that bug has bitten you, you just can't help it. You have to go again and again and again. That is the beauty of that continent. Well, with that, I close this discussion. Thank you.

Keshav Verma: Thank you. It goes without saying that we all had a very fascinating and enriching panel discussion today. On behalf of ICWA, I would like to express my gratitude to the distinguished chair and the panelists. My special thanks to all our members of the audience. To know more about our research work, events, outreach programs, and publication, do visit our website and social media handles on Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, and Facebook. Thank you, and please join us for the high tea in the foyer. Thank you.

*****