Bharat Rakshak

Shiv
You have been pointing to the practical difficulties in conquering our own land. You have been saying that with the same level of acceptable loss in lives and financial resources we can have much more significant territory. I got that point too.
What I fail to understand is if PRC does a 62 in 2020 and try grab Arunachal Pradesh, and much of North western states and Kashmir, How are we going to stop it?
This is strategic alignment of assault positions for future conquest. We are completely boxed in from Gujarat in west to Nagaland,Manipur,Mizoram Tripura..in the east by chinese client states. The only place to fight will be the Indian ocean. If PRC starts to attack using clients simultaneously from all these states without crossing the Nuclear threshold, can India hold on to its territory?
If PRC installs Anti ballistic Missiles all around our borders, what is our position?
These concerns must be addressed.
Altair

Hi Shiv,

Well, by increase in temperature, I mean that they are telling us that this region is not ours and is in fact theirs. That is the message I take when I read news reports of PLA soldiers in PoK -- an area they have no business to be in. They may feel that they have a right to be there, but they don't because it's ours. I see this as another example of Chinese aggression. In the east, they are aggressively patrolling, shifting border posts, and detaining Indian citizens in our own land, and here they are gobbling up this area, stripping it of its resources.

As for what the implications are for India, many implications ranging from economic to strategic have been outlined by other members. I also think it undermines our position in J&K. We have always said that this is a bilateral issue. But, with the pakis ability to assert control over this area crumbles, the Chinese will step in to fill the gap. How easy will it be for India to remove the Chinese who have been fully entrenched in that region for long period of time? They will have become a defacto 3rd party in the J&K issue.

If we don’t take back PoK, then it gives the Chinese leverage in J&K issue and use it as a bargaining chip to pressure India.

Perhaps we need to first find some consensus on whether a China sitting in Gilgit-Baltistan would give Pakistan a new lease of life, and in fact make it unfailable!

Am really amazed at the enthusiasm shown by posters on this topic. Really we are assertive Indians now
Strategy: POK
Arthasastra says, “The conqueror should know the comparative strength and weakness of himself and of his enemy; and having ascertained the power, place, time, the time of marching and of recruiting the army, the consequences, the loss of men and money, and profits and danger, he should march with his full force; otherwise, he should keep quiet”.
Plan a Mock attack on Indian or Pakistani's soil and while World's attention is on it (that's timing), attack POK (place) and take it back. That will keep Pakistan's intelligence in dark.

It also says When the expected profit overweighs both kshaya (loss of trained men) and loss of wealth; then one should march (against an enemy).
Reclaiming POK assures our long term National Security, and china having refused its troops in POK, has indirectly given a nod to us to attack. They cant launch an direct attack against us having refused their troops presence.
Now the ball is in Indian leaders court to convert the strategy into execution.

Altair wrote:Shiv
You have been pointing to the practical difficulties in conquering our own land. You have been saying that with the same level of acceptable loss in lives and financial resources we can have much more significant territory. I got that point too.
What I fail to understand is if PRC does a 62 in 2020 and try grab Arunachal Pradesh, and much of North western states and Kashmir, How are we going to stop it?
This is strategic alignment of assault positions for future conquest. We are completely boxed in from Gujarat in west to Nagaland,Manipur,Mizoram Tripura..in the east by chinese client states. The only place to fight will be the Indian ocean. If PRC starts to attack using clients simultaneously from all these states without crossing the Nuclear threshold, can India hold on to its territory?
If PRC installs Anti ballistic Missiles all around our borders, what is our position?
These concerns must be addressed.
Altair

OT for this thread. A brief answer is here
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 65#p938665

thayilv wrote:If we don’t take back PoK, then it gives the Chinese leverage in J&K issue and use it as a bargaining chip to pressure India.

The Pakis have always desired that the Chinese and/or Americans get involved in Kashmir. The intention was always to keep India out.

But that apart if you look at Pakistan holistically and ask what Chinese troops might be doing controlling parts of PoK, I find myself repeating the last paragraph of my 2003 article entitled "Know your Pakistan"
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... /Shiv.html

Pakistan has all the hallmarks of a failed state(13). Such a state is open to foreign intervention, and such intervention is visible and evident from the nature of the US's involvement. The Pakistani army brass is open to any foreign involvement other than from India. But the Islamic parties and many of the people in Pakistan do not accept the presence of the US with as much candor as their army. These are schisms waiting to be exploited. Pakistan is perhaps fortunate that the nation state of India is not yet as adept and conscious of international hegemonic games and how India can interfere to bring law and order to the fraying edges of Pakistan. But that may be changing as the lawlessness of Pakistan spills into India as terrorism, forcing India to become conscious of its role and responsibility in the region.

The Pakistani state is ceding areas of Pakistan that they cannot control to countries whom they consider friendly. This is designed to be anti India. "We will lose Pakistan to anyone but India" is the signal that the Pakistani establishment is sending to me. This is a very interesting way of failing, but I do not see any ripe opportunities for sparking off a war just yet. I believe Pakistanis (170 million) need to start coming under Chinese control in greater numbers before we can leverage opposition against the Chinese. This is my view.

Pakistanis may be docile in that they do not revolt against their Islamic rulers easily - but revolution is possible under alien rule. The larger the involvement of China and the US in Pakistan, the greater the opportunity I see for checkmating both of them and getting Paki mango Abduls on to the only side that will keep a combimation of their Indic and islamic identity alive, India. We must not panic and do anything rash. My view.

I think we should change the names "POK+G+B" as "Pakistan Occupied India"(POI) and Aksai Chin as China Occupied India(COI). This change should reflect in everything ranging from official maps, documents to school text books. This change in the name has its own advantages...

CT<
What if they are planning something big for CWG and Tallel Deeppel are there to back up the PA busy soaking water from the roads and farms. Also the old news about the artificial lake forming in POK,breaking PA's ground contact with PLA making Poak nervous( i cant find the news now ).

RajeshA wrote:rohit,

Thanks.

I have come across various ratios of attack to defense from 3:1 to 10:1. Would not the hardware, dent this ratio in favor of attack forces?

If true, wouldn't we then have to deploy less forces for POK, and can use them in other theaters of war?!

RajeshA, the use of Paratroopers and Air Assault might not drastically bring down the force ratios.

The scenario that I envisage is to use paratroopers and air assault troops to attack the rear of PA defenses in NA. We need to bypass the positions on LOC and attack the rear areas like their supply and support bases and Skardu/Gilgit/Astore itself. For this, we need to maintain pressure on LOC (so that they cannot attack us and gain our territory plus, they cannot withdraw forces to protect against attack in hinterland) while paratroopers attack the main centers of gravity and block KKH or any land route to reinforce Northern Sector. This way, one can hope to box the PA troops on Mountain posts without any back-up or retreat options.

rohit,

that sounds good.

One could probably build an air bridge to Indian soldiers parachuted deep behind enemy lines, who could build a line of their own, probably somewhere between Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakjab/Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa at some good vantage position or some airfield, cutting off all military and fuel supplies to their forces on the mountains in Gilgit-Baltistan. If one could strengthen those lines and withstand Pakistani infantry and efforts to reach PA soldiers on the mountains, in a matter of a few weeks, a second line of Indian soldiers could take down Pakistani positions with much less problems.

Disclaimer: Just doing amateur gaming here!

RajeshA, that is exactly the extension of thought process of using vertical envelopment. But it is an extremely risky and dangerous venture.

Both Gilgit and Skardu have airports - the former has 1.5kms of runway while latter is 3+kms in length (it can and does take a Boeing 737). But one needs to remember that these airports are in valleys and pose a great challenge. For example, there might well be only one approach to land or carry out effective paradrop (Case in Point - please see the elaborate SOP devised by IAF for Leh and Thoise operations). Similary, the fact there are steep mountains which ring these valleys, the approaches for Air Assault might well be limited. A Regiment of L70 AD guns plus liberal spread of MANPADS (on ground+on hills over looking the main town) can create havoc - not to mention Machine Guns to take on paratroopers and helicopters.

So, while these airport will sure be targets, taking them might not be easy. I'm sure there are other non-direct ways as well - like landing/dropping a heavy force in a valley outside the main towns. This way, I can cut out the retreat route and supply line of PA Troops on Mountains and at the same time, mount assault on these strategic towns. Plus, IAF used to take out the AD Guns - but the MANPADS will still stay.

So, yes, vertical enevelopment will allow IA to leap-frog the defences and bring to bear that much pressure on PA.

POK can be taken either by a much greater concentration of forces and military hardware concentrated only on the objective of taking POK and none else of Pak gov occupied regions. Or POK can be taken by a multifront assault all over Paki controlled territory to draw out and tie down Paki forces with possibly lesser resources then needed to devote only to POK. However the total resources in that case may not be much less than POK-only initiative. But war on other fronts may not require the same advances in military technology and risks on IA that the terrain advantage of Paki positions in POK give the Pakis.

If the overall resource requirement does not differ much between the two methods - then it is worthwhile to consider whether the second option of a multifront campaign should not have as its tactical objective of the seizure of all of the territory currently under Paki occupation.

It would perhaps be a better idea to explore the possibility of capturing and retaining the entrance area to the POK from Pakjab direction, while holding the line in more northern LOC. This may provide a better way of cutting off supplies from the south and some degree of missile or other disruption attempted to prevent the use of KKH to supply the Pak troops from the Chinese side.

But this perhaps also needs a distraction further south with a naval blockade and assault on the sea-front, holding the line on Sind, Rajasthan and Punjab sectors. The southern naval forces can perhaps then be used with appropriate moves across the border to encircle successively Sindh and then Pakjab.

One of the considerations that will crop up is the speed of the campaign, which may determine how much and who intervenes from outside in favour of Pak, and what to do to minimize the nuke threat. A lot of the preparation is also political in gradually isolating Pak as much as possible from international arena - smear it so deeply that no power can consider openly coming to its aid. In this there is no point in being "moral", and make or approach alliances with a ruthlessness that is not handicapped by "moral" considerations. Just because we have apparently certain understandings with USA doe snot preclude us from having "other" understandings with Russia. Offer both a "corridor" maintained by India to and fro from CAR to the sea if they "help" in obtaining the entire region. See which one is willing to help. For that matter offer even China a "share" [or maybe promise it to one of the factions within CPC and exclude it to the other].

Before we do anything militarily in Balawaristan, we must engineer large scale anger among the people against TSP. We have singularly failed in exploiting the situation there. From the early days of the J&K issue, we failed to pay any attention to Gilgit & Baltistan.

Bijuset,

your point on public support for war is not correct. Remember Kargil, it brought a BJP govt to power.

IMO India must make a mess out of current situation to bring USA on to it's side.

Mobilize troops to western borders > forces TSPA to move away from it's western border making it a USA issue.

Let USA convince PRC on the futility of entering POK.

We should be ready to for war if PRC does a Duryodhana

I can guess the reason for UPA's hesitation.

Any military action by it must not only undo 1962 disaster but also must put a better performance than BJP during Kargil.

Will Shri Man-Mohan Singh be a stronger person than vikas purush?

More likely that they have not planned for any take-over believeing that the world was not going to allow them to do so. Even the USA and the west could not believe when USSR actually collapsed. But they had one big difference - they had actively pursued such a collapse as the one and only primary objective. In case of GOI's of major periods under Cold War, except for a brief period under the only lady in trousers of Indian politics - such an objective had never been dreamed of seriously. So GOI has not really gamed about what to do with a collapsing or weak Pak and whether to take-over or not.

The US and the Soviet Union spent decades supplying arms and supporting insurgencies (and making "allies") with opposing sides in many conflicts. China started this game late and there were very few insurgencies it could "enter" in the manner that the imperialist powers of yore did. However China did cut its teeth (and have its ass chewed off) in the Korean war.

But the one country that met the requirements as slave/lackey/vassal of both the US and China was Pakistan. For the US it is likely that Pakistan was a "cold war ally". Opposing India may have been a secondary goal for the US. Having said that, just because opposing India was a secondary goal, it does not mean that the US wanted Pakistan to unravel or collapse or be defeated and was always there by Pakistan's side to prevent that.

China on the other hand has needed Pakistan specifically to oppose India. Pakistan sucked up to China right after the 1962 war and China provided Pakistan with 70 fighters just after the 1965 war.

But this cannot be taken to mean that China is the bigger threat using the specious argument that "China is only anti-India. The US is not specifically anti-India" When it comes to Pakistan's survival - the US needs it as much, if not more than China. The US too has a great interest in preserving its slave the Pakistani army and their fiefdom, Pakistan. It is a completely fallacious argument to say that a Chinese presence in PoK suddenly offers a new threat that was completely absent when the US parked itself in Pakistan.

Remember folks - when China entered Tibet - India at least protested feebly. When the US parked itself in Pakistan - initially in the late 1950s, later when the US re entered Pakistan for the cold war and again in 2001 there was not a chirp from an India worrying about foreign forces in Pakistan. How fraudulent is our worry about the Chinese in PoK? Anyone who has been following military events in the subcontinent knows that the US is in a position to provide satellite based intel to Pakistan about Indian movements and US AWACS aircraft can warn Pakistans of impending Indian attacks. They have actually done that on several occasions - certainly at the time of Parakram and perhaps during Brasstacks. And US advisers were actually involved in action against India in 1965 and 1971. Check Chuck Yeager's memoirs. So what is this extra threat that the Chinese in PoK represent?

As long as the US is sitting in Pakistan, China is not going to have a safe route for its supplies via Pakistan even if they finish building all those roads and Gwadar. Pakistan, (specifically the Pakistani army) has two sponsors who are looking for its survival. Both want "a stable Pakistan" for their own ends even if it is not merely to keep India down. Keeping India at bay is the return favor that the Chinese and Americans have to offer to the Pakis in exchange for ensuring that US and Chinese interests are met. The big "nightmare scenario" that has often been expressed on this forum is Chinese-American cooperation to "attack/take out India". While having nightmares is everyone's birthright the most likely scenario in which this nightmare can come true is if the existence of Pakistan as a state or the existence of the Pakistani army come under threat from India.

This is something we need to be prepared to face off if ever we need military action to break Pakistan. Neither China nor the US will be interested in worrying too much if nukes are used against India, and any dreams of US denuking Pakistan or nukes being shipped back across the KKH are just pipe dreams that need to be discarded very quickly. The one option that remains for India in the short to medium term is the "Mao option" - ie to say that India can survive despite taking 6-7 nuclear hits from Pakistan, but we will finish Pakistan off.

In the longer term. India can still come of with a win - seeing how Pakistanis feel about the US and letting the US and china have their own little competition inside Pakistan. It's early days yet.

But this cannot be taken to mean that China is the bigger threat using the specious argument that "China is only anti-India. The US is not specifically anti-India" When it comes to Pakistan's survival - the US needs it as much, if not more than China. The US too has a great interest in preserving its slave the Pakistani army and their fiefdom, Pakistan. It is a completely fallacious argument to say that a Chinese presence in PoK suddenly offers a new threat that was completely absent when the US parked itself in Pakistan.

Shiv saar,

You must have heard about the story of two cats having a dispute in sharing a cake went to a monkey for the help in apportioning the cake. The monkey pulled wool over the two cats and ate the cake bit by bit in name of dividing the cake for the cats.

Cake here is what we call as J&K state including NA. No doubt the cats are India and Pakistan. Now who is the monkey ? Is it the China which occupied Aksai Chin of original J&K state from Indian held land and also the Shaksgam Valley from the Pakistan held portion or the US ? Who is having a presence in PoK, China or US ? There are reports of China moving further into the Indian held territory in Ladakh for which MoD gave some weird explanation and now the presence of Chinese troops in PoK news and taking PoK land for mining and other things and not recognizing J&K as part of India by stapling the visas; thereby creating conditions for dispute and make the foundation for grabbing the land. (Is this not the China's approach universally to its neighbour?)

Who is taking the cake bit by bit....US or China...And why not China should not be considered as bigger threat?

Of course US actions were/are anti-India but it never took our land and in fact it helped in forcing the Pak to end the Kargil intrusion.

If one could see the game, it is indeed a new threat

As long as the US is sitting in Pakistan, China is not going to have a safe route for its supplies via Pakistan even if they finish building all those roads and Gwadar. Pakistan, (specifically the Pakistani army) has two sponsors who are looking for its survival. Both want "a stable Pakistan" for their own ends even if it is not merely to keep India down. Keeping India at bay is the return favor that the Chinese and Americans have to offer to the Pakis in exchange for ensuring that US and Chinese interests are met. The big "nightmare scenario" that has often been expressed on this forum is Chinese-American cooperation to "attack/take out India". While having nightmares is everyone's birthright the most likely scenario in which this nightmare can come true is if the existence of Pakistan as a state or the existence of the Pakistani army come under threat from India.

There is one more scenario. What happens in the name of 'having & keeping' Pak both started quarreling. As China rises and US stagnating, the power balance is changing rapidly. Maybe to counter the Chinese presence, US may seek indirect involvement of India.

There have been comments in US after the wikileaks scandal, which went something like..
"Ditch The Bitch!!"

Kanson wrote: Who is taking the cake bit by bit....US or China...And why not China should not be considered as bigger threat?

Of course US actions were/are anti-India but it never took our land and in fact it helped in forcing the Pak to end the Kargil intrusion.

If one could see the game, it is indeed a new threat

Kansonji - you are making me laugh because you are allowing me to introduce the very semantics that are used to define threats to "our land"

China has taken "our land" you say. Fine. I agree.

But saar has Pakistan not taken our land too? What you are trying to do is legalize Pakistan and say "India=post partition India". Pakistan itself sits in Indian land. And the US sits in Pakistan. How is that not an occupation of Indian land?

What we are doing here is saying:

Is Pakistan legal? Yes
Is the US occupation of Pakistan legal Yes?
Is Pakistan occupied Kashmir legal? No
Is Chinese occupation of PoK legal? No

By this argument a theoretical Chinese occupation of Pakjab would be fully legal no? What makes the US sitting in Pakistan fine and dandy but China a threat? Do we or do we not have a slave mentality toward the US. Why are we arguing to make India into a particular arbitrary shape while we oppose Chinese designs on "our land", we oppose only half of the Pakistani occupation of former India and we do not oppose the US occupation at all. Are we confused or are we confused? Why are we so docile and non ambitious that we are still trying to create the British version of post partition India?

What is India?

shiv wrote:

Kanson wrote: Who is taking the cake bit by bit....US or China...And why not China should not be considered as bigger threat?

Of course US actions were/are anti-India but it never took our land and in fact it helped in forcing the Pak to end the Kargil intrusion.

If one could see the game, it is indeed a new threat

Kansonji - you are making me laugh because you are allowing me to introduce the very semantics that are used to define threats to "our land"

China has taken "our land" you say. Fine. I agree.

But saar has Pakistan not taken our land too? What you are trying to do is legalize Pakistan and say "India=post partition India". Pakistan itself sits in Indian land. And the US sits in Pakistan. How is that not an occupation of Indian land?

What we are doing here is saying:

Is Pakistan legal? Yes
Is the US occupation of Pakistan legal Yes?
Is Pakistan occupied Kashmir legal? No
Is Chinese occupation of PoK legal? No

By this argument a theoretical Chinese occupation of Pakjab would be fully legal no? What makes the US sitting in Pakistan fine and dandy but China a threat? Do we or do we not have a slave mentality toward the US. Why are we arguing to make India into a particular arbitrary shape while we oppose Chinese designs on "our land", we oppose only half of the Pakistani occupation of former India and we do not oppose the US occupation at all. Are we confused or are we confused? Why are we so docile and non ambitious that we are still trying to create the British version of post partition India?

What is India?

There is one difference. Indian passed a parliament resolution stating PoK is an integral part of India and it will strive hard to get the area vacated. Where was such resolution mentioning Pakistan is an integral part of India and we try steadfast to annex back the separated land to Indian Union? If there one what you say i right.

China constructed Gwadar port. Did India raise any objection? No. Why it is raising now in the case of PoK? Because as per GoI it is part of India. That is the fine difference.

By this argument a theoretical Chinese occupation of Pakjab would be fully legal no?

You mean Pakistan Punjab? Yes it is legal as per GoI. Infact there are reports abt Chinese engineers working in Pak military complex. I dont remember any objection raised by India.

People who have observed India from the outside for centuries predicted that India was always splitting up into parts and continuously being occupied by foreign powers. In this connection I would like to tell an allegorical story:

There was once a happy family called SDRE. There was papa SDRE, mama SDRE and many child SDREs, uncles, aunts, cousins and whatnot. One day a doctor came to town and did a blood test on members of the SDRE family and declared that the family carried a gene that caused arms or legs to fall off. One girl of the SDRE family - who was ready to marry and have children did not like to hear this. She thought that it was her links with the SDRE family and her surname that caused these problems.

Now what this girl did was to run away and marry her lover TFTA to start a new family next door. Her change of name from SDRE to TFTA she hoped would protect her from the doctor's dire warning. Alas the defect was genetic - so she carried the gene despite being called a TFTA. She first lost and arm an later she started losing her body parts one by one.

The purpose of this allegorical tale is to say that it is perfectly true to say that India has, throughout history been split into many nations that fight among each other. Splitting and rejoining are inherent tendencies of India. The meaning of this statement is that even if you call yourself Pakistan, the Indian disease of splitting is still in you genes.

For a brief while - an ancient Indic land was united under British rule. It then split into two parts. And then in 1971 it became 3 parts, Pakistan, post partition India and Bangladesh. The part that is called Pakistan is once again being invaded by foreigners. When Hamid Gul says that what happens in Lahore wil reflect in Delhi - we are ready to mock him because we are ready to hold back Pakistan and Islamic hordes. We are even ready to see the Chines who hove openly antagonized us as a threat. That is a no brainer. If I hit you several times I am not showing my love for you.

But as a nation we are totally oblivious to the US. The US is sitting in what is essentially India and is supporting an army that is opposed to the rest of India. Why are we sitting quiet?

Kanson wrote:There is one difference. Indian passed a parliament resolution stating PoK is an integral part of India and it will strive hard to get the area vacated. Where was such resolution mentioning Pakistan is an integral part of India and we try steadfast to annex back the separated land to Indian Union? If there one what you say i right.

China constructed Gwadar port. Did India raise any objection? No. Why it is raising now in the case of PoK? Because as per GoI it is part of India. That is the fine difference.

So what you are saying is that Pakistan is a sovereign nation state on which India supposedly has no designs. But that sovereign nation state, Pakistan has occupied a piece of land that we claim is ours and we are opposing occupation of what we claim as our land by a third party, China.

This sounds so fine and legal.

Now look at our options sir.

If Pakistan has occupied our land they should either give it back to us or we should take it back. Taking it back means fighting an armed conflict with a sovereign nation state. Now that sovereign nation state, knowing that it is unable to protect itself against India has taken the help of the two most powerful states in the world - the US and China. The US sits in Pakistan, a sovereign nation state, while China is entering "our territory", which we are supposed to get back from Pakistan. The best military route to take back our territory is via Pakistan. So we have to fight the US in Pakistan and then fight China to get PoK.

We are right in the middle of a great power game where we admire one power as the best and we hate and fear the other power. Have we been checkmated or not?

What are our realistic options? Perhaps we should pass a parliament resolution asking the Chinese and the Americans to vacate?

^^^ Simple only shiv, does not require any roundabout pisko-analysis to understand the reasons. One picks the smaller bully first before taking on the bigger bully. Else, you lose all credibility with the smaller bully if you get whacked by the bigger one. It is better to lose in a fight to the smaller bully first. Nothing more than that. Very logical too.

And if you get lucky with the smaller bully and subdue him, then options increase. India is currently in a position having got beaten in '62 by the smaller bully. I do not see any loss of credibility for India from this past event. It is ready to take it on again if need be.

Bade wrote:^^^ Simple only shiv, does not require any roundabout pisko-analysis to understand the reasons. One picks the smaller bully first before taking on the bigger bully. Else, you lose all credibility with the smaller bully if you get whacked by the bigger one. It is better to lose in a fight to the smaller bully first. Nothing more than that. Very logical too.

Bade you are saying exactly the opposite of what Kanson has said. China is the bigger bully - having occupied our land.

We lost to the so called smaller bully while we do not even see the bigger one as a bully. But because the bigger one is a bully he stands to gain when any of the smaller bullies fight with each other. That means if small bully China and non bully India fight, big bully US gains and can continue to bully us.

Perfectly logical onlee.

As I see it we are in a heads we lose, tails they win position. Any war we fight makes us weaker and more prone to domination by someone. But if we don't fight wars people are trying to chew off pieces of our territory.

I have a view on this:

We have in our control a certain amount of land that we call India right now. Let us first make sure that it cannot be taken by any combination of bullies. Let us make sure that one bully making Pakistan fight a war against India will not enable the other bully to grab Arunachal Pradesh. To me that takes precedence over fighting any war to take PoK. We can pass a parliamentary resolution about Chinese in PoK and be done with it.

shiv wrote: We have in our control a certain amount of land that we call India right now. Let us first make sure that it cannot be taken by any combination of bullies. Let us make sure that one bully making Pakistan fight a war against India will not enable the other bully to grab Arunachal Pradesh. To me that takes precedence over fighting any war to take PoK. We can pass a parliamentary resolution about Chinese in PoK and be done with it.

Shiv,
I dont think many people would agree with you in handing over legitimate Indian territory to China.
I personally think we should attack POK with full military force and establish our rule on our land. However, I have been wrong more times than I have been right.
I think you should start a poll,lets see how people here in BRF think..
Altair

As I see it we are in a heads we lose, tails they win position. Any war we fight makes us weaker and more prone to domination by someone. But if we don't fight wars people are trying to chew off pieces of our territory.

This is a very good summary of the problem or dilemma that India is facing and I guess no one will disagree. Keeping the status quo is what you said, maintain without losing the current boundaries and pass another resolution to pass the buck to a later time. Well, it is true countries sure have this option because their lifetimes are not limited to necessarily only to less than a 100 yrs or half that in active life, when compared to mortals like us. So that luxury can be exercised by GoI for some more time.

But inaction to keep the status quo can lead to more internal instabilities at the edges of the empire.

Now look at our options sir.

If Pakistan has occupied our land they should either give it back to us or we should take it back. Taking it back means fighting an armed conflict with a sovereign nation state. Now that sovereign nation state, knowing that it is unable to protect itself against India has taken the help of the two most powerful states in the world - the US and China. The US sits in Pakistan, a sovereign nation state, while China is entering "our territory", which we are supposed to get back from Pakistan. The best military route to take back our territory is via Pakistan. So we have to fight the US in Pakistan and then fight China to get PoK.

We are right in the middle of a great power game where we admire one power as the best and we hate and fear the other power. Have we been checkmated or not?

What are our realistic options? Perhaps we should pass a parliament resolution asking the Chinese and the Americans to vacate?

Yes we are indeed in the midst of great power game. No one denies that. If I imagine to be Kautilya of the yore, i would play US against China, or use the one in the form of alliance/strategic partnership/ in subduing the other or tackle one at a time.

Bade you are saying exactly the opposite of what Kanson has said. China is the bigger bully - having occupied our land.

Sirji, I said, China is the biggest threat at present.

shiv wrote:I have a view on this:

We have in our control a certain amount of land that we call India right now. Let us first make sure that it cannot be taken by any combination of bullies. Let us make sure that one bully making Pakistan fight a war against India will not enable the other bully to grab Arunachal Pradesh. To me that takes precedence over fighting any war to take PoK. We can pass a parliamentary resolution about Chinese in PoK and be done with it.

Shiv saar, i said this before. One of the reasons we never exercised the military option as a response to Mumbai 26/11 is not to make us weak by that fighting and make China strong relatively. I believe the two front war which was made as official stand has something to do with Kashmir & Arunachal.

As for who the bigger bully is, it still is USA because it has more leverage in multiple ways over India than China has, even though China has illegally occupied Indian land, assuming we do not include Pakistan minus areas of J&K under it.

Even if the USA were not in Pakistan physically, still it can exert considerable pressure on India and be a bully. This has been widely accepted in BR as far as I remember. China OTOH, has only recently begun acting similar to the USA, outside of being just a compulsive squatter at its outer edges.

There will be a time when there will be an IOP and COP (Indian Occupied Pakistan and China Occupied Pakistan). Pakistan will cease to exist independently and will be managed by China and India.

US Patronship of Pakistan vs. Chinese Patronship of Pakistan

The feeling amongst some Indians including me is that for USA Pakistan is its condom, but for China Pakistan is its prick. USA can use the condom at some point of time, throw it away. China will however not cut off its prick.

The 90s, after Soviet Union was pushed back, Americans retreated from Pakistan, for which till this day, Pakistan still feels deeply hurt. In the 90s Pakistan found out, that American investment in Pakistan's wellbeing was only latex deep.

Even today, American involvement in Pakistan is mostly dictated by its current military deployment in Afghanistan. Like any deployment, where the mission is in a hostile territory, for which the Pakistanis are themselves responsible to a large extent, has an expiry date. Some day USA will draw back, and Pakistanis are not sure how much the Americans would really care about them after that. In fact, trust of America in Pakistan does not run deeper than latex either. The direction of Afghanistan's evolution made Pakistan extremely concerned.

Also it is true that America has caressed Pakistan's apprehensions about India and supplied them weapons. Again it is questionable whether those supplies were for the purpose of strengthening an ally or simply as America's part of the arrangement/bargain. Even if it was for the purpose of strengthening an ally, it is still questionable whether it was as a defensive means to ensure longevity of the ally, or if the purpose was to do harm to India. These question marks are there not only because Indians want to know US position, but also because Pakistan wants to know how fickle America's support is.

China however has delivered Pakistan much more than mere conventional weaponry. They have provided the Pakistanis with nuclear weapons technology and missile delivery systems. That is a strategic game changer. Nobody provides others with nuclear weapons, unless there are deep strategic interests in the other country. And what has Pakistan had to do till now for the Chinese for this largesse? It is not lost on the Pakistanis that while Americans did turn mostly a blind eye to its acquisition of nuclear weapons in the beginning, when the Americans needed the Pakistanis, it was the Chinese that broke the law in order to help the Pakistanis. Isn't breaking the law in order to help the other without making demands, a true sign of a deeper than ocean and taller than mountains relationship?

Whereas American interests in Pakistan have historically been to curb Soviet expansionism, jointly fight GWOT in Afghanistan and perhaps put sufficient pressure on India to make India come into the American camp, all of which were time-bound projects, Chinese interests in Pakistan have been definitely to contain India. So even as these projects of America have come or are coming to a conclusion, Chinese interests in Pakistan have only begun to bear fruit.

America did support Pakistan against India, first as a CENTO and SEATO ally to boost Pakistan's capacity against Communism, and after Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in August, 1971 against India as a partner of Soviet-Union; in early 90s out of support-inertia and after Sep. 2001 as part of its bargain. All of this support for whatever reason has hurt India, and needs not be ignored. America has been opportunistic at the cost to India, but the general view is, that it has not been with a malevolent design and intent on India. India's existence and democracy is not exacting any costs on America, and is not against America's strategic interests.

The same cannot be said of China. China needs to keep India bogged down, because it neither trusts India's intentions on the question of Chinese territorial integrity (regardless of what India claims to the contrary), nor Chinas wishes to share geopolitical space with India in Asia and for all purposes allow Asia to become a duopoly. India's existence and prosperity IS against Chinese national interests as defined by them. For example,that is why the Chinese having been stalling border talks with India, questioning India's sovereignty on North-East India and J&K, and also exhibiting an aggressive attitude on the border.

Secondly if China wishes to exert major power in whole of Asia, it needs to show a presence in all the major areas of Asia - East Asia, South Asia, and West Asia. To West Asia, China can come only through POK. China would not risk just as yet, coming through Kirghistan or Tajikistan or even Kazakhstan simply because Russia considers it its backyard, it 'Near Abroad', and it is ex-Soviet-Union territory, and any military Chinese intrusion there for whatever purpose would not go down well in Moscow, and China does not feel it is the right time to run rough-shod over Moscow just as yet. The Chinese are also not interested in operationalizing the Wakhan Corridor either as it passes through the Taliban-infested bad-lands. Through China's border to Gilgit-Baltistan under Pakistani-control (unless it is already in Chinese control), China can expand its presence all the way to Iran over the land route and Persian Gulf over Gwadar. Through SCO, China gets to share influence in Central Asia with Russia, and even if it cannot send in its soldiers there, or develop a strategic presence there, it still gets to extract all the mineral wealth there. Anything that China does in CARs is dependent on Russian approval.

For the development of Western China (Tibet and Sinkiang) POK access is indispensable. Only by getting more Han Chinese population into Tibet and Sinkiang can China project power deep into the heart of Asia. For that China would need an energy and trade corridor through POK. Otherwise China remains a Pacific Ocean country. China would also want to make this corridor as wide as possible, and not prone to India's tolerance, which can mean loss of Kashmir Valley and more for India. To that effect, China would make use of Pakistan's services.

So however one looks at China whether

1. it is for power projection throughout Asia,
2. it is for energy and trade corridor, or
3. it is to keep India bogged down to facilitate a full Chinese domination of Asia

China would need Pakistan, especially POK.

Summarizing:

• American support to Pakistan is project-based, and thus having a date of expiry, while Chinese support is continuous, steady and strategic.
• American support to Pakistan is only indirectly harmful to India, while China wants harm to India.
• India can hope to wean away America from Pakistan, or to at least minimize support to Pakistan when no joint projects are actively pursued, but India cannot wean away China from Pakistan (at least not with the current geography, with POK in the hands of Pakistan.

It is not Indians' emotionalism and sentimentality of common values that dictates India's laissez faire attitude towards America's involvement with Pakistan, and it is not India's deep seated pee-in-the-pants fear of China that dictates Indian alarm at Chinese intrusions into POK. That is like calling one's woman boss's outburst at one's sloppy work and negligence, a consequence of her periods and heightened hormonal levels. Indians are apprehensive about Chinese presence there because of their cold assessment of what it all portends.

There is no competition between US and China to be expected in Pakistan.

PRC understands that USA has been paying its whore and supporting her lifestyle, and frankly it doesn't mind, because the whore likes to buy too many shoes, and PRC cannot buy her all that; PRC is still not rich enough. PRC also knows that USA would someday move on, but hopes that it would be when PRC has a good job and enough change to buy her services. PRC knows, that should USA move on before PRC is ready to buy her services and support her lifestyle, the whore might simply go and marry the bania next door, and then it is curtains for PRC.

Even in CARs, China allows Russia to pay for the region's security but through SCO is first to claim the mineral wealth of the region.

PRC motto is simply: why pay for something, when others are paying for it, and it still gets to use it.

Someday USA will retreat from Pakistan, and then PRC will take over the whore. PRC earns enough now anyway to own her, and would also make sure that the whore gets a part-time job at the Walmart store, so that PRC does not need to pay too much. The whore will stay in business, and will keep on hurling her trash over into the garden of the neighboring bania angering him no end, until the bania gets fed up and leaves the garden.

RajeshA wrote: Someday USA will retreat from Pakistan, and then PRC will take over the whore. PRC earns enough now anyway to own her, and would also make sure that the whore gets a part-time job at the Walmart store, so that PRC does not need to pay too much. The whore will stay in business, and will keep on hurling her trash over into the garden of the neighboring bania angering him no end, until the bania gets fed up and leaves the garden.

I have no serious disagreement with this. Which brings me to what I have been trying to point out - what on earth are we going to do about it if China sits in PoK or, indeed Pakjab?

As I see it, other than developing a military capability to see off all threats at some future date - I see no options other than making a fuss and fuming from the ears. I would love to "help Pakistan fail" - but then we know about that and we also know that the GoI has been saying "a stable Pakistan is in our interest" which is complete nonsense. A failed Pakistan is in our interest. The downside of a failing Pakistan is that it is inviting more intervention from everyone but India.

I know that to say something like this is almost blasphemy on the forum. But if we determine that Pakistan has collapsed as a viable state entity, i.e. there is no longer a central government that is capable of an organised military/nuclear response, we will move in to administer the emerging pieces until they are able to administer themselves. There will be military/civilian/humanitarian/intelligence components to this - and their deployment will not necessarily be simultaneous. The intervention will not be of such magnitude that it will generate any significant "resistance" - especially violent resistance - but there will be some certainly. After we determine that these pieces are capable of administering themselves, to our satisfaction (and the standards we set won't be very high) we will withdraw everywhere except from PoK, and let them run themselves as separate countries. We anticipate these countries will be both ingratiating and hostile, dependent and ungrateful. They will attempt to work against our interests, and begin their own limited powerplays. That is how we want them: normal, working out their own system, self-defining, moderately chaotic, loud, pains in the ass. We will pick and choose our engagement and interaction strategies for each based on how they evolve. Its a manageable thing. Of course, it's never "easy".

I pulled the above out of you know where

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... ails-qs-05

failed soosai bumps himself off onlee....no 72..

But interestingly, this guy is a local, and why is he targeting TSPA? Thought they have obtained 'azadi' already?

shiv wrote:Which brings me to what I have been trying to point out - what on earth are we going to do about it if China sits in PoK or, indeed Pakjab?

They can sit or $hit in Pakjab, but PoK is Indian Territory, and India should not accept any other presence in PoK - Pakistani or Chinese.

shiv wrote:As I see it, other than developing a military capability to see off all threats at some future date - I see no options other than making a fuss and fuming from the ears.

The only thing that can save the Pakjabi Army is PLA control of Gilgit-Baltistan (PoK). With PoK in Indian control there is nothing that can stop Pakistan's demise, and with PoK under Chinese control, there is nothing that can cause TSPA'us collapse.

shiv wrote:I would love to "help Pakistan fail" - but then we know about that and we also know that the GoI has been saying "a stable Pakistan is in our interest" which is complete nonsense. A failed Pakistan is in our interest.

If Pakistan fails, GoI can say, "Well you failed because of your own undoings. We favored your stability. So don't put the blame on us". If Pakistan does not fail, and GoI saying something contrary, then it would be embarrassing and costly. So GoI says that they favor Pakistan's stability. It's the less stupid thing to say.

shiv wrote:The downside of a failing Pakistan is that it is inviting more intervention from everyone but India.

That is why India has to ensure that the other countries either cannot intervene or if they do, then by paying heed to India's concerns.

If India cuts off a land route between China and Pakistan, i.e. PoK, then China cannot intervene so easily - the land route would be gone. In that case, Pakistan would not be of much use to China, neither for projecting power into West Asia and Gulf, nor for the development of Western China. The nuisance value to India would remain for China, but that would not be sufficient to justify a Three Gorges Dam size undertaking of support to Pakistan. In which case Pakistan can wither away and die its natural death.

Pakistan can invite many people into Pakistan, but people would only come if they can extract some advantage out of Pakistan. The cost of being in Pakistan should be far greater than the benefits.

More about it later.

With all this talk about "taking back" PoK, I remember RayC explicitly stating that it is way too difficult to militarily "annex" PoK given the terrain.

pgbhat wrote:With all this talk about "taking back" PoK, I remember RayC explicitly stating that it is way too difficult to "annex" PoK given the terrain.

Correct - and a timely post

Folks - a little bit about history and geography. Please excuse the odd colors - I have tried to highlight history on a Google earth image posted below.

The map below shows Kashmir - both J&K and POK.

In the northwest (above-left) you can see Gilgit. Kargil, as you know, which is up in the mountains is seen above the center.

Between Srinagar and Islamabad is a strip of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir that is called "Azad Kashmir" in Pakistan (I have not labeled this) - it is between the dark blue line (LOC) and the light blue line - the international border claimed by India. Pakis have built their capital Islamabad literally 20-30 km from the claimed border. The Srinagar-Islamabad distance is about 150 km as the Bredator flies.

I have deliberately marked Doda. We all know the name Doda because of Paki terorists who hole up there. That is mountainous and forested country. The elevation is 2400 meters - higher than Ooty, Naini Tal and Dehra Dun

Down south of that you can see Jammu. West of Jammu I have marked Shakargarh and Chawinda. These are the scenes of massive tank battles in 1965 and 1971. Arun Khetarpal was mortally injured in the Shakargarh area near Sialkot in 1971 and was awarded a posthumous Param Vir Chakra.

Further South - near the bottom of the image is Bhikiwind where Abdul Hamid's valor got him a posthumous PVC in 1965.

Why have I created this oddball image. It is to show that the real country from where Pakistan can be "invaded" lies far South of POK. The country up north is mountainous and unsuitable for massive progress in a short while. All the "tank country" lies South in the areas where tank battles have been fought. And Pakistan has fought hard in these areas.

"Taking POK" without going through Pakistan does not make military sense.

JE Menon wrote: I pulled the above out of you know where

It is apt that you have suggested the source "musharraf". Not because your post is rubbish, but IMO it is the Paki army that is holding those independent pieces of Pak together. Nothing else.

And the US and china are paying and supporting that army.