Two important things that responsible people like you should know about this affair:
1. Gen Kapoor said that 'there is a possibility of a limited nuclear war in in the subcontinent' - based on the fact that Pakistan has this "ridiculous" first use nuke policy! Nowhere does he state that India is preparing for a nuclear offensive in the neighborhood.
Prove me wrong if you can!
2. After a review of existing doctrines in the Shimla conference (a review which occurs every 5 years), the planners review/come up with a new military doctrine which provides for contingencies if a war breaks out with Pakistan and possibly China or vice-versa. Its very well within his powers that he can come up with plans to counter possible threatening military scenarios to safeguard the country he is working for.
Considering "buddy-buddy" Sino-Pak military relations, it becomes imperative that Indian military planners plan for any future threats which may include attacks by both Pakistan and China simultaneously and plan and provide for such emergencies.
Not surprising considering Pakistan has always been the aggressor in its very wrongly placed military and moral superiority complex while China has her own aspirations in the region.
Now again prove me wrong.
Given his position's mandate to safeguard the country's borders and provide assurance to the tax-payers and keeping them informed, IMHO, he is not overstepping his constitutional duties.
Sensible statements as in openly declaring discontent against the KL bill which constitutionally is the prerogative of the civilian government and doesn't fall within "HIS" purview or official duties? Or making political statements or playing power broker - again an unconstitutional abuse of position and power.
As i said no reply needed as someone asked for it with a cheap remark. Anyhow.
First of all check that 50+ pages thread about the Gen Kapoor' statement, i had clearly said, that this is the right of Indian Army to do whatever they seem fit for defending their sovereignty.
And as for our
"ridiculous" first strike policy, tell me something, if tomorrow China and you go to war, and somehow Chinese break the defensive line or annihilate the Indian Army without employing a nuke, and start a march inside of India with the Intention to break it up or capture New Delhi and the planners in New Delhi see that India is doomed, what will the IA do ?? Keep their nukes safe and sound and hand over it to the Chinese at the Table where Surrender Agreement would be signed ?? For that India spent billions and got nukes ??? OR would IA think of the option to use them and stop the Chinese advance ???
Which one of these scenarios is ridiculous now?? Don't come with a stupid answer that it can't happen. I am giving it as a war game scenario. What will be your strategic move, let the India be captured and humiliated or use the nuke to atleast make the Chinese pay dearly or make their advance stopped with a tactical nuke strike ???
Hopefully it will now seem that your above genius statement came out to be the ridiculous one, and the ridiculous PA strategy of first strike in face of an Indian Cold Start Doctrine with the same objectives as stated in the above war game scenario may safe Pakistan's ***. Plus who said the first strike option is for Indian cities, a tactical nuke in the battlefield can achieve a stopping of an IA thrust inside Pakistan incase they break our defensive lines.
So get over this ridiculous thing of yours that first strike is some ridiculous thing to offend India. Its for Pakistan's own protection against Indian offensive designs and superior Indian military machines. Hope you got the idea now. We can't see our country dismembered by Indian offensive and hegemonic designs just like 71. This time, hum tu doobay hain sanam, tuhay bhi lae doobain gae, would be the strategy, but God willing that day won't have to be seen.
And do remember one other thing, IA COAS has the right to do anything he deems fit, but if he takes the names of countries, then it becomes something else. You guys may infer it just a defensive nature statement, but what is in reality behind it is something else, which the military guys can better understand.
Would have been much better that he had statement his objective without naming any countries in some other decent manner.
And as for KL bill and the statement which was issued, read the whole story and then open up, otherwise keep it shut as you guys have no idea about it, or what is happening on this side.
How many times have you seen our chief mentioning India in his statements ??? Did you saw him threatening America by taking directly its name ??? But he indirectly did warned America too.
