India Border Watch: Security and Operations

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 12 Oct 2014 02:33

williams wrote:Folks,
I am at loss at our MSM. Why are they working against our own govt and trying to help the paki propaganda. Is that their sinister intent or just their natural thought process. If it is a sinister intent, then what laws/regulation should be put in place to check this kind of treacherous attitude? This will be a nightmare, if a war starts. MSM will be working in sync with Paki and western propaganda machinery while our soldiers sweat it out in the field.

I actually think it is okay to have Paki guests. Not only does it add credibility, but also exposes the hollowness of Pakis. For e.g., the Big Fight debate yesterday, there was a Paki guest (Shahid Peerzada) who did not know that Eid is celebrated in India! When Vikram Chandra asked the audience about how many people celebrated Eid, so many hands were raised that they delivered instant judgement on the Paki guest's ignorance.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Oct 2014 07:44

I don't agree on the larger intention of paki specific analysis, but only one move which I have quoted below need not be done on the basis of paki moves, but India can take sovereign decisions anytime it wishes:

http://www.forceindia.net/quick_comment ... India.aspx
Now, what should the Modi government have done? Instead of replying to the Pakistani Rangers with increased BSF firing, it should have both started firing on the LC and made some movement of artillery guns and ammunition into the Kashmir theatre.

but don't agree the followup of the paki stratgies. and this praven guy makes me sick giving to some US senator's view point. wtf has gotten into these mediamen - total dorks?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 12 Oct 2014 08:14

PS has given a new spin favoring the Pakees for every event which happened since PM Modi took over. what surprised me is, even the most Jingoistic loudmouth from Shitland did not come up with this spin till date.
Hereafter everyone will start quoting this bull-shit as the view of a senior Indian Jour-analist... Ak Thooo

srin · Post by **srin** » 12 Oct 2014 10:04

Apologies if this was posted earlier ... http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 74390.aspx

At the meeting, the Pakistani Rangers objected to the tree planting. The BSF company commander relayed the objection to his boss and the message went all the way up to inspector general Rakesh Sharma, who ordered the Indian forces to stop the planting exercise.

A few days later, Indian jawans responded with a burst of fire and this time the Rangers wanted to know why.

“We asked them, have you eaten roti today? Have you done your ablutions?” says Sharma. “The message went home. We told them whether you piss or not is your problem, because you are doing that in your own territory.”

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 12 Oct 2014 11:15

^^^Hope this Aman Ki Tamasha, P2P, Aman Setu, MFN business is all dumped in the Indus... the only contact we should have with the Pakees is with a gun. they only understand the language of force.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 12 Oct 2014 11:23

The reply from the Rangers was, “You have terrorists in Jammu & Kashmir. We have no terrorists in Pakistan. May be he was targeted by a terrorist.’’

The BSF commander retreated and pondered over the futility of flag meetings.

This confusion is caused by chattering class. There should be clarity that flag meeting is usually for common understanding of protocols; for jihadis and pimps of terrorists waiting at border there can not be flag meetings. We must plan for building up huge ammunition so that ample and overwhelming ammo is available every time the jihadis go psycho.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 12 Oct 2014 11:33

In this whole tamasha, everyone's at a loss as to why is Pakistan doing what it is doing. There is no rational answer. Befuddled analysts end up focusing on what should be India's response.

The forces themselves are quite clear (quoting from Harry bawejas article):

... The BSF had a lot to cheer about in the current flare-up at the IB, when they got instructions from the Narendra Modi government not to seek a flag meeting.

The stand-off has instead been marked by a response that has left the Pakistani Rangers wondering.

“They probably thought we would seek a truce again, but the orders were clear and we hit them hard. I hope they have understood that if they mind their business, we will mind ours,’’ said Sharma.

The no-flag-meeting directive came after a quick data analysis.

The current flare-up, in which the entire 192 km stretch of the IB was affected, came soon after India had sought 18 flag meetings during the ceasefire violation in July and August that lasted 42 days.

Indian jawans kept standing at the border holding flags but got no response from Pakistan.

“We hope the no-flag-meeting policy stays,” a BSF official said.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... ?prtpage=1

...

Despite the plethora of Pakistan watchers in India and India experts in Pakistan, the tragedy of the latest flare-up along the Line of Control (LoC) and the international border (IB) is that neither party knows which factors are really driving the other side to behave so fiercely.

DK Pathak, director general of the Border Security Force (BSF), has expressed puzzlement to The Times of India as follows: "We have inflicted heavy damage on them, but they keep firing. I do not understand why." In a mirror image, the Pakistani major general commanding the forces, Javed Khan, is quoted by the BBC as saying, "I just want to know the reason from the other side. We are not finding the answer."

Whenever the ceasefire agreement of 2003 is battered by an uptick in cross-border firing, India and Pakistan resort to boilerplates for explaining the violence. Pakistan connects our belligerence with domestic elections and the competitive patriotism of ruling and opposition parties in India. We focus on the civil-military balance of power in Pakistan and believe that its mighty armed forces use periodic confrontations with India to straighten elected politicians who may stray in quest of amity.

Indeed, the last few months have witnessed a steady erosion of Nawaz Sharif's authority under the pressure of so-called civil disobedience campaigns of opposition parties of Imran Khan and Tahir ul Qadri, both of whom enjoy tacit blessings of the Pakistani military. By relying on the Army for securing critical state institutions against the protesters' threats of physical takeover, Sharif conceded that the military is Pakistan's ultimate arbiter and saviour.

To use a perceptive classification of the Pakistani intellectual Babar Sattar, the "de facto system" that struts in khakis has taught a lesson to the "de jure system" of Parliament and the elected prime minister. Raising the tempo at the LoC and IB, with Nawaz Sharif donning an embarrassed silence, is a way of reconfirming that Pakistan's India policy will not be allowed to transfer from the military headquarters in Rawalpindi to the prime minister in Islamabad.

Here, it is imperative to recall the psyche of the Pakistani military. Georgetown University's Christine Fair's recent book, Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War, argues that its strategic culture is a Kamikaze-like will to weaken "Hindu-dominated" India, come what may. Fair writes, "Pakistan will suffer any number of military defeats in its efforts to do so, but it will not acquiesce to India." For the Generals, any accommodation with India is "genuine and total defeat."

Warnings by India's leadership in the wake of the border clashes — that "times have changed" and that we would raise the costs of Pakistani adventurism to "unaffordable" levels by hitting back strongly — misread the suicidal logic of the Pakistani army. Pakistan is certainly inferior in conventional military terms and economically broke vis-a-vis a rising India, but expecting the former to respect this power disparity and back off from provocations is to forget former Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's dictum: "Even if we have to eat grass, we will make nuclear bombs" to match India.

If the Pakistani state is not guided by rational costbenefit thinking, the belief that we can somehow pummel and compel it to become benign is misguided.

Even Israel, which enjoys massive advantages over Hamas and Hezbollah in conventional military means, has not succeeded in silencing the guns of its rivals by means of disproportionate force. Be it Pakistan or combatants in the Middle East, the death-defying jihadist mindset is not cowed down by conventional superiority of the opponent.

So, what might actually produce the "credible deterrence" from attacks that Indian defence minister Arun Jaitley is touting? It has to be a mix of unconventional covert missions that blunt hardline Islamists and their allies in the Pakistani military, combined with routine political dialogue.

Much of the bad blood at the LoC is linked to infiltration of jihadists into India from Pakistani terrain under the cover of official army shelling. India has to take the battle to the launching points and supply-chain trail of these mujahideen inside Pakistani territory.

This would entail a westward shift of the point of kinetic action away from the LoC and IB, sparing innocent civilians in precarious border areas who are presently bearing the brunt of the two armies.

Simultaneously, dialogue channels with Sharif and some sections of the Pakistani military are essential, even if no solution or settlement is likely. Negotiation with intractable and camouflaged foes is necessary to glean valuable insights into bargaining tactics, bottom lines and authority structures of the adversary. As winter sets into Kashmir, the high-calibre weapons will head for their seasonal rest. The intelligence operations and diplomacy must go on.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Oct 2014 11:42

SaiK wrote:I don't agree on the larger intention of paki specific analysis, but only one move which I have quoted below need not be done on the basis of paki moves, but India can take sovereign decisions anytime it wishes:
http://www.forceindia.net/quick_comment ... India.aspx Now, what should the Modi government have done? Instead of replying to the Pakistani Rangers with increased BSF firing, it should have both started firing on the LC and made some movement of artillery guns and ammunition into the Kashmir theatre.
but don't agree the followup of the paki stratgies. and this praven guy makes me sick giving to some US senator's view point. wtf has gotten into these mediamen - total dorks?

PS has this tendency to self flagellate. And read the situation up-side down.

First - his argument(s) are on similar lines as other 'intellectual' and 'strategic thinkers' we're burdened with. Basically ---> 'Talk to Pakistan or else...'. Peace cannot prevail under the threat of violence. Especially, when the other party is a pathological liar and a bully. The previous establishment tied the hands of Indian security establishment for 'Peace at all cost' w/o getting anything substantive in return from Pakistan. As if Pakistan was going to do anything in the first place.

The slime-balls that Pakistanis are, they were using this 'peace facade' to further agenda on Siachen and Sir Creek. They knew they had a strong 'Pappi-Jhappi' constituency in India who'll be there to 'advise' the GOI of the day to go down this route. And stick to it. But for some nationalists - and sheer audacity of proposal - Siachen was as good as gone.

Only people who benefited from this peace BS was the elites on both side and peace brigade who was feted in conferences across the world. National interest be damned.

PS argues on similar lines. What he does not mention that Pakistan's efforts to internationalize this event has yielded nothing. Pukes have been rebuffed by UN and everyone else under the Sun.

And here we need to understand why NM or GOI has not made any bombastic statements. Except for some plain-talking by AJ. They're treating Pakistan with the disdain it deserves. They've made it amply clear that GOI does not need to say anything on the subject - the Army and BSF are well placed to handle the situation. NM gave instructions and took inputs as a PM should - but no drama-baazi like meeting of National Security Council in Pakistan.

Had GOI fallen for the media and Congress asking for official statements or had there been specter of high level meetings and stuff, an impression had gone out about something BIG happening on the border. A National Crisis. And this is what exactly Pakistan wanted.

But GOI has simply changed the rules of the game. The big story is not the Indian retaliation on border or counter-aggression but the overall treatment of the situation. India did not tango to Pakistan's effort to create a crisis. Had it done so, you'd have the banshees in the newspapers and media going bonkers and screaming to high heavens - How India and Pakistan are on a brink of a war and all that. The plan speaking on our side was done by commanders on ground. DG BSF is the face of Indian retaliation and not even Army Commander or Army Chief. Unlike Pakistan, no senior minister has given any bites to media - save for customary comments made by AJ. And which themselves were very matter of fact.

Long story short - Indian have come out on top on both the points related to this event. Counter-aggression and diplomacy. The narrative about 'Two nuclear armed rivals' has been dealt it's first blow. It's not about 'nuclear-armed rivals' but about DG BSF and Rangers.

I would advise BRFites to again read the last article by Lt. General Hasnain - the most wonderful part about that article is the absolute clarity on how Pakistanis are playing this game. Our strategy is crafted basis such people and such knowledge. The process of completely sidelining Pakistan has begun.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 12 Oct 2014 11:57

Karan Thappar did a program yesterday where the title was that Modi govt's strong response to the Uniformed Jihadis of Pakistan will invite adverse international attention and turn off investors. I mean do we even need Pakis to try this when we've KT.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 12 Oct 2014 11:58

re-posting a blog piece by Shiv Aroor which iterates what is clear in this whole episode:

1. Pakistans intentions are not clear.

2. Our retaliation was swift and voluminous. It caught the enemy by surprise.

3. Change in political stance and that our forces on ground are appreciative of same.

http://www.dailyo.in/opinion/border-ten ... 1/330.html

Let's cut through the bullshit. If that's even possible at a time like this.

The only thing that's more confounding than the fog of war is the fog of near war. As 81 millimeter mortar shells whizz and bang across the international border in both directions; as television brings us images of petrified civilians bolting in the dark as the skies over the "chicken's neck" sector of Akhnoor are lit up by the arcs of incoming fire; as the ever eloquent conversation on social media is propelled by such subtlety as #BuzdilPakistan and #CowardModi – this is as old as the conflict itself.

The tantalising fog of fighting presents the delectable opportunity to obfuscate, muddy, divert. To transform what's grey into black and white.

To make what's not entirely clear, absolute. Who fired first? Who escalated a par-for-the-course exchange of festival fire? Has Pakistan learnt a lesson?

All questions that present a sumptuous opportunity for spiralling debate, conspiracy theories and a handful of sentiments masquerading as patriotic nationalism. But to even presume, to be able to cut through the bullshit, would need a clinical assessment of India's retaliation, unsullied by the swaying forces of sentimentalism and politics.

You've heard numbers all week on the news. Eight dead. 30 injured. 60 border posts targeted. 81 millimeter. 16,000 evacuated. 15 temporary camps.

Here are four reasons why the current exchange on the border is unprecedented in the steadily tenuous 11-year history of the India-Pak ceasefire.

1) As the lead story in today's Mail Today reports, the Pakistan establishment, fattened for years on the impression that an Indian retaliation will be token and result in no real damage, was shaken by the swiftness and intensity of the response. Nobody will confirm this for you officially, but every Pakistani shell that landed in Jammu triggered ten Indian shells smashing into Pakistan. Fire included the use of rocket-propelled grenades.

2) The Indian forces operating on the international border and along the LoC, to the south of Pir Panjal, specifically targeted permanent fortifications, bunkers and defences built by the Pakistan Army and other agencies primarily as border outposts, but also to facilitate infiltration of terrorists. Again, you'll never have an official confirmation but the political leadership has been briefed by the Army about severe damage to the bunkers in several locations.

3) Beyond the public statements - or lack thereof - from the political establishment, there was no political diffidence within the security command structure. The message to the forces on the ground was clear. There was no hesitation. In public, the message was that Pakistan could forget about talks until its guns fell silent. On the phone and in operations rooms, it was less ambiguous: do what's necessary to make those guns fall silent; the message has to be unmistakable. As anyone will tell you, a commander on the ground values clarity from the civilian leadership as much, if not more than the trust of his forces. The BSF and Army had a sharp brief: graduate your responses, but shake the Pakistanis off their gun positions.

4) There was clarity in the government's own public voice too. It was simple: everybody wants peace. India wants peace and isn't an aggressor, but let there be no mistaking that for weakness. It is precisely the opposite -- a distinct lack of clarity, of political purpose, of Delhi's approach in the past that has emboldened the impunity with which Pakistan provoked in 2013. Pakistan has in the past, been allowed to exploit the confounding and dangerous interference of Delhi's political impulse for peace with the more immediate need for the resolution of a tactical situation on the border. This time there was no interference. The message was clear: Prime Minister Narendra Modi today backhanded the clamour for him to speak about the border tension by saying our guns were doing the talking. Defence minister Arun Jaitley's statement was less of a cowboy quip, but said it clearer: "Pakistan, in these attacks, has clearly been the aggressor. But it must realise that our deterrence will be credible. If Pakistan persists with this adventurism our forces will make the cost of this adventurism unaffordable."

+What's happening, and hopefully winding down now, at the border has everything to do with matters as specific as the free hand -- or lack thereof -- our security forces have when dealing tactically with Pakistan, to the larger question of whether this could be the beginning of a turning point in Pakistan's own predilection for provocation, the reasons for which go beyond the scope of this column and have everything to do with Pakistan's political own situation, the upcoming elections in Jammu & Kashmir and a combination of other apparent factors.

But there's no black and white. Ever

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 12 Oct 2014 12:05

rohitvats wrote: Only people who benefited from this peace BS was the elites on both side and peace brigade who was feted in conferences across the world. National interest be damned.

And Ajai Shukla was one of them. I hope the Vishnu Soms of this world are taking note. It is revolting when people portray as merely a difference of opinion the untenable position that Ajai Shukla and his ilk in the Atlantic Council were trying to force down Indian throats. That these people could keep a straight face when talking of a peace park with a country as untrustworthy as Pakistan just shows that these supposedly esteemed individuals and their journalist backers reek of disingenuity.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Oct 2014 12:32

Roperia wrote:Karan Thappar did a program yesterday where the title was that Modi govt's strong response to the Uniformed Jihadis of Pakistan will invite adverse international attention and turn off investors. I mean do we even need Pakis to try this when we've KT.

What he is saying is exactly what Pakistanis wanted to happen - and idiots like him peddle.

Basically - create an atmosphere of 'crisis' as if India and Pakistan are on a brink of a war. And get usual suspects from world community to air platitudes and ask for a meeting between Foreign Secretaries from both side. Followed by respective Foreign Ministers. And go through the rigmarole of 'Composite Dialogue' again.

What NM and his team have brilliantly done is treat the whole thing in a matter of fact routine. While GOI internally has taken all the necessary steps - outward appearance is that of calm and composure. Basically, they've cut the fuel line to these morons in media who're fanning the flames of crisis - and international intervention followed by withdrawal of international investor and associated BS.

member_28397 · Post by **member_28397** » 12 Oct 2014 12:54

I was wondering, instead of using 100s of Mortars to take out bunkered positions across IB/LOC, cant the armed forces use guided anti tank==bunker busters missiles?
Cant a Nag/Helina be used for this purpose marking the target from UAVs, Spotters on ground or satellites.

Just a noob pooch. They might already be doing so.

member_28397 · Post by **member_28397** » 12 Oct 2014 13:04

Roperia wrote:Karan Thappar did a program yesterday where the title was that Modi govt's strong response to the Uniformed Jihadis of Pakistan will invite adverse international attention and turn off investors. I mean do we even need Pakis to try this when we've KT.

Relax , Investments are not affected by border firing or random jihadi kartoots. India is not pakistan.
Investment comes through government support that includes security also, transparent laws, stability and foremost a big market.
No matter how much these media jihadis try to underpin NaMo. That man is around 50 years ahead of them. And more than the investments coming from foreign investors, the main investors in India are Indians and inhouse corporates. NaMo doesn't mind even if whole porki border is lit up for few months.
Extra ordinance manufacturing<make in India

> will only help GDP to grow more.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 12 Oct 2014 14:40

Its all Modi's fault
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/ ... 3H20141012

Modi's bravado ups the ante in India-Pakistan fighting

(Reuters) - To judge from the shrill outrage of India's TV news channels, the past week's bloody clashes along the border dividing Kashmir are all Pakistan's fault: one network has been plugging the Twitter hashtag #PakBorderDare.

However, military officers in both countries and officials in New Delhi say the violence that has killed nearly 20 civilians escalated because of a more assertive Indian posture under the new government of nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

"The message we have been given from the prime minister's office is very clear and precise," said a senior Indian Home Ministry official. "The prime minister's office has instructed us to ensure that Pakistan suffers deep and heavy losses."

In his first extensive comments on the violence, Modi told a political rally on Thursday - when 1,000 Indian mortars rained across into Pakistan - that "it is the enemy that is screaming".

"The enemy has realized that times have changed and their old habits will not be tolerated," he said.

The exchange of mortar and gunfire across a populated border area of Jammu, in the lowlands of Kashmir, has been India's most serious brush with Pakistan in a decade.

Almost 20,000 Indian civilians have fled their homes to escape the fighting, taking refuge in schools and relief camps.

The guns fell quiet on Friday, hours before the Nobel committee named an Indian child rights crusader and Pakistan's teenage education activist Malala Yousafzai as this year's Peace Prize winners. But heavy firing resumed on Saturday And continued into the early hours of Sunday.

Modi's robust approach towards Pakistan, supporters say, is aimed at emphasizing India's superior strength and making Pakistan's military think twice before firing across the border.

It is a strategy he also used to stand up to India's larger neighbor, China, during a border standoff between several hundred Indian and Chinese troops on the Tibetan plateau that coincided with President Xi Jinping's visit to New Delhi last month.

But the new stance risks more violence in the Himalayan region of Kashmir, already one of the world's most volatile fault lines, and has eroded a border truce that has largely held between India and Pakistan since 2003.

The nuclear-armed rivals have fought two of their three wars since independence in 1947 over Kashmir, which is divided between them and claimed in full by both.

Since Modi's election victory in May, military commanders have been encouraged to step up border patrols and retaliate with more force if they come under attack. New Delhi has insisted there can be no talks with Pakistan unless it ends shootings and pushing militants into the Indian side of Kashmir.

"This is what we feared would happen if Modi came to power," said Ikram Sehgal, a former Pakistani military officer and chairman of one of the country's largest security companies.

"This could easily escalate into something that won't be good for Pakistan or India."

RISKY GAMBLE

India may be gambling that Pakistan can ill afford to inflame hostilities in Kashmir while its army is engaged in a full-blown offensive against jihadi militants close to Afghanistan.

But the stakes are also high for India.

An editorial in the Indian Express on Friday called for cooler heads, saying further escalation would damage India's reputation as a responsible nation and attractive investment destination, and could rekindle a separatist insurgency on its side of Kashmir.

Officials say India's new policy is being orchestrated by Ajit Doval, the country's national security adviser, a decorated former intelligence official renowned for his role in dangerous counter-insurgency missions. He has long advocated tough action against Pakistan-based militant groups.

In conversations with Reuters as head of a right-wing think tank in New Delhi before he joined the new government, Doval said India must lay down core security policies, one of which was "zero tolerance" for acts of violence.

In August, after days of cross-border firing between India and Pakistan, Doval attended a meeting at the Home Ministry along with the head of the para-military Border Security Force (BSF) and a decision was taken to give a free hand to the ground commanders in Jammu, a top security official in the region told Reuters.

Until then, the BSF, which guards the Jammu section of the border with Pakistan, had complained that instructions on how to respond to provocations were unclear.

"It is a very tough stand that our top bosses want us to take against Pakistan and the tone is very different from the previous government," said the Home Ministry official.

"The previous government indulged in lip service. Publicly the former home and defense minister would showcase an assertive stand against Pakistan but actually neither BSF nor the army was given a free hand."

A spokesman for India's defense ministry did not respond to requests for comments.Pakistani military leaders say they have been taken aback by the level of aggression of Indian forces over the last week.

At a time when the Pakistan army is combating militants in the tribal areas in its northwest they do not want the distraction of battling India on its eastern flank, they said.

"India is deliberately putting pressure on Pakistani security forces by opening this new front," said a senior Pakistani military official posted on the border. "The message from India is clear: 'We will teach you a lesson.'"

Indians in the border areas of Kashmir, who have lived through decades of cross-border firing, said they themselves had noticed a change in tactics by the Indian forces.

"Pakistan fires one, our boys fire six back," said Atma Ram, 71, who was standing about 300 meters (yards) from the electrified fence that separates the two countries in the Suchetgarh area near Jammu. "They are giving a response we should have given before."

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 12 Oct 2014 14:58

To them, business as usual means Indian lives are cheaper than Pakistani ones. Fortunately, to current dispensation in Delhi, that's not the case any more.

member_21074 · Post by **member_21074** » 12 Oct 2014 15:02

http://www.voanews.com/content/kashmir- ... 80050.html
The answer may be found in the current and past rhetoric of top Indian leaders. Defense Minister Arun Jaitley has warned Pakistan that India will make the cost of its “adventurism….unaffordable,” while Home Minister Rajnath Singh has said he wants Pakistan to understand “the reality that times have changed in India.”

India’s new national security adviser, decorated spymaster Ajit Doval, has long advocated a policy of “defensive offense” against Pakistan.

According to Doval, India cannot take overtly offensive actions against Pakistan for fear of starting a nuclear war, but there are other ways to punish Pakistan for supporting terrorist activities inside India.

Doval explained his idea last year in a detailed lecture at the SASTRA Academy in Tamil Nadu, India, which was uploaded to YouTube:

“Pakistan’s vulnerabilities are many, many times higher than that of India. Once they know that India has shifted its gear from the defensive mode to defensive-offense they will find that it is unaffordable for them. You can do one Mumbai, you may lose Balochistan.”

Some analysts are already looking at India's behavior at the LOC as more punitive than reactionary.

Fair says the relatively dovish government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh felt it had only two options, to “do nothing or go to war.” But the new administration in New Delhi may already be developing a range of options to be used against Pakistan.

“This could include, for example, using aircraft to bomb militant training camps across the LOC," Fair said. "That’s fair game, I think, in the eyes of this government and what would Pakistan do? Complain that Indians were bombing militant training camps?”

Once the Modi government develops these options, she added, it is “not going to be so easily blackmailed” by the idea that any conflict may lead to a nuclear war.

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 12 Oct 2014 15:04

Indian MSM is more a spokesperson of the West than ISI or Pakistan. The way they pontificate and climb over moral high ground (made of Indian skulls) is typical of western powers.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 12 Oct 2014 17:38

pankajs wrote:Its all Modi's fault
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/ ... 3H20141012

Modi's bravado ups the ante in India-Pakistan fighting
(Reuters) - To judge from the shrill outrage of India's TV news channels, the past week's bloody clashes along the border dividing Kashmir are all Pakistan's fault: one network has been plugging the Twitter hashtag #PakBorderDare.

However, military officers in both countries and officials in New Delhi say the violence that has killed nearly 20 civilians escalated because of a more assertive Indian posture under the new government of nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

"The message we have been given from the prime minister's office is very clear and precise," said a senior Indian Home Ministry official. "The prime minister's office has instructed us to ensure that Pakistan suffers deep and heavy losses."

"Pakistan fires one, our boys fire six back," said Atma Ram, 71, who was standing about 300 meters (yards) from the electrified fence that separates the two countries in the Suchetgarh area near Jammu. "They are giving a response we should have given before."

Great Strategy ! At last we have a real Man as PM ! Jai Hind !

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 12 Oct 2014 18:43

MaharathiArjun wrote:I was wondering, instead of using 100s of Mortars to take out bunkered positions across IB/LOC, cant the armed forces use guided anti tank==bunker busters missiles?
Cant a Nag/Helina be used for this purpose marking the target from UAVs, Spotters on ground or satellites.

The India-Pakistan theatre, it was the PA which pioneered the use of ATGMs in mountain warfare, at Siachen. We have also done the same and I have a picture somewhere showing MILAN launcher in Kargil.

However, for routine escalations on LoC/IB, the use of ATGMs is constrained by availability and cost considerations.

James B · Post by **James B** » 12 Oct 2014 18:59

Good analysis by Nitin Gokhale

It is the de-hyphenation of India-Pakistan that Islamabad fears the most

More than 18 months ago, I was in Dubai as part of a track II effort (my first and perhaps last such participation, given that I am not much of a Pakistan watcher) on how India and Pakistan can overcome their antipathy and strike an enduring, working relationship. The conference covered issues of common interest to the two countries, including trade, business, micro finance, IT, water, energy, climate change, public health, security, and media. I wrote briefly about it in May 2013 (http://thediplomat.com/2013/05/a-new-op ... relations/).

At the conference I spoke on the Indian military doctrine. In the course of my presentation I asserted that the Indian military has, over the past decade, re-oriented itself towards meeting the bigger challenge from China since it exactly knows how to deal with Pakistan. The underlying theme of my assertion was: India has got the measure of Pakistan's predictable military moves and knows how to counter them. The focus therefore is to try and be prepared for the bigger threat, that is China. A retired Pakistani military officer, who was among the delegates, disagreed demonstrably. "How can India forget that Pakistan is a nuclear power? How can India ignore Pakistan's military power," he remonstrated with me. I could not, till the end, convince him that India was not taking Pakistan's military threat lightly but was merely pointing out that Indian military has moved on to prepare for a far more potent threat. He however, would not believe me.

I recall that little encounter now since the current situation on the border between India and Pakistan, I believe, is also born out of Pakistani establishment's (read the Army's) fear of losing its relevance in the Indian sub-continent.

For long, the hyphenation of India-Pakistan has been a common international theme. But a small but subtle change in India's approach towards big international players and the immediate neighbourhood, has clearly caught Pakistan on the wrong foot. If Prime Minister Narendra Modi's unexpected move to reach out to SAARC leaders by inviting them for his inauguration was a surprise move, his government's decision to cancel India-Pakistan bilateral talks on the issue of Pakistan's high commissioner to India meeting separatist leaders from Kashmir despite India's warning, was totally unexpected in Islamabad. Suddenly, this was a different New Delhi it was forced to deal with.

The decision makers--Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former spymaster-turned National Security Adviser Ajit Doval--were not going be trapped into a long-held framework of 'talks-with-Pakistan-at-any-cost' that had come to dominate New Delhi's policy on Pakistan, even during the earlier avatar of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government led by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. Instead, they had decided to draw new, firm red lines, even if that meant a breakdown in the dialogue process. So the first red line was 'either talk to us or talk to the separatists.' Both are not acceptable was the clear message.

Simultaneously, Narendra Modi's outreach to other smaller neighbours in the Indian sub-continent--Nepal, Bhutan and a lesser extent to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka--meant India was mending its somewhat wobbly relations with them even as Pakistan was being left out. The last straw however came late in September when Prime Minister Modi traveled to the United States.

First, at the United Nations General Assembly, Modi, much to Pakistan's annoyance, refused to react to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's mention of Kashmir in his speech. Then, more ominously for Pakistan, the joint statement at the end of Modi's meeting with President Barack Obama spoke in unambiguous terms the need to dismantle terrorist havens in Af-Pak.

"The leaders stressed the need for joint and concerted efforts, including the dismantling of safe havens for terrorist and criminal networks, to disrupt all financial and tactical support for networks such as Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, the D-Company, and the Haqqanis. They reiterated their call for Pakistan to bring the perpetrators of the November 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai to justice," the statement said. This was unprecedented.

Was this the beginning of the de-hyphenation of India-Pakistan that Islamabad so dreads? Was Washington finally coming round to accept New Delhi's long-held view that Pakistan-based terrorist groups posed the biggest threat to peace in the Indian sub-continent? For the Pakistani Army, Washington's endorsement of India's stand meant its strategic assets (LeT, the Haqqanis) were in danger of being targeted more vigorously.

This, in the Pakistani Army's mind, was invitation to disaster and more dangerously, to becoming irrelevant. It had to do something to bring Kashmir back in focus and also take control of the country's foreign policy. So what does it do? Fall back on the tried and tested formula of igniting the border with India.

Predictably, it activates the International Border (or what it calls the working boundary) since tactically and topographically it is easy to target villagers around the BSF posts. In earlier years, India would have also fired back appropriately but at the same time would have asked for an immediate flag meeting with Pakistani border guards. A lull would have followed the meeting but firing would have resumed again, making a mockery of the ceasefire both had agreed to in November 2003. This happened repeatedly in 2012 and 2013.

The current government was however not willing to follow the well-known script.

Instead, it issued clear instructions to BSF to respond in kind and some more. The BSF was told unambiguously to retaliate heavily whenever provoked. During the weekly DGMO (Director Generals of Military Operations) conference on telephone last Tuesday and through other informal channels, Pakistan was told that talks and violence cannot go hand in hand. So flag meetings at the border were ruled out.In a clear departure from the past, Pakistan was warned that India is willing to climb the 'escalatory ladder', that is take the border firing to another level if it so desired. The idea was to impose, as Defence Minister Arun Jaitley said, "un-affordable cost," on Pakistan.

Military veterans and serving commanders that I spoke with, welcomed this unambiguous statement of intent from the highest quarters. For a decade and more, most tactical moves they made were subject to clearance from Delhi. No longer. "Now we have been given an overall policy framework but tactical decisions are left to us," a serving general in J&K told me.

Not surprisingly, there have been fears expressed by 'usual suspects' that New Delhi is playing a dangerous game with a nuclear-armed adversary and as a bigger and responsible nation, India should not be indulging in such brinkmanship. So well-entrenched is this view in some quarters on both sides of the border that a Pakistani minister, as if on cue, promptly raised the nuclear bogey.

The fact is: between ceasefire violations and employment of nuclear weapons there are several options available with India to keep Pakistan in check. After nearly 10 days of heavy firing on the border, the tension appears to be winding down. What India must guard against is provocation elsewhere in the form of a covert attack in Kashmir or a terrorist strike in rest of the country. If that happens, the response will have to be punitive. Surely, Indian decision-makers have thought this through and have identified a point where they can terminate the current confrontation after gaining the necessary advantage. Therein lies the trick of using coercive military-diplomatic tactics.

http://nitinagokhale.blogspot.it/2014/1 ... l?spref=tw

hailinfreq · Post by **hailinfreq** » 13 Oct 2014 02:45

From Foreign Policy

Searching for A Response: India’s Muddled Strategy on Pakistan
BY NISHANK MOTWANI OCTOBER 8, 2014

The recent upsurge in ceasefire violations along the Line of Control (LoC) dividing Kashmir and the India-Pakistan international border is beginning to chip away at the veneer of relative stability in place for the past decade. This also comes at a time when New Delhi cancelled scheduled talks between the two foreign secretaries. The latter decision was taken when Pakistan’s High Commission in New Delhi was given a choice of dialogue with India or meeting with the All Party Hurriyat Conference, a Kashmiri separatist group. It is too early to confirm whether the “us or them” ultimatum presented to Islamabad signals a permanent departure from India’s dealings with Pakistan.
The challenge with adopting a firm approach is that New Delhi has had negligible success at coercing or persuading Islamabad in the past. Due to the limited gains of both methods — of applying carrots and/or sticks — a third approach has surfaced, which has recommended that Indian goodwill and robust diplomatic engagement should be pursued. But the supporters of this proposition are in Islamabad, and they believe India can play a role in strengthening the first democratic handover of political power in Pakistan’s history. The argument goes that if Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s civilian leadership were seen as eliciting reciprocal confidence building outcomes from India, then it would keep Pakistan’s powerful army in the barracks. Investment in this momentum could then empower the Pakistanis who support a strategic rapprochement with India. However, it is questionable that policymakers in New Delhi would be seen to reward aggression particularly when Pakistan’s generals control the country’s levers of security and strategic decision-making. Consequently, the third approach, although well intentioned, is a message that is stillborn.
Building trust between the two countries through costly signaling or incrementally is difficult to imagine given their long history of conflict – for instance, the wars of 1947, 1965, 1971 and the limited Kargil War in 1999 – and the suspicion that stems from such violence. As the more powerful nation, economically and militarily, India could take the lead, and expose itself to greater risk in the hope that its lowering of the guard might translate into meaningful reciprocal measures from Islamabad, thereby leading to an improvement of trust. However, as the victim of aggression, New Delhi is unlikely to turn soft. Domestic opposition to conciliation could be costly politically, and might be seen as a sign of weakness internally and internationally. Consequently, if Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration were indeed reformulating its approach, it would need to define its political objectives and articulate a strategy that would link its diplomatic and military means to realize those goals, and absorb the attendant costs of shifting to a more confrontational posture. It would also need to find effective ways and means for shaping and responding to the strategic environment that does not press the repeat button from the playbook of past failures.
The stall in bilateral relations has brought back into focus the insecurities between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. The last major terrorist attack in India was almost six years ago and Pakistan’s alleged complicity in the 2008 Mumbai siege cooled bilateral ties from which they have not since recovered. On my research visit to Pakistan in April this year, members of the country’s strategic community from several Islamabad-based think tanks condemned what happened in Mumbai, and acknowledged the dangers of a repeat raid. However, a troubling explanation that emerged was that the act of violence reflected the Pakistani military’s frustration at the impasse of the bilateral peace talks. In other words, there appeared to be a belief that a broader dialogue could be fashioned through the use of force where India could be compelled to compromise. Furthermore, they noted that India’s ‘arrogance’ and unresponsiveness towards Pakistan’s peace overtures could provoke hawks to purge those promoting rapprochement within Pakistan and punish India to prove that they can and still get away with it.
India’s strategic community is increasingly presenting a view that Pakistan’s first strike posture, including its tactical nuclear weapons, does not preclude New Delhi from initiating military operations in response to aggression traced back to Pakistan. In fact, India’s silence, militarily speaking, in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks has continued to haunt Indian policymakers for two reasons. One is that India did not respond to such blatant aggression, which made it look timid in the eyes of its own people. The second reason is that inaction emboldened Pakistan and its belief that it deterred India. India’s restraint was applauded globally, but the lesson the international community and Pakistan learned was that nuclear deterrence had worked. Within Indian decision-making, however, the threat of conventional hostilities escalating to the nuclear level was not shared across the board. Some argued for the employment of precision strikes, one of which was hitting known operational terrorist training camps in Pakistan. The primary objective of an overt military response was in fact the political objective, meaning that India would demonstrate its resolve by responding to egregious acts of violence committed against it. India would no longer stay silent.
The argument in favor of conducting military strikes in response to Pakistani belligerence is still in cold storage. However, the proponents who have called for initiating “Proactive Military Operations” (also known as the Cold Start Doctrine) have argued that the risk of escalation to the nuclear level is low. But why?
Firstly, New Delhi believes that the Pakistani military leadership’s most potent weapon is denial, which has been instrumentalized to the strategic level. What this interpretation has signified is that Pakistan’s military presents itself in inverted terms. Put differently, despite being a rational actor, the image Pakistan projects of itself, according to a retired Indian army corps commander, is the “rationality of being irrational.” Thus it justifies behavior that is unjustifiable to induce fear and policy-lock in New Delhi and beyond.
Secondly, there is a belief in New Delhi that Pakistan’s red lines for the use of nuclear weapons, however ambiguous, would not be low enough despite its posturing. This gap has therefore created room for limited conventional war. For India, the net benefit of conducting military operations would mean Islamabad’s red lines would have been put to the test, and this would tear open a space for limited conflict even under nuclear conditions. Such an outcome would give India the space to exercise military operations to counter future aggression, which would also undermine the nuclear shield that Pakistan has stood behind for so long. One key caveat worth noting is that no Indian military operation should cause excessive panic as that might come too close to breaching Pakistan’s red lines. What this means is that India would need to manage escalation and signal its limited objectives as a means to contain and eventually diffuse the crisis.
It is unknown whether arguments in favor of military operations have surpassed those calling for restraint. What is certain however is that it would be extremely costly for Modi to tolerate large-scale acts of terrorism. The latter holds true because the public discourse in India has exhausted its patience over Pakistan’s persistent violent behavior, and is thus prepared to bear the costs of conflict, limited or otherwise.

Somehow I do not understand why journalists / pundits feel that a civilian government in Pakistan ("third way") will be full of doves despite several instances to the contrary. And they also miss the point that among the Pakistani populace, the Army remains one of the most deeply respected institutions -- so the population at some level endorses the cross border violence. They just do not like getting affected by it.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 13 Oct 2014 04:00

If you guys do remember when Benazir Butto was 1st time elected primeminister and she was fired and removed from the office.
She said in her statement anything happen in Pakistan its order come from White House. Now you guys put it togather that how is behind all of the mess going on.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 13 Oct 2014 04:12

The idea that India should "strengthen the hands of democracy" in pakistan is pretty stupid along two dimensions. Firstly, it is the Pakistanis who should decide what kind of dispensation they would like to live under. And that is not going to be solely determined by Pakistan's relationship with India. It has to do with an indepedant media which is not bought and paid for by the army, an intelligence agency which is under civilian control, which does not keep bumping off and buying off people opposed to it and loosening the grip of the military on business and administrative matters.

Let me give you one tiny example. Army has its own spokesperson and its own media relation arm called ISPR. Nawaz sharif makes a statement that he did not ask Pakistan army COAS to mediate between him and Imran Khan, ISPR immediately counters it by issuing a statement that COAS was in fact asked by Nawaz Sharif to mediate. Something like this in India would be followed by the immediate sacking of the army chief and shutting down of the Media wing of the army. There is a reason why all Indian army related issues are conveyed through the ministry of defence and the ministry of defence alone. Let the Pakistanis first try to shut down ISPR and then we will talk about how to nurture democracy in Pakistan. India neither has the leverage nor the capacity to strengthen democracy in Pakistan.

What next? They will claim it is India's duty to eradicate polio in Pakistan?

The second reason why a military dictatorship is preferable in Pakistan, is that Pakistan operates on the mode of plausible deniability. If terrorists attack, the government is not responsibile for it, it is the army. We dont have control over the army. If you ask the army, they say "retired rogue ISI could have done it, it is not us". If you ask the ISI they say "Mujahideen could have done it, it is not us". Every time civilinans are in power, it becomes very hard for us to read Pakistan's intentions and it becomes very easy for their army to try yet another adventurism. This happened in Kargil, which incidentally was last time Nawaz was in power.

Indians started wondering "How could Nawaz have launched Kargil, when ABV went in a bus to Lahore?". Nawaz had a canned reply "It is not us, it is the army" (later turned out that he did in fact know what the army was upto, only misjudged the intensity of our response and downhill skiing of their army). If a dictator were in power, ABV went in a bus and was followed by Kargil, we could have asked "What do you want? We want peace and you are attacking us".

Having the Army in power in Pakistan helps us immensely in dealing with the one organization which does not want peace with India and which should be denuded of its plausible deniability.

Analysts who point out otherwise are just charlatans.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Oct 2014 04:16

Indian Media acts like its not in India.

They also need to be shown their place.

Modi won fair and square with a large majority.
His response is the response of the country.

In US Dan Rather used to pontificate against Republican Presidents till he over reached and had to resign from CBS. He now is on some obscure cable channel.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 13 Oct 2014 05:20

James B wrote:Good analysis by Nitin Gokhale

http://nitinagokhale.blogspot.it/2014/1 ... l?spref=tw

Great article by Nitin. Dehyphenation is definitely a big part of Pakistan's motivation.

Additionally, what was truly unprecedented these past few months was:
1. America's specific reference in the joint statement to D-company and JeM, both of which are exclusively anti-India organizations (unlike AQ, LeT, Haqqanis). Also, notice that India elevated D-company to LeT level, making no distinction between state-harbored criminals and state-harbored terrorists (see a strong Doval hand here).
2. Modi's unilateral re-definition of red lines: jhappi pappi when you behave well like the invite to visit Delhi, resolute action against you when you ask for it. Pakis just wanted to test if NaMo's promised reactions would be restricted to diplomacy only (like FS talks) or would it mean something militarily on the ground as well.
3. Most importantly, something Nitin missed, NaMo's masterly execution of China & Japan visits that gave the impression that a new, confident India was taking a role at the global stage.

williams · Post by **williams** » 13 Oct 2014 08:41

All these analysis is being made, because India has been accommodating Pakistani BS from the beginning. Right from the day Chacha Nehru went to UN to the time when MMS indulged in sharm el sheik fiasco, we are perceived as naive fools who will tolerate Paki thugs no matter what. Most of Paki thug acts have become routine now. Talking to Hurriyat is a routine. Firing across the border is a routine. Infiltration is a routine. Nuclear blackmail is a routine. So these analysts are questioning why make a big fuss about these routine things. Peacefully accept these routine things for the sake of democracy.

Time has come to put the thugs in their place.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 13 Oct 2014 09:21

Anujan wrote:The second reason why a military dictatorship is preferable in Pakistan, is that Pakistan operates on the mode of plausible deniability. If terrorists attack, the government is not responsibile for it, it is the army. We dont have control over the army. If you ask the army, they say "retired rogue ISI could have done it, it is not us". If you ask the ISI they say "Mujahideen could have done it, it is not us". Every time civilinans are in power, it becomes very hard for us to read Pakistan's intentions and it becomes very easy for their army to try yet another adventurism. This happened in Kargil, which incidentally was last time Nawaz was in power.

Having the Army in power in Pakistan helps us immensely in dealing with the one organization which does not want peace with India and which should be denuded of its plausible deniability.

Analysts who point out otherwise are just charlatans.

Disagree completely.. If Kargil was during Nawaz's time, Parliament attack was during Musharraf's rule, just months after 9/11. So did all the terror attacks which followed- Mumbai trains, Hyderabad Gokul chat, German bakery Pune, Akshardham temple in Gujarat, Varanasi bombings etc.

Each time it was Pakis involved, each time it was army in power and each time they denied it, eagerly assisted by our media- about how this was home grown following Gujarat riots etc.

The fact remains it does not matter who is in power in Pakistan, it does not help us at all. The army in or out of power will continue to pursue it's "strategy" of bleeding India with a thousand cuts and continue to deny any involvement except "moral, diplomatic, and political" jihaad-e-fistula. They also continue to give out the same statements of wanting peece in sooth-asia and trade with India, only the faces change, in power it's some random Brigadier or above, while during a civilian "government" it is Tasneem Aslam.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 13 Oct 2014 09:40

We have pushed Paki snakes back in to their sh*t holes, but these scheming bas*ards are going to be back for sure. Expect a year at the most before they try to bite us again.

Are we going to finally equip BSF with Dhanush + Desi weapons locating radars + Nishant and LCA? All of prior weapons are considered below 'royalty' grade while BSF will be more than happy to get their hands on these.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Oct 2014 12:20

Chandragupta wrote:Indian MSM is more a spokesperson of the West than ISI or Pakistan. The way they pontificate and climb over moral high ground (made of Indian skulls) is typical of western powers.

Yes, I cant understand why Modi hasnt gone after them and their shady antecedents.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Oct 2014 12:21

Prabu wrote:
pankajs wrote:Its all Modi's fault
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/ ... 3H20141012

Modi's bravado ups the ante in India-Pakistan fighting

"The message we have been given from the prime minister's office is very clear and precise," said a senior Indian Home Ministry official. "The prime minister's office has instructed us to ensure that Pakistan suffers deep and heavy losses."

"Pakistan fires one, our boys fire six back," said Atma Ram, 71, who was standing about 300 meters (yards) from the electrified fence that separates the two countries in the Suchetgarh area near Jammu. "They are giving a response we should have given before."
Great Strategy ! At last we have a real Man as PM ! Jai Hind !

Agreed. What a difference from that good for nothing jerk MMS

member_19648 · Post by **member_19648** » 13 Oct 2014 12:32

nik wrote:We have pushed Paki snakes back in to their sh*t holes, but these scheming bas*ards are going to be back for sure. Expect a year at the most before they try to bite us again.

Are we going to finally equip BSF with Dhanush + Desi weapons locating radars + Nishant and LCA? All of prior weapons are considered below 'royalty' grade while BSF will be more than happy to get their hands on these.

How can BSF operate LCAs? They already operate Nishanth I think.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 13 Oct 2014 12:35

As much as I hope it does not happen. I think a terror attack maybe more likely response of the jernails.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 13 Oct 2014 12:46

Can anyone give list of weapons we used to give befitting and disproportionate reply?

We surely didnt use missiles and AFAIK , we didnt even use bofors. Or did we use bofors?

AFAI read, all we have used is mortars.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wme/4.htm

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wme/3.htm

Did we use anything more powerful than above?

Now Pakistan used almost the same level of weapons.

So are we claiming that we did "far" more damage to Pakistan than damage pakistan did on us?

That too using same levels of firepower etc that they used?

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 13 Oct 2014 12:51

RMji,

In the 1965 war, India and Pakistan both fought using tanks and we managed to capture about 100 of their tanks devastating the TFTAs. Same weapons, same technology, same level... yet it was "far" more damage onleee, no?

War is not won by "level of weaponry". It is won by strategy. The Americans lost in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan despite having far superior level of weapons. How did that happen?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 13 Oct 2014 13:00

LokeshC wrote:As much as I hope it does not happen. I think a terror attack maybe more likely response of the jernails.

I think you are right and I would guess that Modi too realizes that. I think his team would have gamed this already otherwise the latest LOC provocation too could have been treated like the previous ones.

The current GOI knows what it is doing and the likely response to both a LOC provocation and a terror attack has been conveyed in clear term to the US admin, they being the biggest backers of Pakis and talks. The muted response of the GOTUS to the LOC action being pointers. Not that it will help prevent a terror attack.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 13 Oct 2014 13:02

Wait for a Mumbai level attack in near future. May not to same kind though. Mafia did nothing earlier and now NM needs to be careful. SD of Khan, mafia establishment etc will be providing covert support, logistics etc.

habal · Post by **habal** » 13 Oct 2014 14:48

Rahul Mehta wrote:So are we claiming that we did "far" more damage to Pakistan than damage pakistan did on us?

That too using same levels of firepower etc that they used?

bsf used thrice the numbers of mortars and shells in the links you posted on Pakistan rangers than they did.

you have to also stock up adequate numbers of these mortars before you can use up 3000/day.

secondly Pakistan does have longer range artillery, which they haven't used.

the only reason for that being, if we retaliate, they have huge civilian clusters lying directly within range. Lahore to Pakistan which is well within our range is what Bombay or Delhi are to India. But Lahore can be targeted by artillery, while Bombay and Delhi can only be targeted by Cruise/BM.

Now Cruise/BM means nuclear response by India.

So what does Pakistan do. They can't even use artillery without risking Lahore.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 13 Oct 2014 15:00

habal wrote:[*quote="Rahul Mehta"]So are we claiming that we did "far" more damage to Pakistan than damage pakistan did on us?

That too using same levels of firepower etc that they used?[*/quote]

the only reason for that being, if we retaliate, they have huge civilian clusters lying directly within range.

Agree with the highlighted part and that too the areas that from the backbone of the TSPA and the elites of pakistan. In an all out artillery duel Pakistan has much to loose.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 13 Oct 2014 15:26

holy sh&t Check out the way Russians deal with those who intrude on their borders (even maritime borders).

They just let loose!

In this case it was Chinese fishing vessels scooping up squid. Pretty extreme.

They definitely don't fool around.