Pak Occupied Kashmir News and Discussion

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 10 Sep 2010 23:04

POK is essential for accessing CAR, & A'stan not because the land route is better. But because when you own the land, you own the airspace. You can make much shorter air corridors. How do you fly to A'stan now? At the mercy of TSP and/or PRC. When you have PoK, then you are free from such restrictions.

Lahore & Peshawar are much harder to annex: main reason is just too many unfriendly people. Sikh occupation of Peshwar always had a sense of "teaching them a lesson" feel to it, rather then a permanent annexation feel. Unless you get rid of the crowd, you cannt annex Purushapur. Lahroe is more doable because fighting can empty out the city. POK is also sparsely populted with relatively benign people.

Shiv, are you being contrarian just for being contrarian? You are sure riling up a lot of folks

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Sep 2010 23:08

shiv wrote:
RajeshA wrote:shiv ji,

What is the value of Lahore? What is the value of Peshawar?
Taken together
The end of Pakistan as we know it
Access to Afghanistan and CAR
Control of trade routes
Control over downriver water
Control over Chinese access to Gwadar or Karachi

shiv ji,
You are quite aware that capturing and holding are two different things. Holding POK is easy, going from the difficulties of terrain rohitvats has explained. It is sparsely populated, that too with mostly Shia, who don't owe any loyalty to Rawalpindi. Holding Lahore and Peshawar reminds me of Green Zones with soldiers being taken down by IEDs and suicide bomibings.

We have discussed many aspects of 'Managing Pakistan's Failure'. Now I think a far more plausible scenario would be something we have not really discussed there.

If POK is in the hands of PRC, they have full access to Pakjab. Pakjabi Army would become an offshoot of PLA, and would be used for the services of securing the current Pakistani territory and transporting Oil and Gas from Iran and Gulf to Western China, and transporting goods manufactured in Western China (Tibet and Sinkiang) to the world through Gwadar, which becomes a Chinese town. China gets to finally populate its West with Han Chinese. With PLA in POK, even if Pakistan breaks apart with an independent Pushtunistan, Pakistan will survive. Sindh will hang on and Baluchis will be crushed with the help of Chinese.

From enhanced trade Pakistan too profits, and can avert its demise. With PRC in World Bank and IMF, they could even get them to write off Pakistan's debt. What happens is India gets an opponent to its West which will not go down, simply because the Chinese would have ensured that with nukes, weapons, money, and even PLA support.

Would that not be a heaven-sent opportunity for TSPA to increase terrorism in India, convinced that India cannot retaliate? From that point onwards India would always be on the back foot. With POK fully in the hands of Chinese, how long would it take for Kashmir Valley to break free?

I have not gone into economics, but our strategic situation would have been fcuked up thoroughly.

If PLA sits in POK, what are the chances of India taking Lahore and Peshawar from TSPA? None!

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 10 Sep 2010 23:08

shiv wrote:Bade - the presence of Uranium has to go along with the cost of getting it.

It is not just U, it is about all possible materials that may be discovered in the entire future. There could be some very very rare earth metals there in future. One cannot foreclose that. NPR reported recently that there are some rare earth metals vital for touch screens, electric cars whose only supply is PRC, which has kept a tight leash on exports.

What did Russia think when it sold Alaska? Just a piece of snow covered junk. But now it produces Oil. Not to mention has bases and missiles overlooking the berring straight. I am not sure anyone would call that sale very wise today.

Also, there is a subjugated population that are our Desi brothers, surely we cannot abandon them. We cannot calculate everything in terms of gains/losses when lives are at stake.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Sep 2010 23:13

surinder wrote: Lahore & Peshawar are much harder to annex: main reason is just too many unfriendly people. Sikh occupation of Peshwar always had a sense of "teaching them a lesson" feel to it, rather then a permanent annexation feel. Unless you get rid of the crowd, you cannt annex Purushapur. POK is also sparsely populted with relatively benign people.

What makes you so sure of the bolded part? Especially with Pakistan having flooded POK with pakis. Like someone has said before in this thread, they may hate Pakjabis, but they have no love for Indians either. We can expect local POK population to be as hostile as residents of lawhore or Peshawar if we manage to capture it. The civil unrest there in such a scenario may be several times worse than what we face daily in J&K.
While POK is undoubtedly our territory, the people who live there are no longer ours. We need a plan to take care of this problem before we can think of capturing POK.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Sep 2010 23:17

One obvious cost of retaking POK which people seem to be forgetting - No need to put troops on Siachen. Plus, no need to put troops on frigid Kargil/Dras/Matayan/Batalik heights. One flank of Ladakh is taken care of.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Sep 2010 23:18

BijuShet wrote: Suryaji please do not try to mix real life with bollywood. Rohit and Shiv saars have been patient in explaining the practical difficulties for IA in capturing and/or occupying POK. The above post like yours is more suited to the deaf and dumb forum and not BRF. We are talking about risking the lives of our soldiers. We should not waste their blood and sacrifice without a clear understanding of our strengths, objectives and a well thought out plan. I hope you agree with me and limit the flights of fantasy.

Bijushet-ji

Isn't your point equally illogical?

Would it be ok to sacrifice thousands of civilians in the name of terrorism or economic progress or any other reason? The whole purpose and duty of armed forces is to protect national boundaries and interests. That doesn't mean I want to throw men in to war for no reason. But what is the "well thought out plan in your opinion? Will it ever materialize? Will your opponents patiently wait for you to catchup? If recapturing of POK is not India's objective what is it doing with TSP talks for the past 60 years? Do our military strategists need to be exclusively told that they have to prepare for this type of eventuality?

Are we really at a stage where we need a NYT article to know PRC military presence in POK? If that is what people are implying here, then I agree that India can never recapture an inch of its lost land for next 100 years. They will never be ready to do anything.

Are you guys saying India armed forces are not prepared for any offensive opportunity other than maintaining status-quo??? I strongly believe that Indian Military Forces are better prepared and more willing to achieve Indian interests than some posters portray here. They kept their honor in 1962 assault and made every Indian proud in every other war. So let us not underestimate India's preparedness to hide our cowardice

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 10 Sep 2010 23:19

Nachiketa, the Gilgit-Baltistan area is populated with Ismailis, Shias. Some of whom are ethnically and linguistically related to Laddakhis, some their own small ethnicities. These are people who are pretty docile. They are definitely not the fanatical kind like the Pashtuns and fanatical+devious like the Pukjabis.

This is certainly not the case of Ghulam Kashmir (western J&K) like Muzzafarabad, Mirpur etc. Those guys are just like Pakjabis, they are infact pakjabis.

Of course, those settled forcefully (Pashtuns + Pakjabis) will have to go back home, no doubt about that.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Sep 2010 23:22

rohitvats wrote:One obvious cost of retaking POK which people seem to be forgetting - No need to put troops on Siachen. Plus, no need to put troops on frigid Kargil/Dras/Matayan/Batalik heights. One flank of Ladakh is taken care of.

Saar, I think you mean "benefit".

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Sep 2010 23:23

After China occupied Tibet, laid its claim to Tawang and then the whole AP. This is the case everywhere not just in AP or India. In the same way when China makes PoK its area of interest, naturally China will try to claim whole of J&k has their own. There are already reports that China tinkering with Indus river & tributary in Tibet and it seems they already constructed dam over there.

http://tibetanplateau.blogspot.com/2009 ... am-on.html

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 Sep 2010 23:26

shiv wrote:http://www.wise-uranium.org/umaps.html

This link you gave shiv, appears totally white and blank on my browser where it matters the maps.

I know the reasons for it (browser support for java applet) but nevertheless I just wanted to comment.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Sep 2010 23:31

RamaY wrote:
<SNIP>

Are you guys saying India armed forces are not prepared for any offensive opportunity other than maintaining status-quo??? I strongly believe that Indian Military Forces are better prepared and more willing to achieve Indian interests than some posters portray here. They kept their honor in 1962 assault and made every Indian proud in every other war. So let us not underestimate India's preparedness to hide our cowardice

From giving example of what can be done to quickly take POK and how it is doable to making generic statement of what Services can do is real change of stance and opinion.

As for what posters are saying, and especially myself, seems to be completely lost on you.

The gist of what I have written is simple - that it is not going to be easy to retake POK. Can it be done? Yes. Something like a Blitzkrieg? No. It will take time. How much? May be one month. May be longer. It is not about willingness or anything. It is about resources and time.

Can anyone here on this forum believes that India and Pakistan will be allowed to have a go at each other for more than a week or ten days?

As for cowardice of us internet warriors, well sir, because you espouse war and death and destruction on the enemy while sitting in comfort of your home/office, does not make you a fearless warriror. There is no skin off your back or anyone elses on this forum (except for those with near ones in services). Talk is easy.....after all, what goes my fathers?

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 Sep 2010 23:41

surinder wrote:
shiv wrote:Bade - the presence of Uranium has to go along with the cost of getting it.
It is not just U, it is about all possible materials that may be discovered in the entire future. There could be some very very rare earth metals there in future. One cannot foreclose that. NPR reported recently that there are some rare earth metals vital for touch screens, electric cars whose only supply is PRC, which has kept a tight leash on exports.

What did Russia think when it sold Alaska? Just a piece of snow covered junk. But now it produces Oil. Not to mention has bases and missiles overlooking the berring straight. I am not sure anyone would call that sale very wise today.

I will throw another wild guess reason for POK annexation. There was once upon a time the Tethys sea in that region before the collapse of the continents. I see from all that bio deposits over millions of years as oil deep inside the mountain ranges.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Sep 2010 23:48

^
Rohitvats ji

I guess we reached a dead end on this one. With this logic (there is no skin or mine or yours) we can discuss nothing on any forum. They why all this great talk about wars, scenarios, and national interests? Then we cannot complain about toilets either.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2010 23:50

Bade that brings me to the substance called "Shilajit" which is bio matter which oozes from rocks. Its pitch black and tarry too. Locals claim it has medicianl properties.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 11 Sep 2010 00:00

RamaY wrote:
BijuShet wrote: Suryaji please do not try to mix real life with bollywood.
...
We should not waste their blood and sacrifice without a clear understanding of our strengths, objectives and a well thought out plan. I hope you agree with me and limit the flights of fantasy.
Bijushet-ji

Isn't your point equally illogical?

Would it be ok to sacrifice thousands of civilians in the name of terrorism or economic progress or any other reason? The whole purpose and duty of armed forces is to protect national boundaries and interests. ...

Are you guys saying India armed forces are not prepared for any offensive opportunity other than maintaining status-quo??? I strongly believe that Indian Military Forces are better prepared and more willing to achieve Indian interests than some posters portray here. They kept their honor in 1962 assault and made every Indian proud in every other war. So let us not underestimate India's preparedness to hide our cowardice {Rohitji in the previous page gave you a good lesson of how wrong your beliefs are when it comes to Indian air assault capabilities. False bravado and Jai Ho slogans will not lead us to battlefield victories. Let us plan and prepare today to fight and win tomorrow is what the gurus are preaching. Somehow that message is being interpreted as cowardice.}

RamaYji I addressed my post directly to Suryaji because his post was a rehash of the dialogue between Kalia and Gabbar Singh (from the superhit movie Sholay - assuming you did not know that already). IMHO I did not see the need for reporting it to the Admins but at the same time also wanted him to cease and desist such type of posting.

Let me get to the bolded portion of my previous post which in your opinion (again I am assuming here) is illogical. I am not against the capture of POK or for that matter Lahore or Peshawar. My own thoughts however are borne from our present day capabilities (military, economic and political leadership) to execute a plan to capture territories currently under TSP/China's control. Shivsaar and Rohitsaar have indicated that the cost for such an adventure may be higher than what the Indian public is ready to pay. For example a larger conflict with TSP across the plains would not be acceptable to the voting public nor to Rashtrawadi politicians. We always mock TSPian generals for their tactical brilliance and strategic failures and yet many BR Jingos repeat the same mistake. If the chinese are moving into POK in large numbers as is being alleged then dont you think the Valley separatists (who we allege to be Unkil backed) would be hollering about this. Also would POK residents be happy to have another overlord pillaging their natural resources. Even in a limited Kargil engagement we lost 800 lives so to ask IA to fight TSPA directly during the capture of POK with our present day capabilities is nothing short of day dreaming.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Sep 2010 00:05

RamaY wrote:^
Rohitvats ji

I guess we reached a dead end on this one. With this logic (there is no skin or mine or yours) we can discuss nothing on any forum. They why all this great talk about wars, scenarios, and national interests? Then we cannot complain about toilets either.

RamaY, we're all discussing a situation here.

And each of us is bringing forth our own opinions and thoughts on the subject at hand. It would be to the credit of BRF if the discussion can be as objective as possible and with as in-depth analysis as can be done. Other wise, we all can say...."PLA in POK...Attack POK...Defeat PA+PLA...Retake POK...build road to timbuktoo" and go home. What is left to debate and discuss then?

We have a situation and we need to reach a consensus on how to tackle it. In light of the difficulties at hand and challenges. The very nature of Mountain Warfare, our limited capability in certain military spheres, the presence of 1000 Pound Gorilla, the PLA are some of the issues at need to be addressed. These parameters are fait accompli at the moment. The real test of the wisdom of BRFites lies in finding a best possible solution for the situation at present and chart a future course of action.

I know a thing or two on the military sphere and have highlighted them. Then there is USA and China and we need to factor in their reactions. TO simply say war is like Talibunnies shouting Jeehaarrd at drop of hat. As I have said earlier, such Linear Thinking does not help.

Hope I was able to put forth my views clearly.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 11 Sep 2010 00:16

rohitvats
I think the first thing we need to do is to make a cost estimate of NOT retaking the POK and also the cost if we do. Then we can discuss.
Altair

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Sep 2010 00:20

rohitvats wrote:Another thing is that India needs vertical envelopment capability - Air Assault (heliborne assault) and Parachute Troops. Which we don't have at present and will acquire in another 6-8 years. In case you had paid attention to the news items about planned Mountain Strike Corps, they talk clearly about integral vertical envelopment capability.

rohitvats ji,

I don't know a thing about military. Was 3rd in All India rankings for NDA exam for Air Force, but eyes were deemed not good enough and Mom bribed me with her paranthas to consider other fields.

Anyway,
I have perhaps a stupid query but bear with me.

How much time would it require for Indian Military to come to speed in Mountain Warfare with Air Assault and Parachute Troops if GoI throws everything at it (financially and otherwise) and USA/Russia is willing to provide the necessary hardware and training on it?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 11 Sep 2010 00:37

RajeshA wrote:

How much time would it require for Indian Military to come to speed in Mountain Warfare with Air Assault and Parachute Troops if GoI throws everything at it (financially and otherwise) and USA/Russia is willing to provide the necessary hardware and training on it?

While rohitji can best answer your Mountain Warfare capabilities query, please bear with me on another point. Our lack of adequate heliborne and Parachute assault capabilities isn't the only issue. Take the example of Kargil and the number of artillery regiments that IA had to put into action in just one theater to support its assault. Now any attempt to retake POK will 400% result in a PA response on another front (Rajasthan, Punjab...). Will the IA have enough artillery resources to enable it to effectively counter these assaults at a reasonable cost in men and materials in additionto keeping the PA tied down here to force them to avoid moving more reinforcements to POK? If you have visited the Mil forum, you might be aware of the current artillery situation in the IA. It will be another time-consuming process to get our artillery strength to acceptable levels especially if you consider that the PLA might create problems on the eastern front to complicate matters.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Sep 2010 00:47

nachiket wrote:
rohitvats wrote:One obvious cost of retaking POK which people seem to be forgetting - No need to put troops on Siachen. Plus, no need to put troops on frigid Kargil/Dras/Matayan/Batalik heights. One flank of Ladakh is taken care of.
Saar, I think you mean "benefit".

Yes. Sorry, my bad.

Thank you.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Sep 2010 00:54

Altair wrote:rohitvats

I think the first thing we need to do is to make a cost estimate of NOT retaking the POK and also the cost if we do. Then we can discuss.

Altair

Altair, in case you're referring to my post above about Cost - that was a typo. I was referring to benefit of taking NA. We don't need to man Siachen and Kargil. That is cost and lives saved.

As for taking or not taking NA - I don't need deep seated reason. That area was part of India and that is a reason enough to try and incorporate it back into fold.

I'm only trying to highlight the difficulties in doing so.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Sep 2010 01:04

RajeshA wrote:
<SNIP>

Anyway,

I have perhaps a stupid query but bear with me.

How much time would it require for Indian Military to come to speed in Mountain Warfare with Air Assault and Parachute Troops if GoI throws everything at it (financially and otherwise) and USA/Russia is willing to provide the necessary hardware and training on it?

First things, first. What is with the flurry of 'ji' suddenly? Hain ji? Rohit is quite all right.

As for the above point - the Para Battalions are there. Hardware is missing. If GOI promises hardware tomorrow, rest assured IA and IAF can work out the strategy for Para Drop in said areas.

(Caveat - The planes will need to be manned by the US/Russians/Martians. We are unlikely to have crews to man the whole fleet)

Air Assault may be a problem - as apart from Para Battalions, others are not air assault qualified. The Para Battalions can be divided into Para Drop and Air Assault role. Give them 6-8 months of intense joint training and IMO, they'd be good to go.

But as I said earlier, this is not the only piece of jig-saw which needs to be put together. It is more complex than this.

PS: IAF's loss is someone else's gain.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Sep 2010 01:42

rohitvats wrote: Hope I was able to put forth my views clearly.

Your points are well understood, that is why this discussion...

When a call for action in POK is call for jeeeeehard, unfortunately the other extreme is like "War means casualties", "lets have our military sit on their bottoms", "not a blade of grass grows in POK", "Lets focus on E-kon-omy" and so on. So if this side sounds rhetoric to you... you can get the drift...

We have had this "very nature" of mountain warfare with us for 60 years and we have been fighting an insurgency at least for past 20++ years. If GOI/IA is not "prepared" for action, who should be, the auto-drivers in Hyderabad? The presence of PLA in POK (if true) can be anticipated by an "arm-chair general with no skin in the game" like me, what should be expected of real generals with skin in the game? If they are not "prepared" for past 60 years, when will they achieve full "preparedness"? I am yet to get an answer from all these gurus.

USA and PRC didn't enter into this theater last night. They are the creators of this theater. If people don't see that, it is not my problem. Perhaps this is the khulji across various threads...

There are two things in reality...One is that a nation keeps building its capabilities commensurate to its resources. The second is that the nation responds to unexpected threats and "opportunities". What I hear from the other side is no awareness or appreciation for those "threats/opportunities". If you read Shiv-ji's posts in this thread, all you can see is apathy for anything outside our comfort zone (in this case POK). Then how can we hope to build a strong nation?

Bijushet-ji,

Can we please stop bringing the vote-bank politics for a while. First let us get some clarity on our preparedness. Then we will go into our willingness. For your kind information, these very vote-bank politics didn't stop UPA govt to vote against Iran or sign nuke-deal or make that S-e-S statements. That is the veil "some of us" put on our govt action to divert the discussion.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 11 Sep 2010 02:02

If we cant take whole POK then what about Half Now! And wait for the rest to be taken i future.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Sep 2010 02:05

rohit,

Thanks.

I have come across various ratios of attack to defense from 3:1 to 10:1. Would not the hardware, dent this ratio in favor of attack forces?

If true, wouldn't we then have to deploy less forces for POK, and can use them in other theaters of war?!

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 11 Sep 2010 02:11

RamaY wrote:...
Bijushet-ji,

Can we please stop bringing the vote-bank politics for a while. First let us get some clarity on our preparedness. Then we will go into our willingness. For your kind information, these very vote-bank politics didn't stop UPA govt to vote against Iran or sign nuke-deal or make that S-e-S statements. That is the veil "some of us" put on our govt action to divert the discussion.

RamaYji let me offer a small clarification. I did not mean vote-bank politics when I wrote voting public. I meant all Indian public and not necessarily UPA or NDA voters alone. All sections of India, at the moment, are enjoying a good ride on the prosperity bus and any suggestion to get off this ride will be unwelcome. While security concerns trump for most of us on BRF (one reason we all gather here) the average Indian is more concerned about making some moolah after a very long time. Just my 2 paisa FWIW.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Sep 2010 02:12

RajeshA, A British mathematician named Lancaster came up with the basic force ratios using differential calculus. At the basic level an attacker has to have an advantage of 2:1 all things being equal. If you throw in terrain it goes up. During WWI Alpine campaign and WWII Italian campaign it was noted that mountain warfare needs about 10:1. To that add modern technology: mobility, acclimitazation, precision strike artillery it comes down to 5~7:1.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Sep 2010 02:25

Of course, should India attack POK, India too would need a coalition.

India would have to bring in USA into the equation to keep a check on PRC. Perhaps we can take lessons from Winston Churchill here. A huge deployment of nuclear armed American warships off the coast around Taiwan and Korea could help. American hardware would be helpful.

Other potential allies would be Baluchistan Azadi-seekers, who could create some chaos, like sabotage, etc. in Pakistan and even Pakjab to keep the TSPA on their toes.

Similarly India can give Mr. Hamid Karzai enough money to buy off the major Pushtun tribes in Southern Afghanistan and FATA and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, who could make a concerted effort to wean away the Pushtuns serving in the TSPA and call for an independent Pushtunistan.

Balawaristan National Front can be of help, because of their local knowledge and should be courted.

Even China can be told that if they hope of using the KKH in the future, and to reach the Arabian Sea over the land route, then they should buzz off.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Sep 2010 02:25

In May 2008, Walter Ladwig presented this paper

Overview and assessment of India's Cold Start

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Sep 2010 02:28

Ramana garu,

Thanks.

Another probably stupid question:
Why is it not possible to bombard Pakistani defensive positions first from the skies, possibly with precision bombing, before the ground troops are sent in? Would that not cut the ratio?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 11 Sep 2010 02:39

RajeshA wrote:Ramana garu,

Thanks.

Another probably stupid question:
Why is it not possible to bombard Pakistani defensive positions first from the skies, possibly with precision bombing, before the ground troops are sent in? Would that not cut the ratio?

T50, when comes along ought help in harrasing Poak positions on high hills. They wont see it coming or going . India should buy Chinese "maal' in black market to be dropped from the air to flatten Poakheads.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Sep 2010 02:41

nachiket ji,

thanks for tips. I am trying to understand the military side a bit better.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Sep 2010 03:08

There are many interesting questions raised and the same interesting answers that have been given to these interesting questions that have also been asked before and answered before.

If I am not mistaken, the basic positions are these :

(1) what is the worth of POK that India should risk paying the costs to regain it - one side thinks nil-worth others think a range of rewards from strategic to immediate material to legalistic "belonging" argument
(2) what is the preparation required to actually carry out such repo missions - no one thinks that India currently has the capability [from strategic to material - strategic such as possible intervention by USA and PRC against India, and material in the sense of manpower and military hardware], some call for "caution" while others call for "aggression" and "initiative".

I will skip the part (1). Let us go into part(2).

Why should "caution" line and "initiative" line have to be completely disjoint? Why cannot they have some overlap in line? Here "initiative" line represents a spectrum of thinking incorporating not only preparing and building up military capacities but also diplomatic and sub-diplomatic initiatives to bring about situation on the ground which makes military completion necessary and inevitable to seal the territorial objectives. In short bring the region to war on India's terms and choice of time and battleground. It is hard to understand why "initiative" should be ridiculed because of their naievete in hardcore military knowledge - since the "initiative" line is not only about military build-up but also creating situations to use that build-up effectively.

"Caution" is good. No one likes the loss of lives of soldiers of our army. Maybe India should plan to raise separate forces for special operations across and outside of borders? A more ideologically committed force than that can be allowed within the "professional" framework of the army, that also has little confusion as to the necessity of eliminating anything even remotely connected to the word "Pak" and that stops short of no "costs" other than the jeopardy of the continued existence of India. The army can continue its cautious build-up plans to defend the country's current borders only, while the special forces prepare the ground for future complete elimination of all things Pak.

Without some degree of "fanaticism" the Pak-forces will always appear larger-than-life, with supposed shadows of USA or PRC growing longer and longer beside it. With time, either USA or PRC will supposedly go on adding to the arsenal and capabilities of Pakis. So we will possibly have to wait for a century to obtain that "overwhelming" ratio that will guarantee minimal loss of lives on our side and victory. In such a time frame the whole question may become irrelevant and then we can avoid taking any initiative about any war at all.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Sep 2010 03:30

There are military experts here, and I am not one of them. But as far as my limited knowledge goes, it is quite standard military lore and legends about how battles or wars were lost because "leadership" were extra-cautious. All the examples of "cautious buildup" that are usually bandied about all show extensive "material preparations" but do not highlight the underlying political and broad strategic initiatives that went before such "cautious buildup". The people behind those campaigns had little doubt about what they broadly wanted - which territory they wanted to gain, what they wanted to crush, in fact even what sort of political systems or regimes they wanted post-victory - and most importantly "why" they wanted to do all that.

thayilv · Post by **thayilv** » 11 Sep 2010 05:33

It seems to me that this is another example of a frog in boiling water. The presence of PLA in PoK represents the increase of the temperature by another notch. The temperature was increased before with India being forced to accept the UN resolution and not taking back all of J&K, then it was raised again with the illegal transfer of Shaksgam Valley and once more with the occupation of Aksai Chin.

Looking to take back Peshawar, Lahore, Hinglaj etc are valid and legitimate goals but I think we need to demonstrate real will to take back territory that is "legally" ours post independence. Now, I'm just thinking out loud here, but can't we somehow take back PoK in stages? How about taking back Haji Pir pass for instance? Or taking back the portion the pakis called azad kashmir? Would this effort be as costly as taking back all of PoK? Would it be a slugfest as mentioned by rohitvats?

Meanwhile, aside from showing these places as part of India on a map, we should be setting up mechanisms to preserve the culture/language/customs of those refugees that fled to India during Partition. We should be beaming bollywood/Indian media to these regions and reporting on these areas as well. Why cant we have a G-B float on Republic Day with the words "We haven't forgetten you" or something like that...

JMT

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Sep 2010 06:39

surinder wrote:
Shiv, are you being contrarian just for being contrarian? You are sure riling up a lot of folks

Good question.

Let me reiterate that we are talking about making war. At a most fundamental level war means two things to me
1) Sending a lot of young men to their deaths. Many of us personally will not have our sons among those dead. If we did we would want to know that it is for a useful cause.
2) The end point in a war must be defined as clearly as possible beforehand. It is easier to start war but more difficult to end the war or achieve goals.

Let me also restate some general observations on the war aspects of retaking PoK. I have already said this twice before in this very thread and will say it yet again for a third time and will keep repeating it as often as necessary.

If we try to take PoK Pakistan will fight back. I guess I am not totally unique on BRF but I do have the perspective of having watched as an aware person able to read news (even though I was a schoolboy) a daily blow blow account of the 1965 and 1971 wars as they panned out and were reported in the newspapers and on the radio. And I have followed this up with accounts of the war that I have read over years as retold by people on both sides of the border.

In 1965 Pakistan's territorial gains were in Kashmir. Their territorial losses were in Punjab

In 1971 some of the most heavy fighting in the West - where we really could have lost territory was in Kashmir

In 1999: Most people on here will recall what was written about the actual war in 1999. The Pakistani side consists of relatively gentle slopes that lead up to the mountains bordering India. We Indians faced steep heights. I was astounded by a question in this thread that asked if the Chinese were numerically superior in 1962. I am expecting that the same level of ignorance exists wrt to mountain warfare. In general, if the othet guy has the heights - you will need a greater number of me - cited as more than a 3:1 ratio of superior numbers to get the guy on the mountains. In short the terrain we face in Kashmir is not advantageous to us.

So what can we do to take Pok. The most sensible thing to do would be to make things easier for ourselves by forcingteh Pakistanis to spread their defensive forces. That means opening two or more fronts across Punjab and Rajasthan. Some of this is great tank country - but it is good for Pakis too and they are not pushovers. We cannot open these fronts and lose. So we must be able to either hold these fronts (in Punjab/Rajasthan) or make advances. Pakistan's stated objectives will be to take Indian territory before any cease fire. That in itself requires overwhelming superiority in force for us. And that superiority has to be over and above the extra forces we need to take PoK.

In short we need to have overwhelming force in every theater. It is possible - but if we develop such overwhelming force it is silly just to retake PoK and tell Pakis - now you be good boys and keep Punjab and Sindh. All we want is PoK. The Pakis will never stop fighting as long as their nation is intact. Taking PoK and leaving Pakistan intact is like Nehru stopping the war in 1949 at the LoC when Paki forces were already in retreat and disarray.

What we should aim for is not the PoK consolation prize and hope that what survives of Pakistan will be a good boy. We need to settle the Pakistan issue in the long term. If we are going to fight a war to do that - better to fight one that does the whole job. Not a half job.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Sep 2010 06:41

RajeshA wrote:rohit,

Thanks.

I have come across various ratios of attack to defense from 3:1 to 10:1. Would not the hardware, dent this ratio in favor of attack forces?

If true, wouldn't we then have to deploy less forces for POK, and can use them in other theaters of war?!

Not in the mountains. Not in Pok. That is an area where yaks and mules are still useful. Not tanks and trucks.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 11 Sep 2010 06:55

shiv wrote:What we should aim for is not the PoK consolation prize and hope that what survives of Pakistan will be a good boy. We need to settle the Pakistan issue in the long term. If we are going to fight a war to do that - better to fight one that does the whole job. Not a half job.

Shiv,

Thanx for putting our requirements bluntly.

Simply put we do not have the level of lethality necessary yet.
I'm talking about 3 divisions taking out Saddam type lethality.

Only fight a war when the issue has already been settled in your favor.
There is plenty of time. We must prepare for a issue our grand children may settle.

If we want POK we must separate Sindh from Pakistan. That is the key IMHO.
No Sindh No Baquistan.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Sep 2010 06:57

thayilv wrote:It seems to me that this is another example of a frog in boiling water. The presence of PLA in PoK represents the increase of the temperature by another notch.

I would like to know why.

I have a reason for sounding contrarian. The statement you have made is rhetorically difficult to argue with. All patriotic Indians must agree with you. So my mind tells me to ask you if you have thought this beautiful piece of rhetoric through starting from implications to actions required.

I do not like arguing with analogies in general but I must in this case because that particular frog in the well analogy is again not one that is based on observation but is thrown as a truism. If you throw a live frog in boiling water it will struggle vigorously for a few seconds and die. If you heat cold water in which the frog sits. It will sit still initially. It will then get restless and eventually feel uncomfortable enough to jump out. If it cannot jump out it will keep on trying pathetically until it eventually tires and dies. The same frog in the well analogy can be used to point out that a sudden blow is more likely to defeat the frog that one that gives the frog adequate warning. So let us leave out fancy analogies and come to the second part of your statement, which also represents rhetoric, but I am asking you to explain it.

The presence of PLA in PoK represents the increase of the temperature by another notch.

What is this notch of temperature that has been raised? What does it mean for India? What are the implications? how does this translate to the need to take PoK?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Sep 2010 08:31

Let me make some generalizations about people - not in a nasty sense. But I am tickled and touched at how Indian many of us are. There are some deep deeeeep dharmic values that pop out in views that touch me.(I am no different). I was telling someone this the other day - perhaps it is because we are all brought up with folklore and stories that reinforce the same theme. One such thing is the need to be "legal" and get what is "legally ours".

But there is another aspect to the world view that I see - and that is the tendency to recognize wrongs and set them right. Nothing wrong in that per se - but there is virtually no tendency to do wrongs. No tendency to dip into one's own musharraf and spew out some bench-odd Pakistaniyat at the world.

Let me try and explain my thoughts. Much is made of China's "encircling" India. The conclusion we seem to reach from that is "China is doing us wrong, so we need to set China right". This seems so logical and just. But the same question can be looked at with a dose of bench-odd Pakistaniyat. For example - China is said to be interfering in Nepal. Nepal!!!??

Heck. Why should India even allow that nation to survive as an independent state? Myanmar gives a base to the Cheenis? Flippin heck - Myanmar needs to be bought in line. Why do we even bother about small countries around us and take on only the big bench-odds. The big B-Os are using the small guys against us. Take out the small guys first.