Pak Occupied Kashmir News and Discussion

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Sep 2010 19:38

Negi-ji

Yudhaya Krit Nischaya

Today is not yesterday. And tomorrow will never be the same as today. So never say never.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Sep 2010 21:44

rohitvats wrote:Round and round the ^^^ article goes..without so much as giving examples of options which India can deploy. Nor is there any deep assessment of how it complicates the options for India with respect to the POK and expecially, the Northern Areas. BRF did much better...we need more in-depth analysis from people/researchers in these fields.

Rohitvats, The article is from IDSA which excels in round about scholarship. I have given up reading their writings as they are plain useless except for the research footnotes. They never, never have any policy options. That is left for the mandarins. And IDSA wants to be taken seriously!

The core problem is its dominated by JNU and Civil Services failed candidates. KS garu envionsed it to be a RAND or Chatham House for New Delhi but successive leaders have reduced it to a sinecure for friends and family who didn't make the Civil Services grade.

Meanwhile Selig Harrison repeats:

US Scholar says PAk has ceded control of Gilgit to China

WASHINGTON: An American scholar who has caused a kerfuffle in the strategic community by reporting the presence of Chinese troops in the disputed northern areas of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is insisting that Islamabad has ceded control of the area to Beijing despite denials from both sides.

Selig Harrison, director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy, followed up a rebuttal of his article about Beijing's control of Pakistan-held territories by conceding that China had not deployed combat soldiers, but "there has been an influx of construction, engineering and communication units of the People's Liberation Army into Gilgit-Baltistan, under the command of the Xinjiang military district, totaling at least 7,000 military personnel."

"In addition, several thousand P. L.A. troops are said to be stationed in the Khunjerab Pass on the Xinjiang border to protect Karakoram Highway construction crews, with ready access to Gilgit-Baltistan," Harrison wrote, adding, "the impact of such a large foreign presence in a thinly populated, undeveloped region has been profound...To local political activists, this adds up to a creeping process of de facto Chinese control over a region where Islamabad claims nominal authority but lacks the infrastructure to exercise it."

Harrison was responding to denials from Pakistani officials, who maintained that he was trying to mislead readers by describe Chinese engineers as army troops when all Pakistan had done was "sought urgent help from friendly countries, including China, whose engineers have the necessary experience, to repair the damage (caused by the recent floods) on this critically important highway."

In his August 26 op-ed headlined China's Discreet Hold on Pakistan's Northern Borderlands, Harrison reported that "Islamabad is handing over de facto control of the strategic Gilgit-Baltistan region in the northwest corner of disputed Kashmir to China" to enable Beijing get unfettered road and rail access to the Gulf through Pakistan.

It takes 16 to 25 days for Chinese oil tankers to reach the Gulf through sea access, but when high-speed rail and road links through Gilgit and Baltistan are completed, China will be able to transport cargo from Eastern China to the new Chinese-built Pakistani naval bases at Gwadar, Pasni and Ormara, just east of the Gulf, within 48 hours, Harrison wrote, urging the United States, India and Pakistan to work together to make sure that the Gilgit-Baltistan region "is not overwhelmed, like Tibet, by the Chinese behemoth."

Beijing reacted sharply to the report, but what also riled Islamabad was Harrison's reference to the relative lack of freedom in and access to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in comparison to the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, which although wracked by separatist violence in the Valley, is under a democratic dispensation.

Media attention has exposed the repression of the insurgency in the Indian-ruled Kashmir Valley, Harrison wrote, "but if reporters could get into the Gilgit-Baltistan region and PoK, they would find widespread, brutally-suppressed local movements for democratic rights and regional autonomy," and the nascent revolt in the region is a reminder that Kashmiri demands for autonomy on both sides of the cease-fire line would have to be addressed in a settlement, he added.

Enraged Pakistani activists have denounced Harrison, who served as the South Asia bureau chief for the Washington Post in the 1980s, as an Indian stooge who specialized in forecasts about Pakistan's imminent break-up.

My comments on above article and the writer's mindset. Theis guy an Indina citizen accepts that POK is lost and its astruggle between TSp, PRC and US to decide what is its fate. Note his passive article as if its not Indian lands lost during the Paki aggression and failure of GOI to understand tthe issues and letting of of land by agreeing to ceasefire in 1948.

Also Harrison is letting the cat out of the bag. Its psy-ops to talk about oppression on J&K while talking about Gilgit being handed over to PRC. It means US wants to create an opportunity for Kashmir to be an independent country. And resents the PRC rolling into Gilgit for that reduces the area of operations.

I need to find the link for the Dutch scholar's book on PRC trying to get out of the Pacific lock box its in.

Aside:
Why cant India sendsome traders/shepherds to take a look at the area? What happened to the adventure spirit. Has that too been spirited away? And task the ISRO resources to photo -rcce of the place for starters?

And who are the leaders of the Gilgit resistance movement?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Sep 2010 22:00

gagan< Can you take look at the are periodically to see if there are updates?

Next can come one plot all the locations on map and post here?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 09 Sep 2010 22:02

krisna wrote: Not dossiers, talks and documents plez, enuf of it. pragmatic geopolitical response is reqd

Can you give an example of such a "geopolitical response" and the envisioned ramifications of the same?

TIA.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Sep 2010 22:04

I guess you are going to shoot it down? Take a break and come back later.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 09 Sep 2010 22:16

ramana wrote:I guess you are going to shoot it down? Take a break and come back later.

Ramana ji, why would I shoot it down unless I can explain the reasons for doing so? I asked the question because I have never seen a feasible option to dossier-baazi being put forward in these articles. I am not a WKK who thinks "pissful negotiations" with pakistan are the only way forward. I am all for cutting off diplomatic ties even. But I just don't understand how we are going to rid ourselves of paki terrorism.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Sep 2010 22:18

its not yet time for that. So don't challenge people to put up ideas before they are well understood.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 09 Sep 2010 22:27

ramana wrote:its not yet time for that. So don't challenge people to put up ideas before they are well understood.

Very well. Whatever you say. I still think, looking at the comment I was responding to that the question was valid.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 09 Sep 2010 22:37

nachiket wrote:
ramana wrote:its not yet time for that. So don't challenge people to put up ideas before they are well understood.
Very well. Whatever you say. I still think, looking at the comment I was responding to that the question was valid.

Thanks ramanaji,
nachiket,
we all can contribute our ideas and thinking with the common goal of making our motherland safe and secure.
you can contribute and follow the the threads wherever chinese are present.
thanks.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 09 Sep 2010 23:05

I don't know how many of us know, but India did have plans to take Northern Areas in 1987.

As per Ravi Rikhye, Operation Brasstacks was a master deception plan and main game was in Kargil Sector. The Operation to retake the Northern Areas was called Operation Trident and involved Brigade level attacks on Skardu and iirc, Gilgit. India airlifted 6 Mountain Division...it was surmised (by Ravi Rikhye) that it would have freed troops from 3rd Infantry Division for the assault, as troops from 6 MD would have required prolonged acclimatization and time and secrecy of utmost importance.

Amercians gave away the plan and Pakistanis airlifted troops to the sector. I spoke to some old-timers and they did confirm lifting of 6 MD to Leh but did not comment on the purpose.

Some time back I wrote on the TSPA Orbat in NA. A small clarification: It seems that the 7th ID which was inducted during Kargil into FCNA, has reverted back to XI Corps, Peshawar. I saw reports of it engaged in anti-Taliban operations. FCNA is a 5 Brigade Strength formation. Brigades are more than likely to be over strength in terms of Infantry Battalions held by them.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 09 Sep 2010 23:48

nachiket,
Whoever might have fired the first shot, Indians will be made to appear as the aggressor. Our self loathing p-sick media will do the job for the enemy. We will loose the PR war.
Hence we must wait till we have convinced the world that Pakistan is a sick bitch and is a danger to the civilized world. Until then we have to put a hold on our dreams to have a 8 lane motorway from Srinagar to Kabul.
luckily Pakistanis are doing the job for us. Imagine a Pakistan who are sophisticated,educated and cunning rather than blowing school buses and killing women. As someone said TTP is the friend in pakistan which India never had. They are doing a splendid job which RAW or any unspecified agencies can never accomplish without detection. Its only a matter of time before the whole world gets a complete picture of pakistan.
Once the transformation is complete, we just need to kick the tyres and light the fires!
Altair

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Sep 2010 23:52

Somebody was me.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 10 Sep 2010 00:05

ramana wrote:Somebody was me.

Sorry ramana garu. meeru ani gurthu ledhu!!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2010 00:09

No problem.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Sep 2010 00:54

X-Posting from US and PRC relationship & India Thread from 29 Aug 2010

Sanjay M wrote:Beijing gets de facto control over Gilgit

This should become the singular focus of India. Let's forget the pit-o-shit in Pakistan. That is only for entertainment. This is serious.

There are generals in USA who too think, that China should not be allowed to bully its way in Asia militarily and to expand. The time has come for USA to prioritize its PRC containment policy and work with India to put a stop to Chinese expansionism in Northern Areas.

Northern Areas have moved into the possession of China. They are no more under the control of Pakistan. As such Pakistan cannot really make a fuss about it, should India (and US) try to bring an area which is legally a part of India under Indian control. The situation of 1948 has changed.

If US assists India, it will NOT be at the cost of its alliance against Pakistan, but rather to stop PRC encroachment.

Pakistan has ceased to be a factor in Northern Areas now. This is now a matter between PRC and India and the question of US support to India on this.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2010 01:20

RajeshA, Do you think
- in a failing TSP, US will like India to have POK?
- Or would they prefer the PRC?
- Or has PRC moved in due to 2008 meltdown?
- Or has TSP invited PRC to come in as it cant handle the stress?

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 10 Sep 2010 01:37

^^^^
The question is whether china is in control of POK?
yes POK will be play a pivotal role as it has access to all 4 countries- China/Afghanistan/pakistan and India. not to forget central asia.

Toying with the Possibilities-
1) The TSP can be a notional or strong or weak or whatever is still a country, then POK is disputed as long as it controls it.if it gives to china still, it is disputed overtly. However pakistan will always refuse it. It will be suicidal for its J&K cause with India. covertly anything is possible.

2) If pakistan is disintegrated then the disputed area will be asked to go for independence by the powers(US and china). This will include our J&K also so that they can play the game again as pakistan has failed.

Both will be loss loss situation for India
for 1) If India deploys its soldiers in POK to take it -- it will surely result in war with pakistan. US will try utmost to prevent it. China if present in POK will be forced against India naturally. If it is not present then it will ratchet the atmosphere considerably to help TSP.
for 2) disintegration of TSP means the area is free. the J&K was between India TSP and the J&K. TSP is gone so the powers(US and China) will likely want the area to go for independence. India will be under immense pressure to grant it. China may not like to grab it as it will be susceptible for long damage with the local muslim population and the restive xinjaing along with enraging India further more. This area is also not its core areas.
US would like it to be independent as it can insert itself here to watch over both countries and central asia.
If India gets the area then both of them are the lose something to hold India back.

The plan for India to get POK is a difficult but possible one, second choice should be pursued vigorously. The fall of pakistan should be controlled so that it breaks across its ethnic and provincial divisions with less refugees spilling over the borders. it should support the various divisions. By this we get POK and TSP is demolished.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Sep 2010 01:41

ramana wrote:RajeshA, Do you think
- in a failing TSP, US will like India to have POK?
- Or would they prefer the PRC?
- Or has PRC moved in due to 2008 meltdown?
- Or has TSP invited PRC to come in as it cant handle the stress?

What if this is a joint agreement between US, PRC and Pakistan for taking care of POK

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2010 01:51

The above is combination of 1 & 2. Each answer has its own possibilities.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2010 02:07

We can have three ways to look at this issue:
1) Role Playing to get into adversary mind set.
2) Two team approach to the issue
3) Devil's Advocate: Deliberate challenge to one team's conclusions

So why dont we adopt all three.

Form up approach 1 and write from the point of view of the three players: TSP, PRC and US
Another take a crack at the data and come to conclusions

Third appraoch is BR favorite.
Will give this to Chetak as I promised him.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Sep 2010 02:44

ramana wrote:RajeshA, Do you think
- in a failing TSP, US will like India to have POK?
- Or would they prefer the PRC?
- Or has PRC moved in due to 2008 meltdown?
- Or has TSP invited PRC to come in as it cant handle the stress?

Like I posted elsewhere it is 2008-meltdown effect.

Unkil is making space for PRC and sharing the responsibilities (G2 in making). This is similar to UK passing responsibilities to USA post WW2. Unkil chose PRC for the same reason UK chose USA instead of Russia in 1940s.

While the recipient is glad to enter the global stage there will be some philosophical (for the lack of better word) differences with his mentor, and that is the reason for PRC/USA friction in other theaters. This is similar to USA nudging UK to let go of its colonies.

POK cannot be an independent entity. It has to remain with TSP, PRC, IND or Afghanistan due to physical proximity. The only acceptable X-fer would be in PRC's direction as TSP cannot handle the economical stress to maintain this region.

If one looks at the map, POK is the physical connection between PRC and Paki-Punjab in the event of TSP disintegration. If Punjab can keep Sindh under its control, Baluchistan will be forced to stay with any future Pakjab state, and TSP will be convinced of letting go of NWFP in a future Taliban take over. Such a scenario Pakjab would be able keep all the river systems, arable lands, natural resources (Baluchistan) under its control while letting lose the Taliban infested NWFP thus regaining its focus on India. Unkil will be praised as the creator of a Talibanic state and divert them to keep the pressure on Russia and Iran.

India can get what is rightfully hers ONLY thru war, given USA-PRC perfidy. The sooner the better. This is a lesson for all the people who put "economic progress" ahead of national security. The cost of reclaiming POK kept on increasing since 1947. Once it formally goes into PRC hands, the cost increases multi-fold.

Once it goes into PRC hands the only way India can reclaim all its lands would be by liberating Tibet. That would require a comprehensive resurgence of Bharat.

***

Like Sri KS garu said, TSP is PRC's NK in western sector. The utility value of NK in East-Asia is immense. Same will be with TSP.

PRC is building its client states and they are doing a good job at that IMO. All the moralist talk that we hear (from Tony Montana types) will not solve a single problem for India.

IMHO India should openly declare that any alteration w.r.t POK will be viewed as a war declaration and will be dealt accordingly. It also has to work closely with Iran (to the extent that it can undermine PRC's influence) on Baluchistan and Russia on Afghanistan fronts.

Can India pull this feat? I strongly believe so. Practical examples are what USA did in WW2 and what PRC did in Korean war. They were not super powers (either economically or militarily) when they asserted their self interests.

Added Later: For the liberal minds amongst us. A war for POK today may cost India ~10,000 lives, $50B cost, and 1% GDP growth for 5 years today. If not solved it would cost 1-2000 lives every year, $10B additional defense budget per year, and 1+% GDP decline for next 50 years. Make your calculations.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2010 03:12

Dated report but look slike India was warned by its scholars:
--------------------
China Gilgit gambit is strategic says expert

Sep 3, 2010

China has massive presence in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, said a US-based activist from Gilgit who added that massive investments were made by Beijing in that frontier region to expand the Karakoram Corridor as a strategic pathway. Washingon-based political activist Senge H. Sering, a former

visiting fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), warned the Indian government about the Chinese presence over the years in Pakistani Kashmir.

Sering has spoken about massive investments made by China in the frontier region to expand the Karakoram Corridor as a strategic pathway to the sea lanes linking to West Asia.

Highlighting the multifaceted character of Chinese presence in the Gilgit-Baltistan province, Sering said China-Pakistan cooperation in the corridor includes expansion of the Karakoram Highway (KH), construction of a parallel railway line as well as oil and gas pipelines, which will give China rapid connectivity to Pakistani ports lying in the gateway to the Strait of Hormuz and Suez Canal.

Full report at:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/China-Gil ... 95349.aspx

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 10 Sep 2010 04:27

A crazy question, How hard it will be to take Skardu assuming indian have complete air supremacy over the POK ? Wil india act if NA folks start crossing the border into india and ask for asylem?.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 10 Sep 2010 06:11

^^
A sudden thrust by Indian forces into POK will definitely surprise PLA. I think we can have complete air superiority over POK airspace within the first 100 Hrs. I am counting on China not opening a second front. Please correct me if I am wrong.

thayilv · Post by **thayilv** » 10 Sep 2010 06:46

Altairji, I was read somewhere that that we face the steeper edge of the mountains than the pakis as theirs is a more gentle gradient. If we do establish air superiority, wouldnt we have to quickly back it up with boots on the ground?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Sep 2010 07:10

Might be slightly OT here, nevertheless...

I mentioned this in a military thread dealing with two-front war.

If India can open a mountain division (for acclimatization and practice purposes) in Jammu & Ladakh areas it can act as launching pad for its POK related operations. The entire POK region is in <200 mile radius, ideal for all types of operations. This region is in the same altitude range (15,000 to 17000 Ft) as POK. This location can also act as the focal points to contain any PRC misadventures overseeing Aksai-Chin and KKH.

IA can train and prepare its air-lift capabilities from its HP or UP bases to see if it can airlift a 10K size armed brigade within hours.

For this operation IA/IAF would have to mobilize few mountain divisions, hundreds of Brahmos type precision missiles, dozens of Akash batteries augmented by nuke-tipped Agnis and Shauryas as insurance.

India can definitely pull this feat, if it has strong and shrewd leadership. Perhaps GOI can form war cabinet bringing together likes of Lalloo, NM, CBN, OA etc., who come with very specific skills...

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Sep 2010 07:16

thayilv wrote:Altairji, I was read somewhere that that we face the steeper edge of the mountains than the pakis as theirs is a more gentle gradient. If we do establish air superiority, wouldnt we have to quickly back it up with boots on the ground?

Will geography ever change for India to claim this area?

What kind of pusillanimity this is? How could a '000BC-700AD Bharat can keep this area under it control but the modern India cannot?

thayilv · Post by **thayilv** » 10 Sep 2010 07:30

^^ after you are done rolling in laughter, can you please tell me how posing a genuine question makes one pusillanimous?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2010 07:33

Let me bleat the usual things I bleat when I say such things.

I believe that if we are going to go back in time to an era when territorial conquest was easy and considered OK for some people to do, then we have to go back in time to recall the principles that were established at that time regarding comprehensive defeat of the defending forces.

To put it very simply, it has been established that an attacking force needs to have a 2:1 or 3:1 numerical superiority over the defending force. Note that for the moment i am not including "force multipliers" in this calculus - but both sides will have them.

The Indian army at 1.1 million versus the Pakistan army at 650,000 makes the required ratio unattainable because we have to keep troops aside for Panda. As the army chief said India has a defence oriented plan, not and offence oriented plan. He was not lying and we must not lie to ourselves.

OK - assuming that at some future date - India expands is army to say 1.8 million and backs that up with 1500 aircraft and 1000 helos and an overwhelming force of missiles. Assume we throw 1 million against Pakistan along with 1000 aircraft - leaving about 0.5 million troops and 500 aircraft to face China. We then have a chance of overrunning territory subject to the following conditions

China does not decide to support Pakistan and grab territory to pull away Indian troops
Pakistan does not escalate to nuclear war while the US and China either look away or can do nothing
The US does not act like a spoilsport giving AWACS and ECM cover to Paksitan to prevent total defeat.

My post sounds like that of a cowardly shivering dhoti. But if we are going to make war to grab PoK - it is better to shiver first and prepare for the worst case scenarios beforehand.

JMT

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Sep 2010 07:38

Apologies for taking my frustration at you. We have had even ex-servicemen raising these obvious questions...

Like I said, the geography did not change for past million plus years. Asking the same question again and again will not change the reality. If India ever want to remain at peace and have an opportunity at long-term progress, it has to control entire POK++ region.

Even if it requires few dozen thousands of lives and few billions of moolah, that is the cost of national security.

If our armed forces are not allowed/facilitated to plan for and prepared to protect our national interests, then we are wasting everyone's time and $$B every year.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 10 Sep 2010 07:55

^^^^
Destroying the enemy is one thing and holding onto the area is another thing.
ex- uncle destroyes Iraqi forces in no time but found it difficult to hold onto Iraq and make it work.
same in afghanisthan- virtually no resistance- destroyed everything but struggling to hold the arae.

Assuming similarly India can capture POK but holding it can be extremely challenging also. TSP if does not end up using the new clear bum as it frequently threatens, it will start terrorism again. China and uncle depending on their interests will pitch in. India should have a robust economy with military to complete the capture.
It is so easy to say about making some advances with fancy toys and plant the tiranga in pok.
No govt (esp elected in a democracy) will behave irrationally. They have to sell the war to the people who elected them.That is the power of democracy. Communists china and TSP are a different breed.
Please dont take this in a negative way.

thanks.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Sep 2010 07:57

I have two issues with this thought process

1. Philosophy of national interest

shiv wrote: I believe that if we are going to go back in time to an era when territorial conquest was eay and considered OK for some people to so then we have to go back in time to recall the principles that were established at that time regarding comprehensive defeat of the defending forces.

India is not going for territorial conquest. It is trying to save its own naked bottom in POK. If India (or any other nation) is shy of doing what is needed to save its bottom then what is the point of national security?

2. Operational preparedness

shiv wrote: To put it very simply, it has been established that an attacking force needs to have a 2:1 or 3:1 numerical superiority over the defending force. Note that for the moment i am not including "force multipliers" in this calculus - but both sides will have them.

The Indian army at 1.1 million versus the Pakistan army at 650,000 makes the required ratio unattainable because we have to keep troops aside for Pand. As the army chief said India has a defence oriented plan, not and offence oriented plan. He was not lying and we must not lie to ourselves.

OK - assuming that at some future date - India expands is army to say 1.8 million and backs that up with 1500 aircraft and 1000 helos and an overwhelming force of missiles. Assume we throw 1 milllion against Pakistan along with 1000 aircraft - leaving about 0.5 million troops and 500 aircraft to face China. We then have a chance of overrunning territory subject to the following conditions

I am assuming India's political and military relationship is aware of its national security concerns.

For a moment let us assume India's defense strategy is defence oriented. Then how did lose 1962 war? Did PRC really commit 3:1 force ratios?

The most recent major war is Operation Iraqi Freedom. I am giving this example as before going to war, the popular belief was that SH's Iraq possessed WMDs. You can read the prevailing force commitments here

I hope you will not compare USA/India to prove your point.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 10 Sep 2010 07:59

Altair wrote:^^
A sudden thrust by Indian forces into POK will definitely surprise PLA. I think we can have complete air superiority over POK airspace within the first 100 Hrs. I am counting on China not opening a second front. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Altairji,

I don't think air superiority is the issue. The PLAAF would get hammered by the IAF for similar reasons as the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain... not enough fuel to accommodate long-range missions and carry sufficient ordinance at the same time, since they have to take off from high-altitude airfields in Tibet. I don't think PLAAF will even try to wage an air war that would cost them a loss of face. Whatever opposition IAF faces will come from the Bakis.

The problem is LACMs. The PLA has thousands of these tucked away all over Tibet. We have no defense against them. They are a potent stand-off weapon, and can be deployed in barrages to quickly blunt any IA thrust in Gilgit-Baltistan, not to mention destroy any infrastructure and interdict supply routes to IA units in that theatre. Until we have a way to counter the Chinese LACMs, there is zero percent chance that IA can grab the Northern Areas.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Sep 2010 08:05

Krisna garu,

1. Please define the robust economy that India should have before it can attempt to reclaim POK. Is it $10T or $100T? Once it reaches that level can it recapture POK irrespective of prevailing geopolitical scenarios and enemy force capacities?

2. The most recent wars were started by coalitions of democratic nations. Not a single democratic nation felt democracy is the reason to deny its national security imperatives. Please note that you labeled protecting a nation's security interests as "irrational
behavior" and you are calling it "the power of democracy".

3. Communist PRC or mad-dog TSP are not hiding their national interests behind their ideology. Why should India and Indians?

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 10 Sep 2010 08:08

Siachen overlooks the Chinese held Shaksam valley. How quickly can the IA discreetly dispatch a SF batch (keeping Siachen as base of operations) on the peaks of the Karakorams lying between Northern Areas and Shaksam valley should be the point of discussion at this point of time.

India needs HUMINT looking south over the NA.

Added later: Earnestly requesting moderators to move this and the Managing Chinese Threat thread to the GDF.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 10 Sep 2010 08:34

RamaY wrote:Krisna garu,

1. Please define the robust economy that India should have before it can attempt to reclaim POK. Is it $10T or $100T? Once it reaches that level can it recapture POK irrespective of prevailing geopolitical scenarios and enemy force capacities?

2. The most recent wars were started by coalitions of democratic nations. Not a single democratic nation felt democracy is the reason to deny its national security imperatives. Please note that you labeled protecting a nation's security interests as "irrational
behavior" and you are calling it "the power of democracy".

3. Communist PRC or mad-dog TSP are not hiding their national interests behind their ideology. Why should India and Indians?

1) It is easy to capture due to superiority temporarily.
Any military adventure right or wrong requires money which is in other words economy. The military planning should be such that it should have sufficient inventory of all weapons to neutralise opposition, hold onto the area for sufficient length of time. The logistics involved are humungous- keep the soldiers on ground with reinforcements, transportation, protection etc etc. This is just the our costs.I have not factored the economic and military cost caused by the enemy.
Able to withstand any sanctions which can cripple the economy- ex- we are dependent on oil imports. we have only stocks of less than 30 days. we are trying to increase the stocks. We have to prepare for the worst before we plan anything. we are not like north korea completely isolated. When I say robust economy it should factor in all the possibilities like I said - it cannot be said in quantity because what we want as X money may be Y money for US and Z money for china etc. It differs for each nation.
2) The recent wars were started by coalition of democracies- they prepared their people for war and fought. They did not come on their own.read the initial run to the war.Remember powell at uno, senate, blair of 45 minute WMD fame etc etc. National interests have to be marketed well and justified by leaders in front of their people. It is an art, that is why we have some who are good at certain times- wartime leaders, peaceful leaders, etc - churchill bush clinton Ombaba Nehru LBS IG etc you name them.
3) TSP and communist china are a separate breed. They kill their own people not 1 or 2 but in 100s and 1000s and millions etc. No comparison to democracy. There is no accountability for it. Democracy has it however flawed it is (that will be OT here )
It is jingoistic to claim it is easy and go to war. That is my way of looking at it as a layman with minimal knowledge(nava mujahid learning in LMU madrassa)

I am willing to be corrected.
JMTs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2010 08:35

Klaus wrote:
Added later: Earnestly requesting moderators to move this and the Managing Chinese Threat thread to the GDF.

Why?

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 10 Sep 2010 08:41

We can take POK back, if we can convince US to assist from Af-Pak area, and if US holds back Pakistan from launching Nuclear attack against us and then sends its submarine and Carrier battle group at an offensive posture against China. This will help us limit the war to POK. But why would US do this ? What India can afford in exchange ? May be India should offer its Army assistance to NATO troops in Afghanistan. That will help US speed-en up its 2011 plan for Af-Pak. But all this requires strong leadership and cleverer diplomacy from India. do we have that right now ? No doubt we can win the war conventionally, its a matter of engaging the climate right.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2010 08:51

Thomas Kolarek wrote:We can take POK back, if we can convince US to assist from Af-Pak area, and if US holds back Pakistan from launching Nuclear attack against us and then sends its submarine and Carrier battle group at an offensive posture against China. This will help us limit the war to POK. But why would US do this ? What India can afford in exchange ? May be India should offer its Army assistance to NATO troops in Afghanistan. That will help US speed-en up its 2011 plan for Af-Pak. But all this requires strong leadership and cleverer diplomacy from India. do we have that right now ? No doubt we can win the war conventionally, its a matter of engaging the climate right.

All this attributes more power and importance to the US than it actually wields:

1)The US cannot hold back Pakistan from using nukes
2) US CBGs did not intimidate India in 1971 and will not intimidate China
3) The US will gladly accept help in Afghanistan - but not necessarily from India. Heck they are worried about Indian embassies causing Paquis takleef - leave alone troops

This is the peak effect of Americanitis on BRF

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 10 Sep 2010 08:57

When you're dealing with Two Nuclear Armed powers, we had to as many as stronger powers on our sides. In 1971 we had USSR, we don't have that luxury now.
FYI - I am not an American.