linkinpark
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 865
- Reaction score
- 0
Report: India may attack Pakistan
- Thread starter Black Stone
- Start date
.
Lockheed F-16
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,038
- Reaction score
- 0
I already mentioned it
RAW read the other wy round -> WAR
RAW read the other wy round -> WAR
Shoaib_Sham
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 0
If you really want me to ask the Indian Muslims. Dont worry mate I have already done that in-person with some of my colleagues here in my office.
They are v v v v pissed off at biased atitude of Hindus towards minorities specially muslims. But irony is that they can not express it, cause their patriotism gets a question mark then.
You would be surprised to know that one my Indian Muslim colleague was saying that Pakistan should support a attack on Ahemdabad . are u surprised? Trust me I wasnt.
IceCold
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Messages
- 19,236
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
By the way we fought Pakistan in 1999 inspite of N - Factor my friend.India realizes No one not even US will help in here.everybody will have to fight on thier own(even Our PAkistani friends will agree.they neither got support of China or US in 1965,1971,1999 Inspite of Gifting 5000sq km Of KAshmir (Sacred Motherland) to China in 1963
.
Its better if you read more and talk less. It is obvious from the level of your post that you have no understanding about anything at all and the only thing you seem to be achieving here is wasting Bandwidth.
So my suggestion to you is to educate yourself before opening your mouth again.
Pk_Thunder
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,270
- Reaction score
- 0
Diplomatic efforts stepped up to defuse Indo-Pak tensions
Updated at: 2230 PST, Friday, December 26, 2008
ISLAMABAD/NEWS DELHI: U.S., China, Saudi Arabia and Iran have mounted diplomatic efforts towards defusing tensions between Pakistan and India.
China and Iran have contacted the foreign ministers of Pakistan and India while Saundi foreign minister Saud Al-Faisal is holding meetings with the Indian leadership.
U.S. has also stressed on Pakistan and India to avoid actions that increase tensions between them following an attack last month in Mumbai.
Saudi Foreign Minister, Saud Al-Faisal arrived in India Friday morning with the aim to ease tension between Pakistan and India.
He held talks with Indian external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee on issues related to the Mumbai attacks.
At a joint press conference, Saud Al-Faisal said the terrorists are attempting to fuel tension between Pakistan India.
Pranab Mukherjee on the occasion said terrorism is not an issue between India and Pakistan but a global menace.
"It was agreed that global terrorism has to be dealt with by joint action among all countries," he said.
Chinese foreign minister telephoned Pakistan counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi and had an exchange stressed the need for defusing Pak-India tension and in this regard underscored holding of dialogue for resolution of issues.
Tension between the two countries will only help terrorists grow stronger, he added.
He assured his Pakistani counterpart of Chinas continued cooperation to Pakistan for bringing peace and stability in the region.
Shah Mehmmod Qureshi said Pakistan is ready to launch combined investigations into Mumbai violence if India provides evidence in this connection.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Patriotism misunderstood
Legal eye
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Babar Sattar
The terrorists have succeeded in realizing their objectives in Mumbai. Not just in carrying out the carnage that claimed innocent Indian lives, but also in provoking chest-thumping hysteria within the two nuclear armed neighbours that is obfuscating real issues and impeding their ability to meaningfully cooperate in confronting the threat of terrorism. With the peace constituency within India and Pakistan having shrunk at an alarming rate over the last few weeks, the Mumbai tragedy has dragged the two countries back by at least a decade in terms of their bilateral relationship. The ugly invidious prejudice that runs deep within each nation against the other now lies bare in public eye. And all this has happened despite the realization shared by saner elements in both countries that neighbours cannot be wished away and the linked destinies of the suffering multitudes in both India and Pakistan will not be served well by a war between them or even the politics of war-mongering.
The governments of Pakistan and India are in a catch-22 situation. The Mumbai attack has hurt India's sense of security as well as its newly found confidence and pride as an aspiring global power. The voices seeking accountability of the perpetrators of terror are probably more than those braying for revenge. But together they have put the Indian government under tremendous pressure to seek reprisals from Pakistan for the alleged involvement of its citizens. The Pakistani government and the civilian political leadership seem genuinely interested in taking to task those within the country whose link to Mumbai can be established through verifiable evidence. But given the history of acrimony between the two countries and how it informs the concept of national honour, the harder India pushes Pakistan publicly the lesser political space and ability the Pakistani government is left with to respond constructively.
One of the casualties of the Mumbai tragedy has been the quest for truth. The speed and ferocity with which media in India and Pakistan assumed on behalf of their respective states the responsibility for proving the other guilty of disseminating lies has been alarming. What has happened to the objectivity and self-restraint of this most vital component of civil society? The worst manifestations of bigotry and hatemongering in each country are being chosen and highlighted as a means to characterize the other. The statements of vengeance seeking politicians in India are regarded in Pakistan as the truly representative voices from India as opposed to the more responsible and tension diffusing statements of the Indian prime minister for example. Likewise, the voices of those in Pakistan who reject any involvement of Pakistanis in Mumbai and view it as an Indian conspiracy to put Pakistan in the dock reverberate across India and overshadow the repeatedly expressed government desire to work with India on establishing facts and taking action on their basis.
The self-styled 'patriots' in Pakistan believe that Arundhati Roy's 'Monster in the Mirror' is the depository of the whole truth about Mumbai and India. And likewise hawks in India love to highlight voices critical of Pakistani state policy such as that of Pervaiz Hoodbhoy as proof of their view of Pakistan as an evil state. The consistency in the analysis of Roy and Hoodbhoy in terms of their denunciation of nuclear weapons or their emphasis on the atrocities inflicted on citizens by misconceived state policies is lost on these new found disciples. Yet those who love Hoodbhoy in India hate Roy, and those who cite Roy with approval in Pakistan castigate Hoodbhoy for being a traitor. And the lack of awareness of such fundamental contradiction in hawkish views only goes to show the deep-seated bias that we are afflicted with. That patriotism cultivates the desire amongst citizens to defend the territorial integrity, sovereignty and honour of their country is a no-brainer. But reasonable people can and should disagree over how national interest is to be defined and what policies must be employed to accomplish the interest of the state.
In the context of Mumbai, Pakistani patriotism must not be reduced to jingoism or indiscriminately contradicting any views or facts emanating from India. Shutting out the urge to uncover facts and forfeiting the courage to look critically into the mirror out of the fear of discovering unflattering realities, even at a time even when the country is being unduly vilified, neither serves the interests of Pakistan nor qualifies as patriotism. Let us vigorously debate and agree/disagree over what policies and actions promote the collective interest of our nation. But neither the sabre-rattling of hawks on either side of our border, nor any misconceived concept of national interest or security should be allowed to mow down our appetite for the truth. There are some mothers who can never find any fault with their kids out of pride. And there are others whose love urges them to censure kids when they falter to enable these children to tell right from wrong and develop a character. We are only hurting ourselves most of all if, when under attack from abroad, we allow patriotism to degenerate into chauvinism or xenophobia.
The main issue between Pakistan and India that has led to the present state of belligerence and is dragging the two countries towards war is what happened in Mumbai: who all are responsible for killing innocent civilians there and to the extent that verifiable facts establish links with groups in Pakistan what steps can we take to bring the perpetrators to justice. We must not confuse manifestations of the whipped up antagonism post-Mumbai and the fighting words uttered in both countries with the cause itself. Also what are not issues for Pakistan in its interstate relations with India also needs to be highlighted. Whether or not India ill-treats its minorities, especially Muslims, is not our issue. We advocated a solution for the Muslims of Indian sub-continent in the form of Pakistan in full view that the Muslims left behind in India will be an even weaker minority in a Hindu-dominated India. We must reconcile with this reality and understand that the state of Pakistan has no mandate to speak for Indian Muslims. What happened in Gujarat was sad and despicable. But it is a reflection on the Indian federation and a matter for the Indian nation to resolve internally.
The state of Pakistan has the responsibility to promote and maximize the interests and security of the citizens of Pakistan. And as a nation we need more clarity in defining our identity and our national objectives. Faced with challenges straining the cohesion of our own social fabric and the frail state of interethnic relations within Pakistan, we must focus on strengthening our own federation rather than looking abroad and assuming the responsibility of guarding the perceived interests of foreign nationals who share our faith. What is also not an issue between the states of India and Pakistan is the cause of the Malegaon Blast or the Samjhota Express tragedy. These were crimes that were committed in India. And even though some of the casualties in the latter were Pakistani citizens, in terms of state responsibility, they are fundamentally different from the events of Mumbai.
Mumbai is a possible case of non-state actors from one state crossing the international border and unleashing terror in another. Malegaon and Samjhota are relevant only in that they highlight India's indigenous roots of terrorism and counter the propaganda that Pakistan is the fountainhead of violence in the region. But we must fathom that criminal acts do not give the Pakistani state a cause of action against the state of India. Pakistan and India have a very long history of hostility and mistrust and if we look backward rather than forward we will keep fighting till the cows come home. If the present state of flux is to be prevented from crystallizing into a new cold war between the neighbours, we must keep our focus on Mumbai. And to that end the first imperative step is to share with Pakistan the findings of a transparent, diligent and credible investigation that lays threadbare the facts of this tragedy.
Our overzealous patriots must realize that Ajmal Kasab's Pakistani identity does not make Pakistani nation or state complicit in the terror attacks. Taking affirmative steps to try and deny/hide his identity could. And India must understand that sharing evidence with Pakistan cannot be contingent upon Pakistan "doing more". For due process requires such evidence to be the trigger for any enforcement action that the Pakistani government can legitimately undertake.
The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He is a Rhodes scholar and has an LL.M from Harvard Law School. Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu
Legal eye
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Babar Sattar
The terrorists have succeeded in realizing their objectives in Mumbai. Not just in carrying out the carnage that claimed innocent Indian lives, but also in provoking chest-thumping hysteria within the two nuclear armed neighbours that is obfuscating real issues and impeding their ability to meaningfully cooperate in confronting the threat of terrorism. With the peace constituency within India and Pakistan having shrunk at an alarming rate over the last few weeks, the Mumbai tragedy has dragged the two countries back by at least a decade in terms of their bilateral relationship. The ugly invidious prejudice that runs deep within each nation against the other now lies bare in public eye. And all this has happened despite the realization shared by saner elements in both countries that neighbours cannot be wished away and the linked destinies of the suffering multitudes in both India and Pakistan will not be served well by a war between them or even the politics of war-mongering.
The governments of Pakistan and India are in a catch-22 situation. The Mumbai attack has hurt India's sense of security as well as its newly found confidence and pride as an aspiring global power. The voices seeking accountability of the perpetrators of terror are probably more than those braying for revenge. But together they have put the Indian government under tremendous pressure to seek reprisals from Pakistan for the alleged involvement of its citizens. The Pakistani government and the civilian political leadership seem genuinely interested in taking to task those within the country whose link to Mumbai can be established through verifiable evidence. But given the history of acrimony between the two countries and how it informs the concept of national honour, the harder India pushes Pakistan publicly the lesser political space and ability the Pakistani government is left with to respond constructively.
One of the casualties of the Mumbai tragedy has been the quest for truth. The speed and ferocity with which media in India and Pakistan assumed on behalf of their respective states the responsibility for proving the other guilty of disseminating lies has been alarming. What has happened to the objectivity and self-restraint of this most vital component of civil society? The worst manifestations of bigotry and hatemongering in each country are being chosen and highlighted as a means to characterize the other. The statements of vengeance seeking politicians in India are regarded in Pakistan as the truly representative voices from India as opposed to the more responsible and tension diffusing statements of the Indian prime minister for example. Likewise, the voices of those in Pakistan who reject any involvement of Pakistanis in Mumbai and view it as an Indian conspiracy to put Pakistan in the dock reverberate across India and overshadow the repeatedly expressed government desire to work with India on establishing facts and taking action on their basis.
The self-styled 'patriots' in Pakistan believe that Arundhati Roy's 'Monster in the Mirror' is the depository of the whole truth about Mumbai and India. And likewise hawks in India love to highlight voices critical of Pakistani state policy such as that of Pervaiz Hoodbhoy as proof of their view of Pakistan as an evil state. The consistency in the analysis of Roy and Hoodbhoy in terms of their denunciation of nuclear weapons or their emphasis on the atrocities inflicted on citizens by misconceived state policies is lost on these new found disciples. Yet those who love Hoodbhoy in India hate Roy, and those who cite Roy with approval in Pakistan castigate Hoodbhoy for being a traitor. And the lack of awareness of such fundamental contradiction in hawkish views only goes to show the deep-seated bias that we are afflicted with. That patriotism cultivates the desire amongst citizens to defend the territorial integrity, sovereignty and honour of their country is a no-brainer. But reasonable people can and should disagree over how national interest is to be defined and what policies must be employed to accomplish the interest of the state.
In the context of Mumbai, Pakistani patriotism must not be reduced to jingoism or indiscriminately contradicting any views or facts emanating from India. Shutting out the urge to uncover facts and forfeiting the courage to look critically into the mirror out of the fear of discovering unflattering realities, even at a time even when the country is being unduly vilified, neither serves the interests of Pakistan nor qualifies as patriotism. Let us vigorously debate and agree/disagree over what policies and actions promote the collective interest of our nation. But neither the sabre-rattling of hawks on either side of our border, nor any misconceived concept of national interest or security should be allowed to mow down our appetite for the truth. There are some mothers who can never find any fault with their kids out of pride. And there are others whose love urges them to censure kids when they falter to enable these children to tell right from wrong and develop a character. We are only hurting ourselves most of all if, when under attack from abroad, we allow patriotism to degenerate into chauvinism or xenophobia.
The main issue between Pakistan and India that has led to the present state of belligerence and is dragging the two countries towards war is what happened in Mumbai: who all are responsible for killing innocent civilians there and to the extent that verifiable facts establish links with groups in Pakistan what steps can we take to bring the perpetrators to justice. We must not confuse manifestations of the whipped up antagonism post-Mumbai and the fighting words uttered in both countries with the cause itself. Also what are not issues for Pakistan in its interstate relations with India also needs to be highlighted. Whether or not India ill-treats its minorities, especially Muslims, is not our issue. We advocated a solution for the Muslims of Indian sub-continent in the form of Pakistan in full view that the Muslims left behind in India will be an even weaker minority in a Hindu-dominated India. We must reconcile with this reality and understand that the state of Pakistan has no mandate to speak for Indian Muslims. What happened in Gujarat was sad and despicable. But it is a reflection on the Indian federation and a matter for the Indian nation to resolve internally.
The state of Pakistan has the responsibility to promote and maximize the interests and security of the citizens of Pakistan. And as a nation we need more clarity in defining our identity and our national objectives. Faced with challenges straining the cohesion of our own social fabric and the frail state of interethnic relations within Pakistan, we must focus on strengthening our own federation rather than looking abroad and assuming the responsibility of guarding the perceived interests of foreign nationals who share our faith. What is also not an issue between the states of India and Pakistan is the cause of the Malegaon Blast or the Samjhota Express tragedy. These were crimes that were committed in India. And even though some of the casualties in the latter were Pakistani citizens, in terms of state responsibility, they are fundamentally different from the events of Mumbai.
Mumbai is a possible case of non-state actors from one state crossing the international border and unleashing terror in another. Malegaon and Samjhota are relevant only in that they highlight India's indigenous roots of terrorism and counter the propaganda that Pakistan is the fountainhead of violence in the region. But we must fathom that criminal acts do not give the Pakistani state a cause of action against the state of India. Pakistan and India have a very long history of hostility and mistrust and if we look backward rather than forward we will keep fighting till the cows come home. If the present state of flux is to be prevented from crystallizing into a new cold war between the neighbours, we must keep our focus on Mumbai. And to that end the first imperative step is to share with Pakistan the findings of a transparent, diligent and credible investigation that lays threadbare the facts of this tragedy.
Our overzealous patriots must realize that Ajmal Kasab's Pakistani identity does not make Pakistani nation or state complicit in the terror attacks. Taking affirmative steps to try and deny/hide his identity could. And India must understand that sharing evidence with Pakistan cannot be contingent upon Pakistan "doing more". For due process requires such evidence to be the trigger for any enforcement action that the Pakistani government can legitimately undertake.
The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He is a Rhodes scholar and has an LL.M from Harvard Law School. Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu
FOR MR. VINOD:
1.who killed Daniel Pearl? Ahmed Umar Naseem Shaikh. An Hijacker of Indian Plane. Lived in India planted by RAW and with the help of RAW successfully hijacked Indian plane and got his artificial release with Azhar Masood, Mushtaq Zargar.All the three terrorist were released from Indian Jail.Indian Counter Terrorism policy is "that no concession shall be given to Terrorist at any any costs" than why the above three terrorist were released. Actually they were Raw men planted for maligning the ISI and Pakistan and also the killing of Nepal Roayl Family was part of this plan. ISI nabbed the Umar Naseem Shaikh and he is facing death sentence. Azhar Masood is on the run soon he shall be arrested and face the same fate. Mushtaq Zargar perhaps dead.
2.Every terror is originated from Pakistan? Remeber Samjhota Express, Malegaon, goa killings, etc these action were from claimant of Akhund Bharat.What Pakistan is facing is the out come of 79 -89 AFghan War when CIA collected terrorist from all over the world brought them in Pakistan and after war was over these killers were left in Pakistan. We are rooting them out. It shall take time. The mistakes of CIA cannot be covered by such propangda against Pakistan. There is a very meagre percentage of such type of people in Pakistan it would hardly be in friction of one percent. We are nabbing them and around 1500 are in our jails. We asked for evidence regarding unfortunate Mumbai carnage. If this is taken seriously India will find each of them behind the bars and they shall be brought to justice. India should provide evidence and give time to Pakistan agencies to act.But I am sorry if all cries are raised for imposing a War the India herself go back in 20 century. Realize Pakistan is itself a victim of Terrorism and terrorism could be eradicated with joint efforts and cooperation from both side, the War is not the solution.
Thanks.
BanglaBhoot
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
- Messages
- 8,839
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Pakistan will defend itself against aggression: Haqqani
* Islamabads envoy to Washington says Pakistani troop movement does not signal escalating situation
* Says Pakistan has arrested many suspects but needs evidence
WASHINGTON: Due to Indias war rhetoric and potentially dangerous military moves, Pakistanis must be reassured that the country, though committed to fighting terrorism, is prepared to defend itself against any aggression, Islamabads envoy in Washington told CNN on Saturday.
Hussain Haqqani said Pakistan wanted to pursue terrorists in the border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan rather than go to war with India, adding the country also wanted to work with New Delhi to capture terrorists who were responsible for the Mumbai attacks.
That said, over the last few days, we have reason to believe that there has been an escalation of rhetoric in India, which is accompanied by certain moves that we consider to be potentially dangerous, Haqqani said.
He told the channel that he could not reveal the intelligence Pakistan had about Indian moves but we are willing to share that with our friends around the world. And we have attempted to do that.
Troop movement: He rejected the suggestion that the movement of Pakistani troops signalled an escalating situation.
There is no bravado. Pakistan is not trying to make a show of might. All we are trying to do is to reassure our people that we do not want to go to war, but in case there are aggressive moves from the other side, then certainly we will take defensive positions, Haqqani said.
(It) is a call for India and our friends internationally to make sure that this remains a situation in which we work co-operatively, he said, adding there had been no movements of troops from active engagement against terrorists and their supporters in the border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Need for evidence: He said Islamabad has been fully co-operating with New Delhi in anti-terrorism efforts but pointed out the need for evidence to prosecute suspects.
We have arrested many people that the Indians have named. Now, of course, we are asking for evidence. After all, people, once they have been arrested and charged, need evidence to be prosecuted. And we are a country under the rule of law now that democracy has been restored in Pakistan, the envoy said.
The most important thing is Pakistan wants to continue pursuing the war against terror. We remain the allies of the international community in fighting terrorists and we certainly do not want to divert our attention from that, he added. app
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
* Islamabads envoy to Washington says Pakistani troop movement does not signal escalating situation
* Says Pakistan has arrested many suspects but needs evidence
WASHINGTON: Due to Indias war rhetoric and potentially dangerous military moves, Pakistanis must be reassured that the country, though committed to fighting terrorism, is prepared to defend itself against any aggression, Islamabads envoy in Washington told CNN on Saturday.
Hussain Haqqani said Pakistan wanted to pursue terrorists in the border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan rather than go to war with India, adding the country also wanted to work with New Delhi to capture terrorists who were responsible for the Mumbai attacks.
That said, over the last few days, we have reason to believe that there has been an escalation of rhetoric in India, which is accompanied by certain moves that we consider to be potentially dangerous, Haqqani said.
He told the channel that he could not reveal the intelligence Pakistan had about Indian moves but we are willing to share that with our friends around the world. And we have attempted to do that.
Troop movement: He rejected the suggestion that the movement of Pakistani troops signalled an escalating situation.
There is no bravado. Pakistan is not trying to make a show of might. All we are trying to do is to reassure our people that we do not want to go to war, but in case there are aggressive moves from the other side, then certainly we will take defensive positions, Haqqani said.
(It) is a call for India and our friends internationally to make sure that this remains a situation in which we work co-operatively, he said, adding there had been no movements of troops from active engagement against terrorists and their supporters in the border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Need for evidence: He said Islamabad has been fully co-operating with New Delhi in anti-terrorism efforts but pointed out the need for evidence to prosecute suspects.
We have arrested many people that the Indians have named. Now, of course, we are asking for evidence. After all, people, once they have been arrested and charged, need evidence to be prosecuted. And we are a country under the rule of law now that democracy has been restored in Pakistan, the envoy said.
The most important thing is Pakistan wants to continue pursuing the war against terror. We remain the allies of the international community in fighting terrorists and we certainly do not want to divert our attention from that, he added. app
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Beyond Mumbai
By Irfan Husain
January 10, 2009
AFTER those viciously murdered in the Mumbai attack in November, the biggest casualty of the terrorist atrocity was the peace process between India and Pakistan.
In the wake of the assault, sabre-rattling on both sides has drowned out gentler voices calling for normalisation of relations.
The hysteria evident in the emails I have been receiving makes me despair of the entire human race. Literally hundreds of readers on both sides of the border have written the most jingoistic letters expressing sentiments I hope for their sake they will be ashamed of when they have cooled down.
In their eagerness to propel their government to somehow punish the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack, millions of Indians as well as the media forget that this is exactly what the militants would like to see. Should they succeed in derailing the peace process, and pushing the two neighbours into a state of armed confrontation again, the Lashkar-i-Taiba and their brothers-in-crime will have won a significant victory.
In any asymmetrical warfare, the weaker party tries to win by creating terror through violence directed at non-participants. These acts are aimed at destabilising legitimate governments, and causing tension. Knowing they cannot achieve their objectives through the political process or conventional warfare, they seek to mould public opinion by the selective use of violence that shocks and revolts. They manipulate the media by spectacular acts of seemingly random terror.
In the case of the Mumbai attacks, they appear to have succeeded in their aim. What these terrorists fear most is a durable peace in South Asia. Due to their gory efforts, they seem to have put off any normalisation for the immediate future. Indeed, should India take any military action, as so many Indians are demanding, we can forget about peace for a generation.
What these hawks seem to ignore is that we cannot wish geographical realities away. In their anger and their desire to vent their rage, they are putting themselves on the side of the terrorists. Groups like LeT and the Taliban thrive in an environment of hatred and confrontation. If tension increases, they can portray themselves as nationalists fighting off Indian aggression. This would give them legitimacy in the eyes of many Pakistanis. As it is, these groups were created during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and its bloody aftermath, as well as the Kashmir uprising that has now lasted for two decades.
The other side of the coin is that these killers are diminished and marginalised when there is peace and cooperation. If an Indian intelligence officer could pick up his phone and call his Pakistani counterpart to exchange information, this would sound the death knell for many terrorist groups.
Unfortunately, years of tension have bred deep suspicion and mistrust on both sides. Bilateral relations have become a zero-sum game where one countrys loss translates into the others gain. Pakistans military and intelligence agencies have long sought to use Islamic groups as proxies in their efforts to dislodge Indias grip over Kashmir. Even though the state has tried to distance itself from these militants after 9/11, the taint of association lingers. And clearly, many retired and serving officers have ideological sympathies as well as personal links with some of the jihadi groups.
However, Indians need to realise that it is precisely these connections that make it impossible for Pakistan to hand any of the terrorists over to India. The last thing the military establishment wants is to see its role in training and bankrolling these thugs exposed. Instead of demanding the impossible, India should offer to do everything it can to make sure that those guilty are tried and punished in Pakistan. In the absence of an extradition treaty between the two countries, it is hard to see any leader in Islamabad complying with the Indian demand to transfer the alleged planners of the Mumbai attacks to India.
Instead of bickering over legal niceties, the two countries need to look beyond Mumbai. Clearly, Pakistan must eliminate the cancer of terrorism that has taken root on its soil. To achieve this, its leaders and its people have to put their differences aside. Given the polarisation within the country, a massive media campaign is needed.
Unfortunately, the medias role on both sides of the border during and after the Mumbai crisis has been reprehensible. For weeks, we have witnessed the most irresponsible kind of reporting and commentary, especially on the private TV channels that have proliferated in both countries. Hysterical experts have gained a prominence and an audience they do not deserve. Instead of promoting calm and restraint, they have been making the case for war in India.
In Pakistan, the army of studio warriors have been preaching denial of the obvious. When they should have been demanding that the Pakistan government take action against the jihadis, they have been demanding proof from India. Well, the proof that the attack was conceived and launched from Pakistani soil has been handed over. Let us see what our talking heads, and our government, will do with it.
While Pakistan certainly needs to put its house in order, the task is made more difficult when the sound of war drums echoes across India. When pushing for an accounting with the killers, New Delhi should be simultaneously arguing for more, not less, contacts with its neighbour. Knee-jerk reactions like cancelling the Indian cricket teams tour of Pakistan certainly do not help.
Recently, an Indian reader wrote to me, complaining that the Congress government was not showing the kind of determination in protecting its citizens as the Israelis were demonstrating by their assault on Gaza. According to him, Indian politicians are less bold than their Israeli counterparts. I replied that I respected Indian restraint more than I did Israels ruthlessness. Furthermore, I wrote, Pakistans military is not Hamas.
And this is the point: do the hawks on both sides really want to condemn both countries to yet another cycle of violence? Do they really want to hand over success to the militants on a platter? Just as Hamas is not likely to be eliminated by Israels massive attack, so too will LeT not be wiped out by any possible action the Indians could take. In both cases, the stock of these groups will rise in the eyes of ordinary people.
There are no easy answers. But one thing is clear: both India and Pakistan need a reasoned response, and not a media-fuelled confrontation.
By Irfan Husain
January 10, 2009
AFTER those viciously murdered in the Mumbai attack in November, the biggest casualty of the terrorist atrocity was the peace process between India and Pakistan.
In the wake of the assault, sabre-rattling on both sides has drowned out gentler voices calling for normalisation of relations.
The hysteria evident in the emails I have been receiving makes me despair of the entire human race. Literally hundreds of readers on both sides of the border have written the most jingoistic letters expressing sentiments I hope for their sake they will be ashamed of when they have cooled down.
In their eagerness to propel their government to somehow punish the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack, millions of Indians as well as the media forget that this is exactly what the militants would like to see. Should they succeed in derailing the peace process, and pushing the two neighbours into a state of armed confrontation again, the Lashkar-i-Taiba and their brothers-in-crime will have won a significant victory.
In any asymmetrical warfare, the weaker party tries to win by creating terror through violence directed at non-participants. These acts are aimed at destabilising legitimate governments, and causing tension. Knowing they cannot achieve their objectives through the political process or conventional warfare, they seek to mould public opinion by the selective use of violence that shocks and revolts. They manipulate the media by spectacular acts of seemingly random terror.
In the case of the Mumbai attacks, they appear to have succeeded in their aim. What these terrorists fear most is a durable peace in South Asia. Due to their gory efforts, they seem to have put off any normalisation for the immediate future. Indeed, should India take any military action, as so many Indians are demanding, we can forget about peace for a generation.
What these hawks seem to ignore is that we cannot wish geographical realities away. In their anger and their desire to vent their rage, they are putting themselves on the side of the terrorists. Groups like LeT and the Taliban thrive in an environment of hatred and confrontation. If tension increases, they can portray themselves as nationalists fighting off Indian aggression. This would give them legitimacy in the eyes of many Pakistanis. As it is, these groups were created during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and its bloody aftermath, as well as the Kashmir uprising that has now lasted for two decades.
The other side of the coin is that these killers are diminished and marginalised when there is peace and cooperation. If an Indian intelligence officer could pick up his phone and call his Pakistani counterpart to exchange information, this would sound the death knell for many terrorist groups.
Unfortunately, years of tension have bred deep suspicion and mistrust on both sides. Bilateral relations have become a zero-sum game where one countrys loss translates into the others gain. Pakistans military and intelligence agencies have long sought to use Islamic groups as proxies in their efforts to dislodge Indias grip over Kashmir. Even though the state has tried to distance itself from these militants after 9/11, the taint of association lingers. And clearly, many retired and serving officers have ideological sympathies as well as personal links with some of the jihadi groups.
However, Indians need to realise that it is precisely these connections that make it impossible for Pakistan to hand any of the terrorists over to India. The last thing the military establishment wants is to see its role in training and bankrolling these thugs exposed. Instead of demanding the impossible, India should offer to do everything it can to make sure that those guilty are tried and punished in Pakistan. In the absence of an extradition treaty between the two countries, it is hard to see any leader in Islamabad complying with the Indian demand to transfer the alleged planners of the Mumbai attacks to India.
Instead of bickering over legal niceties, the two countries need to look beyond Mumbai. Clearly, Pakistan must eliminate the cancer of terrorism that has taken root on its soil. To achieve this, its leaders and its people have to put their differences aside. Given the polarisation within the country, a massive media campaign is needed.
Unfortunately, the medias role on both sides of the border during and after the Mumbai crisis has been reprehensible. For weeks, we have witnessed the most irresponsible kind of reporting and commentary, especially on the private TV channels that have proliferated in both countries. Hysterical experts have gained a prominence and an audience they do not deserve. Instead of promoting calm and restraint, they have been making the case for war in India.
In Pakistan, the army of studio warriors have been preaching denial of the obvious. When they should have been demanding that the Pakistan government take action against the jihadis, they have been demanding proof from India. Well, the proof that the attack was conceived and launched from Pakistani soil has been handed over. Let us see what our talking heads, and our government, will do with it.
While Pakistan certainly needs to put its house in order, the task is made more difficult when the sound of war drums echoes across India. When pushing for an accounting with the killers, New Delhi should be simultaneously arguing for more, not less, contacts with its neighbour. Knee-jerk reactions like cancelling the Indian cricket teams tour of Pakistan certainly do not help.
Recently, an Indian reader wrote to me, complaining that the Congress government was not showing the kind of determination in protecting its citizens as the Israelis were demonstrating by their assault on Gaza. According to him, Indian politicians are less bold than their Israeli counterparts. I replied that I respected Indian restraint more than I did Israels ruthlessness. Furthermore, I wrote, Pakistans military is not Hamas.
And this is the point: do the hawks on both sides really want to condemn both countries to yet another cycle of violence? Do they really want to hand over success to the militants on a platter? Just as Hamas is not likely to be eliminated by Israels massive attack, so too will LeT not be wiped out by any possible action the Indians could take. In both cases, the stock of these groups will rise in the eyes of ordinary people.
There are no easy answers. But one thing is clear: both India and Pakistan need a reasoned response, and not a media-fuelled confrontation.
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
An analysis by an defense writer:
India's possible war deployment
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Ikram Sehgal
One must look at the India's possible deployment vis-à-vis Pakistan, based mostly on the Indians' Order of Battle (ORBAT) during the 2002 crisis. The Indian Army has five Commands. The Northern Command at Udhampur near Jammu looks after Kashmir, the Western Command, at Chandimandir, looks after Punjab and Rajasthan with the borderline at Bikaner, the Southern Command at Poona looks after Gujarat and Maharashtra, the Central Command at Lucknow has a Strike Corps, including the 31st Armoured Division meant for the western border and the Eastern Command at Calcutta looks after Counter-Insurgency in Assam and the NEFA border with China. The Pakistani Armed Forces essentially face India's Northern, Western and Southern Commands. India has troops earmarked against Pakistan as Army Reserve in both the Central and Eastern Commands.
The Northern Command consists of three Corps: XV Corps at Srinagar comprising the 19th Infantry Division (at Baramula) and the 28th (Gurais). XIV Corps at Leh comprising 3rd Infantry Division (Leh) and 8th Mountain Division (Nimer). XVI Corps at Nagrota (Jammu) is a Corps plus with five Infantry Divisions, the 10th (Akhnur), the 25th (Rajauri), the 26th (Jammu), the 29th (Pathankot) and the 39th (Yol). It also has three Independent Armoured Brigades, the 2nd, the 3rd and the 16th. There is an Artillery Brigade with each Corps. The 39th Infantry Division and the three Armoured Brigades are engaged in Counter-Insurgency duties and form the Command Reserve. The other Divisions are all deployed at the Line of Control (LoC).
The Western Command consists of three Corps, XI Corps at Jullunder, deploying 7th Infantry Division (Ferozepur), 9th Infantry Division (Chandimandir) and 15th Infantry Division (Amritsar), 23rd Armoured Brigade and 55th Mechanised Brigade, the two Strike Corps being two Corps and X Corps at Ambala and Bhatinda, respectively. The 2 Corps has 1st Armoured Division, 14th RAPID Division, 22nd Infantry Division and 14th Independent Armoured Brigade while X Corps has the 18th and 24th RAPID Divisions, 16th Infantry Division and 6th Independent Armoured Brigade.
The Southern Command consists of the XII Corps (Jodhpur) with 11th and 12th Infantry Divisions deployed at Ahmedabad and Jodhpur and the XXI Strike Corps (Bhopal) with 33rd Armoured, 36th RAPID and 54th Infantry Division. There are three Direct Reporting Units, 30th Artillery Division, which usually moves to Western Command. The 50th Independent Parachute Brigade and 333rd Missile Groups (India's nuclear artillery unit having Prithvi missiles) are meant to be deployed from the Southern Command Area to Punjab and Rajasthan. During the 2002 crisis some formations moved from the Eastern Command to areas facing Pakistan, 57 Mountain Division, 2nd Mountain Division and 27 Mountain Division.
The Indian Aerospace Forces (IAF) consists of five operational commands, Western Air Command (New Delhi) controlling air operations from Kashmir to North of Rajasthan, Southwestern Air Command located at Gandhinagar controlling air operations from Rajasthan to Maharashtra, Central Air Command at Allahabad, Eastern Air Command at Shillong and Southern Air Command at Trivandrum. Pakistan is primarily concerned with Western Air Command and Southwestern Command, with 8air deployments from the other Commands.
Western Air Command has an Air Operation Group at Udhampur (near Jammu) dedicated to occupied Jammu & Kashmir. Its fighting units are based at Leh, Srinagar, Udhampur, Jammu, and Pathankot (total 96 aircraft). In Punjab its bases are at Amritsar, Adampur 17, Halvara, Chandigarh, Ambala, Bathinda, Sirsa and Suratgarh (Total 332 Aircraft).
Southwestern Air Command was previously under operational control of Western Command, it now controls air operations in Rajasthan and Maharshtra. Its fighting units are based at Bikaner, Jaisalmer, Agra, Jodhpur, Uttarlai, Jamnagar and Pune (total 263 aircraft). To back these Central Air Command has two Squadrons of Mirage 2000H at Gwalior which can be switched to the other Commands facing Pakistan (36 aircraft). Total deployment against Pakistan in 2002 was in excess of 753 combat aircraft, almost the whole of the IAF.
India's Navy has three Naval Commands. Western Naval Command at Mumbai provides naval defence of the Arabian Sea. A new naval base has come up between Mumbai and Cochin at Binaga Bay, with an advance base at Dwarka. The Navy's Missile Boat HQ is at Colaba. Eastern Naval Command, is based at Vizagaptam with a submarine base, it provides naval defence of the Bay of Bengal. The Southern Naval Command at Kochi is mainly a training base. Both the Western and Eastern Naval Commands will be involved in operations against Pakistan. Their surface fleet consists of one aircraft-carrier, 7 guided-missile destroyers, 7 guided-missile frigates, 3 frigates, 4 corvettes, 10 large patrol craft, 5 fast patrol boats, 3 fast-attack missile boats and 18 minesweepers. They have 1 nuclear-powered submarine and 13 diesel-powered submarines in service (1 Foxtrot Class, 9 Sindhughosh Class and 3 Shashikumar Class). India's Naval Air Arm with HQs at Goa consists of a squadron of Jaguars and Sea Harriers each, other than 6 Sea-Kings and 20 Cheetak helicopters. The Jaguar squadron (at Poona) is operated by the IAF.
The Indian Navy, which focuses on anti-ship capabilities with an emphasis on attack submarines, has the capacity to support a multi-service heliborne-cum-para-cum amphibious operation, provided it has adequate air cover. This amphibious capability is built around 304th Army Independent Brigade at Vizagapatam. Their Marine Commando Force (Marcos for short) is based at Mumbai, Cochin and Vizagapatam. The Indian Navy has a heavy lift capacity with 2 new 5,600-ton Magar Class Landing Vessels with 4 Landing Craft Vehicles and Personnel (LCVP). Four Polnochny-class vessels have helicopter platforms. They also have 7 locally built 500-ton Landing Craft Utility (LCU). They also have 11 Cosmos midget submarines of Italian origin that can ride the back of Foxtrot-class submarines.
The Indians can deploy four Strike Corps against Pakistan, one each against the Southern part of Azad Kashmir, Central Punjab, Southern Punjab and one against Sindh. They have the necessary balance to focus their attack in a combination of two or even three corps but time and space dictate they cannot move more than one strike corps on any axis and they have to cater for our counter-offensive. Since no ground offensive is possible in the desert without heavy air cover, their air deployment in 2002 suggested that the focus of their strike corps could well be in the south (Western and Southern Commands). One should expect a combined heliborne, para and/or amphibious operation. Both the Indian Strike Corps, 2 Corps from Western Command at Jaisalmer and 21 Corps at Barmer from Southern Command could be reinforced with additional Divisions from Eastern Command (moving through Jodhpur) and have integral Helicopter Attack Squadrons, Engineer, Artillery and Air Defence Brigades. The deployment of the Army's Direct Reporting Unit, 30th Artillery Division will give the fulcrum of the lines of attack. Jodhpur in 2002 had a concentration of heavy lift MI-8/M-17 helicopters, supplemented by AN-32s at Agra, Gwalior and Chandigarh. Agra is the peace station for another Direct Reporting Unit, the 50th Independent Parachute Brigade.
With all 3 Armoured Divisions and all 4 RAPID Divisions and at least 2 out of 5 Independent Armoured Brigades concentrated in Rajasthan, the resource allocation makes their offensive targets obvious, along the Jaisalmer-Rahimyar Khan axis or along the Barmer-Mirpurkhas axis, most probably both. They could also possibly attempt helicopter troop transportation/amphibious LST and launch XXI Strike Corps for a link-up. They practiced this in 2002. The area between Badin and Sujawal east of the Indus thus becomes vulnerable. Given Pakistan's counter-riposte potential this could end up being "a bridge too far." The Indian Navy cannot blockade Karachi Port with the same impunity they did in 1971, our Exocet-armed Mirages and enhanced submarine fleet will keep them well off-shore, even outside our 200 miles territorial limit. Our Navy would love to get the Indian aircraft-carrier within combat aircraft range.
In 2002 Indians moved Directly Reporting Unit 333rd Missile Group consisting of 3 Prithvi Batteries with 4 launchers each to the border areas. Their two Strike Corps in the Rajasthan Desert (2 and XXI) provide a better target for a possible Pakistan tactical nuclear strike. If at anytime our conventional forces lose ground threatening our North-South communications, we will use the weapons at our disposal.
Pakistan has no desire for war but it may be forced on us. We will certainly have grievous casualties and horrific damage in a conventional war even without a nuclear exchange. Unfortunately, we have no option but to fight.
The writer is a defence and political
analyst. Email: isehgal@pathfinder9.com
India's possible war deployment
India's possible war deployment
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Ikram Sehgal
One must look at the India's possible deployment vis-à-vis Pakistan, based mostly on the Indians' Order of Battle (ORBAT) during the 2002 crisis. The Indian Army has five Commands. The Northern Command at Udhampur near Jammu looks after Kashmir, the Western Command, at Chandimandir, looks after Punjab and Rajasthan with the borderline at Bikaner, the Southern Command at Poona looks after Gujarat and Maharashtra, the Central Command at Lucknow has a Strike Corps, including the 31st Armoured Division meant for the western border and the Eastern Command at Calcutta looks after Counter-Insurgency in Assam and the NEFA border with China. The Pakistani Armed Forces essentially face India's Northern, Western and Southern Commands. India has troops earmarked against Pakistan as Army Reserve in both the Central and Eastern Commands.
The Northern Command consists of three Corps: XV Corps at Srinagar comprising the 19th Infantry Division (at Baramula) and the 28th (Gurais). XIV Corps at Leh comprising 3rd Infantry Division (Leh) and 8th Mountain Division (Nimer). XVI Corps at Nagrota (Jammu) is a Corps plus with five Infantry Divisions, the 10th (Akhnur), the 25th (Rajauri), the 26th (Jammu), the 29th (Pathankot) and the 39th (Yol). It also has three Independent Armoured Brigades, the 2nd, the 3rd and the 16th. There is an Artillery Brigade with each Corps. The 39th Infantry Division and the three Armoured Brigades are engaged in Counter-Insurgency duties and form the Command Reserve. The other Divisions are all deployed at the Line of Control (LoC).
The Western Command consists of three Corps, XI Corps at Jullunder, deploying 7th Infantry Division (Ferozepur), 9th Infantry Division (Chandimandir) and 15th Infantry Division (Amritsar), 23rd Armoured Brigade and 55th Mechanised Brigade, the two Strike Corps being two Corps and X Corps at Ambala and Bhatinda, respectively. The 2 Corps has 1st Armoured Division, 14th RAPID Division, 22nd Infantry Division and 14th Independent Armoured Brigade while X Corps has the 18th and 24th RAPID Divisions, 16th Infantry Division and 6th Independent Armoured Brigade.
The Southern Command consists of the XII Corps (Jodhpur) with 11th and 12th Infantry Divisions deployed at Ahmedabad and Jodhpur and the XXI Strike Corps (Bhopal) with 33rd Armoured, 36th RAPID and 54th Infantry Division. There are three Direct Reporting Units, 30th Artillery Division, which usually moves to Western Command. The 50th Independent Parachute Brigade and 333rd Missile Groups (India's nuclear artillery unit having Prithvi missiles) are meant to be deployed from the Southern Command Area to Punjab and Rajasthan. During the 2002 crisis some formations moved from the Eastern Command to areas facing Pakistan, 57 Mountain Division, 2nd Mountain Division and 27 Mountain Division.
The Indian Aerospace Forces (IAF) consists of five operational commands, Western Air Command (New Delhi) controlling air operations from Kashmir to North of Rajasthan, Southwestern Air Command located at Gandhinagar controlling air operations from Rajasthan to Maharashtra, Central Air Command at Allahabad, Eastern Air Command at Shillong and Southern Air Command at Trivandrum. Pakistan is primarily concerned with Western Air Command and Southwestern Command, with 8air deployments from the other Commands.
Western Air Command has an Air Operation Group at Udhampur (near Jammu) dedicated to occupied Jammu & Kashmir. Its fighting units are based at Leh, Srinagar, Udhampur, Jammu, and Pathankot (total 96 aircraft). In Punjab its bases are at Amritsar, Adampur 17, Halvara, Chandigarh, Ambala, Bathinda, Sirsa and Suratgarh (Total 332 Aircraft).
Southwestern Air Command was previously under operational control of Western Command, it now controls air operations in Rajasthan and Maharshtra. Its fighting units are based at Bikaner, Jaisalmer, Agra, Jodhpur, Uttarlai, Jamnagar and Pune (total 263 aircraft). To back these Central Air Command has two Squadrons of Mirage 2000H at Gwalior which can be switched to the other Commands facing Pakistan (36 aircraft). Total deployment against Pakistan in 2002 was in excess of 753 combat aircraft, almost the whole of the IAF.
India's Navy has three Naval Commands. Western Naval Command at Mumbai provides naval defence of the Arabian Sea. A new naval base has come up between Mumbai and Cochin at Binaga Bay, with an advance base at Dwarka. The Navy's Missile Boat HQ is at Colaba. Eastern Naval Command, is based at Vizagaptam with a submarine base, it provides naval defence of the Bay of Bengal. The Southern Naval Command at Kochi is mainly a training base. Both the Western and Eastern Naval Commands will be involved in operations against Pakistan. Their surface fleet consists of one aircraft-carrier, 7 guided-missile destroyers, 7 guided-missile frigates, 3 frigates, 4 corvettes, 10 large patrol craft, 5 fast patrol boats, 3 fast-attack missile boats and 18 minesweepers. They have 1 nuclear-powered submarine and 13 diesel-powered submarines in service (1 Foxtrot Class, 9 Sindhughosh Class and 3 Shashikumar Class). India's Naval Air Arm with HQs at Goa consists of a squadron of Jaguars and Sea Harriers each, other than 6 Sea-Kings and 20 Cheetak helicopters. The Jaguar squadron (at Poona) is operated by the IAF.
The Indian Navy, which focuses on anti-ship capabilities with an emphasis on attack submarines, has the capacity to support a multi-service heliborne-cum-para-cum amphibious operation, provided it has adequate air cover. This amphibious capability is built around 304th Army Independent Brigade at Vizagapatam. Their Marine Commando Force (Marcos for short) is based at Mumbai, Cochin and Vizagapatam. The Indian Navy has a heavy lift capacity with 2 new 5,600-ton Magar Class Landing Vessels with 4 Landing Craft Vehicles and Personnel (LCVP). Four Polnochny-class vessels have helicopter platforms. They also have 7 locally built 500-ton Landing Craft Utility (LCU). They also have 11 Cosmos midget submarines of Italian origin that can ride the back of Foxtrot-class submarines.
The Indians can deploy four Strike Corps against Pakistan, one each against the Southern part of Azad Kashmir, Central Punjab, Southern Punjab and one against Sindh. They have the necessary balance to focus their attack in a combination of two or even three corps but time and space dictate they cannot move more than one strike corps on any axis and they have to cater for our counter-offensive. Since no ground offensive is possible in the desert without heavy air cover, their air deployment in 2002 suggested that the focus of their strike corps could well be in the south (Western and Southern Commands). One should expect a combined heliborne, para and/or amphibious operation. Both the Indian Strike Corps, 2 Corps from Western Command at Jaisalmer and 21 Corps at Barmer from Southern Command could be reinforced with additional Divisions from Eastern Command (moving through Jodhpur) and have integral Helicopter Attack Squadrons, Engineer, Artillery and Air Defence Brigades. The deployment of the Army's Direct Reporting Unit, 30th Artillery Division will give the fulcrum of the lines of attack. Jodhpur in 2002 had a concentration of heavy lift MI-8/M-17 helicopters, supplemented by AN-32s at Agra, Gwalior and Chandigarh. Agra is the peace station for another Direct Reporting Unit, the 50th Independent Parachute Brigade.
With all 3 Armoured Divisions and all 4 RAPID Divisions and at least 2 out of 5 Independent Armoured Brigades concentrated in Rajasthan, the resource allocation makes their offensive targets obvious, along the Jaisalmer-Rahimyar Khan axis or along the Barmer-Mirpurkhas axis, most probably both. They could also possibly attempt helicopter troop transportation/amphibious LST and launch XXI Strike Corps for a link-up. They practiced this in 2002. The area between Badin and Sujawal east of the Indus thus becomes vulnerable. Given Pakistan's counter-riposte potential this could end up being "a bridge too far." The Indian Navy cannot blockade Karachi Port with the same impunity they did in 1971, our Exocet-armed Mirages and enhanced submarine fleet will keep them well off-shore, even outside our 200 miles territorial limit. Our Navy would love to get the Indian aircraft-carrier within combat aircraft range.
In 2002 Indians moved Directly Reporting Unit 333rd Missile Group consisting of 3 Prithvi Batteries with 4 launchers each to the border areas. Their two Strike Corps in the Rajasthan Desert (2 and XXI) provide a better target for a possible Pakistan tactical nuclear strike. If at anytime our conventional forces lose ground threatening our North-South communications, we will use the weapons at our disposal.
Pakistan has no desire for war but it may be forced on us. We will certainly have grievous casualties and horrific damage in a conventional war even without a nuclear exchange. Unfortunately, we have no option but to fight.
The writer is a defence and political
analyst. Email: isehgal@pathfinder9.com
India's possible war deployment
Similar threads
