Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 11 June 2014

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Jun 2015 22:33

LOL, the usual dude starts the usual and everyone falls for the bait. Siachen give away "look look firstpost says so" redux.

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 12 Jun 2015 22:35

ShauryaT wrote: 1. It has embarrassed Burma, many informed do care about how the messaging is done, for in their view it makes a difference. e.g: read what G. Partha said in a TV interview yesterday. I do share the view that the messaging could have been better managed and coordinated.
2. Why did the IA first say, no picture was released by them. Anyways, we need an unequivocal denial that this picture is not post ops, of 21 paras or an investigation if it is so. You are well aware of the implications of release of photos.
3. If IA says about 20 dead, then I am happy with it and the matter ends. Ofcourse, they will likely not say this officially and hence a reliance on background reportage and consistent articulation in the media, that approximates to reality. If in the process, some news is flawed in their reporting, motivated or otherwise then we would be better informed.

Hope you are not arguing for less clarity. If you are then we are on separate pages. If you are just angry at the media, I am getting caught in the cross fire and hence end.

1. Possibly they could have been embarassed. However, the military in Myanmar maintains very close links with the IA and prefer to work at the military level rather than via diplomatic links. I can personally vouch for, none of our other neighbours have farewell parties/holidays for battalion CO's on either sides(less IMTRAT).

2. The picture was an earlier release from 2013, which pubby and gang peddled as exclusives.

3. I really did not want to post but, there have been much reporting on this without much actual knowledge. SF units are not obliged to ''recover and haul'' dead tangos and that also in cross border ops.

There will always be an element of disinfo built into SF ops and is to an extent desirable as it keeps tactics/techniques murky. We have learnt this the hard way from IPKF onwards.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 12 Jun 2015 22:38

shiv wrote: Shaurya I need to ask you why embarrassment of Burma should be counted as something that weighs against the Indian army's version?

Would you be able to say who re-released an old and publicly available picture of commandos and helicopter claiming that it was related to the Myanmar raid? Do you have facts or are facts created when Firstpost says them, with the caveat that media must not be criticised because they are our only source if information? That is rhetoric, not fact.

I am asking YOU Shaurya for more clarity.

What are the grounds on which you declare something as fact and fiction? You ask for a countering of "facts" in an article. What proof do you have that the give article has "facts". The argument that you depend on the media does not mean that the media release only facts. It does not mean that they army releases facts either.

It would help if you asked people whether they had any opinions on the media story, rather than asking them to counter media facts. With apologies Shaurya that is sophistry.

Shiv ji:

The IA has done nothing to embarrass Burma - far from it.

I have only quoted the three points in the article as a "legitimate critique". The three points are around messaging to Burma, release of photos and wide discrepancy reported in number killed. This is what I said.

>>Legitimate critiques from the first post article. If someone has facts to counter, please do so.

Do you have any facts to counter the critique that Burma is not embarrassed as being claimed in the article?

Do you have any facts to counter that MoD message on the picture is consistent?

Do you have any facts to counter the critique that the numbers claimed to be killed are widely all over the place?

I have no interest in dissing anyone, let alone the IA. If you want to diss the media, please go ahead but much rather you diss the points the author makes and counter them. All I am getting is, motivated media, first post's ownership, etc. Well.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 12 Jun 2015 22:39

vaibhav.n wrote:
1. Possibly they could have been embarassed. However, the military in Myanmar maintains very close links with the IA and prefer to work at the military level rather than via diplomatic links. I can personally vouch for, none of our other neighbours have farewell parties/holidays for battalion CO's on either sides(less IMTRAT).

2. The picture was an earlier release from 2013, which pubby and gang peddled as exclusives.

3. I really did not want to post but, there have been much reporting on this without much actual knowledge. SF units are not obliged to ''recover and haul'' dead tangos and that also in cross border ops.

There will always be an element of disinfo built into SF ops and is to an extent desirable as it keeps tactics/techniques murky. We have learnt this the hard way from IPKF onwards.

Vaibhav. Thank you for your thoughts.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 12 Jun 2015 22:41

+100 Vaibhav

Already, too many details have been divulged. Like SF marching/crawling through the jungles for the last 5 Km. Well, the enemy will develop counter strategies like booby trapping, sentries, trip-alarms etc. Their Chinese handlers will try to tap communications, deploy spies to watch for unusual helicopter/troop movements etc.

Shits like Praveen Swami play the role of creating FUD & also forcing the Government to divulge Operational details for ISI and PLA's consumption

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 12 Jun 2015 22:48

Prem Kumar wrote:Already, too many details have been divulged. Like SF marching/crawling through the jungles for the last 5 Km.

Are you sure that's true ???

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 12 Jun 2015 22:51

On the last part, need some reliable information on approximately number killed/injured and if any escaped, especially any high value targets killed or escaped.

Cmon SHaurya

seriously?

All we need assurance is enough were scalped and I have that assurance.

From my position I don't need to know and the fact that the thok dey order had been given very soon after the incident

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 12 Jun 2015 22:52

ShauryaT wrote: If you want to diss the media, please go ahead but much rather you diss the points the author makes and counter them.

Yes, repeat the same stupid illogical horsesh!t over and over and pretend you have a legitimate point to make. That should convince everyone that you are not trolling this thread. Firstpost does not know the facts other than what the government announced, so any claims of "facts" outside what was openly announced by the government, including facts from "unnamed MoD sources", cannot be taken as facts, even if they are printed in Firstpost that you believe 100% all the time.

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 12 Jun 2015 23:04

Nitin Gokhale: An Excellent Indian Army Operation Overshadowed by Poor Communications

Excerpts

Overshadowed by some ill-advised pronouncements by ministers and an even sillier questions posed by ill-informed television anchors. UndieTV

While junior ministers went a little overboard in claiming the successful raid as a warning to all of India’s neighbours, multiple voices diluted the impact of the cross-border raid. The TV debates—focusing mostly on the question: can the operation in Myanmar be replicated elsewhere (read, Pakistan)--further vitiated the atmosphere.

Detailed appreciation of the camps was made based on both HUMINT (human intelligence) and TechInt (technical intelligence) which had confirmed presence of a substantial number of insurgents in these camps. They troops also had a fair idea about the firepower the occupants of the camp possessed. At dawn on June 9, in less than a week after the ambush on 6 Dogras, the Special Forces had walked about six km inside Myanmar, the camps in their cross hairs. Soon, the assault was on. A firefight between an assortment of insurgents (those belonging to the NSCN-Khaplang group, Paresh Baruah's ULFA boys, members of UNLF, KYKL and PREPAK) and the army troops ensued. Many were killed, several injured. As the remaining insurgents fled, the troops started their return march. Incredibly, the Army's Special Forces had suffered no casualty.

That's where the covert Chinese hand is now slowly becoming evident. For nearly eight years now there have been stray incidents pointing to increased Chinese focus on the north-east. In October 2007, on the invitation of the Chinese authorities, Anthony Shimray, in charge of the NSCN(IM)’s foreign affairs had visited China. He handed over to the Chinese a letter from Muivah, self-styled “prime minister” of NSCN(IM), naming Kholose Swu Sumi, a Sema Naga from Zunheboto, their “permanent representative” in China. The Chinese welcomed this and wanted Kholose to keep them updated on the movements of the Indian army, particularly in Arunachal, the activities of the Dalai Lama and Tibetans and on the NSCN(IM)’s peace talks with the Indian government.

In 2008, a north-east militant who chose to surrender to authorities had revealed how groups of insurgents from the region were travelling to the Yunnan province to receive training and then return with arms. In April 2009, it was the turn of Isak Chisi Swu, the NSCN(IM) president involved in talks with New Delhi, to visit China. Paresh Baruah of ULFA, too, visited China in 2010. Reports say he led a group of 80 cadres which received training and weapons in Yunnan province that year.

But it was in 2011 and 2012 that the renewed Chinese interest in insurgencies in the northeastern states became more pronounced. Two major conclaves of north-eastern insurgent leaders were organised by the Chinese at Taga in Western Myanmar. The Khaplang group incidentally has major presence in the area.

Chinese involvement in the north-east is not new. In the 1960s, it had backed the Naga rebels allowing them to travel to China and giving some arms. Subsequently however between the 1970s and 2000s, China lowered its focus only to re-engage the north-eastern rebels in a big way since the beginning of this decade. Past week’s developments in Nagaland and Manipur will prod security managers of the country to refocus on securing the north-east if India wants to realise the true potential of its 'Act East' policy.

Link:http://policywonks.in/commentary/an-exc ... unications

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 12 Jun 2015 23:06

Sagar G: it was a common info in all the articles. If its intentional FUD from Military Intelligence, then great! But just like with Kargil, 26/11 and Terror Boat, our media has the nasty habit of trying to pry out sensitive information instead of keeping their trap shut

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 12 Jun 2015 23:12

Prem Kumar wrote:Sagar G: it was a common info in all the articles. If its intentional FUD from Military Intelligence, then great! But just like with Kargil, 26/11 and Terror Boat, our media has the nasty habit of trying to pry out sensitive information instead of keeping their trap shut

Wise men know how trustworthy Indian media is. Terror boat incident and our presstitute RR is a good example of the same.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 12 Jun 2015 23:14

ShauryaT wrote: >>Legitimate critiques from the first post article. If someone has facts to counter, please do so.

Do you have any facts to counter the critique that Burma is not embarrassed as being claimed in the article?

Do you have any facts to counter that MoD message on the picture is consistent?

Do you have any facts to counter the critique that the numbers claimed to be killed are widely all over the place?

ShauryaT, this is trolling. Consider yourself informally warned.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Jun 2015 23:17

ShauryaT: Stop beating a dead horse. I say again, the number of dead is not of significance here. It is the message that the GoI has sent to the world. Porkistan understood it quite well and hence the dhoti shiver from them. Now it is your turn to understand, so please do

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 12 Jun 2015 23:19

Forgive me for taking this on a slight tangent.

One thing occured to my mind. I have watched tons of videos about Bakis threatening India indirectly through "non state" actors and it is certain that they take pride in their terrorist "boys" instilling terror in the mind of the kuffar. They smirk and they laugh knowing that India cannot "do anything" because we have nukular weapons and we have tactical nukular weapons too.

I am starting to notice one pattern :- If there is a credible evidence of Indian capability advance, Bakis will test us for it at some point. This is because they cannot afford to lose the leverage they have on us, which is their raison-detre.

After Parakram, we instituted the "Cold Start" and Bakis tested us in 2008 for it. We *must* brace ourselves for a test, and of course give back as good as we get it, 10x times if possible.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 12 Jun 2015 23:21

Great political leadership, great operational capability. We are proud of the government and the army.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 12 Jun 2015 23:28

RamaY wrote:^^ That's where i disagree & even go to the extent of questioning our strategic geostrategic strategists!

Who told these people that Myanmar is offended/embarrassed by Indian operation? These people (I wish to call them names they deserve) are working hard to put the sense of insult in Myanmar's mind.

If Myanmar, which suffers from factionalism in its military and political circles, finds itself in a more complicated situation due to statements in India's political and media circles, they are not making needlessly emotional or bombastic statements about it. They have confined themselves to terse statements that leave them enough wiggle room, e.g., "according to our info from our ground-level military, India did not cross the border." If the jubilation on the Indian side that stemmed from the "boldly crossing the border" aspect has landed them in internal difficulties among their factions, then they are probably either accepting that as the price to be paid for mutual security cooperation with India, or they may take it up discreetly when Doval visits them.

I think, in this case, rather than say, Pakistan is no Myanmar, it is better to say, Myanmar is no Pakistan. Myanmarese have the best score in my book for precise and disciplined use of words in this case, pakis are of course, the exact opposite, thanks be to Allah.

India and Indians too, can learn a thing or two from Myanmarese officials in this case about how to keep control of the discourse.

Old-school paki ex-bureaucrat IA Rehman, writing in Dawn, linky opines that the rhetoric from the Indian side is a bania plot to provoke TSP. Maybe so(and if so, ghee-shakkar in the old man's mouth), but just from experience, I fear it is more likely IMO that our ministers other than Modi, are just following the Indian tendency to be loose in their statements.

Jingos here have expressed the view that Indians should be free to celebrate this event in any way they wish, just stopping short of accusing people like Vikram Sood (who was critical of the free-and-easy rhetoric) of being somehow anti-national. We may wish to ponder one of the basic strengths of our culture, namely the discipline to use words as subtle precision guided munitions. (Anyone with even slight exposure to Sanskrutam will know what I am talking about here.). Seems to me, far from (re-)learning those skills, we are throwing words around with very little understanding of their power, much like a savage may throw a PGM like a stone.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 12 Jun 2015 23:39

^^^^
Yes, we can be Japanese about it: very little talk by very few people, and let the product do the talking. But we are what we are, so might as well live with it. Those who had to get the message received it. Everything else is more or less totally irrelevant.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 12 Jun 2015 23:46

ShauryaT wrote:
ramana wrote:So far media has no track record of credibility. So what is the real issue?

No firing from behind motivated media articles.
ramana: If i have to fire, I will do so straight. I am simply trying to understand the facts around the article. If the article is motivated, please inform why is it so. I am 100% reliant on media for base information. This is crazy, instead of countering the facts of the article, this is getting to be a war on the media. Well.

Indian media articles / utterances should be presumed to be BS unless there are reasons to think otherwise.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Jun 2015 23:51

Those who are blaming the minister for any perceived and actual fallout are actually loosing the plot.

From the Firstpost article:

It was hashtag friendly Rajyavardhan Rathore who shot off his mouth about "our Special Forces crossing the border and going deep into another country”. His boasting actually forced more attention on the operation and compelled Myanmar to publicly display its annoyance. Now the Economic Times reports that the government is unhappy with Rathore's braggadocio. "Rathore's statement was avoidable,” one minister tells ET. Another says "Rathore should not have spoken like that… what was the need?”

then...it said..

The Indian Express says "it was because it felt he could send the message across louder and clearer than the Army could. Sources said a political intervention was felt necessary at the 'highest level' and that's how Rathore, a retired Army colonel, was chosen to give out details the Army couldn't."

and what was the message... from The Indian Express link..

The minister said that today’s action could become possible because of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visits to various countries wherein “India’s intention towards a friendly neighbourhood and commitment towards mutual development was made as evident as its zero-tolerance towards terror”.

Setting the condition or can it be called as a new foreign policy. And the messaging seems to be very powerful - the way it is said. Now taking Nitin Gokhale report on Chinese involvement, and Chinese meandering into every country around India, it is clear who the recipients are for the message.

Poor media is running like headless chicken.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 12 Jun 2015 23:53

eklavya wrote:^^^^
Yes, we can be Japanese about it: very little talk by very few people, and let the product do the talking. But we are what we are, so might as well live with it. Those who had to get the message received it. Everything else is more or less totally irrelevant.

Yes saar, indeed we are what we are. My regret is that, in important things that matter to the war, we are not what our ancients were.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 12 Jun 2015 23:56

Broadly, there seem to be following points:
a) Myanmar's H&D loss.
b) Myanmar's version of events is different from Bhaarath's version.
c) There is no clarity on the casualties (with an insinuation that the numbers may be highly exaggerated).

Lets first try to understand the situation:

Peace again at stake in Nagaland

Namrata Goswami

Comment · print · T T T+ · T-
Tweet
[Pin It]
TROUBLE: “The NSCN (K) ceasefire with Myanmar was opposed by other Naga armed groups including the NSCM (I-M).” File photo shows Naga boys with their weapons during the 33rd Republic Day celebration of the NSCM (I-M) in Nagaland.
The Hindu
TROUBLE: “The NSCN (K) ceasefire with Myanmar was opposed by other Naga armed groups including the NSCM (I-M).” File photo shows Naga boys with their weapons during the 33rd Republic Day celebration of the NSCM (I-M) in Nagaland.
TOPICS
India
Nagaland
With the NSCN (K) withdrawing from the ceasefire, trouble could brew once more in Nagaland, putting the government’s ambitious plans for an ASEAN trade gateway at risk

When the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government took power at the Centre, it fast-tracked a solution to the long-standing Nagaland issue and set a deadline of 18 months in November 2014. The renewed focus raised the stakes for the Naga people to achieve an accord. A further impetus came via the plan to transform Nagaland and Manipur into India’s trade gateway to the ASEAN countries. This made peace even more urgent.

Unfortunately, on March 27, the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Khaplang (NSCN-K) headed by its Myanmar-based Chairman, S.S. Khaplang, unilaterally decided to retract from the 14-year ceasefire agreement with the Indian government, due for annual renewal on April 28. NSCN-K also expelled two senior India-based leaders, Y. Wangtin Naga and P. Tikhak. The two have subsequently formed NSCN (Reformation), a new body.

The NSCN(K)’s move might lead to renewed factional violence, which could stall the plans of connectivity via Myanmar that Narendra Modi announced in his visit to the North-East last year.

Trouble has been brewing in NSCN (K) for a while now. In April 2012, when it signed a ceasefire with Yangon, it was opposed fiercely by the two other Naga armed groups, the NSCN (Isak-Muivah)and the NSCN-Khole-Kitovi, who said that the NSCN (K) could not function like a trans-border group and be allowed to sign ceasefires with two sovereign governments. Then, when Khaplang decided to withdraw from the Indian ceasefire, he closed the Cease Fire Supervisory Board (CFSB), which includes five members each from the NSCN (K) and the Indian government (who will nominate the chairman) to monitor and enforce ground rules. Mr. Wangtin and Mr. Tikhak defied Mr. Khaplang and called a meeting of the CFSB in its office in Mon, Nagaland, where they unanimously resolved to oppose Mr. Khaplang’s ‘unilateral decision’ to annul the ceasefire. The two leaders accused Mr. Khaplang of not consulting cadres in India before taking the decision and challenged him, saying in essence that he had no right to withdraw the ceasefire from India while enjoying a ceasefire with Myanmar.

NSCN (K), meanwhile, defended its action, saying that any solution to the Naga issue without the sovereignty clause was a sham. It also accused India of using the ceasefire as a “psychological ploy” to undermine and demoralise “the patriotic spirit and fervour of the Nagas”.
Ceasefire always broken

The Indian government, for its part, also has a growing list of concerns about the NSCN (K). The latter had agreed not to assist any North-Eastern insurgent groups to set up base camps in Myanmar, but on-ground research reveals that in NSCN (K)-dominated areas of Myanmar such as Lahe, Leshi and Nanyun in Sagaing administrative region, the United Liberation Front of Asom-Paresh Barua faction and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB (Songbijit faction)) set up camps to carry out attacks in Assam. In fact, a study of the ceasefire from 2001 shows that there has been no let-up in NSCN (K)’s militant activities and active support to insurgent groups from India.

North-Eastern insurgent groups also have access to training and regrouping camps in Myanmar’s Naga Self-Administered Zone, where NSCN (K) has been granted autonomy by the Myanmar government. NSCN (K) cadres are allowed to remain fully armed in the three townships in the Zone, which is geographically contiguous to Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.

In the aftermath of the breakdown of the ceasefire, there have been renewed attacks on security forces by suspected NSCN (K) militants in Tirap District of Arunachal Pradesh. Even more ominous, the NSCN (K) is supported by CorCom, short for Coordination Committee, an umbrella organisation of six insurgent groups in Manipur. CorCom groups regularly camp and train in NSCN (K)-controlled territory in the Naga-inhabited areas of Myanmar contiguous to Nagaland. With CorCom’s support, the NSCN (K) can retain its insurgent capabilities in this corridor.

Although India has unilaterally declared that it will continue its part of the ceasefire with the NSCN (K), the major security concern in Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland now arises from another aspect. The possibility of internecine violence looms high in the aftermath of the split, if what happened four years ago is any indication.

The ethnic dimension of the latest split is an important factor. Y.Wangtin Naga is a Konyak Naga from Nagaland while P. Tikhak is a Tangsa Naga from Arunachal Pradesh. Between the two, their new outfit NSCN (R) purports to represent the Indian side of the Nagas as distinct from those living in contiguous areas of Myanmar. This is a direct challenge to the sway of the NSCN (K) over the Nagas in India. The situation is best described by Chinwang Konyak, the India-based adviser of the Eastern Naga Peoples’ Organisation (ENPO), who says, “This is a blessing in disguise as the Khaplang group will be left in Myanmar. Let them deal with the Myanmar government. It is better to part ways with them peacefully.” ENPO is a civil organisation with representatives from ethnic groups of Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Myanmar. Mr. Konyak’s statement reflects an important new territorial alignment of Naga ethnic groups — along the modern international border rather than the traditional ethnic notions of territoriality.

The fact that NSCN (K) has a Myanmar-based leadership seems to have, therefore, played into and limited its role as a major stakeholder in the Naga issue. In fact, one of the reasons why it has been disgruntled seems to stem from the fact that it has been sidelined in the last 17 years during talks between the NSCN (IM) and the Indian government. It has been dismissive of any talks held with NSCN (IM) but this has not helped it gain a better footing.

But none of this seems to have deterred the active reconciliation process that is going on among the various India-based groups. On the larger front, there have been concerted efforts by Naga civil society to expand the representation of the Nagas in the peace process so that a lasting and widely acceptable resolution to the Naga issue might be found.

If the government is serious about bringing lasting peace in the North-East, the first step is to hold ceasefire signatory groups accountable to ceasefire ground rules. Therefore, it is critical at this juncture that the Centre, along with the Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland State governments, map out the areas with an NSCN (K) presence and shore up security there to limit the possible breakout of inter-factional violence.

It is better to be prepared and deter violence than be caught unawares and react.

(Namrata Goswami is with the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. E-mail: [email protected])

Link

What End Of Ceasefire Means For India And Naga Rebel Group NSCN(K)

- Connectivity plans have been announced by Modi via Myanmar.
- Khaplang who heads NSCN is a Myanmarese.
- Khaplang unilaterally ended the ceasefire agreement and threw out Bhaarathiya Naga leaders from his group. Those Bhaarathiya Naga leaders formed their own independent groups.
- Khaplang has self-administered autonomous regions within Myanmar where NSCN trains many north-east insurgents.
- So, Myanmar has lost control over these parts of their country.
- This latest ending the ceasefire would be a detriment to the connectivity plan via Myanmar planned by Modi. So, there may be a chinese hand in this whole affair.
- So, Khaplang was running fullscale armed, self-administered autonomous regions within Myanmar. So, these camps could easily have large number of armed insurgents.
- China has deep connections with north-east insurgent groups.
- China has influence on Myanmar also and has been trying to get it under their control.
- US & Bhaarath also have some influence on Myanmar and provide a counter-balance to China. So, there seems to be two factions within Myanmar. One allied to US & Bhaarath and the other closer to China. So, Myanmar itself would be unable to take a clear stand in this whole affair.
- This clearly explains why unilateral attack on these areas is no H&D loss for Myanmar because Myanmar itself is suffering due to the presence of these chinese sponsored insurgents.

Modi's visit to Bangladesh has given transit access to Bhaarath. This could also be one of the reason for the attack. There may be also a Pakistani connection to this via Bangladheshi jihadhis.

Myanmar covert operation: The inside story of the surgical strike

Now, I imagine that the following could have happened:
since these are not small camps, I think a lot of air-power was used in this particular operation. Some say that Mi-17s were used. Some say that Mi-35s were used. I think that broadly one can gather that much air-power was used.
Since air-power was used, its possible that the camps were destroyed totally and the bodies were totally mangled.
It seems that the operation started at around 3:00 AM and continued upto the next day afternoon. So, after the initial shock and awe, the ground forces may have been used for mopping up and combing so that no one escapes.

Two camps were struck and it seems that according to intel(according to sources of Barkha Dutt) the two camps had a size of 100-150 atleast. But, it is not known exactly how many of these died and how many escaped because the operation was conducted in the dark night and used extensive air power. A conservative estimate is 30-40 died. A more realistic estimate would be 50-70 died. A cynical estimate would be 20 dead. But, both the camps were totally liquidated using air power. That explains why the casualty figures are not clear.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 12 Jun 2015 23:57

Kanson wrote:Those who are blaming the minister for any perceived and actual fallout are actually loosing the plot.

From the Firstpost article:

It was hashtag friendly Rajyavardhan Rathore who shot off his mouth about "our Special Forces crossing the border and going deep into another country”. His boasting actually forced more attention on the operation and compelled Myanmar to publicly display its annoyance. Now the Economic Times reports that the government is unhappy with Rathore's braggadocio. "Rathore's statement was avoidable,” one minister tells ET. Another says "Rathore should not have spoken like that… what was the need?”
then...it said..

The Indian Express says "it was because it felt he could send the message across louder and clearer than the Army could. Sources said a political intervention was felt necessary at the 'highest level' and that's how Rathore, a retired Army colonel, was chosen to give out details the Army couldn't."
and what was the message... from The Indian Express link..

The minister said that today’s action could become possible because of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visits to various countries wherein “India’s intention towards a friendly neighbourhood and commitment towards mutual development was made as evident as its zero-tolerance towards terror”.
Setting the condition or can it be called as a new foreign policy. And the messaging seems to be very powerful - the way it is said. Now taking Nitin Gokhale report on Chinese involvement, and Chinese meandering into every country around India, it is clear who the recipients are for the message.

Poor media is running like headless chicken.

Yes, it is indeed necessary to factor in the need to communicate with aam aadmi about what his government is doing differently this time around. We may be focusing too much on communications as perceived and judged by DIE.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 13 Jun 2015 00:02

LokeshC wrote:Forgive me for taking this on a slight tangent.

One thing occured to my mind. I have watched tons of videos about Bakis threatening India indirectly through "non state" actors and it is certain that they take pride in their terrorist "boys" instilling terror in the mind of the kuffar. They smirk and they laugh knowing that India cannot "do anything" because we have nukular weapons and we have tactical nukular weapons too.

I am starting to notice one pattern :- If there is a credible evidence of Indian capability advance, Bakis will test us for it at some point. This is because they cannot afford to lose the leverage they have on us, which is their raison-detre.

After Parakram, we instituted the "Cold Start" and Bakis tested us in 2008 for it. We *must* brace ourselves for a test, and of course give back as good as we get it, 10x times if possible.

I think actually the pakis are nervous, they are not programmed to handle this change in India's posture. Being pakis, they won't be good at learning either, so I am guessing they will hold off on terrorism for a while, but will raise the rona-dhona about yeevil yindia "finally admitting " that it broke pakistan.

shyamoo · Post by **shyamoo** » 13 Jun 2015 00:04

From the Firstpost article:

It was hashtag friendly Rajyavardhan Rathore who shot off his mouth about "our Special Forces crossing the border and going deep into another country”. His boasting actually forced more attention on the operation and compelled Myanmar to publicly display its annoyance. Now the Economic Times reports that the government is unhappy with Rathore's braggadocio. "Rathore's statement was avoidable,” one minister tells ET. Another says "Rathore should not have spoken like that… what was the need?”

Innuendo and unnamed sources are now facts, is it? And the gentleman wants us to respect the media.. with 'friends' like these...

I remember the Siachen argument vividly. This was after the avalanche at Gyari. Pakis were worried that IA would cross over and they couldn't do anything about it. On cue, we hear talks about peace and de-militarized Siachen and what have you... There was no more talk of that after pakis were able to restore strength at Gyari.

In retrospect, we should have done a paki on them and taken Gyari. Well next time, maybe.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 13 Jun 2015 00:06

KLNMurthy wrote:
eklavya wrote:^^^^
Yes, we can be Japanese about it: very little talk by very few people, and let the product do the talking. But we are what we are, so might as well live with it. Those who had to get the message received it. Everything else is more or less totally irrelevant.
Yes saar, indeed we are what we are. My regret is that, in important things that matter to the war, we are not what our ancients were.

I'm just so happy that we have a government that is prepared to stand up for India. Three events stand out in my mind:
- the disproportionate response on the Jammu border
- the sinking of the terror boat
- the SF action against assorted rebels/terrorists

All this in one year, after the pain we had to put up with during Manmohan Singh's tenure as PM. The constant turning of the other cheek was too painful, it was unbearable.

This PM says "you hurt me, I'll hurt you more".

I'm just so happy. Media commentators are waste of space.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Jun 2015 00:09

The celebrations have proven one thing, Indians hold so much psychological advantage over Chalumpa Yabhate, SukarGandhiki Chakrakamukhi Paki.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 13 Jun 2015 00:09

ShauryaT wrote:2. Why did the IA first say, no picture was released by them. Anyways, we need an unequivocal denial that this picture is not post ops, of 21 paras or an investigation if it is so. You are well aware of the implications of release of photos.

https://twitter.com/SpokespersonMoD/sta ... 7516177408

The IA never claimed to have released a picture. ANI claimed that the MoD had "authorised" a photo, but did anyone bother to asking ANI how this works? Do they take a picture to the MoD for approval? Utter nonsense.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 13 Jun 2015 00:12

Neela wrote:And the media seems to be staffed with a bunch of absolute clowns. ...

Same with the dead numbers. All media outlets have numbers varying from 7-60. And then articles follow up on how 7 is likely and 20 is unlikely. Im not even sure actual ops guys would know..

Controlled leaks. Journo calls up one source for the casualty count. Is told that 50-100 lie dead. Journo cross-checks with other sources and they feed him the same info. So he thinks its legit and posts it. Result? A psy-ops victory.

IndraD · Post by **IndraD** » 13 Jun 2015 02:15

Cosmo_R wrote:
ramana wrote:..

I think Firstpost is another DDM nest of snakes.
Agree. Any idea who's behind FP?

I hope already posted
Since firspost has been taking pot shot at army op, it is important they r exposed
Firstpost is an Indian news organisation. The Indian news operations are part of the Network 18 media conglomerate owned by Reliance Industries, which also runs CNN-IBN and CNBC-TV18

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 13 Jun 2015 04:24

Forget media if people like G.Parthasarthy says Myanamar might have been unnecessarily pushed into a tough spot on because of messaging, then there is some merit in the criticisms.

Hope Doval soothes any takleef they have experienced.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 13 Jun 2015 04:36

Don't forget Doval is not only a shrewd tactician in general but is also an old NE hand who probably has lots of personal contacts with the Myanmar junta.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jun 2015 05:44

LokeshC wrote: I am starting to notice one pattern :- If there is a credible evidence of Indian capability advance, Bakis will test us for it at some point. This is because they cannot afford to lose the leverage they have on us, which is their raison-detre.

True but as I said earlier this puts Pakistan in a Catch 22 situation because in order for them to test us and claim that the test failed they have to admit that they provoked/sent in terrorists etc and that we failed to hit them because they are not Myanmar. Enough to make any Paki splutter with frustration.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 13 Jun 2015 06:00

I'd be much happier if the government hadn't used this op as a 56 inch b**b job, but what's done is done.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 13 Jun 2015 06:27

Modi said 56" ONCE. Just ONCE. It is commie congis who picked it up from there and tried to make fun of it. So don't blame 56"rocks on bjp. Heat...kitchen..you know the rest.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jun 2015 06:36

ShauryaT wrote: I have only quoted the three points in the article as a "legitimate critique". The three points are around messaging to Burma, release of photos and wide discrepancy reported in number killed. This is what I said.

>>Legitimate critiques from the first post article. If someone has facts to counter, please do so.

Do you have any facts to counter the critique that Burma is not embarrassed as being claimed in the article?

Do you have any facts to counter that MoD message on the picture is consistent?

Do you have any facts to counter the critique that the numbers claimed to be killed are widely all over the place?

I have no interest in dissing anyone, let alone the IA. If you want to diss the media, please go ahead but much rather you diss the points the author makes and counter them. All I am getting is, motivated media, first post's ownership, etc. Well.

Shaurya your stout defence of your questions is wide open to receive a tit for tat rhetorical non response

An event X has occurred. A critique is made of reports relating to event X. There is no information on whether the critique is fact or fiction
But you want facts to rebut the critique

Coming to your questions:

Do you have any facts to counter the critique that Burma is not embarrassed as being claimed in the article?

The MoD did not say Myanmar is embarrassed. The media article claims that Myanmar was embarrassed. You want me to give you facts to say that Myanmar was not embarrassed? Shaurya - why are you asking this question? Why do you want me to rebut what is said by some reporter?

Do you have any facts to counter that MoD message on the picture is consistent?

Why would I want to counter the MoD message? The MoD put out a message. the media put out a dozen conflicting messages. If you want one consistent message you need to pick one of them,

Do you have any facts to counter the critique that the numbers claimed to be killed are widely all over the place?

Yes I have facts here. I say that 1000 were killed. The MoD says 20 which I say is fiction, and the Express says 7 bodies, also fiction. In the face of conflicting reports you have to choose whom you want to believe. It is a matter of trust. If you trust me the figure is 1000 dead. If you trust the MoD the figure is 20 dead. If you trust Indian Express the figure is 7. If you are asking me whom to trust, I suggest MoD.

Finally, with regard to your comment:

I have no interest in dissing anyone, let alone the IA. If you want to diss the media, please go ahead but much rather you diss the points the author makes and counter them.

Dissing or not dissing something is a matter of trust. If you trust someone you don't go out of your way to dig up something to diss that person. In this case the reporters are dissing the MoD/Army reports. What you seem to be asking is for counter-facts to diss the reporters claims.

I believe that you have failed to understand one simple point. If the reporters do not want to believe a particular story, they will write critiques no matter how many facts you throw at them, after which they will claim that the reason you are throwing more facts is because you are on the defensive and have something to hide.

This is a good media tactic because it
1. Provokes the release of more information which become "breaking news"
2. The military always have much to hide - especially the way they got information and how they conducted ops. But these make media stories and "critiques".

If you spend a few seconds using your imagination you can see why the media do what they do. They don't give a rat's ass about truth and information. It's all about "breaking news" stories and eyeballs. It would amaze me if you thought that you get the truth from the media and are upset that I might diss them.

One reporter, on getting details may say that "commandos approached sleeping figures aimed for their heads and shot them without making any effort to identify them, splattering brain and bone all over the ground." That is one half of the cruel story.

Another reporter may say "Rashmi, wife of Sepoy Ram Singh was just preparing a lunchbox for her son, thinking about the return of her husband for leave just one week away when a neighbour came rushing in saying that a man was looking for her. Thinking it was the TV cablewalla she stepped out to find a uniformed army man, and the bottom fell out of her life. Her husband had been killed in a terrorist bomb attack. She would never see his face again. His body had been burnt beyond recognition"

Exactly what news are you looking for from the media? Which story are you looking for?

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 13 Jun 2015 07:04

^^^shiv, I think you have made your point well enough in the post above. Let us not derail the thread anymore with this specific series of back-and-forth rebuttals and re-rebuttals. I have already informally warned ShauryaT for his trolling.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 13 Jun 2015 07:07

36 insurgents died or 63, those are minor details. The big picture is that Indian Army and political leadership has decided that they will cross national borders in hot pursuit. The chest thumping makes it clear that this is going to be the policy going forward. It is the political equivalent of burning bridges. Politically, itll be extremely damaging if a large scale 'terrorist spectacular' goes unpunished. Ergo, it will **not** go unpunished. See the Pakistanis jump around like an ass with mirchi up its arse.. They get the message.

Myanmar is a military junta that controls the flow of information in and out extremely tightly. You need to get a license even to buy a cell phone, forget about an internet connection. Dont worry about any embarrassment caused to Myanmar.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 13 Jun 2015 09:50

Tuvaluan: I strongly suspect Praveen Swami is ISI-compromised.

Prem: You give Swami too much and the ISI too little credit for intelligence. Mr. Swami enjoys a surfeit of the quality ascribed to Sam Donaldson of ABC. Paraphrasing:

P. Swami and his wife are in love with the same man

As for the media yada yada, self-goal soccer on as usual. I thought Rathore was excellent. The Myanmar govt was pre-empted by India giving credit to them for collaborating extremely well, and sharing common interest with India. This made it a no-brainer for them to just confirm and take credit. Myanmar is caught between India and China, remember, and in this case China is going to be very upset. China was even more upset in March 2015 when Myanmar Air Force bombs killed 4 people inside China during anti-terror operations. So they are going to be circumspect, and hence it was essential for India to take the lead and do the talking for them.
Very well done, IMO.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 13 Jun 2015 09:51

chetak wrote:No comments

Its not clear to me: who recovered these bodies? NSCN? Army? Myanmar Govt? Indian Express? Praveen Swami? Who recovered only 7 bodies?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 13 Jun 2015 10:08

This is a classic case of how a clearly politically compromised media can take any event and turn it around in such a way that a success appears to be a failure. All we know is that there was a cross-border operation into Myanmar, in which insurgents have been killed. There has been no casualty on the Indian side. The armed forces have given a press conference in which they stated all they wanted to say. The political leadership has given more details about policy adjustments and intent. Two or three members of the party ruling at the centre have spoken on the subject Rathore, Javdekar and Parrikar - all prompted as far as is evident. The defence ministry has issued a statement that is similar to what the army stated. The Myanmar authorities have said Indian troops entered their territory, and they then said that Indian troops did not. This mirrors in a way the position taken by the Indian side, where the armed forces did not explicitly state that they crossed the border, while the political side did. As these things go, this was a fairly well managed operation.

The media on the other hand is another story. The repeated parallels being raised between the Myanmar operation and the possibility of something similar in Pakistan by virtually all channels dealing with the issue, show not just the ignorance of most of the people covering such stories, but also a certain malicious political angle. The repeated use of similar adjectives across the channels, such as "chest-thumping" would give the impression that the government was on a jingoistic campaign advertising its machismo. Hardly that, when you consider the actual responses by government representatives verbatim. Then there is a case that Myanmar was embarrassed by the action. Who says? Has Myanmar indicated anything like that. Rather it has shown an almost studied indifference to the whole thing. This "embarrassment" angle has been purveyed by the Indian media and no one else. Then there are allegations that the facts of the operation itself are wrong, the numbers killed are different from different sides. Once again, apart from what the armed forces themselves have released, everything else is speculation and generated by the media which claims "sources". People who get paid to make their living putting out stories in the press, known as journalists, can come up with undisclosed sources at the drop of a political hint. These are people compromised ab initio. It is how they live. A journalist who does not get paid to put out stories. Now that one can take more seriously.