What's new

The strange silence surrounding Indian Military exercises

Perpendicular

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Messages
871
Reaction score
-3
Country
India
Location
Australia
In late September, India’s media reported on a military exercise to be undertaken by one of the country’s three “strike” corps, 21 Corps. Since then, Indian military watchers have encountered only silence on the exercise. This is uncharacteristic of India, on two counts.

One, India has always undertaken such exercises with a flurry of publicity, even if the military details are necessarily kept under wraps. There is sense in publicity in that it reassures the public of a vigilant military; it is good for the government’s image as “strong on defense”; and it sends a deterrence message in the form of military readiness to India’s neighbor, Pakistan. Yet this autumn’s round of exercises is an interesting shift in India’s information strategy.

The silence could well be for a mundane reason: During October the formation moved into an exercise location in the desert sector and is undertaking preliminary training. The exercise proper could build up to its climax in the near future with the relevant publicity and the attendance of high-level officials such as the defense minister and Delhi-based military brass.

Nevertheless, thus far, all that is known is that 21 Corps is on exercise along with the remainder of Southern Command. Even the name of the exercise – usually a martial one and sometimes with mythological roots – has not reached the public domain yet; and therein is the mystery.

Two, this is the second exercise involving one of India’s strike corps in the same year; the earlier one being held in early summer, in which India exercised 2 Corps, alongside the “pivot” 10 Corps. In effect, two field armies have been exercised this year: South Western Command earlier, of which 10 Corps is part, and now the Southern Command.

Usually, India exercises one strike corps a year. This owes to reasons such as the cropping pattern in exercise areas only allowing a window in early summer along with budget limitations. To exercise a second strike corps in the second seasonal window in late autumn/early winter the same year is a departure that, while indicating more budget availability, also suggests urgency.

Why the silence and possible urgency attending this exercise?

It can plausibly be speculated that the lack of publicity so far owes to a statement made by Pakistan’s foreign secretary on the eve of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit to the U.S., namely that Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) have been acquired to deter and if necessary respond to India’s conventional operations.

Since strike corps operations are offensive and have strategic ends, their employment can be expected to flirt with Pakistan’s nuclear thresholds. Pakistan has now publicly acknowledged a low nuclear threshold. Therefore, for strike corps operations it can no longer be business as usual.

From India’s conventional doctrine and exercises, it cannot easily be discerned if India is sufficiently cognizant of the nuclear reality. Its doctrine is of post-Kargil War vintage, though officially adopted after Operation Parakram in 2004. Much water has flown under the nuclear bridge since, including vertical proliferation and the addition of TNW to Pakistan’s arsenal in 2011.

India’s military, in exercising two field armies and two strike crops this year, is indicating that it can activate the border theater, from the semi-developed terrain abutting the northern part of Rajasthan to the desert terrain in the south. Strategically, it is projecting to Pakistan that it is not deterred by TNWs.

Such muscle flexing cannot be seen merely as going about what armies normally do in peace time: train. This could well imply that India has an answer to TNW that enables it to believe that it can persist with conventional operations.

Thus far, India’s declaratory nuclear doctrine has been of “retaliation only” and predicated on deterrence by punishment. However, since this would be a disproportionate response to TNW and could trigger a strategic exchange, it is possible that India’s operational nuclear doctrine has shifted to “proportionate” response or “graduated” deterrence. That way it can provide nuclear cover for conventional operations by employing TNW in retaliation. This has been the thrust of the recentstrategic debate in India.

The urgency of two field armies exercising in the same year consequently derives from India’s conveying to Pakistan’s military unmistakably that it continues to have options, even when confronted by a lower nuclear threshold.

At the same time, the accompanying public silence (at the time of writing) surrounding the exercise appears to be intended to keep the focus of both strategic analysts and the international community away from this message intended for Pakistan’s military.

Strategic analysts skeptical of the so-called Cold Start doctrine of 2004 have pointed to the truncation of the crisis response window that quick-off-the-block conventional operations portend as well as the subsequent nuclear dangers. With India’s next edition of the conventional doctrine of 2010 not in the public domain it cannot be critiqued adequately. The manner in which the military exercises unfold will offer clues as to potential nuclear risks. Keeping the lid on this aspect enables the military to go about its business without external scrutiny.

If strategic analysts are unable to blow the whistle for want of evidence, the advantage for India is the lack of alarm in the international community. Even India’s public is kept ignorant of nuclear dangers, allowing its politicians to enjoy the limelight from military prowess while obscuring the dangers.

India’s belief that there is a conventional reply for any mega-terror action from across the border has one positive: It could help deter any Pakistani covert intelligence engagement in any such action. However, the flip side is that should rogue or autonomous elements undertake such action, the two states could be at blows before peace has a chance to intervene.

While both militaries apparently envisage few TNW mushroom clouds, they need to be forewarned that this will only be so if they mutually put in place de-escalatory measures.

The Strange Silence Surrounding an Indian Military Exercise | The Diplomat
 
.
How would India know if the nuclear weapon was used by rogue elements or Pakistan's military?

From Kargil's experience, India knows that Pakistan would take the stand that it was rogue elements and not their soldiers.
 
.
How would India know if the nuclear weapon was used by rogue elements or Pakistan's military?

From Kargil's experience, India knows that Pakistan would take the stand that it was rogue elements and not their soldiers.
it doesn't matter if its used by rogue elements or Pakistani military. all we need to know is,if NW have been used against us or not.
more over Pakistan cannot say its done by rogue elements if it does that rest assured the world will get rid of NW from Pakistan.
 
.
it doesn't matter if its used by rogue elements or Pakistani military. all we need to know is,if NW have been used against us or not.
more over Pakistan cannot say its done by rogue elements if it does that rest assured the world will get rid of NW from Pakistan.

Yes that is what I am saying.

Pakistan cannot shirk away its responsibility by claiming that the act was committed by "Rogue" elements like in case of Kargil or 26/11.
 
.
How would India know if the nuclear weapon was used by rogue elements or Pakistan's military?

From Kargil's experience, India knows that Pakistan would take the stand that it was rogue elements and not their soldiers.
At Kargil. It was "muhahid force " which Is a border guarding paramilitary force not a rogue group. Indian media and much of Pakistani media are too dumb to understand that.
 
. .
In late September, India’s media reported on a military exercise to be undertaken by one of the country’s three “strike” corps, 21 Corps. Since then, Indian military watchers have encountered only silence on the exercise. This is uncharacteristic of India, on two counts.

One, India has always undertaken such exercises with a flurry of publicity, even if the military details are necessarily kept under wraps. There is sense in publicity in that it reassures the public of a vigilant military; it is good for the government’s image as “strong on defense”; and it sends a deterrence message in the form of military readiness to India’s neighbor, Pakistan. Yet this autumn’s round of exercises is an interesting shift in India’s information strategy.

The silence could well be for a mundane reason: During October the formation moved into an exercise location in the desert sector and is undertaking preliminary training. The exercise proper could build up to its climax in the near future with the relevant publicity and the attendance of high-level officials such as the defense minister and Delhi-based military brass.

Nevertheless, thus far, all that is known is that 21 Corps is on exercise along with the remainder of Southern Command. Even the name of the exercise – usually a martial one and sometimes with mythological roots – has not reached the public domain yet; and therein is the mystery.

Two, this is the second exercise involving one of India’s strike corps in the same year; the earlier one being held in early summer, in which India exercised 2 Corps, alongside the “pivot” 10 Corps. In effect, two field armies have been exercised this year: South Western Command earlier, of which 10 Corps is part, and now the Southern Command.

Usually, India exercises one strike corps a year. This owes to reasons such as the cropping pattern in exercise areas only allowing a window in early summer along with budget limitations. To exercise a second strike corps in the second seasonal window in late autumn/early winter the same year is a departure that, while indicating more budget availability, also suggests urgency.

Why the silence and possible urgency attending this exercise?

It can plausibly be speculated that the lack of publicity so far owes to a statement made by Pakistan’s foreign secretary on the eve of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit to the U.S., namely that Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) have been acquired to deter and if necessary respond to India’s conventional operations.

Since strike corps operations are offensive and have strategic ends, their employment can be expected to flirt with Pakistan’s nuclear thresholds. Pakistan has now publicly acknowledged a low nuclear threshold. Therefore, for strike corps operations it can no longer be business as usual.

From India’s conventional doctrine and exercises, it cannot easily be discerned if India is sufficiently cognizant of the nuclear reality. Its doctrine is of post-Kargil War vintage, though officially adopted after Operation Parakram in 2004. Much water has flown under the nuclear bridge since, including vertical proliferation and the addition of TNW to Pakistan’s arsenal in 2011.

India’s military, in exercising two field armies and two strike crops this year, is indicating that it can activate the border theater, from the semi-developed terrain abutting the northern part of Rajasthan to the desert terrain in the south. Strategically, it is projecting to Pakistan that it is not deterred by TNWs.

Such muscle flexing cannot be seen merely as going about what armies normally do in peace time: train. This could well imply that India has an answer to TNW that enables it to believe that it can persist with conventional operations.

Thus far, India’s declaratory nuclear doctrine has been of “retaliation only” and predicated on deterrence by punishment. However, since this would be a disproportionate response to TNW and could trigger a strategic exchange, it is possible that India’s operational nuclear doctrine has shifted to “proportionate” response or “graduated” deterrence. That way it can provide nuclear cover for conventional operations by employing TNW in retaliation. This has been the thrust of the recentstrategic debate in India.

The urgency of two field armies exercising in the same year consequently derives from India’s conveying to Pakistan’s military unmistakably that it continues to have options, even when confronted by a lower nuclear threshold.

At the same time, the accompanying public silence (at the time of writing) surrounding the exercise appears to be intended to keep the focus of both strategic analysts and the international community away from this message intended for Pakistan’s military.

Strategic analysts skeptical of the so-called Cold Start doctrine of 2004 have pointed to the truncation of the crisis response window that quick-off-the-block conventional operations portend as well as the subsequent nuclear dangers. With India’s next edition of the conventional doctrine of 2010 not in the public domain it cannot be critiqued adequately. The manner in which the military exercises unfold will offer clues as to potential nuclear risks. Keeping the lid on this aspect enables the military to go about its business without external scrutiny.

If strategic analysts are unable to blow the whistle for want of evidence, the advantage for India is the lack of alarm in the international community. Even India’s public is kept ignorant of nuclear dangers, allowing its politicians to enjoy the limelight from military prowess while obscuring the dangers.

India’s belief that there is a conventional reply for any mega-terror action from across the border has one positive: It could help deter any Pakistani covert intelligence engagement in any such action. However, the flip side is that should rogue or autonomous elements undertake such action, the two states could be at blows before peace has a chance to intervene.

While both militaries apparently envisage few TNW mushroom clouds, they need to be forewarned that this will only be so if they mutually put in place de-escalatory measures.

The Strange Silence Surrounding an Indian Military Exercise | The Diplomat

Basically diplomat journos don't understand the will of the Indian people which is to destroy Pakistan before it made any moves. These TNW if used on our forces India won't be using TNW. We set for full and powerful nuclear retaliation so there won't be any other nuclear attacks on our people. If Pakistan thinks that it can get way with Terror nurturing with these kind kids talk about using nuclear weapons then it's highly mistaken. And I don't think Pakistan strategic planners are soo dumb either. May be these are to keep their country intact or to keep their people away from ground reality. That India is far superior and in a verge of becoming a global military and economic super power and where is Pakistan? The way foreign journos critical about Indian not peeing in toilets or India reaching Mars or commercial space power is laughable.

Soon India will take its chances to wipe out entire terror hubs in P O K. And you will be very surprised to know that there won't be any nuclear retaliation as there won't be any TNW.
Pakistan playing a very dangerous and very premature game.

How would India know if the nuclear weapon was used by rogue elements or Pakistan's military?

From Kargil's experience, India knows that Pakistan would take the stand that it was rogue elements and not their soldiers.
Won't matter who use it...
 
.
At Kargil. It was "muhahid force " which Is a border guarding paramilitary force not a rogue group. Indian media and much of Pakistani media are too dumb to understand that.

I understand that but initially Pakistan refused to accept the bodies. My point was that the same could happen should a NW be used.
 
.
Yes that is what I am saying.

Pakistan cannot shirk away its responsibility by claiming that the act was committed by "Rogue" elements like in case of Kargil or 26/11.
Yes it can, ....
We are spineless morons when it comes to our Pakistan Policy.

At Kargil. It was "muhahid force " which Is a border guarding paramilitary force not a rogue group. Indian media and much of Pakistani media are too dumb to understand that.
not according to your establishment.
 
.
I understand that but initially Pakistan refused to accept the bodies. My point was that the same could happen should a NW be used.
Good you understand my point. But we don't understand yours.
Pakistan saying that their nukes werewe're fired by rogues is worse than saying the Army fired them. Because saying Rogues fired them means no control on weapons and that will have knock down effect on morale of Pakistani people and Army in a war.

About not accepting dead bodies I am not sure if that is true but thing is Kargil war was never officially over . No peace treaty or prisoner exchange treaty was signed between the two countries. Nawaz was summoned by USA,s Clinton, got bullied and spanked, came home and ordered pullout from Kargil.
Since no official treaty was signed, Indian soldiers killed many Pakistani soldiers on the way back, like shooting in the back. Most Pakistani casualties we're not in the war but during pullout which Army assumed that is a planned and agreed event between both countries political leadership, but Nawaz sucked at that and only bluffed the army into pulling out.
That's why Musharraf got so angry and kicked him out of government and imposed martial law.
 
.
Such muscle flexing cannot be seen merely as going about what armies normally do in peace time: train. This could well imply that India has an answer to TNW that enables it to believe that it can persist with conventional operations.

Thus far, India’s declaratory nuclear doctrine has been of “retaliation only” and predicated on deterrence by punishment. However, since this would be a disproportionate response to TNW and could trigger a strategic exchange, it is possible that India’s operational nuclear doctrine has shifted to “proportionate” response or “graduated” deterrence. That way it can provide nuclear cover for conventional operations by employing TNW in retaliation. This has been the thrust of the recentstrategic debate in India.
In other words, the Indian Military and leadership is ok with all out nuclear holocaust in the region. Not sure if its an answer or utter madness.
 
. .
In other words, the Indian Military and leadership is ok with all out nuclear holocaust in the region. Not sure if its an answer or utter madness.

Well not really. People are looking at the correct catalog of actions, but making entirely different and irrelevant deductions. The military is really testing out the Pro-active defense Doctrine; a novel term which is basically a marriage of the different concepts of very large scale operations of Sunderji doctrine and the rapid mobilization of specific formations of the CSD. The answer to why such such an amalgamation is being undertaken is a topic worthy of its own thread.

The counter to terror emanating from Pakistan directed at India will be dealt by Intelligence agencies, which interestingly and perhaps not so coincidentally was one of the suggestions made by the VIF a few, if not several years, back. The operative phrase is Balance of terror in the terror domain. There is already an operational & demonstratively effective balance of terror in the strategic domain, no matter what old hats of the IA wish to suggest. Now the objective is to establish a balance of terror in the terror domain similar in effect wrt deterrence in the strategic domain; that seemingly is now the most viable and practical method of establishing deterrence against terrorism, even if it perhaps is not the most morally righteous path to follow.
 
.
With nuclear umbrella containing our conventional threat.

We are almost forced to use the Same game played by neighbour.

I remember the phrase and get little concerned too

" don't argue with an idiot, he will drag you to his level and beat you with his experience "

What other responses shall we undertake other than returning the favour in same coin?
Internal security apparatus strengthening ?
 
.
Let's play nukey nukey.. Only over 2 billion souls will be lost n this part of the world will be a quiet neighbourhood for a few billion years.. :tup:
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom