1. Global Relevance of Critical Minerals in the G20 Policy Architecture

Critical minerals entered the Johannesburg G20 Summit as a structural theme shaping the architecture of global economic governance rather than a sectoral topic. The agenda made this explicit by confirming that “the final session, ‘A Fair and a Just Future for All,’ will take up critical minerals, decent work and the governance of artificial intelligence” (TNIExp., Nov. 19, 2025). The placement showed that minerals are linked to work, technology regulation and distributional equity. They now sit within the same policy register as AI oversight and labour standards because the ability to secure, refine and govern minerals will determine who controls advanced manufacturing, energy technologies and digital supply chains.

The formal declaration affirmed this shift, stating that “the G20 emphasised the establishment of the G20 Critical Minerals Framework, aimed at leveraging critical minerals as a catalyst for sustainable development, inclusive economic growth, and resilience” (ANI, Nov. 23, 2025). The language indicated that minerals are no longer treated as commodities traded in global markets but as instruments of developmental leverage and geopolitical stability. The emphasis on resilience acknowledged that uninterrupted access is now a security concern, given concentrated supply patterns and geopolitical exposure.

India shaped the normative edge of this discussion. The statement that “sustainability and clean energy are essential for global growth. Critical minerals are crucial for this and should be seen as a shared resource for humanity” (MEA, Nov. 22, 2025) placed minerals within a distributive justice frame. The appeal for shared access challenged monopolistic control structures and aligned with the Global South’s demand for fairer participation in green industrialisation. This position connected minerals to a rights-based development vision rather than a competition-driven extraction economy.

The discussions also reflected the scale of structural dependence forming around minerals. Industrial restructuring, battery manufacturing, renewable grids, defence platforms and digital infrastructure all require predictable mineral access. These links were visible across statements and reporting, where minerals were consistently linked to clean energy transitions, supply chain security and technological capability. The policy narrative showed that critical minerals now operate as a foundation layer for future economic governance, where questions of access, processing, technology transfer and environmental responsibility define the new contours of power within the G20 policy space.

2. India’s Strategic Positioning as a Norm-Setter in Critical Mineral Diplomacy

India’s strategic posture at the Johannesburg G20 Summit showed a thoughtful move to shape the rules governing critical minerals rather than merely participate in them. The bilateral meeting with Australia illustrated this shift, where cooperation expanded across “defence and security, energy, trade and investment, critical minerals, technology, mobility, education and people-to-people linkages” (DH., Nov. 22, 2025). This indicated that minerals are now embedded within broader strategic, commercial and technological cooperation rather than treated as a trade commodity. The geopolitical context reinforced this role, with reporting noting that the summit marked “the fourth consecutive G20 Summit held in the Global South,” reflecting a change in global leadership influence and agenda control by developing economies (TNIExp., Nov. 19, 2025). India’s interventions aligned with this environment and projected confidence rather than proposal-testing. It was reported that “the gathering emphasised recycling, urban mining, and battery innovations as part of India's commitment to a greener future” (Devdis., Nov. 22, 2025). This message placed India in a leadership role that promotes innovation and circular value chains for minerals rather than dependence on primary extraction or external processing hubs. The approach also reflected a broader ambition for rule-shaping authority within the G20. India’s emphasis on recycling, technology and equitable access signalled its intention to drive structural change in how minerals are governed and distributed. The position suggested that India is not seeking entry into an established mineral order but intends to redefine it around circularity, value retention and fair participation for economies with limited historical industrial advantage.

3. The G20 Critical Minerals Circularity Initiative: Scope and Policy Logic

India’s proposal for a circular minerals system at the Johannesburg Summit demonstrated a structured policy direction rather than a symbolic diplomatic gesture. The initiative appeared across multiple official and media references, consistently described as “a G20 critical minerals circularity initiative to promote recycling, urban mining, second-life batteries and related innovations” (PTI News, Nov. 22, 2025; Fp., Nov. 23, 2025; B.S., Nov. 22, 2025). The repetition signalled intentional agenda-setting and an effort to normalise circularity as a governing framework within G20 policy language. The framing rejected the adequacy of linear extraction models in the current geopolitical and industrial context. Statements noted that “the creation of the Critical Minerals Circularity Initiative will foster recycling, urban mining, second-life battery projects and related innovations,” with the objective of strengthening “supply chain security and develop cleaner pathways of development” (NOA, Nov. 23, 2025). The wording reflects a shift toward recycling-led supply models as demand grows and supply concentration becomes strategically risky.

Circularity was presented as a risk governance mechanism rather than solely a sustainability measure. The initiative aligned with India’s position that “sustainability and clean energy are essential for global growth” and that critical minerals “should be seen as a shared resource for humanity” (MEA, Nov. 22, 2025). The phrasing placed minerals within a cooperative and redistribution-oriented framework, challenging existing supply hierarchies dominated by limited processing countries. The proposal also fit within wider G20 discussions on resilience, just transitions and climate-linked industrial restructuring, where circularity was portrayed as essential to predictable mineral access and reduced geopolitical exposure.

Across speeches and reporting, the consistency of language indicated that India sought to institutionalise circular governance rather than float exploratory policy language. The emphasis on recycling infrastructure, standards, and long-term innovation-based sourcing presented circularity as a structural model shaping the next phase of mineral governance, industrial capability and energy transition strategy within G20 deliberations.

4. Sovereignty, Value Addition, and Equitable Resource Governance for the Global South

Sovereignty and equitable value retention formed a critical thread of the Johannesburg discussions and positioned critical minerals within a justice-oriented governance narrative. The G20 declaration affirmed that the proposed framework “fully preserves the sovereign right of mineral-endowed countries to harness their endowments for inclusive economic growth, while ensuring economic, social and environmental stewardship” (ANI, Nov. 23, 2025). The phrasing directly confronted historical extraction patterns where mineral-rich economies exported raw ore while processing, technology development and strategic value creation were concentrated elsewhere. This shift signalled a wider demand for governance models that avoid repeating extractive dependency under new clean energy transitions.

The declaration acknowledged persistent structural constraints that prevent mineral-endowed developing economies from capturing downstream benefits. It recognised that “producer countries, especially in the developing world, are confronted with challenges of under investment, limited value addition and beneficiation, lack of technologies as well as socio-economic and environmental issues” (ANI, Nov. 23, 2025). The explicit reference to beneficiation and value addition suggested a move toward rebalancing the mineral economy by linking extraction with domestic manufacturing capability, skills pipelines, and technological infrastructure. The language indicated an expectation that mineral wealth must translate into industrial capability rather than merely supply external manufacturing networks.

India’s wider framing aligned with this position and emphasised shared responsibility rather than unilateral exploitation. The statement that “critical minerals are crucial for this and should be seen as a shared resource for humanity” (MEA, Nov. 22, 2025) framed minerals within a collective equity logic instead of a competitive resource capture model. This orientation suggested that governance structures must balance sovereign ownership with fair access frameworks, particularly for emerging economies navigating the clean energy transition with limited technological leverage.

The alignment of narratives across summit statements and reporting reflected a coherent Global South position. The discussion pointed toward a shift from extractive dependency toward regulated stewardship, where minerals serve long-term domestic development, supply chain empowerment and fair participation in global markets. The references to investment gaps, technology asymmetry and value retention challenges underscored a clear transition toward resource governance based on control, capability and equitable participation, rather than export-led extraction cycles.

5. Supply Chain Diversification and Strategic Resilience

Supply chain diversification entered the Johannesburg discussions as a strategic necessity shaped by real-world vulnerabilities rather than a theoretical aspiration. Media reporting underscored the geopolitical context with clarity, noting that the initiative was emerging at a time when China was “leverag[es] its chokehold over supply of rare and critical minerals to further its strategic goals” (TOI, Nov. 23, 2025). This framing identified mineral access as a determinant of national leverage, industrial capability and policy autonomy, and signalled that concentrated control over extraction and processing is already influencing global power balances.

India’s intervention framed circular economy principles as a resilience strategy rather than a purely environmental concept. The statement that “if there is investment in circularity, then dependence on primary mining will be less. This will also reduce the pressure on the supply chain, and it will also be good for nature” (TOI, Nov. 23, 2025) positioned recycling, secondary sourcing and urban mining as mechanisms that reduce vulnerability to chokepoints and create buffers against geopolitical coercion. The pairing of ecological benefit with supply predictability revealed a shift toward hybrid policy logic where environmental responsibility, national security and industrial strategy converge.

The declaration language reinforced this orientation. It stated that mineral systems must withstand “disruptions, whether due to geopolitical tensions, unilateral trade measures inconsistent with WTO Rules, pandemics, or natural disasters” (ANI, Nov. 23, 2025). The explicit reference to unilateral trade measures indicated recognition that minerals are already being used as instruments of geoeconomic pressure. The framing treated minerals as strategic inputs comparable to energy security, defence supply chains and critical technology components rather than conventional trade commodities.

Across discussions and reporting, diversification appeared as a core stabiliser supporting clean energy transitions, technological scaling, and manufacturing sovereignty. The narrative pointed to a shared understanding that predictable access to minerals will determine which economies can modernise at pace and which remain peripheral to advanced industrial and digital systems.

6. Technology Cooperation and Shared Innovation Platforms

Technology cooperation emerged as a structural requirement within the minerals agenda rather than a peripheral element. India’s framing treated technology capability as inseparable from resource governance. The proposal explicitly called for a model that enables “joint research, technology standards and pilot recycling facilities in the Global South” (TOI, Nov. 23, 2025). The wording conveyed that extraction without processing capability, innovation access and standard-setting authority would reproduce familiar dependency cycles. The policy logic positioned technology access as a precondition for meaningful participation in mineral value chains rather than a downstream benefit to be negotiated later.

Speech records and reporting repeatedly linked technological infrastructure with minerals governance. India proposed the creation of a “G20 Open Satellite Data Partnership” to ensure that space-based analytics become “more accessible for countries of the Global South” (PTI News, Nov. 22, 2025; Fp., Nov. 23, 2025; B.S., Nov. 22, 2025). The framing treated satellite-based mapping, monitoring and forecasting as essential tools for exploration oversight, environmental compliance and long-term mineral planning. The repetition of the same language across multiple platforms indicated a deliberate effort to secure consensus around shared intelligence infrastructure.

The formal articulation of use cases strengthened this positioning. Official remarks clarified that satellite-derived resources “would be made available to developing countries, especially the Global South, for agriculture, fisheries, disaster management, among other activities” (NOA, Nov. 23, 2025). The phrasing made clear that the objective was not limited to mineral mapping or industrial strategy alone. Instead, it framed shared digital capability as part of a wider governance ecosystem supporting food systems, resilience planning and climate management.

India’s messaging linked innovation capacity with sovereignty. The consistent pairing of minerals policy with research access, standards, satellite data and recycling capability suggested that without distributed technology ecosystems, the mineral transition risks reinforcing hierarchies rather than correcting them. The tone across statements and reports conveyed that circularity, diversification and sustainability cannot advance without common technological baselines and cooperative innovation platforms that extend beyond established industrial centres.

7. Satellite-Enabled Resource and Governance Infrastructure

Satellite capability entered the G20 minerals discussion as a policy instrument tied to access, equity and regulatory capacity rather than a technical add-on. India proposed a cooperative framework identified as the “G20 Open Satellite Data Partnership,” intended to make satellite-derived information “more accessible, interoperable and useful especially for countries in the Global South” (MEA, Nov. 22, 2025). The framing linked satellite data with mapping, environmental monitoring, resource tracking and planning. It positioned digital capability as part of minerals governance, not separate from it.

The messaging was deliberate and repeated across multiple reports without variation. It was stated that satellite data and analysis from G20 space agencies should become “more accessible for countries of the Global South” (PTI News, Nov. 22, 2025; Fp., Nov. 23, 2025; B.S., Nov. 22, 2025; TOI, Nov. 23, 2025). The repetition demonstrated that the proposal was intended for institutional adoption, not exploratory discourse. It reflected a strategic effort to formalise digital equality within the governance of strategic resources.

Official statements described an expanded scope of use beyond mineral exploration. The shared system was framed to support “agriculture, fisheries, disaster management, among other activities” (NOA, Nov. 23, 2025). This positioned satellite access as a cross-sector governance tool that supports food systems, climate response and emergency management alongside mineral stewardship. The linkage showed how minerals policy intersects with ecological vulnerability, public systems and national capacity to respond to disruption.

The proposal implied that meaningful participation in mineral frameworks requires complementary intelligence infrastructure. States without geospatial capability are structurally disadvantaged in negotiation, regulatory enforcement and long-term planning. The alignment of statements across media and official sources indicated a shift in thinking where technology access, data sharing and real-time monitoring are now treated as core components of mineral governance. The framing presented satellite-linked systems as part of a new resource architecture that supports oversight, planning and sovereignty for developing economies operating in a competitive and resource-constrained global landscape.

8. Financing, Scaling, and Economic Transformation

Financing emerged as a foundational requirement in the minerals agenda rather than a secondary instrument. The discussions placed the minerals transition inside a broader development and economic narrative. Reporting noted that commitments aligned with “inclusive and sustainable economic growth leaving no one behind” (TNIExp., Nov. 19, 2025). The phrasing connected minerals with industrial restructuring, labour systems and market access for developing economies. It signalled that minerals policy is now part of the macroeconomic architecture guiding growth and distribution rather than a commodity management exercise.

India stressed that financing is necessary for implementation and not an aspirational declaration. The intervention reiterated that earlier financial commitments must be delivered “in a time-bound manner” (MEA, Nov. 22, 2025). The reference pointed to an unresolved gap between commitment and execution, especially where financial flows underpin energy transition, technology access and scaling of circular models. The tone reflected impatience with stalled climate financing and highlighted that mineral policy depends on predictable capital rather than conditional or delayed support.

Reporting across platforms connected minerals with renewable energy expansion, circular innovation and resilience planning. The declaration confirmed that critical minerals are intended to support “sustainable development, inclusive economic growth, and resilience” (ANI, Nov. 23, 2025). The alignment suggested that financing must enable capability building, value retention and supply chain restructuring to support long-term autonomy for developing economies. The language indicated that minerals are tied to structural changes in energy, industry and governance rather than marginal adjustments.

Economic transformation appeared linked to strategic investment pathways rather than fragmented project finance. Statements and reporting implied that resource governance reform requires investment in refining capacity, processing infrastructure, recycling ecosystems, regulated extraction frameworks and technology transfer. The references positioned minerals financing within climate responsibility, industrial transition and equity-based development logic across the G20 framework.

9. Environmental Stewardship and Just Transition Principles

Environmental responsibility appeared as an integral component of the minerals framework rather than a peripheral clause. India positioned circularity as both a governance mechanism and an ecological necessity, stating that “investing in circularity will lower dependence on primary mining, easing pressure on supply chains and benefiting the environment” (MEA, Nov. 22, 2025). The sentence drew a direct line between reduced extraction, environmental protection and supply stability. It indicated that circularity is intended to moderate ecological impact rather than simply extend mineral availability.

Public messaging reinforced this orientation with consistency. India stated it is “fully committed to sustainability and clean energy” (PTI News, Nov. 22, 2025; Fp., Nov. 23, 2025; B.S., Nov. 22, 2025). The repeated phrasing signalled intentional signalling at the diplomatic level. It framed critical minerals governance within climate responsibility, policy credibility and long-term environmental balance rather than short-term industrial expansion.

The just transition framing linked minerals governance to climate-related human vulnerability. Statements highlighted that “climate change affects agriculture, impacting food security” and referenced national responses that include “the world’s largest food and health insurance programs” (Devdis., Nov. 22, 2025). This connection linked minerals policy with the socioeconomic impacts of climate disruption. It positioned mineral governance within a wider matrix of protection systems, insurance mechanisms and livelihood security.

Environmental considerations were also tied to resilience and systemic planning. India stated that “resilience cannot be built in silos” and called for approaches that integrate public health, agriculture and preparedness (The Week, Nov. 23, 2025; MEA, Nov. 22, 2025). This positioning aligned minerals policy with climate adaptation systems, food stability and fair access to resources and technology. The framing suggested that environmental stewardship is interdependent with development equity and transition stability.

The references across official statements and reporting showed that sustainability, circularity and ecological responsibility now operate as structural components of critical minerals governance. They appear as part of a just transition logic grounded in climate risk, resource equity and long-term governance rather than symbolic environmental expression.

10. Integration of Critical Minerals into Wider G20 Development Themes

Critical minerals appeared as part of the broader governance agenda rather than as a specialised technical issue. Reporting confirmed that discussions placed minerals within debates on “disaster risk reduction, climate change, just energy transitions and food systems” (Fp., Nov. 23, 2025; B.S., Nov. 22, 2025). This positioning linked minerals to systemic stress points including energy transition timelines, supply chain fragility and food system vulnerability. The framing treated minerals as a structural determinant of development pathways and resilience planning.

India’s statements reinforced this integrated logic. The remarks stated that resilience “cannot be built in silos” and requires connections across “nutrition, public health, sustainable agriculture, and disaster preparedness” (The Week, Nov. 23, 2025; MEA, Nov. 22, 2025). This wording placed minerals governance inside a wider matrix of interdependent systems rather than treating it as an isolated economic sector. The tone implied that minerals policy affects and is affected by health systems, agriculture, climate risk and technology access.

The summit agenda showed alignment between minerals and the wider development narrative. It was noted that the first formal session focused on “inclusive and sustainable economic growth leaving no one behind,” followed by discussions on climate, resilience and food systems (TNIExp., Nov. 19, 2025). Minerals appeared in the final session alongside “decent work and the governance of artificial intelligence” (TNIExp., Nov. 19, 2025). This sequencing reflected how minerals intersect with labour restructuring, technological governance and strategic economic planning.

The reporting and official transcripts repeatedly linked minerals with circularity measures. References to recycling, urban mining and second-life batteries appeared alongside statements tied to clean energy and sustainability goals (PTI News, Nov. 22, 2025; Fp., Nov. 23, 2025; B.S., Nov. 22, 2025). The repetition illustrated a policy direction in which minerals governance supports environmental responsibility and industrial transformation.

The alignment across remarks, reporting and declarations presented critical minerals as part of the development grammar shaping climate governance, economic restructuring and future transition capacity within the G20 policy space.

11. Critical Analysis and Forward Policy Direction

The discussions across the Johannesburg summit demonstrated that critical minerals are no longer framed as resource commodities but as structural determinants of economic sovereignty, climate transition timelines and technological capability. The consistency of language across official statements and reporting suggested a policy convergence, yet gaps remain visible in operational pathways, institutional machinery and enforcement logic. The framing that “critical minerals are crucial for this and should be seen as a shared resource for humanity” (MEA, Nov. 22, 2025) signals an ethical premise, but shared principles require enforceable structures. Without institutional clarity, voluntary frameworks risk being overshadowed by geopolitical competition, export controls and market capture by dominant actors.

The declaration acknowledged long-standing asymmetries, noting that “producer countries, especially in the developing world, are confronted with challenges of under investment, limited value addition and beneficiation, lack of technologies as well as socio-economic and environmental issues” (ANI, Nov. 23, 2025). Treating this as a factual diagnosis rather than a negotiation line positions the next policy phase around addressing structural deficits rather than documenting them. Circularity and satellite-enabled governance offer direction, yet they require institutional architecture capable of standard setting, compliance auditing, technology access, coordinated financing and dispute management. The emphasis that “resilience cannot be built in silos” (The Week, Nov. 23, 2025; MEA, Nov. 22, 2025) is correct, but resilience also cannot be built on voluntary non-binding platforms alone.

India now sits in a position where norm setting and institutional leadership converge. India has already demonstrated willingness to define frameworks rather than merely participate. The proposal that the G20 should adopt a “G20 Critical Minerals Circularity Initiative” (PTI News, Nov. 22, 2025; Fp., Nov. 23, 2025; B.S., Nov. 22, 2025) and the parallel call for the “G20 Open Satellite Data Partnership” (MEA, Nov. 22, 2025) indicate a governance model where minerals policy combines physical resource systems with digital oversight and shared technological capability. This reflects a diplomatic stance aligned with Global South justice priorities and energy transition realism rather than extractive opportunism or market-led dominance.

A forward pathway requires institutionalisation rather than event-cycle political commitment. A G20 Critical Minerals Council with technical working groups, shared standards, investment frameworks and compliance review could operationalise the language that minerals must support “sustainable development, inclusive economic growth, and resilience” (ANI, Nov. 23, 2025). Financing remains the primary fracture line. The expectation that developed economies fulfil commitments “in a time-bound manner” (MEA, Nov. 22, 2025) must be translated into predictable funding pipelines tied to circularity, processing capability and technology transfer rather than loan-led dependency.

India’s role in shaping the future architecture rests on three intersecting levers. First, as a bridging state between resource-endowed developing economies and technology-capable industrial economies. Second, as a proponent of circularity and satellite-linked governance that reduces information asymmetry. Third, as a credible policy actor whose public messaging has consistently stated it is “fully committed to sustainability and clean energy” (PTI News, Nov. 22, 2025; Fp., Nov. 23, 2025; B.S., Nov. 22, 2025). This positioning places India not only as an advocate but as a system-builder capable of linking resource sovereignty, just transition principles and shared technological access.

A future minerals governance model will require enforcement systems, shared technology infrastructure, predictable financing and mechanisms that support producer states in value retention, beneficiation and industrial scaling. The language already shows direction. The next phase is institutional architecture that turns principles into operating systems, where India is positioned to play a leading role in shaping norms, supporting implementation and structuring fair access for the Global South within a contested and resource-dependent global economy.

References

The New Indian Express. (2025, November 19). Modi to attend G20 summit in South Africa; focus on inclusive growth, climate action, critical minerals, AI. Jayanth Jacob. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Nov/19/modi-to-attend-g20-summit-in-south-africa-focus-on-inclusive-growth-climate-action-critical-minerals-ai

Business Standard. (2025, November 22). PM Modi proposes critical minerals circularity initiative at G20 Summit. Press Trust of India. https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/pm-modi-proposes-critical-minerals-circularity-initiative-at-g20-summit-125112200798_1.html

Deccan Herald. (2025, November 22). G20 Summit: PM Modi meets Australian counterpart, discusses cooperation in defence & security, critical minerals, trade. PTI. https://www.deccanherald.com/india/g20-summit-pm-modi-meets-australian-counterpart-discusses-cooperation-in-defence-security-critical-minerals-trade-3806463

Devdiscourse. (2025, November 22). India's G20 push: Critical minerals and global resilience. Devdiscourse News Desk. https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3706676-indias-g20-push-critical-minerals-and-global-resilience

MEA. (2025, November 22). English translation of Prime Minister’s statement at the G20 Summit: Session 2. https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/40323/English_Translation_of_Prime_Ministers_statement_at_the_G20_Summit_Session_2_November_22_2025

PTI News. (2025, November 22). PM Modi proposes critical minerals circularity initiative, satellite data partnership at G20. https://www.ptinews.com/story/international/pm-modi-proposes-critical-minerals-circularity-initiative-satellite-data-partnership-at-g20/3122677

ANI. (2025, November 23). G20 2025: Critical minerals to drive inclusive economic growth, resilience and Global South benefits. https://www.aninews.in/news/world/others/g20-2025-critical-minerals-to-drive-inclusive-economic-growth-resilience-and-global-south-benefits20251123044449

Economic Times. (2025, November 23). G20 delivers strong message on disaster resilience, debt, critical minerals and energy transition, says MEA. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/g20-delivers-strong-message-on-disaster-resilience-debt-critical-minerals-and-energy-transition-says-mea/articleshow/125514571.cms?from=mdr

Firstpost. (2025, November 23). India proposes G20 critical minerals circularity plan, calls for global satellite data sharing. FP News Desk. https://www.firstpost.com/world/india-proposes-g20-critical-minerals-circularity-plan-calls-for-global-satellite-data-sharing-13953171.html

NewsOnAir. (2025, November 23). PM Modi proposes six new initiatives at G20 Leaders’ Summit in Johannesburg. Site Admin. https://www.newsonair.gov.in/pm-modi-unveils-six-global-development-initiatives-at-g20-summit-opening-in-johannesburg/

The Week. (2025, November 23). Key takeaways: PM Modi's six global development proposals at G20 summit. The Week News Desk. https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2025/11/23/g20-summit-pm-modi-unveils-six-global-initiatives-highlights-india-s-human-centric-vision.html

Times of India. (2025, November 23). Amid China choke, PM Modi seeks critical minerals initiative. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/amid-china-choke-pm-modi-seeks-critical-minerals-initiative/articleshow/125514476.cms

[This work has been funded by the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), Ministry of Education, New Delhi, under the ―ICSSR Post-Doctoral Programme‖ 2019-20 on “Critical Infrastructure Protection Programme for India”.]