Dr. Bharat Karnad: Guest Speaker at BRF NJ MEET Nov 13 2011

[ramana]

We have to try many ways with TSP as it is a threat to India. So there is no one way. We said so right after the 1998 tests that TSP was now a world problem and not just India's.

LKAji jai ho for making that happen.

[PratikDas]

And that Shaurya ji, is where BK's dream disintegrates. Gilani is in no position to barter the Wahhabi influence. He is the puppet, not the puppeteer.

Please do not forget the Islamist template is a Zia era+ thrust. It does not mean TSP ceases to be an Islamic nation. The idea of policy is to recognize some existing facts, what can be new facts of tomorrow based on the art of the possible. There are things which can change and things that cannot. What in your view is not changeable here?

What is not changeable via unilateral strategy is the agenda of the ISI and the Pakistani Army. How will unilaterally going on a vacation reduce their Army and ISI's desire for Kashmir when they have grown up vowing to make Kashmir theirs some day?

We are talking of the same Pakistani military establishment that keeps its leaders in the dark about their own nuclear capability. Why? How does that indicate the least willingness to de-escalate?

If, as Riedel implies, Sharif was kept in the dark about his nuclear programme, he suffered a similar embarrassment to that of his predecessor, Benazir Bhutto, who is said to have asked the CIA for a briefing on Islamabad's nuclear capability because that privilege was denied to her by her own generals.

There is a difference between co-option as a strategy and overtures by MMS, which are clearly meant to not change a thing on the ground. MMS is no traitor to India but he is the last person to make a difference in matters of defense and security policy and simply does not have the political capital and relevant experience, insight or judgment to do anything on the matter, IMO.

If one man can change the Indian military posture, it is the PM, just like I.K. Gujral quashed Indian intelligence endeavours in Pakistan. Aren't we still wishing he hadn't to this day?

Even though the Janata regime did not last very long, the damage was done. The '(IK) Gujral doctrine' drove the final nail into that policy. Now that the Pakistanis insist on talking to us about Kashmir and the prime minister's infinite wisdom has put Balochistan on the agenda, let's talk self-determination.

[SaiK]

The decision making has to be by politicians.

This IMO is wrong approach in a true democracy. The decision making has to be genuine representatives of people. In this case, it has to be selected bunch of folks (institutions you have highlighted), like you have said.

Politicians should not decide. Politicians should only follow the decision made by a body or council of established special interest group. This will empower the policies, and further improve political structure.

I might drive to policy based voting then... that many do not like in desh.

[rohitvats]

Now if "red lines" are the reason why Cold Start is not going to be useful, how are our nuclear weapons going to be useful at all? Against China or Pakistan?

CSD is a military response to the IA's fixation with the TSPA, adjusted for time and space constraints. Ask the question, what is the policy directive CSD serves? I have asked this question to folks, who should know, they do not have any answers.

When you use the word fixation, you do disservice to the Services. As if, this is some vendetta and ego driven ideology at work. CSD is Army's response to a changes geo-political transformation(s) in the sub-continent. Pakistan Army and its sister services are a threat to the nation - just by waving of hand they are not going away. At present, they are a bigger threat-in-being than PLA.

As for the policy directive, or lack of it, the fact that political leadership is clueless about National Security does not mean that people whole professional life is dedicated to the nation's security should relax back and not do something about it. What the services have done is present an option to the GOI - should they decide to exercise it. You're faulting the Services in developing the option itself. Next time 26/11 or Parliament Attack happens, the GOI will have an option they can implement.

If I extend your argument about lack of policy objective, then why have the Services in the first place? Yes, this sound outlandish but if the government does not intend to use the Services to further national interest, then why have them at all? As I said earlier, just because the hand that wields the sword is weak does not mean that we need a substandard sword.

[sum]

^^So, the next time uneven Cohen or Unfair post drivel after the next terror attack on India having to "accommodate" TSP and show "bigheartedness" towards smaller brother, i will stop banging my head against the wall since it seems even the "hawks" and "doves" of Desh seem to feel the same way.
So no point mocking the Americans as not knowing Indian suffering etc since even the people who have seen it the closest seem to be eager to give benefit of doubt to TSP...

[rohitvats]

Gentlemen, those who are ignorant about the quantum of work that has been undertaken since 2002 speak about CSD in dismissive tone. People see that since there are no IBG, there is no CSD. As if IA is going to paint IBG on a formation and show pictures to the world. Let me ask a simple question, what is an IBG to begin with? An (I) Armored Bde with a RAPID is a powerful IBG. Is it any surprising that all the Pivot Corps are expected to get a RAPID? XII has 1, X has 2 and XI is expected to get one. There is more work in pipeline and WIP which the seminar circuit types don't know or would bother to know - remember, the 42 Artillery Division that we ferret out here on BRF? how many of so called experts in the media even know about that? Actually, I'm quite sick and tired of these analysts and their nonsense. BK speaks about 8-9 Mountain Divisions - well, two are already in place and four more have been approved. So, 6 are going to be in place plus 2 (I) armored bdes and 2(I) Mountian bdes. Things on China front will not happen overnight. They are WIP and will happen sooner than later.

[Y I Patel]

Cold Start is begining to look like a conjurer's misdrection trick, where the audience is made to look away from where the key move takes place.

Think about it - Cold Start, at its core, is about how fast formations move within India's borders. There are several positives to this, regardless of what it implies for the larger warfighting doctrine. IBG or Strike Corps, the main issue is how fast they can move and concentrate in their jump off areas.

Back in the old days, when I used to pay much more attention to these things, I had commented on BRF that there was a massive allocation in the defense budget of one particular year for, hold your breath, rolling stock. Understand why such a non-sexy thing is so important for Cold Start and you know that the big parts are in place or getting there. The rest is smoke and mirrors, used to keep the audience entertained.

[negi]

To be honest looks like most of the session was for our STRAT type audience not much to titillate the senses of us MIL enthusiasts. Btw whats with 1000 year animosity between Vietnam and China ?

I had raised a question during the time of registering for the event i.e. something on the lines of ; Is our MCD essentially a watered down version of MAD ( i.e. a half hearted measure which keeps both the adversary and the fellow citizens guessing as to where does the GoI stand on this issue ?)

[rohitvats]

^^^Thank you for putting across what I was a bit reluctant to point about. Also, folks, please look up the locations of the two bases opertionalized/to be operationalized by IAF - Phalodi in Rajasthan and one in North Gujarat. For starters, use wikimapia and draw a 150kms radius from bases in Phalodi/Bikaner(Nal)/Jaisalmer and see the interlocking grid and area covered.

[Sanku]

Is Shiv working so hard in the newest thread of the strat forum to dispel the myth that BK has that "Pakis are somewhat like us" and can be managed?

[Prabu]

I've tried to be factual and not added my reactions. This is definitely an incomplete list - I've compiled this from my recollection and this is not a transcript. My apologies if by poor recollection I have misrepresented BK.

On China

1)Indian scientists should be permitted by GoI to test MIRV, a capability available but in need of testing and validation for 6 years.

2) Taking the offer from Vietnam to host Indian Navy

These two decisions from GOI is Crucial and will help India to create the required deterence.

[Philip]

After listening to BK one gets the feeling even more that Indian security planners need to adopt a fresh-start attitude towards planning to meet the security challenges for the rest of the century.

The change that has taken place in recent times with the PRC aggro and massive infrastructure built in Tibet,now linking Pak by road and in the near future rail too,means that we must now treat the Sino-Pak combine not as two entities but as ONE,in manner similar to that of the ancient Roman Empire which had a Western Empire whose capital was Rome and the eastern Empire whose capital was Byzantium,later to be called Constantinople.

This today has now further mutated into (if I may go back to the Middle Ages) the equivalent of another (un) Holy Roman Empire,actually the first Han Empire of the 21st century.The vassal entities that bear trubute to this Han empire are NoKo and Pak.Attempts are being made to also bring in Bangladesh,Burma,Sri Lanka and Nepal into the fold and acquire Afghanistan by a Taliban "sub-lease" ,but there appears to be some spirited resistance with some of these nations.

We need to look at how Mrs.G. severed the then entity of East and West Pak using both military and diplomatic efforts despite facing another potential angle of attack in that of US military intervention too! She launched a massive mobile bitzkrieg ib the east while conducting a holding campign in the west and deny Pak the logistic space and time wihtin which it could reinforce its beleagured eastern garrisions.Our problem today is that the evil empire now consists of two nuclear armed states,with the Eastern Hans bolstering the weaker western half with accelerated nuclear weapons production.Here I conjecture a possibility-regarding the boast by the Pakis that 30% of its N-arsenal will never be found by the Indo-Israeli-America axis,is it because that is safely secured in Saudi Arabia? Apart from the nuclear imbalance gravely affecting our deterrent posture,whose TN capability is in serious question,we are also at a disadvantage regarding conventional capability our two mortal enemies are viewed as one.Acting in concert ,the synergy produced for instance,simultaneous attacks all along our border,will spread our numerically inferior forces thin on the ground and we need to look for other solutions inthe interim.

[RamaY]

Well we are a bunch of frauds.

When MMS says it he is a traitor. When Karnad says it, it makes strategic sense. Why would Pakis feel less threatened if we moved Prithvis away? They were threatening us before Prithvis came in to the picture. Now we need to appear less threatening?

Why does this peacenik feel less treatened by Pakistanis 100 X 12 kt nukes and more threatend by Chinas "MegaTonne" nukes whose numbers he chose to exaggerate in his IISc talk. Why would Pakistanis be scared of our Prithvis when we have only "firecrackers". I think Karnad himself needs to be exposed to some hard questioning.

My thoughts too (to some extent); but I can see the logic, especially given that -
- Let us assume we defeat pakis and make those regions new states in India.
- They will still continue to bring internal stability issues (depending on the length of the beard).
- It just transforms into a law-and-order situation from cross border terrorism. Since these regions become our new frontiers they will have to be manned by IA.
- Any escalation in terrorism will require AFSPA from Army
- We are back to square one.

So why bring the enemy into your house and bring the fight inside? keep it outside. Manage the enemy is the key.

The difference between BK and MMSpeak is the Indian response to terror attacks. BK says we beat them with big stick while taking unilateral military de-escalation. Perhaps as a precursor to upcoming merger.

Overall I think Sri BK was kind of briefed us on the current strategy, not something he want to happen but what is happening currently. UPA2 is doing exactly what BK is expecting

- CBMs with Pakistan - Done

- Strengthening eastern-front - In progress (One thing BK said was that IA's defences are essentially is ~100 miles within our borders. Given PRC claims that the borders are disputed, the first ~100 miles are permanently lost in the event of a war and PRC advance.) He proposes that our defences start at the border, not 100 miles in our territory.
- Navy - AKA's statement that IN is responsible for the stability of all island nations in Indian Ocean region
- India's hard stance against PRC - in progress

Anyway these are my extrapolations...

[RamaY]

I think i is contradictory to ask for a pull back of Prithvis on the one hand and demand the testing of "MegaTonne" nukes on the other and imagine that Pakistanis will feel reassured.

Pull back of Prithvis is an example of a step, India can unilaterally afford to take, if the theory of co-option of TSP is accepted. I hope you have read enough about deterrence to understand how tactical nukes play a destabilizing role and what they do to the deterrence matrix. They are a net-net liability from a maintenance and deterrence perspective. My view is we should NOT use Prithvis for nuclear deterrence at all, leaving the field open and clear for its use with conventional warheads. Demarcation and clarity of nuclear assets helps and opens up space for conventional action for the more powerful between the two. It helps India's case.

The point is pull back short-range Prithvis from border as a CBM while keeping/raising a new nuke like with Agni1/Shaurya ~500 KM in our borders. It is all same on the ground but is a posturing change.

By deploying these Prithvis to eastern border we are making a posture.

[abhischekcc]

I am downloading his speech audio - will listen to it later.

All I can say at this time is BK has misread the pakistani mindset - it IS arabic. If he says we need pakistan to absorb the Islamic yahoos generated by the Arabs, I have news for him. Pakistan is generating such yahoos very well on its own, thank you.

He says we need to support GOP so that it can subdue PA . Well, both GOP and PA are part of the ruling establishment of 200 families. For them, the main concern is keeping common pakistanis away from power, and secondly to keep increasing their wealth. At this moment, paki economy is in doldrums because of the state of the global economy. Hence they need access to the Indian market. Hence the current 'thaw'. But the moment this class thinks its cold grip on power is threatened they will unleash the bogey of Indian threat on the pakistani people.So, if BK really wants to neutralize paki threat to India, it is this class which has to be neutralized. Easier said than done. IOW, we are locked in a stalemate with a country that hates itself because they have too many 'Indian' traits.

Paksitanis are more fundamentalist than Arabs. Many Arab monarchies do not welcome pakistanis because of their fundamentalism and tendency to create trouble . Only community even less welcome there are the Egyptian, who seem to have a permanent chip on their shoulders, and always have a grievance.

----------------------

China is not unbeatable. Tibet is their soft underbelly, not Xinkiang, Taiwan, or economy.
If there is an economic meltdown in China, they will go to plan B - which is, condemn market reforms as 'unsocialist', maybe kill a reformist leader or two, and go back to the Mao-era iron rice bowl economics or a variant thereof.
They also have a plan C, which is for PLA to take over.

---------------------

Indo-pak wars are serious business. Comparing them to riots is a disingenuous argument. Just because they have the same characteristics as riots (Space constraint, intensity constraint, velocity constraint) does not reduce the impact of the wars. The 1965 war led to the ejection of Rupee from Gulf countries and adoption of USD for all hydrocarbon trade, was that a communal riot. 1971 created an entire new nation, another communal riot? 1948 led to the creation of a land pass between pak and china, which was the main conduit for nuclear technology and created our biggest security mess, another communal riot? 1999 broke diplomatic ice between India and US, just another communal riot?

Was the 1973 Arab-Israeli war a communal riot with tanks? It had the same Space constraint, intensity constraint, velocity constraint as Indo-pak wars or communal riots. Yet it changed the world, quadrupled the price of oil, raising Arab standards of living, killing a fledgling economic recovery in the recently decolonised countries, and created a huge generational stock market boom in the west.

---------------------

Withdrawing the liquid fuelled Prithvis does not change the situation at the border against India. Given the short missile flight time between India and Paksitam, and the time if takes to tank up a liquid fuelled missile, such Prithvis do not give us any strategic advantage, while removing them would give a diplomatic coup of sorts.

----------------------

Their economy doesn't hold a candle to India's. That they have managed to keep themselves centre-stage in the Indian threat matrix despite this reflects immaturity on the Indian side and win of sorts for Pakistan.

Any loser can threaten to jump off a tall building and hold a city's attention. Pakistan's ability to thrust itself into Indian consciousnesses despite the pathetic state of their own economic is a tribute to their nuisance value, and is not a win of any sorts. It shows how f*cked up their priorities are that they have held a grudge against the only country that can help it raise its standard of living.

----------------------

Pakistan will never use nukes as long as they have a way out. The method to avoid a nuclear war is to convince them their only hope lies with India. Whether we do this peacefully or with threats is upto whatever leadership India has at any given moment, which right now is an uninspiring one. We have to convince them that neither the US nor China is going to help them.

Look at how compliant they have become now that the US is pissed with them. If we manage to drive a wedge between them, pakistan will accept Indian suzerainty happily. But now is not the right time. And we still have to punish them first.

Pakistan should allow India overland transport rights to Afghanistan if they want us to take their desire for peace seriously.

BK talks a lot about what India should do for its neighbors, but has not said anything about what we should expect in return. Their eternal gratitude? That lasts about 5 minutes in three of of our worst neighbors.

Bangaldesh will not be happy unless we allow their 2 crore people to stay inside India, draining our wealth and creating security risk. Not to mention providing vote bank to anti-Hindu parties.

----------------------

[RamaY]

ABCC garu,

Someone pointed (in the discussion) that we should see these issues NOT from religious perspective. This shows our problem, IMHO. Just because we are (sic) secular, the world doesn't change. When will we learn? As long as our opponent defines themselves such, we are in this game no matter what we want or not.

You are 100% correct. Arab invasion impacts us internally when internal population gets influenced by Arab-nonsense. On the other hand Pakistan is producing its own Jihadi forces to destabilize India and BKspeak thinks it can be handled as Law-Order issue (My understanding), but he is wrong on this (Look at JK now).

BD is the best example for people who want to be friendly with Pakistan. Here is the nation that owes its existence to India, which saved its feminist bottoms from Paki-RAPEs. This BD is not only thankless but EXPECTS India to absorb their in-breeds continually. But it doesn't offer anything in return. It wants to keep its separate existence even if it ends up having 10-20% of its population in India.

[yantra]

2. View of Pakistan as a buffer state, unilaterally with-draw Prithvis

Well we are a bunch of frauds.

When MMS says it he is a traitor. When Karnad says it, it makes strategic sense. Why would Pakis feel less threatened if we moved Prithvis away? They were threatening us before Prithvis came in to the picture. Now we need to appear less threatening?

Why does this peacenik feel less treatened by Pakistanis 100 X 12 kt nukes and more threatend by Chinas "MegaTonne" nukes whose numbers he chose to exaggerate in his IISc talk. Why would Pakistanis be scared of our Prithvis when we have only "firecrackers". I think Karnad himself needs to be exposed to some hard questioning.

What he said in the context made sense. He said India should stop thinking of Pak as a 'major' adversary and start thinking of China (rightfully) as an adversary. In his view, Pak is too small a fry to be India's adversary. Our stature is known by the enemies we identify with. He said, it is time India took the spine to pick China as an adversary and plan deterrence based on China. He said for too long (forever!) our strategic planning has been based around Pak. We are too big to consider Pak as even an adversary (His quote - "GDP of Pak is less than a quarter of BSE market cap")! He said we should neutralize Pak without fighting a war ("Kautilya and Sun Tzu") and then build up adequate deterrence against China with megatonne TN bombs, Hypersonic Brahmos out of Nha Trang with a direct line of sight to Hainan, Tu-160s, etc.

[SaiK]

There is nothing for implementation of strategy that begins with a research and return back to research. It does not help the strategy to become a design.. I can think about 1/2 the chippanda population gone with a magatonner, but it serves no purpose if it remains a hypothetical statement.

Just think about the deterrence value when one hears, 1/2 the enemy population disappeared, and no one knows how? That is the deterrence we have to think about to bring an epic impact, which is not possible without a design that comes out of some strong strategy.

It is easier said than done. but, it can not be done if we don't have a policy to do so.

[yantra]

http://twitter.com/#!/sumansharma/statu ... 6106875904

This is very interesting since BK also toed the same line..

"In South Asia, India is “willing to go the extra mile for the sake of peace and security, even on non-reciprocal basis if required : Antony"

[dinesha]

BK joins twitter
http://twitter.com/#!/BharatKarnad

[yantra]

I am downloading his speech audio - will listen to it later.

All I can say at this time is BK has misread the pakistani mindset - it IS arabic. If he says we need pakistan to absorb the Islamic yahoos generated by the Arabs, I have news for him. Pakistan is generating such yahoos very well on its own, thank you.

.....

Withdrawing the liquid fuelled Prithvis does not change the situation at the border against India. Given the short missile flight time between India and Paksitam, and the time if takes to tank up a liquid fuelled missile, such Prithvis do not give us any strategic advantage, while removing them would give a diplomatic coup of sorts.
...

Look at how compliant they have become now that the US is pissed with them. If we manage to drive a wedge between them, pakistan will accept Indian suzerainty happily. But now is not the right time. And we still have to punish them first.
...
BK talks a lot about what India should do for its neighbors, but has not said anything about what we should expect in return. Their eternal gratitude? That lasts about 5 minutes in three of of our worst neighbors.
Bangaldesh will not be happy unless we allow their 2 crore people to stay inside India, draining our wealth and creating security risk. Not to mention providing vote bank to anti-Hindu parties.

----------------------

One thing BK also acknowledges is that we are far superior as a military force to be threatened by any of our neighbors (except, may be, China in a nuclear war). China is not unbeatable - but will for sure cripple us for decades to come - it is a mutually assured destruction. Then what?

We should start thinking like a world-power and get out of the rut with our neighbors - yes even if it is one way (with the beggars, there is only one way!). That will allow us to focus on the big-picture and play a lead role on the world-stage. We are too bogged down by these flies in the ointment and are losing the opportunity to take a global leadership role.

Militarily, we can finish off Pak and Bang and the rest of the small ones. It is a given, then what? We have to live with these folks or manage them (quote -" realistically, we are right now unable to manage our own states internally")- better throw them some bread - allow them to squabble, fight whatever internally - and we keep our focus on a global leadership role strategically and economically.

[SaiK]

yes.. we have to manage them.. think how USA helped Japan after nuking it. and I don't see a problem in that. If you have the capability to nuke, you should have the will to help as well..it is all human aspects.. after all, wars are just for that to remind people to behave within human scope of reasoning.

[Atish]

Bharat Karnad tends to have some unique ideas. One of his hallmarks is that he thinks Nehru was a master strategist and managed the first 17 years of India's foreign policy with 'elan and aplomb'. My point is he seems to have some contrarian and in some ways, unusually optimistic, views on foreign policy. Nuclear weapons though seem to be his super specialty and I tend to give his ideas on that score a great deal of importance.

[yantra]

yes.. we have to manage them.. think how USA helped Japan after nuking it. and I don't see a problem in that. If you have the capability to nuke, you should have the will to help as well..it is all human aspects.. after all, wars are just for that to remind people to behave within human scope of reasoning.

yes.. but India is not US.. yet. It will never be, if we keep squabbling with beggars. We should start to think like the elephants in the room and shift our focus.

[abhischekcc]

Atish,

BK studied in the US. His view of Nehru is probably because he saw the frustration that Americans felt while dealing with Nehru's non-alignment . I mean, the Americans probably felt during the cold war that Nehru prevented the entire block of developing countries from joining the American axis with his non-alignment. JMT.

[SaiK]

It will never be, if we keep squabbling with beggars.

we keep our focus on a global leadership role strategically and economically.

beggars are part of the focus as well when you scope it "global". if you have not demonstrated capability to show leadership in your local neighborhood, very little attention the elephant will draw for global effects.

so, you need to come up with an inclusive plan, and not an exclusive one.

[abhischekcc]

I agree that pakistan has to be dealt with before we take on China, but I seriously doubt that it will be possible without dismantling 'pakistaniyat' - the idea of pakistan as a nation (formed for whatever reason). Once, pakistan has been dismantled as an idea, they will be easier to handle.

[SaiK]

containment is possible only when the problem focus become self-managed. that way, one could focus on the larger, while the problem source itself is given the pains to resolve, by setting up certain standards to play.

there is a good deal of that strategy being worked by the khans during operation and post ops geronimo, in how they contained raped pakies.

[Sanku]

Bharat Karnad tends to have some unique ideas. One of his hallmarks is that he thinks Nehru was a master strategist and managed the first 17 years of India's foreign policy with 'elan and aplomb'. My point is he seems to have some contrarian and in some ways, unusually optimistic, views on foreign policy. Nuclear weapons though seem to be his super specialty and I tend to give his ideas on that score a great deal of importance.

Good to hear from you after a long time Atish.

I agree that pakistan has to be dealt with before we take on China, but I seriously doubt that it will be possible without dismantling 'pakistaniyat' - the idea of pakistan as a nation (formed for whatever reason). Once, pakistan has been dismantled as an idea, they will be easier to handle.

Great set of posts abcc. I really dont know why BK is saying what he is, does he really not understand whats happening here? Or is there something really Chankian that we cant groke.

[Philip]

Well,pulling back liquid fuelled Prithvis,which are (?) being replaced with Brahmos regiments and with newer missiles (succesful tests of Prahar and Shourya) to come along in the near future with longer ranges,our Prithvis can be easily withdrawn and sent to Vietnam,to help serve another purpose! Perhaps this was in BK's mind when he said this,as he knew that it would be no great loss of capability pulling out older Prithvis.

What I felt he was truly pot on was the absence of a strategic bomber,which I've been advocating for years for the IN (Backfires-large numbers decommissioned by Russia,thiugh needing modernisation) and the IAF.Blackjacks would be great,very costly,but what a capability to be used against China if need be.As he told ACM Browne,where will you place your tankers (in PRC airspace?).It truly was a lost opportunity and lack of strategic vision of the IAF to have rejected the Backfire ages ago,which had our roundels already painted on them! It is why I still advcoate NOT pensioning off the TU-142 Bears,which can fly to S.Africa and back without refuelling,originally meant to be bombers,as they can carry several types of our LR cruise missiles like Brahmos and Nirbhay in the future.It is not too late to acquire from Russia strategic bombers.Blackjacks might be unavailable as Russia would have to reopen production lines,but acquiring a sqd. or two of retd. Backfires for the IN is a distinct possibility.The IAF could also acquire a complementary capability in acquiring the SU-34 too,which could also carry a nuke payload far better at longer ranges than our M-2000s tasked for thre job as for nwo.

[archan]

Well,pulling back liquid fuelled Prithvis,which are (?) being replaced with Brahmos regiments and with newer missiles (succesful tests of Prahar and Shourya) to come along in the near future with longer ranges,our Prithvis can be easily withdrawn and sent to Vietnam,to help serve another purpose! Perhaps this was in BK's mind when he said this,as he knew that it would be no great loss of capability pulling out older Prithvis.

No it was not. He clearly said that he would like the Prithvis pulled back from the western front (and deployed to the eastern) to make Pakistan feel better and he bets that the Pakistanis will reciprocate (in some way). He said he had asked a Pakistani military man (I assume someone high up) that how would they respond to such a unilateral withdrawal from the Indian side. The response he got was "arey aap hataa kar to dekhiye!" (oh, just try that and see!). Of course one can make anything of that response. However the tone was apparently like "we will go a step further".
I did ask how will a withdrawal make them behave any better, to which he said they feel threatened by our CSD, missiles and other capabilities. I said, well they better be threatened.. he interrupted saying they see us as an existential threat. To that my question was, well if they hadn't done what they have been doing to us in the past, would we have to deploy all these missiles ityadi on their heads? he said, well now it is a chicken and egg argument...
we ran out of time.

[nachiket]

I did ask how will a withdrawal make them behave any better, to which he said they feel threatened by our CSD, missiles and other capabilities. I said, well they better be threatened.. he interrupted saying they see us as an existential threat. To that my question was, well if they hadn't done what they have been doing to us in the past, would we have to deploy all these missiles ityadi on their heads? he said, well now it is a chicken and egg argument...
we ran out of time.

Is it Dr. Karnad's contention that Pakistan is sponsoring terror against India because they feel threatened by us? If I am threatened by my neighbor, would I repeatedly try to set fire to his house or would I try to make peace with him? It is far more likely that Pakistan sponsors terror because they have gambled on us not responding in any manner that may be harmful to them. Withdrawing missiles in such a case will be seen as a sign of weakness on our part and a sign of triumph by the pakis (we made the kaffir's back down, AoA! Ak phyrr!).

[rohitvats]

Errr.....well, if CSD is a such a joke as BK would have us believe, why would the Pakees fear, hain ji? And why is Prithvi missile a threat and not the Brahmos which has higher accuracy and longer range - not to forget the speed? What gives? Also, given the geography of pakistan, what reciprocating actions, in terms of removal/withdrawl of such missiles, mean? How far will the removal of Prithvi's assuage the nerves of pakees? 100kms from IB? 200kms from IB? 300kms from IB? But then, cannot we move the missiles forward in case of requirement/contigency? And what about the 700kms range Angi-1? Or the coming induction of Shaurya? Now, add another angle to it - the Prahaar missile. If the pakees can claim that Nasr can carry TNW, why cannot Prahaar do the same? After all, we have a much-much more mature nuclear program than Pakees.

Unless, of course, Prithvi's serve a detterence role - that of rapid response to any nuclear idiocacy by the pakees - our first line of defence and their removal shows the pakees that we're not about to obliterate them to the kingdom come.

With all due respect to BK - lot of what he is supposed to have said makes no sense and pulls in different directions.

[SBajwa]

IMHO! Opinion of Mr. Karnad with respect to naPak should be taken with a bag of salt. GOI should not use any of the his opinions., if implemented these will strategically hurt the nation of India.

[Anujan]

Errr.....well, if CSD is a such a joke as BK would have us believe, why would the Pakees fear, hain ji? And why is Prithvi missile a threat and not the Brahmos which has higher accuracy and longer range - not to forget the speed? What gives?

You have to understand the Pisko of seeing mirror images.

Pakis see themselves in India. Statement by TFTA jernails carry much more weight in Pakistan than statements by the civvies. Pakis see themselves in the world and think that its how the world works. That is why if a Khakhi makes a statement (Like Mullen accusing Pakistan or some random Indian jernail talking about CSD) it makes Pakis brown their shalwars. Because they think that the threat is very real. On the other hand, LBS or IG or ABV or BO or HC for that matter do not inspire any fear. India on the other hand doesn't work that way. LBS, IG and ABV proved to be very dangerous for Pakistan. Going to war, and with what intensity is firmly controlled by the civvies. CSD will happen only if our armed forces are tasked with it by our Netas. Which wont happen because they recognize terror attacks as "accidents" and are busy handing out Pappi-Jhappis. Pakis wont understand this.

Indians on other other hand see their mirror image in Pakis. They think, "ABV visited Lahore in a Bus, why did Pakis do Kargil?!" and feel betrayed. We feel betrayed that AZ with his cheshire cat smile was all friendly towards India, but 26/11 was still perpetrated on us. It is because we see our mirror image in them, and dont understand that none of Paki actions are controlled by any civvies. I am not talking about *reduced influence* of civvies, I am talking about *no control*. It is like expecting your postman to fix interest rates in RBI.

And that is why MMS thinks Gilani is a man of peace and can bring about a grand India-Pakistan rapprochement. That is the same reason why Pakis hang on to some random statement by some random Jernail about CSD in India and the role of Prithvi in CSD and decapitation strikes to brown their shalwars to this day*.

*It is easy to test my Piskoanalysis. Some Indian Jernail after imbibing whiskey should make a statement that Prithvis are duds and Brahmos will tear Paki chaddis. You will start seeing Paki statement about Brahmos being the danger and pooh-poohing Prithvi.

[RamaY]

IMHO! Opinion of Mr. Karnad with respect to naPak should be taken with a bag of salt. GOI should not use any of the his opinions., if implemented these will strategically hurt the nation of India.

I think it is the other way around. BK is toeing GoI lines OR GoI is already working in line with BK's thoughts; be it in the western front or in the eastern front. I think his speech was aimed at the audience "the jingo BRFite". It was mixed with part fact and part fiction.

It is left to us, the audience, to rationalize and justify the Indian chanikyan-ness in its western front. Some of his quotes (especially the reference to vedic-hinduism) made him look like any indian politician who does what he does best

[PratikDas]

^^^ I agree. It was hard discerning fact from fiction and entertainment. Of course, he could argue that he _needs_ to reduce the signal to noise ratio in what he says, given what he knows, but I'm sure he had more fun speaking than we had listening

[ShauryaT]

Well,pulling back liquid fuelled Prithvis,which are (?) being replaced with Brahmos regiments and with newer missiles (succesful tests of Prahar and Shourya) to come along in the near future with longer ranges,our Prithvis can be easily withdrawn and sent to Vietnam,to help serve another purpose! Perhaps this was in BK's mind when he said this,as he knew that it would be no great loss of capability pulling out older Prithvis.

Exactly no great loss and a large "margin of safety" with other deterrence assets. Instead of Prithvis, he wants the Vietnamese to be armed with the Brahmos and better yet the future hypersonic Brahmos - even before it gets to the IN. His reason being, it will send shivers down the spine of the PLAN off Hainan

[Abhijit]

after reading this BK 'sharanagati' (admittedly I haven't listened to the audio but there have been enough written by various attendees on what was the gist of the talk), i now understand the meaning/raison d'etre of wajib-ul-cattle. Either this BK 'mahashay' is pulling the collective leg of BR community or he is taken for a ride by pakis. Any Indian who places an iota of trust in some paki jernail when the paki offers to smoke the peace pipe, is, in my opinion, dumber than a generation of american SD jokers that dealt with the pakis. with all due respect sir, (and I know that my intellect and knowledge of geopolitics is just a microscopic granule compared to the vast mountains of knowledge and intellect possessed by the BK's of the world) either you were taken for a ride by the pakis or you are taking us for a ride.

For more than 5 decades, paki jernails and assorted RAPE writers, diplomats etc. have maintained this completely bogus pretense of being 'threatened' by the big bad India - but at least they did this 'nautanki' in front of the common tom, dick or harry from western audience (especially american), because those worthies were gullible enough to fall for it. I strongly doubt if any paki ever pulled this nautanki in front of any of the Indian interlocutors - because such a nautanki would have been laughed off by even the lowest south block babu. even when naked aggression was an accepted norm in the early post wwII wrold, India never showed an ounce of aggression. how can any Indian take such a paki disingenuous assertion at face value?

You can make an argument that an unstable pakiland is unmanageable and hence we cannot destroy it. you can take a stance that america will intervene or that we don't have the requisite superiority to get the job done. But please sir, do not claim that pakis are worthy partners for peace. To paraphrase Michael Corleone's immortal words (to Carlo Rizzi), "don't tell me the pakis are our brothers and worthy of our love, because it insults my intelligence".

[nachiket]

Exactly no great loss and a large "margin of safety" with other deterrence assets. Instead of Prithvis, he wants the Vietnamese to be armed with the Brahmos and better yet the future hypersonic Brahmos - even before it gets to the IN. His reason being, it will send shivers down the spine of the PLAN off Hainan

What has one thing got to do with the other? We can very well sell the Brahmos to Vietnam and deploy the Prithvi, Brahmos and Prahaar on our border with Pakistan. What precisely do we gain by withdrawing the Prithvi missiles from the paki border? Remember that we are talking about a country whose leaders engage in nuclear sabre-rattling at the first hint of trouble.