Bharat Rakshak

We call on Pakistan to do what its leadership promised to us a few months ago when they agreed to crack down on known terror outfits

Being Pakistani is a state of mind. That is y there r so many Pakistanis in India and so few in #Balochistan & Sind

Pakistan and Russia recently signed a landmark defence deal for the purchase of Mi-35M (NATO reporting name Hind-E) helicopters — a versatile helicopter gunship with troop carrying capabilities.The Mi-35M is a comprehensive upgrade of the Mi-24V, and brings to the battlefield a whole range of capabilities. Produced by Rostvertol, a subsidiary of Russian Helicopters, it is offered as an export variant of the Mi-24.The famous Mi-24, made its name by instilling the fear of God in every adversary that faced it on the battlefield. It is also easy and cheap to maintain, a critical consideration for combat aircraft.The export version, which Pakistan will be acquiring, incorporates several improvements over the earlier Mi-24 models.The cockpit and vital components are protected by titanium armour, part of the reason the Hind series is referred to as the ‘flying tank’. It has new main rotors with a better aerodynamic profile. A new X-shaped tail rotor has also been incorporated, replacing the earlier three-blade rotor. The characteristic stub wings of the Hind have been shortened, but still retain their ability to carry large amounts of rockets and guided missiles.Avionics have also received a major update with the new export model of the Hind. The cockpit is now night vision capable, with new and improved Multi Functional Displays (MFD). The sensor package has received a major upgrade too, giving the helicopter the ability to engage in combat operations at any time of the day, in all weather conditions.The turboshaft engines have been improved and are now more powerful, making the Mi-35 perfectly suitable for operations in our tribal areas and other high altitude areas of operation.As the Mi-35 was built to destroy enemy armoured vehicles and anything else that was unfortunate enough to come in its way, it is armed with Ataka or the older Shturm anti-tank guided missiles.The Ataka has a range of up to 8 kilometres, hence giving it the perfect ability to reach out and touch a ‘friend’. It can also carry 80 80mm rockets or 20 122mm rockets. The Hind-E also has a twin-barrelled 23mm gun, and one has to be extremely unlucky to be on the receiving end of the gun.The troop carrying ability of the Hind-E can also be used in a number of ways. For one, the helicopter can be used to insert Special Service Group (SSG) personnel onto dominating heights in our current areas of operation, from where they can provide vital surveillance on surrounding areas or provide covering fire to other elements manoeuvring in the valleys below.

salaam wrote: Meanwhile Sethi saheb is putting high hopes on Pakistan Super League. Hope Indian Board silently disqualifies (from ICL) any player/official who participates in PSL for that calendar year. That will nip this in bud.

partha wrote:

salaam wrote: Meanwhile Sethi saheb is putting high hopes on Pakistan Super League. Hope Indian Board silently disqualifies (from ICL) any player/official who participates in PSL for that calendar year. That will nip this in bud.

You are assuming PSL will happen This is 2nd or 3rd time PCB is "launching" PSL. PSL is another pathetic attempt by Pakis to restore H&D following IPL success. PSL is unlikely to happen. There is no money. PCB's idea is to somehow get BCCI to agree to an India-Pak series in December, make some money, have PSL in Feb and then claim PSL > IPL.

Pakistan Cricket Board chief Shaharyar Khan did a U-turn on his earlier statement on considering the option of boycotting matches with India in ICC and other multi-team events.

Talking to the media in Lahore on Tuesday, Khan adopted damage control mode, insisting that if India did not play the planned series with Pakistan in December he alone cannot decide the next course of action.

"If India doesn’t play the series we will see what has to be done, but I alone can’t take any decision. I will consult the Prime Minister and the PCB Governing body on this," he said.

The former career diplomat's changed tone apparently came about after a strong reaction from Rajeev Shukla, a senior Board of Control for Cricket in India official, to his threat of boycotting all matches with India.

A_Gupta wrote:Tarek Fatah tweet:

Being Pakistani is a state of mind. That is y there r so many Pakistanis in India and so few in #Balochistan & Sind

johneeG wrote: I don't see any ups and downs in Amirkhan-Pakistan relationship. Pakistan depends on Amirkhan and therefore has to toe its line. Pakistan doesn't have the luxury to defy Amrikhan on any issue. It suits Amirkhan to project the image of a rogue Pakistan just as it suits Pakistan to project the image of a rogue ISI just as it suits ISI to project the image of a rogue Taliban.

Once again, expectations were raised and quickly dashed when it became clear that there was no likelihood of a meeting between Nawaz Sharif and Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) session. Not that there were any high expectations of the one-off meeting had it been pulled off. It wouldn’t have achieved much apart from improving the atmospherics for a while. But even that would have been a blessing considering the present state of tension and volatility on the Line of Control (LoC) that seems to have become the norm ever since the BJP came into power. In all probability, both countries, in their respective addresses to the UNGA, will be running through the usual laundry list of complaints against each other and trading barbs before world leaders — a sight that, regrettably, has been a regular feature over the years with few exceptions.The hard truth is that the two countries are caught in a test of wills, promoting opposing visions of how relations can be normalised. For Pakistan, it is the resolution of the Kashmir dispute, whereas India accords high priority to terrorism and is unwilling to engage on other issues. All this is layered with emotions and ego, and is oblivious to the reality that the way India-Pakistan relations are managed at the present will determine the security dynamics and landscape of South Asia in the years to come.

. Tragically, both India and Pakistan are supporting each other’s dissident forces. India, of late, has been harbouring Baloch separatists and supporting the TTP. There are also reliable reports that India is meddling in Karachi and other hot spots in Pakistan. Similarly, Pakistan is accused of looking the other way when operatives of the Lashkar-e-Taiba try to sneak across the border. Pakistan should give up its policy of supporting non-state actors, which only serves to weaken its international standing and credibility. The establishment probably thinks that there is little incentive to suppress Pakistani activities when India remains intransigent. One could argue that support for militant organisations has a dangerous and corrosive influence on society and is against international norms. As a consequence, a majority of countries feel more inclined to share India’s viewpoint.

What, then, will bring a shift in the policies of the two countries, or do their leaders believe that the existing approach best serves their national goals? If this is the case, then Pakistan should consider whether its current policy has brought the Kashmir dispute any closer to resolution? Similarly, has India’s policy facilitated resolution of conflicts? In fact, discontent in Kashmir is widespread and it is only through brutal suppression that India is maintaining a facade of peace. One is justified in asking what India has gained by not allowing the Pakistani delegation from meeting the Hurriyat leaders. Does it feel sufficiently confident that it can handle the chronic problem of Kashmir unilaterally, without Pakistan’s ‘meddling’? Is it not better that Pakistan engages openly with leaders who are known to be moderate and accommodating? It is more of false pride than anything else which has led the Indian leadership to feel that it can resolve the Kashmir problem unilaterally. There is an impression that India feels it has reached an international standing by virtue of its geo-strategic and political importance and that now it can dictate terms, like the US does, or it can replicate the Israeli model of dealing with the Palestinians when it comes to dealing with Kashmir.
India is aware that its aspirations for economic development could be affected if tensions with Pakistan rise to a level that leads to a serious conflict. It will try to pressure Islamabad by rejecting formal engagement and maligning Pakistan at international forums, but will refrain from crossing the threshold. Currently, it is not interested in trade with Pakistan, which is a minuscule two per cent of its global volume, although potential for increasing it does exist if normal market forces are allowed to operate freely.
The civil-military imbalance being skewed in favour of the latter gives another reason to India for ignoring Nawaz Sharif’s efforts at improving relations. The establishment insists that relations with India are contingent on its willingness to discuss the future of Kashmir. By pursuing a hard line towards Pakistan, India further strengthens the role of the military. It is not surprising that the BJP being in power in India suits the military in Pakistan, enabling it to justify its policies. This, in turn, boosts the power of the hardliners in India and gives them the driving seat. Both have their strong views and it is difficult to visualise if there would be any meeting of minds and values any time soon. The resulting dynamic only perpetuates antagonism between the two countries.

The only real way forward is to actively cultivate the idea among Indians that Pakistan is less of a problem and has the potential to be a partner in South Asia — but for that to happen, Pakistan must continue its efforts to put its house in order with greater zeal. Moreover, the establishments in both countries must finally understand that their job is to build peace, not to perpetuate endless conflict that leads nowhere except towards a downward spiral. The two countries need to put their irreconcilable differences on the shelf and get to work on what they can agree upon and wait to resolve them later at an opportune moment. Otherwise, Pakistan as the junior partner will be condemned to live in the past and the senior one will find it hard to realise its ambitious goals.

SSridhar wrote: The Americans have always had extensive intel on the Pakistanis (and Indians too for that matter) and the Rann of Kutch encounter earlier would have anyway raised their antenna even further. The war gaming would have been based on the relative strengths (including quality) of the arms and possibly terrain, their assessment of the morale of the armed forces and the political leadership (especially after the 1962 war), the three fronts that India had to take care of (western, eastern & East Pakistan) etc. They could not have been aware of the resolve of the Indian leadership to take the war through the IB and deliver a crushing blow or the exemplary courage & determination of the armed forces in making a mincemeat of the Pattons and the Sabres. So, their gaming exercise came a cropper and hopefully they too would have learnt a lesson or two from the war just as their 'deep friends', the Pakistanis did. Shri. KS's article does not support the theory that the war was 'ordered' by the Americans.

The Americans had problems with both Pakistan and India but their problems with the Pakistanis were huge especially as India-US were trying to build up a better relationship. The Pakistanis were very annoyed with the Americans about the developing relationship and wanted to destroy that. The Americans could not allow their policies to be questioned by the Pakistanis. They decided to sit out the war and ordered a freeze on military supplies to both nations which hit the Pakistanis the hardest. There are reports that later when Ayub visited Washington, LBJ noted how chatised the once haughty Ayub was.

On the questions of ups & downs in US-Pakistan relationship, there are countless sources available.
.

The United States (US) Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara, had told Y.B. Chavan, India’s new Defence Minister, on a visit to the US in search of military equipment:Mr. Minister, your air force is like a museum. I wonder whether you are aware of the variety of aircraft in your air force. You are still operating with Hunters, Spitfires, Vampires, Liberators, Harvards—exotic names of World War II vintage. All these aircraft are only worthy of finding a place in the museum. 3

Rajdeep wrote:News360: Visuals expose PoK horror


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJykCvgtFho

The real face of Pakistan occupied Kashmir has been exposed. There are massive protests against the Pakistani government in several areas of PoK, including Muzaffarabad, Gilgit and Kotli. CNN-IBN exposes how the Pakistani establishment is using brutal force to quell rebellion in the region, resorting to massive human rights violation even though Islamabad has never lost an opportunity to hit out at New Delhi over Kashmir and the alleged attempts to suppress the people living in the Valley.

Rajdeep wrote:News360: Visuals expose PoK horror


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJykCvgtFho

The real face of Pakistan occupied Kashmir has been exposed. There are massive protests against the Pakistani government in several areas of PoK, including Muzaffarabad, Gilgit and Kotli. CNN-IBN exposes how the Pakistani establishment is using brutal force to quell rebellion in the region, resorting to massive human rights violation even though Islamabad has never lost an opportunity to hit out at New Delhi over Kashmir and the alleged attempts to suppress the people living in the Valley.

The real face of Pakistan occupied Kashmir has been exposed. There are massive protests against the Pakistani government in several areas of PoK, including Muzaffarabad, Gilgit and Kotli. CNN-IBN exposes how the Pakistani establishment is using brutal force to quell rebellion in the region, resorting to massive human rights violation even though Islamabad has never lost an opportunity to hit out at New Delhi over Kashmir and the alleged attempts to suppress the people living in the Valley.

ISLAMABAD: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has approved the release of a $504.8 million tranche to Pakistan, despite questions from some executive directors on the rationale for waiving more conditions to keep the programme on track.

The main bone of contention was the budget deficit figure that the Ministry of Finance had claimed stood at 5.3% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Rs1.45 trillion.

Contesting the official claims, the independent economists had worked out the budget deficit at 6.4% of the GDP or Rs1.752 trillion while using the same official set of numbers.

An official of the finance ministry said that the IMF gave approval to a budget deficit figure of 5.37%, which is slightly higher than number reported by the government earlier. However, the IMF’s views could not be obtained due to its decision to withhold the statement.

This decision of the Executive Board would immediately provide a sigh of relief to the beleaguered government that was facing allegations of figure fudging and brings total disbursements to $4.54 billion in two years under a three-year programme supported by an Extended Fund Facility (EFF) arrangement.

“Steps to increase revenue mobilization, including by broadening the tax base and strengthening tax administration, remain key to generating resources for priority spending and greater social protection,” said Mitsuhiro Furusawa, deputy managing director of the IMF and acting chair.

The statement added that reforms should also aim at securing a reliable supply of electricity and gas, and reducing fiscal risks posed by these sectors. An accelerated pace of privatization and restructuring of public enterprises as well as regulatory reform will also go a long way toward improving the business climate and supporting private sector-led activity, it added

Srinagar, Sept 29:
Brigadier J S Cheema of the Army’s Baramulla-based 19th Infantry Division said attacking Pakistan Army headquarters in Rawalpindi was an option with the Indian Army.
Addressing a conference organized by the Army to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of 1965 war at Army’s strategic Srinagar-based 15 Corps headquarters, Brig Cheema said, attacking Pakistan Army headquarters was an option with the Indian Army.

“What are we waiting for? Another 26/11?” he said.

Brig Cheema said New Delhi should deal with Islamabad the way the United States dealt with Pakistan when it carried the Operation Neptune Spear in May 2011 that resulted in the death of the former Al-Qaeda chief, Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

He said Indian Army had already carried attacks inside another country – Myanmar - by attacking the camps of its rebel leaders and attacking Pakistan Army headquarters would not be something new.
Indian Army had “crossed over to Myanmar territory” and launched a massive search involving hundreds of Army men and helicopters to track down the rebels during the operation.

Brig Cheema also said that the Army needs to play a role in making the separatist leadership in Kashmir irrelevant.
“Issues of trivial nature are raked up and call for bands are being initiated,” he said. “Syed Ali Geelani, who has been a politician and contested polls in the past, is afraid of contesting polls now.”

Brig Cheema said if Army does not indulge in human rights violations, separatists would be marginalized.
Chalking out roles for the Army, he said, “Our job is to maintain the sanctity of the borders and help in maintaining peace in the hinterland.”

Major General Raj Shukla of the 19th Infantry Division, in his speech said, New Delhi need not worry about the growing Islamabad-Beijing military partnership. “China has never come to the rescue of Pakistan in wars,” he said. “That kind of military assistance is not forthcoming although there is transfer of military technology and the economic corridor coming up between the two countries.”

He said as far as the India-Pakistan military relations were concerned, Indian Army was defensive in larger sense but at the operational and tactical level, there was an offensive intent. Seconding Brig J S Cheema, he said if Pakistan initiates any conflict, Indian Army can escalate the conflict in a number of ways and attacking the Pakistan Army’s headquarter in Rawalpindi was an option.

He said Army’s counter-infiltration grid was better now but the recruitment of qualified youth by militant groups was a cause of concern. Brig Shukla said the India-Pakistan conflict was not a case of a Hindu state of India versus a Muslim state of Pakistan as Muslim population in India was more than the Muslim population in Pakistan.
He said the 1965 war between India and Pakistan was a result of Pakistan’s obsession of Kashmir. “Pakistan’s economy then was more vibrant than outs and they first tried negotiations which proved futile,” Brig Shukla said. “Then they thought force will work and went for a war.”

Brigadier Rajeev Puri, the Commander of Kigam Garrison of the Army, said there was no reality in Kashmiri youth joining Islamic State (IS).“There are reports of only one Kashmiri having joined the IS,” he said. “Waving IS flag is something else and may be only about showing solidarity.” [email protected]

Taliban fighters have seized a military hilltop site in Kunduz, tightening their grip on the northern Afghan city.
The capture of the Bala Hisar fortress came despite efforts by government reinforcements, backed by Nato airstrikes and special forces, to retake the city.
It leaves the airport as the army's last stronghold.
The Taliban overran Kunduz on Monday, their biggest military gain since they lost power in 2001.

Vril wrote:

manjgu wrote:Bala hissar fort is in Kabul not Kunduz !! IMHO

manjgu wrote:Bala hissar fort is in Kabul not Kunduz !! IMHO

Abhay_S wrote:MEA's response to Ganja Sharif's UN speech via Twitter

Vikas Swarup ‏@MEAIndia 1h1 hour ago

Pakistan's instability arises from its breeding of terrorists. Blaming neighbors is not a solution.

Vikas Swarup ‏@MEAIndia 1h1 hour ago

To de-militarize Kashmir is not the answer, to de-terrorize Pakistan is.

Vikas Swarup ‏@MEAIndia 1h1 hour ago

Pakistan is not primary victim of terrorism but of its own policies. It is in fact the prime sponsor of terrorism.

Vikas Swarup ‏@MEAIndia 1h1 hour ago

Sharif UNGA speech: Pak PM gets foreign occupation right, occupier wrong. We urge early vacation of Pak occupied Kashmir

Gagan wrote: The video is not available outside India

Gus wrote:would have been much more punchy to use anujan's expression for that.

WASHINGTON: Bluntly calling Pakistan a ''prime sponsor of terrorism,'' India on Wednesday asked Islamabad to vacate the part of Kashmir it has occupied, virtually laying down a new paradigm for any resolution of the issue.

''Pakistan is not primary victim of terrorism but of its own policies. It is in fact the prime sponsor of terrorism. Pakistan's instability arises from its breeding of terrorists. Blaming neighbors is not a solution,'' Spokesman of India's Ministry of External Affairs Vikas Swarup said in a series of tweets on Wednesday.

New Delhi's sulfurous response came after Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had launched his country's familiar lament about Pakistan being a victim of terrorism and the need to ''demilitarize'' Kashmir and give the state the right of self-determination.

''To de-militarize Kashmir is not the answer, to de-terrorize Pakistan is,'' Swarup blasted back.

In response to Sharif's statement that ''many generations of Kashmiris have lived their lives under occupation,'' Swarup tweeted the following retort: ''Pak PM gets foreign occupation right, occupier wrong. We urge early vacation of Pak occupied Kashmir.''

India's hardline response, probably the toughest in decades, came after Sharif laid down Pakistan shop-worn narrative about being a victim of terrorism, despite harboring many well-known and UN and US designated terrorists and terror groups, some of them paid out of Pakistani government coffers funded by foreign countries and institutions.

Despite this well known pattern, previous Indian governments had been reluctant to call out Pakistan and humiliate it so publicly, preferring discreet peace moves to walk it back from its widely-known sponsorship of terrorism. The BJP government appears to have decided it will call Pakistan's bluff and expose it before the world community.

The Modi government also seem to want to challenge the old Pakistani narrative about unrest only in Jammu and Kashmir, by highlighting Pakistan's occupation of a part of Kashmir, including Gilgit and Baltistan. By many accounts, people in that region have far less rights than those in India's J&K, where only a small section of malcontents in a narrow strip of Kashmir Valley backed by Pakistan want to secede. There is also a systematic pogram against non-sunni sects in the region that has not caught international attention.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj is expected to reply to Sharif's military-backed speech aimed at reviving the Kashmir issue at international platform. Indian officials had warned earlier that Pakistan will face a tough response if it escalates the Kashmir issue.

But judging by the initial response to it efforts, Pakistan is on a weak wicket, particularly in the light of its hosting of terrorists and terror groups which are often highlighted in its own media.

Pakistan's claims of Indian aggression on the border or interference inside Pakistan have also lacked credibility and have no takers in the international diplomatic circuit.

When U.S Secretary of State John Kerry called on Sharif before his address, the ''Prime Minister shared his views on relations with India and expressed deep concern over the Indian ceasefire violations on the LoC and the working boundary. The Prime Minister reaffirmed Pakistan's commitment to peaceful resolution of all outstanding issues through dialogue,'' a statement by the Pakistan Embassy said.

The same statement made no mention of any response to this complaint from Kerry. ''Secretary Kerry appreciated Pakistan's counter terrorism efforts and the success of Operation Zarb-e-Azb. He also expressed condolences over the terrorist attack on Badaber. Peace and reconciliation efforts in Afghanistan, as well as the security situation, were also discussed,'' it said.

Earlier, Swarup had told reporters that US President Barack Obama agreed with Prime Minister Narendra Modi that Kashmir is a bilateral issue to be resolved between India and Pakistan.

''There was a broad acknowledgement that this is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan and people were happy for India and Pakistan to resolve it among themselves,'' Swarup told journalists at a briefing following talks between Obama and Modi.

vayu tuvan wrote:

Gus wrote:would have been much more punchy to use anujan's expression for that.

Please reproduce. I don't know what that is. anujan has a high number of posts. In any case, slumdog growl is good as it is. I will take these tweets any day over nothing zero nada zilch nicht for the past several years. These Pakisatans had been treatde with kid gloves for as long as I could remember.