Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 09 Sep 2009 18:49

Abhi_G wrote:^^^^

In western media US-UK news sites (BBC, PBS) the whole state of J&K are not shown as parts of India. Northernmost parts of India start from Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. Previously, the parts of J&K within the LAC were shown. In google map, Arunachal was shown as a part of China and now it is an independent entity. Yesterday, MIT announced a speech by Montek Singh Ahluwalia (Chief Planning Commission) and in their front page website (which is no longer there), they had curiously concealed J&K on the map of India, by one of those board pins. I wrote en email in protest that this is a blatant misrepresentation. They replied that the map was not politically motivated and "Assam has not been represented". So can one infer anything regarding the fact that the role of US involvement will be at best ambiguous? Do these cartographic misrepresentations of India mean something?

Maybe there is a subtle message going out to the true nationalists in the power centres in the country that says look we have a restraining hand on the dragon and the paki, so do not dream of being world power etc etc. We want you to dance to our(US) tunes and you will have development to the power of infinity(which would actually mean more glorified clerical jobs to the US economy)

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 09 Sep 2009 18:53

-post deleted-

OT

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 09 Sep 2009 19:08

rkirankr,

The two front issue is well understood in the armed forces and we are capable of taking the same in our stride.

It is called two front i.e. simultaneous war with both China and Pakistan.

One has to understand the ingress avenues and the terrain and the combat ratio and combat worth that can be addressed along each to gauge the threat. Mere comparison of manpower and eqpt or imagining off the political map will not give the real analysis. Closer would be to study a relief map.

I believe that the Chinese are planning a second Tibetan railway that will run close to the border to Lhasa. That would be a bit worrisome.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 09 Sep 2009 19:10

rkirankr wrote:I have a question please try to answer without being Jingoistic
How would the Indian defense apparatus react if china and paki both declared war on India at the same time.

Without being jingoistic I ask - what is the likelihood of any one of them, let alone both of them, launching a full scale war against India?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 Sep 2009 20:21

rkirankr-ji,
perhaps the question will be better answered in the military-threads, where exact logistics and manpower could perhaps be spelled out in terms of terrain by those with actual experience (there has been no direct Chinese experience after 1962) to prove that IA has been given the capability to face a two-front. But then they may not be able to prove this on an open forum so we would be back to square one. More than army capabilities, the effect of political vacillations and lack of clear political goals can handicap army operations.

However, it is worthwhile to think of the many different ingress points and not the most obvious map ones. There is the approach through Ladakh, certain parts of HP, through Nepal - in fact almost all along the Nepal border, Sikkim, Bhutan, and AP, as well as through the northern states of Myanmar which has sizeable ethnic Han presence. The lower southern portion of the Himalayas are not as "non-porous" as they may look like on the relief map. As far as I remember, people can travel at night through many access points that are impossible to monitor. Of course, a large scale invasion with a modern army is not so easily hidden, but there are many access points where small units can actually cross over for preparatory work. You can spend some time in the Tarai belt and the eastern Himalayas to realize that there are "access" points across a wide stretch.

Problem will be to supply and maintain momentum. Once they come through, most "openings" fan out and may not be good for further offensive momentum. But use of tactical nukes and missiles in the plains can actually soften up this rear.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 Sep 2009 20:30

both of them can coordinate once US retreats from the AFG-Pak. They will use the US need to save face to wrangle concessions from the US that US pressurizes India to give concessions of giving up territories to those who most demand it. This will only be done after US can ensure India's offensive nuke programme is rolled back or slowed down sufficiently so that TSP+PRC has an advantage in nuclear terms. Then the western world will do a great show of "wanting lasting peace" and appeal to Indian tradition for "sacrifice" and "magnanimity" to do this for the sake od global peace.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 09 Sep 2009 20:51

RayC wrote: One has to understand the ingress avenues and the terrain and the combat ratio and combat worth that can be addressed along each to gauge the threat. Mere comparison of manpower and eqpt or imagining off the political map will not give the real analysis. Closer would be to study a relief map.

RayC sir, no disgreements. But we would have to keep in mind that the partition maps were made by Wavell much before Radcliffe, Mountbatten et. al. Those were kept secret until partition actually happened. Also media meant only newspaper and radio and there was no internet. So my concern is with respect to the recent appearances of maps of India with J&K and even the entire northeast truncated. Cartographic warfare is definitely not something new. But these sudden apperances in public media? Do they point to a capitulation by our netas at a future date, similar in lines to what happened in 1947? There may not be a definite answer and I may be totally wrong, but something sinister seems to be brewing similar to pre-1947.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 09 Sep 2009 23:09

Much of what happens on the border is not reported. My own unit confronted the Chinese and the CO was awarded a distinguished service medal. So, it would be wrong to surmise that the Chinese have a free run!

The two front scenarios have been wargamed many a time and exercises thereafter conducted. I was involved in some myself in both the formats!

There have been many such activities of the Chinese atttempting to intrude since 1961, including the Nathu La incident and the incident where Gen Sunderjee’s did a little sabre rattling. However, there is no doubt that political will has to be behind Army action and, I will be frank, there has to be a Chief of the Army who can speak business to the political chaps.

One should not look at merely ingress routes. They must look at intermediate and terminal objectives in military and political terms.

There are many ingress routes all over. However, what is ingress for a smuggler and what is ingress for a military force is different kettle of fish and that has to be borne in mind. Military operations are not merely to capture heights. There has to be a military/ political objective behind such operations.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 Sep 2009 00:05

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2009 ... china.html
Bharat Verma - Indian Defence Review -Sep, 09 online issue.

How will India repel the Chinese game plan? Will Indian leadership be able to take the heat of war? Have they laid the groundwork adequately to defend India? Is the Indian military equipped to face the two-front war by Beijing and Islamabad? Is the Indian Civil Administration geared to meet the internal security challenges that the external actors will sponsor simultaneously through their doctrine of unrestricted warfare?
The answers is an unequivocal ‘NO’. Pacifist India is not ready by a long shot either on the internal or the external front.

It is said that long time back, a king with an excellent military machine at his disposal could not stomach the violence involved in winning wars. So he renounced war in victory. This led to the rise of the pacifist philosophies. The state either refused to defend itself or neglected the instruments that could defend it.

Note also that the "Chinese" response is diplomatic enough to avoid discussing anything about the "two-front" issue. Maybe we can try to prove Bharat Verma wrong, here.

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 10 Sep 2009 04:35

rkirankr wrote:I have a question please try to answer without being Jingoistic
How would the Indian defense apparatus react if china and paki both declared war on India at the same time.
Indian defence forces may be very efficient in taking on one at a time, but if the two attack how is it going to be? Has there been any analysis by experts which is available to aam janta ?
No do not take me as scare monger or something like that , this scenario gives the nightmares. Even defending against only china (as against capturing chinese territories or tibetan territories) is I think within the capabalities of IA, IAF and IN.
I feel in the next war there will be more active cooperation between the two.
Any thoughts from the gurus?

That possibility is very remote as Dragon understands that if India is pressed too hard, Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong etc. would be the next Hiroshima/Nagasaki++. That's unacceptable to Dragon, don't know about TSP.
So wars now between South Asian Nuclear powers would always be Border wars like Kargil or Kargil++ where there is give and take of a few hundred to a few thousand sq. kms.
The question is more than if India can fight 2 border wars? For that India needs many more Mountain Divisions maybe 4-5 more, and then it should be ok.

The whole controversy about the Indian tests is a waste as it really does not matter whether one bomb kills 5 lakhs or 15 lakhs. The yield is only sensible for Conventional weapons. No sane country would accept even a smallest Nuke on its prized cities, so the number of Indian nukes are enough to deter all surrounding countries as they greatly exceed the number of decent cities and military garrison towns neighboring countries have.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 10 Sep 2009 12:22

One wonders why the issue of lower yield of Pokhran device has cropped up after so many years. Surely, it would have been known almost immediately.

There is a self imposed moratorium on the issue.

Will India break it, or is it a signal to China not to force the hand with aggressive action along the border, for after all, it is better for China to let India's nuclear be in the status quo mode.

There is no doubt that China would not like India to close the gap in weapon and weapon platform sophistication or technology. Hence, China apparently would like to keep India on the backfoot, with these type of 'non aggressive' show of intrusions, which also reinforces their claim over the territories.

They are playing the Chinese strategy game of 'Go'.

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 10 Sep 2009 12:35

RayC wrote:One wonders why the issue of lower yield of Pokhran device has cropped up after so many years. Surely, it would have been known almost immediately.

There is a self imposed moratorium on the issue.

Will India break it, or is it a signal to China not to force the hand with aggressive action along the border, for after all, it is better for China to let India's nuclear be in the status quo mode.

There is no doubt that China would not like India to close the gap in weapon and weapon platform sophistication or technology. Hence, China apparently would like to keep India on the backfoot, with these type of 'non aggressive' show of intrusions, which also reinforces their claim over the territories.

They are playing the Chinese strategy game of 'Go'.

The entire string of pearls strategy looks like the game of 'Go'. We have to develop our own chain(allies) and keep the liberty of moving around.
On the other hand we should also think whether we should play that game or change the game itself to the one that suits us. What would that be?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 10 Sep 2009 12:52

rkirankr wrote:
RayC wrote:One wonders why the issue of lower yield of Pokhran device has cropped up after so many years. Surely, it would have been known almost immediately.

There is a self imposed moratorium on the issue.

Will India break it, or is it a signal to China not to force the hand with aggressive action along the border, for after all, it is better for China to let India's nuclear be in the status quo mode.

There is no doubt that China would not like India to close the gap in weapon and weapon platform sophistication or technology. Hence, China apparently would like to keep India on the backfoot, with these type of 'non aggressive' show of intrusions, which also reinforces their claim over the territories.

They are playing the Chinese strategy game of 'Go'.
The entire string of pearls strategy looks like the game of 'Go'. We have to develop our own chain(allies) and keep the liberty of moving around.
On the other hand we should also think whether we should play that game or change the game itself to the one that suits us. What would that be?

There is no doubt that we must equally ''surround'' China and ensure that he entry into the IOR is challenged not only in the IOR but also before they pass through the Straits of Malacca.

Australia plays hot and cold, Vietnam is a potential ally and so is Singapore (they use our open spaces for army exercises and Kalaikunda for air exercises), Indonesia is neutral can be weaned. We are already organising a base in the Maldives.

Pressure on SL can be put as it was done for Nepal!

But then we are of high Gandhian morality!

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 10 Sep 2009 14:52

Pressure on SL can be put as it was done for Nepal!

Yes we can do all that, but we are still playing the game in our part of the space. We need to play china's game in china's space. Vietnam is a good ally. How about working with South Korea to undermine NOKO. Support more sanctions, aid in disturbances in that country. In general work for a unified korea which is unkil's ally(and ours too). With NOKO gone only the napaki will be left.More "people to people" relations with Taiwan....(Ah Iam dreaming now).

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Sep 2009 05:34

China is investing heavily in Vietnam. There has been some recent controversies over Chinese invested projects in Vietnam which disposses or diplaces or environemtally impacts local Vietnamese populations. The communist party has intervened strongly to stem any dissent against the Chinese activities.

Vietnam is a potential ally, yes, but there is no need to assume that it will be automatic. Vietnamese could be astute enough to play the market for maxium national benefits. (A most commendable trait I would agree).

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Sep 2009 06:51

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/0 ... pire-2053/

Look at the map on this page which I have not reproduced as unsure of copyright issues.

But here was a Russian thinking of a future much larger Indian confederation in 2007.

It’s the year 2053, and the world looks very different from today. There are no more than 5 superstates left on the face of the planet:

• an American Federation, covering the whole of North and South America;
• an Indian Confederation, consisting of present-day India and Birma/Myanmar (Bangladesh seems to have disappeared under the sea);
• an Asian republic dominated by China, further composed of Mongolia, Japan, Papua New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand;
• an Islamic Caliphate, occupying the whole of Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Indonesia;
• and the Russian Empire, uniting Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, all of Europe and Greenland.
• all states except the Russian Empire own a slice of Antarctica (I suppose that in exchange, Russia rules the North Pole all by itself).

That’s the thesis of Third Empire, a recently published futuristic novel by Mikhail Yuryev. In the book, Yuryev predicts that the Russian Empire will be re-created in a few decades’ time. This ‘Third Empire’ (I presume Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union were the first and second) will obliterate the three Baltic states in 2015 and defeat the USA in the nuclear exchange that many feared for most of the second half of the twentieth century but was thought unthinkable after the end of the Cold War in the 1990s.

Mikhail Yuryev is a Russian businessman, the former chairman of the Russian Government’s Council on Economy and Entrepreneurship (1993-1995) and formerly a deputy speaker of the State Duma (1995-1999). He is an ultranationalist, hoping to create a strong Russia which bases itself on Christian Orthodox values.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 12 Sep 2009 22:37

brihaspati ji,
can you pm me ur mail id.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Sep 2009 02:25

self-deleted

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Sep 2009 03:59

In Could Afghanistan's fraudulent elections have a positive affect on NATO policy?
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/could ... ato-policy

Paddy Maguire writes,

Corruption
Radio Netherlands' Bette Dam is one such expert. She's spent the last two years working as a journalist in Afghanistan and saw first hand how rife is corruption in Afghan politics.

"It was obvious that the Karzai government is full of corruption. That is because a lot of things went wrong. There is no prosperity, there is no future in Afghanistan. A lot of mistakes were made by [the Afghans] themselves and by the internationals, so they are using their own patronised and corrupt networks. They rely on them because there is no alternative. That is what Karzai has done, try to keep in power by using these old Afghan structures."

As the counting continues after the August elections, today saw the Afghan Electoral Complaints Commission [ECC] invalidate ballots from the elections for the first time, saying there had been 'clear and convincing evidence of fraud' in a number of polling stations. Earlier this week the commission also 'quarantined' results from 600 other stations. While the elections have been widely criticised, these moves show that they have also been relatively transparent. The fraud that is coming to light illuminates how the Afghan system actually operates, something which Bette Dam argues should have been on the NATO's radar from the start.

"The fighting of the last eight years is not helping at all. All the regions where the troops are it's unsafe. The Afghans are not working with the internationals. So there will be a new phase and [US General Stanley] McChrystal [commander of ISAF/non-ISAF troops in Afghanistan] is thinking about that. It looks like there will be a new strategy of trying to talk to the Afghans and connect with them instead of just trying to find the hidden enemy and trying to kill them because that is not going to work."

Strategy rethink
According to Bette Dam, this revelation of corruption might be what the international community needs to turn the corner in a conflict that appears to be losing public support. It might prompt a drastic rethink of strategy that understands, processes and digests the internal workings of Afghan society in such a way as to bring them on side as opposed to galvanising support against efforts that are being made.

"I think now the ball is with the international troops. They have to realise what is going on and they have rethink their strategy. That is what is going on right now."

Although this is apparently concerned with AFG, there is a biggere strategic implication for the start-think going on within NATO and USA. This is beginning to look more and more along the lines I have worried about here. The signs of compromise are oozing out with military commanders speculating publicly about the next one year being critical, and various public hints of potential public-opinion backlash. Now, if they can think of "a drastic rethink of strategy that understands, processes and digests the internal workings of Afghan society in such a way as to bring them on side as opposed to galvanising support against efforts that are being made" then on the surface it appears quite reasonable.

But given the rampant corruption within Afghan society itself, the article unknowingly puts up a strange conclusion. If corruption is the "traditional" process and "internal working" of this society, then "using" it means "no change". In reality what it simply means is that USA and NATO needs a new cover for retreat from the AFG theatre. I am inclined to think that the next step in the US strategy will be to reinvent a "good Taleban" after the "successes of the TSPA" in driving the bad Taleban out. Once this can be done on a majority Pashtun base, a consensus government can eventually be formed with Karazai and the Talebs. The Northerners no longer serve any useful purpose for USA, as long as USA can maintain some sort of base or presence towards the NE AFG, and the northern Pakistan. Taking the Taleban onboard again is not such a dramatic swing for the USA as it may appear.

USA is retreating militarily from AFG, and the only strategy forward that they could have taken - is something they can no longer adopt. This would have been a systematic destruction of the Wahabi networks. Militarily a policy of virtual genocide - of Alexander or the Romans - rounding up entire areas in tight noose and liquidate all within, in this case all potential fighting elements, would be the only effective one against the Islamists. And take other collateral measures that makes human life insupportable on the hills and mountains for at least a decade. Short of that, a huge mobile army thatc onstantly chases and keeps the military initiative can temporarily hold off guerrilla takeover, but not solve the problem on a long term basis.

But retreat from AFG means eventual retreat from TSP. For the USA has failed to understand the basic motivations behind Jihad. In spite of supposed "intelligence"/Machiavellian or Chankyan abilities - the "West" has always been limited by their shortsightedness induced by theology and racism.

The things to worry about are the haste with which USA may want to consolidate a regime on the subcontinent that at least partly remains under its indirect control. This can lead to accommodation of TSPA childishness and agenda of Islamist expansion at the cost of India.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 13 Sep 2009 18:18

i got it.U can delete it bhihaspatiji.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 13 Sep 2009 21:35

What is the bottomline of hanging around Afghanistan?

To rid the Taliban or cleanse the system? No system is totally clean including the US.

One has to work around the infirmities and get rid of the problem and then look at how to make the system cleaner and not the other way around!

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 14 Sep 2009 01:13

RayC wrote:What is the bottomline of hanging around Afghanistan?

The cheapest way to tie the knots of TSP and its jihadi infrastructure.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 14 Sep 2009 01:46

RayC wrote:What is the bottomline of hanging around Afghanistan?

Sir,

Gas Pipe Line.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 14 Sep 2009 03:06

RayC wrote: One has to work around the infirmities and get rid of the problem and then look at how to make the system cleaner and not the other way around!

Saar,

Leaders create problems, minions solve them. We are minions onlee. Trained DOOs we are...
Our desi mind only sees how to make system cleaner - a.k.a charitable work.

What desi mind cannot fathom is how to use or create a "problem" to ones advantage (pragmatically).
Also, we try to please everyone, satisfy none including ourselves...
Hence, the eternal brilliance of the semi-Dharmic mind

PS: Don't shoot the messenger.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Sep 2009 19:57

shravan wrote
Sir,
Gas Pipe Line.

Do you mean the central Asian gas or the Iranian one coming through the south? Given Afghan instability, will they at all think of having any pipeline over the AFG theatre? It will blow up every month at fifty different places.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Sep 2009 19:56

Tawang appears to be becoming the highlight of issue being raised by China. Is the GOI actually stepping into an elaborate trap? It is quite possible that China is deliberately making this an issue to distract India from its northen sectors. Thsi can be for a variety of reasons. They could be worried about possible alternative supply route for Uighur resistance through India (more difficult route) even if TSP is pressurized to stem the flow. But more dangerously they could be working in tandem with TSPA to give them some strategic advantage in the NA. Or a much more comprehensive plan is in the offing for a coordinated move againt Indian north, especially J&K. By raising the stature of Tawang as an issue, they could then actually present a trade-off for India to concede hugely in J&K.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 16 Sep 2009 20:05

Precisely Bji. There was a quote attributed to Mao, it said look east and hit west(or something to that effect). Tawang is a non issue,the Chinese are raking up to cover something that they plan to do after HH's death or possibly during the upcoming trip of HH.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 16 Sep 2009 20:36

That was my conclusion also. The unusual focus on Arunachal (and Tawang more so) came about rather abruptly about 5-10 years ago. Till that time the focus has been on Aksai Chin. My feeling is that what they really want is concessions in Aksai Chin (recognition) + some territorial give there. The Arunachal Pradesh brouhaha is to divert attention and threaten far serious consequences. Normal practice is to threaten 5-10 larger area than what is really desired. PRC wants to achieve this without a war, in my opinion. That is the classic Chinaa, winning without fighting.

Another calculation is that in the process of diverting attention they may actually get AP + Tawang. That is a possible side benifit, in PRC eyes .

These are fine & dandy calculations, but what the PRC does not take into account is such tactics only serve to arouse this nation out of a slumber. If PRC would be smart, it would not wake this elephant. PRC displays tactical brilliance and long-term strategic fool hardiness w.r.t. India. While it gave a bloody nose to India, it created a nuclear power in its border. It ruined the possibility of a friendly nation on its doorsteps for all times to come. Prosperity cannot come to nation by making enemies ... unfortunately the PRC will learn it the hard way.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 16 Sep 2009 20:37

brihaspati wrote:Tawang appears to be becoming the highlight of issue being raised by China. Is the GOI actually stepping into an elaborate trap? It is quite possible that China is deliberately making this an issue to distract India from its northen sectors. Thsi can be for a variety of reasons. They could be worried about possible alternative supply route for Uighur resistance through India (more difficult route) even if TSP is pressurized to stem the flow. But more dangerously they could be working in tandem with TSPA to give them some strategic advantage in the NA. Or a much more comprehensive plan is in the offing for a coordinated move againt Indian north, especially J&K. By raising the stature of Tawang as an issue, they could then actually present a trade-off for India to concede hugely in J&K.

Brihaspati ji,

How is the trade-off - give away J&K, take Myanmar for India? I wish and sincerely hope that Bharat has the basic ground-work ready for such move in that region.

As Brigadier RayC has opined, the terrain of Ladakh-Kashmir makes it difficult for an army column to move horizontally in sync. The movement of such column is relatively easier in Myanmar and Indo-China. Won't this negate the efficacy of China's encirclement plans?

This will also force the jihadi-core in ganga-valley to come out of the moderate sphere and show itself like Jayadratha.

X-Posted in Bharat-China dhaga and Bharat-Unkil Dhaga few hours ago by mistake..

rkirankr wrote:
Chiron wrote
Don't know who will be the first victim.. However, Myanmar will be the next Poland, IMHO.
What will be India? The next GB or France?

India can't afford to be the France. Because in that case, there won't be a GB to hold on.. Bhaarat has stronger hold over the IOR than the Chinese. The peninsular India and Andamans are the greatest strategic assets of India in current times.

Bhaarat should start interfering in Myanmar. After a particular threshold of increasing Bhaaratiya interference, China will have to come out of closet.

IMHO, the two mountain divisions being raised in NEFA will be instrumental in mountainous-forest warfare along Indo-Burmese border. Any army with ambition to neutralize heartland of Bhaarat from east should invade through Myanmar-Bangladesh-Bengal. It is the easiest route to get to plains of Assam. Himalayan frontier war can only be tactical and short-lived and can never be strategic.

All this is of course assuming that China indeed has sinister ambitions of territorial conquest of Bhaarat just like Nazi-Germany had. I doubt why a nation should think of invading Bhaaratiya heartland. More practical approach will be small battle and quick capture of Ladakh-Northern Kashmir (north of Jhelum) to form a contiguous block of China-Pakistan without Bhaarat being around to bother.

China has replaced Russia in the equations of the Great-game. China's need for access to Indian Ocean is similar to Russia in 19th century. The trade and energy security of China depends upon this access. The sabre-rattling should be in NEFA and thrust should be in Kashmir, if the battle is to serve Chinese interest. Just that, Lhasa is awfully close to India from Tawang-Bhutan, if major Chinese thrust is Ladakh-Kashmir. The simultaneous Indian thrust in Myanmar will seriously undermine the efficacy of the containment move currently being executed by China vis-a-vis India.

However, in this scenario, Ladakh-Kashmir can be the new Poland for the global flash-point.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Sep 2009 20:52

Without actually "conquering" meaning retaining territory, PRC+TSP could simply pretend to uphold an independent "Kashmir" nation, after concluding a 50 year treaty with the new nation for "defence cooperation" and thereby maintaining troops there. To occupy J&K, they do not have to come across from the Ladakh area. They can push off their missiles from silos north of LOC in and around the supply route of KKH. While the main ground attack comes from west and south west of the valley and Jammu. The Maoists can engage the Nepalese army in a civil war when PLA can come in to "restore order" on request from "government" (could be one recognized by PRC) and once a puppet regime is installed it opens up the entite Tarai for PLA machinations.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Sep 2009 02:15

Chiron ji

I do not have any military credentials whatsoever, but cannot see logic in some strategies.

For example; the claims that terrain doesn’t allow any (Indian or enemy) “army column to move horizontally in sync”. Then how did India lose POK to Pakistan and how did it gain control of Siachin?

Yes the costs are immense. But our enemies are willing to bear that cost if they can severe Indian connection with Himalayan and CAR regions. What should India do?

If India, with its 9th largest military budget in the world and more than million soldiers cannot defend its borders on one or other pretext, who else can?

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 17 Sep 2009 02:27

I actually had the same question: if it is impossible to fight why is it impossible only for India? how come TSP took the lands in 1948? And PRC in 1962? If it is impossible, then shouldn't Indian J&K (whaterver is left of it) be also immune to any attack? So that should be no anxiety on that front.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Sep 2009 11:14

RamaY wrote:
For example; the claims that terrain doesn’t allow any (Indian or enemy) “army column to move horizontally in sync”. Then how did India lose POK to Pakistan and how did it gain control of Siachin?

We lost POK because JLN, the PM called for a ceasefire, even as the IA was pushing the Pakistanis out of J&K.

Thereafter, the Pakistan and Indian Army firmed in all along the CFL (Ceasefire Line).

Given the current force levels on either side or the vast improvement in infrastructure, it is not the same as in 1947 or 1965. The political aspect has to be understood. In any Indo Pak hostilities, big powers come into play and intervene and thus the ‘window’ for the operation is very limited. Hence, to expect that POK can be captured in such a small window is a trifle grandiose!

In so far as the terrain is concerned and how it plays a role in inhibiting armour like sweeps in the mountains cannot be explained in the brief space of a post since that would require a lesson on the conduct of warfare. Suffice it say, that the artillery and logistics is road bound. Without replenishment, no war can be sustained. And without artillery, the cost in lives would be astronomical. The mountains also limit the availability of gun areas.

One could even ask, can armour be used in the mountains?

Pakistan did not gain Siachen. It was always India's and when Pakistan started a cartographic war, India just put the boots on the ground to show whose territory it was.

Yes the costs are immense. But our enemies are willing to bear that cost if they can severe Indian connection with Himalayan and CAR regions. What should India do?

If India, with its 9th largest military budget in the world and more than million soldiers cannot defend its borders on one or other pretext, who else can?

Indeed, we should link up with the CAR. What is the route that India should adopt even if it taken to be feasible.

The co-relations of Budget and strength to do with defending the border is interesting. To my mind, it only adds to the efficiency of doing the task. The IA is defending the borders as it has defended before.

actually had the same question: if it is impossible to fight why is it impossible only for India? how come TSP took the lands in 1948? And PRC in 1962? If it is impossible, then shouldn't Indian J&K (whaterver is left of it) be also immune to any attack? So that should be no anxiety on that front.

It is not impossible. It is feasible, provided there is adequate time given for operations and it is not terminated because of big power pressure; provided the economy is ready to accept that for undertaking this war, India tailspins into the stoneage; provided India is ready to lose huge population because of nuclear strikes. The day it is possible and acceptable, the orders can be given and IA will be raring to go!

We lost Aksai Chin and POK because of our leaders. Ask them!

Even today, we are floundering and nonplussed over the Chinese intrusions or aggressive patrolling.

We are also immune to attacks wherever we are holding.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Sep 2009 11:33

Even if there is some machination between Pakistan and China and a defence agreement is signed with 'Kashmir', China, to my mind, will never position its troops on foreign soil.

Such an action would create serious perception problems with its immediate neighbours in SE Asia.

Attacks on Kashmir from South West and West will not give adequate dividends to be anywhere near to having a 'Kashmir'. In fact, it can backfire!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Sep 2009 11:43

This is an excellent answer for those who are apologising or are getting scared over the Chinese actions!

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/09/ao ... china.html

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Sep 2009 13:04

RayC wrote:This is an excellent answer for those who are apologising or are getting scared over the Chinese actions!

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/09/ao ... china.html

Excellent article, but we are not afraid of China, we are afraid of Shashi Tharror, SM Krishna and the HONORABLE PM and their real masters and backers.

India is only defeated by Indians.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Sep 2009 13:40

Well take another view.

As the government downplays the news of the Chinese incursions in Ladakh, it has caused great concern among Indian strategists. B Raman believes any confrontation as a result of this hysteria would damage the interests of both countries......

Even in respect of the bilateral dispute over the border, one has to take note of the fact that there has been no attempt by either government to change the status quo by setting up an illegal territorial presence in any sector of the border..........

If they had not withdrawn unilaterally, our army was not in a position to eject them and we would have been confronted in the Eastern sector with a situation similar to the one in the Western sector -- that is, with a new post-1949 status quo set up by the Chinese which we are not in a position to change...........

The Chinese have been trying to change the status quo in the Eastern sector in their favour not through military means, but by claiming a large part of this territory and insisting on our conceding their demand over some (Tawang) if not all of this territory as part of a border settlement..................

There are other components -- namely, strengthening their relationship with Pakistan in order to confront India with the danger of a two-front war should it try to change militarily the status quo either in respect of China or in respect of Pakistan with regard to Jammu & Kahmir; giving Pakistan a nuclear and missile capability for threatening India; weakening the Indian influence in the rest of South Asia and strengthening their presence and influence in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka [ Images ] and Nepal; creating a presence for their navy in the Indian Ocean region and opposing India's attempts to emerge as an Asian power on par with China........

This hysteria has resulted in a campaign of mutual demonisation and mutual sabre-rattling. This sabre-rattling is only at the non-governmental level. The two governments have maintained a distance from this hysteria without trying to discourage it.

The danger of such hysteria is that it could acquire an uncontrollable momentum and take the two countries towards a precipice from where they may not be able to withdraw.

Any confrontation as a result of this hysteria would damage the interests of both the countries. This hysteria has to be defused in time by the top leaderships of the two countries interacting with each other more frequently and more directly than now and taking initiatives to remove wrong perceptions about each other.

It is unwise for Indian analysts to talk of the Tibetan card. The international community has recognised Tibet as a part of China. While it will be sympathetic to any Tibetan attempts to free themselves of Chinese control, it will not support any Indian initiative or move in this regard. By frequently talking of the Tibetan card, we will only be adding to the suspicions and concerns in the Chinese mind.

It is equally unwise for Chinese analysts to talk of the Arunachal Pradesh (southern Tibet as they call it) or the Northeast card. The international community looks upon these areas as a part of India and will not support any Chinese move to change the status quo. Much of this hysteria will die down automatically if the two countries reach a border settlement..........

The only border settlement, which will be equally advantageous, is for India to accord de jure recognition to the status quo in the Western sector in return for China recognising the status quo in the Eastern sector.

The present difficulties in the Eastern sector are apparently due to the fact that China wants a face-saving formula by India handing over at least Tawang to it.

India cannot do this because Tawang is a populated area. Its inhabitants are Indian citizens. No India political leader will be able to sell to the people and Parliament any concession, which would involve any population transfer.

So, what are the options? Either go on holding one meeting after another without any forward movement or think of some idea which could break the present deadlock. One idea could be to explore the possibility of a 'status quo plus' solution under which China will recognise the status quo in Arunachal Pradesh in return for India accommodating some of the Chinese interests in Tawang.............

http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/sep/ ... steria.htm

A great antidote to Shiv Aroor?

What is your take?

It is true that none have physically occupied (at least not known in the open sources) any land beyond that of 1962. I wonder if that means that we accept all this aggressive patrolling by the Chinese and then weep when they actually take some areas by physically occupying it and then claim that not a blade of grass grows. Is that what is being suggested?

As far as why the Chinese vacated Arunachal in 1962 but not Aksai Chin, one had to understand military tactics and how to sustain a war. It was not because China suddenly had been afflicted by conscience and morality. China’s morality requires no elaboration given that they are propping up regimes like Zimbabwe and Sudan. So much for their morality! I am amazed at statements like ‘If they had not withdrawn unilaterally, our army was not in a position to eject them and we would have been confronted in the Eastern sector with a situation similar to the one in the Western sector’; as if China did us a favour! Who asked them to do this favour? One must understand the nuances of conducting warfare to realise that this was no favour. I am not only amazed but also saddened that respected opinion makers of stature should comment so or suggest so!

Very correctly the article indicates how China is isolating India from the neighbourhood. Indeed, who would cosy up with a weak one? If we are seen to buckling to the Chinese, will Indians also cosy up with their own govt? If not, why blame others? If an article like this one, from a deep thinking individual, apparently appears to dilute the morale and will of the Nation and is from people who are ‘in the know’, it surely is scary! Are they right? If so, let us abandon the ship as scurvy rats would!

If standing up as Indians is hysteria, then I am guilty!

I rather am an Indian than a scared Indian!

Dying for my nation has not been some new phenomenon to me!

It is time that we, as Indians, should hold our ground and if we have to perish, so be it, than be cowardly and be bullied at every drop of a hat.

I am not a jingo, as most are aware here, but I am a proud Indian. My life is nothing when compared to the Freedom , Independence and Sovereignty of India.

If there is more to the issue that what has been said in the article that the author knows, he should spell it out so that there is no misunderstanding of what is being said in the article. Spell it out. Or else, don't demoralise the Nation! This is an important aspect since the author is known to have 'inside' information as his other articles indicate. A person of reputation as his, has to guide the national will and not scare it!

As Indians, this article is demoralising! Almost as classic as the 'no blade of grass grows' genre!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Sep 2009 14:10

RayC wrote:
What is your take?

Thanks for sharing this Brig RayC, yes it is indeed a antidote to Shiv Aroors post. Whats my take?

Well I will just say that I agree with both Adm Raja Menon and Shri G Parthasarathi when they were on a panel with Ms Dutt and Shri Tharoor et al on NDTV (posted in other China thread I think)

They said it would hight of naivty to assume that the Chinese moves are for territorial interests. In 62 before and after the war, the Chinese held the same amount of territory. So what did they fight for?

I think G Parthasarthy obliquely referred to B Raman and his views in the interview too, saying such views (those expressed by B Raman) were not really tenable.

I find myself in agreement with those gents rather than Shri Bahukutumbi Raman.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Sep 2009 14:28

One of the biggest problems I find with these so called 'strategic thinkers' is that they are not from areas which have been lost or have a feel of those who live in the periphery of the Indian borders.

It is easy to sit way inside India and pontificate. But ask what it is for those who are being affected.

I attend a seminar where Insurgency in Assam was being discussed. The usual puerile stuff was being pandered by authoritative and knowledgeable people, both civilians and military.

It was an editor of a reputed Assam daily, who wondered what is the mainstream that Assamese should mould into? The thieving, deceitful ethos? What has the mainstream done to bring Assam into the mainstream?

Honestly, how many of us have visited, let alone live in the NE and yet we so glibly comment!

How many have us gone to Arunachal that we so glibly comment?

How many have gone to Ladakh to glibly comment?

You have to feel the pangs of the people to realise.

However, it is easy to write an article and earn your bread! And many do that. No aspersions on anyone, but just a thought!

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 17 Sep 2009 15:32

RamaY wrote:Chiron ji

I do not have any military credentials whatsoever, but cannot see logic in some strategies.

For example; the claims that terrain doesn’t allow any (Indian or enemy) “army column to move horizontally in sync”. Then how did India lose POK to Pakistan and how did it gain control of Siachin?

Yes the costs are immense. But our enemies are willing to bear that cost if they can severe Indian connection with Himalayan and CAR regions. What should India do?

If India, with its 9th largest military budget in the world and more than million soldiers cannot defend its borders on one or other pretext, who else can?

Surinder wrote:I actually had the same question: if it is impossible to fight why is it impossible only for India? how come TSP took the lands in 1948? And PRC in 1962? If it is impossible, then shouldn't Indian J&K (whaterver is left of it) be also immune to any attack? So that should be no anxiety on that front.

RamaY ji and Surindar ji,

I guess, RayC ji has elucidated upon the comment with much more authority and experience. Although I have no experience of serving in armed forces, a quick glance at the map of both these regions will help us answer the question.

It is neither China's interest nor ambition to occupy any of the Indian heartland territory. The war (from their side) will start and aim only at earning some diplomatic chips for future bargaining. The aim here is unhindered chinese access to IOR and isolation of India from CAR.

Given the infrastructure which is already in place on Chinese side of territory, the movement of army column is much more easier. Infrastructure development on Indian side has started quite late we are at least 5-6 years behind the Chinese. This may or may not act to our benefit simply because it will be progressively difficult for the Chinese to march on Indian territory.

When an entire front of 200-300 miles moves in sync in the enemy territory, the capture is complete. In Northern Areas, Aksai Chin, Ladakh, Arunachal Pradesh, this thing is impossible. The invaders will have to attack in terms of platoons or companies and not in regiments and divisions. Again, lack of artillery cover-fire makes the movement of infantry expensive in terms of lives.

Yes, we should defend our boundaries and sovereignty. But, it can either be done by indulging in Dharma-Yuddha or Koota-Yuddha. Dharma-Yuddha will be retaliating and fighting in Aksai-Chin without opening any other front. Koota-Yuddha will be to make a thrust in Myanmar and a Naval thrust beyond Singapore while blocking off all the Chinese supplies in IOR. If India overthrows the military Junta in Myanmar, the Burmese Janata will almost definitely welcome this change. This permanently dislodges China from Bay of Bengal, all the way beyond Singapore. The invasion may as well continue in Yunnan province of PRC. In this case, even India will earn some bargaining chips. This is dangerously close to middle-kingdom and Chinese heartland. The loss of civilian lives and property in Yunnan will be much more severe for China than the loss of same in Aksai-Chin and Ladakh for India. It is easier to open a huge front in this region with a huge army column moving in sync without straining the logistics too harshly as it would while advancing in Aksai-Chin, Northern Areas and Ladakh.

Of course, it will be unwise to give-up the precious J&K and isolate the nation from CARs, but given the cost-benefit ratio which is currently in favour of Chinese, this move can seriously shift the equilibrium on Indian side.

Hence, Bhaarat should fanatically improve the roads and related infrastructure in meghalaya, Manipur, tripura, mizoram, Assam and Arunachal; and start talking more positively with both Burmese Junta and people. The positions of advantage on Himalayan frontier have already been occupied and fortified by Indian and Chinese armies. It will be immensely expensive to invade through that wall. Fighting China in Arunachal, Aksai Chin, Sikkim is playing the game on their terms. Fighting them in Yunnan and IOR is fighting the war on Indian terms. They are dangerously close to our heartland hence the frantic reactions from India. Bhaarat can hit their heartland, the middle kingdom, via this route.

Just remember the scene when Shivaji killed Afzal Khan.

Edit - It would be interesting to see the infrastructure in place on Myanmar-PRC border.