Bharat Rakshak

shyamd wrote:I personally don't think its a credible or strong enough message - but PLA did complain about aircraft in DBO.

shyamd wrote:US announce military deployments in Trivandrum - base to be operated by India and in coordination. .. Curious why Trivandrum...

shyamd wrote:US announce military deployments in Trivandrum - base to be operated by India and in coordination. .. Curious why Trivandrum...

Part of defence against PRC
http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/pos ... tary_bases

shyamd wrote:US announce military deployments in Trivandrum - base to be operated by India and in coordination. .. Curious why Trivandrum...

Part of defence against PRC
http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/pos ... tary_bases

On February 18, the Pakistani government transferred operational control of its strategically-located deep-sea port at Gwadar, Balochistan province to China. India, a rival of Pakistan and of China, has expressed concerns over the deal—highlighting the increasingly complex geo-political rivalries stoked by the Obama administration’s policy of “pivot” to Asia.

Gwadar is situated on the Arabian Sea, just 180 nautical miles (330 kilometres) from the Strait of Hormuz, through which a third of the world’s oil supply passes. It offers a prime location to monitor shipping passing through the Strait of Hormuz from the Persian Gulf, as well as access to cheap land routes or Middle East trade through Pakistan into western China and Central Asia.

The agreement to transfer the port to the state-owned China Overseas Port Holding Company was signed in a ceremony attended by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, several ministers, and Chinese Ambassador Liu Jian. The previous operator, the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA), withdrew after Islamabad refused to provide large land allotments the PSA wanted for development work around the port.

On February 6, after Pakistan announced its decision to hand over the control of the port to China, Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony, expressed “serious concerns” at a news conference, revealing his government’s displeasure over the deal. “In one sentence, I can say that it’s a matter of concern to us,” Antony said.

India’s External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid said that India should not “overreact” to the agreement. However, Khurshid indicated what is at stake: “There is a delicate balance in the entire region and I think none of us should be doing something which will upset that balance.”

Downplaying India’s concerns, Pakistan foreign ministry spokesman Moazzaam Ali Khan said no “other country should have any reason to be concerned about [this agreement].” He dismissed Antony’s reaction as “unwarranted.”

Similarly, Chinese Ambassador Jian said the bilateral agreement was “in the economic interest of the people of China and Pakistan.” The Pakistani daily The Nation reported that Jian dismissed “thinking China would use this port for military purposes [as] absolutely baseless.”

However, New Delhi is suspicious about China’s presence in the Indian Ocean and sees its relations with Pakistan as a threat to India’s strategic and economic interests. This rivalry has intensified as Washington seeks to promote India as a world power in its strategy to counter China and to defend its hegemony in Asia.

The US was silent on the port transfer. However, expressing the US elite’s long standing concerns on China and the Gwadar port the New York Times wrote: “Some American strategists have described it as the westernmost link in the ‘string of pearls,’ a line of China-friendly ports stretching from mainland China to the Persian Gulf, that could ultimately ease expansion by the Chinese Navy in the region.”

Indian media and analysts wrote in the same vein that the stretch of Chinese port connections including Chittagong in Bangladesh and Hambantota in Sri Lanka together with Gwadar was part of a Chinese plan “encircling India.”

The US has also elevated India to a special status in the world nuclear regulatory regime, as a nuclear weapons state and non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This luxury was denied to Washington’s long-time ally, Pakistan.

The US “pivot” presents Pakistan with a geo-political dilemma: it has depended on the US and China since the mid-1960s. Pakistan responded to the strengthening of its arch-rival India’s ties with the US by strengthening its ties with China. However, such moves by Islamabad would cut across its relations with Washington, upon which the Pakistani bourgeoisie traditionally relied to base its class rule.

The Pakistan People’s Party-led government signed the Gwadar agreement with China even though Pakistan’s former military dictator, Pervez Musharraf, opted in 2007 for the PSA not to upset Washington. Musharraf did this even though China provided 75 percent of the $US250 million cost of construction.

Soon after the US raid killing Osama Bin Laden in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, Pakistan offered the port to China in May, 2011. Though China reportedly turned down the offer, then-Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar also offered to build a naval base in Gwadar for the Chinese.

The US’ growing global rivalry with China has become caught up with Pakistan-India tensions and is intensifying them. The “comprehensive peace dialogue” between them has effectively been suspended since November 2008. Last month, deadly clashes erupted over the Line of Control in the disputed Kashmir region.

For China, the port agreement provides vast potential benefits. Lin Boqiang, director of Energy Economics Research centre at Xiamen University, explained: “I do believe China will build the port at the astonishing ‘Chinese speed’ to materialise the port’s strategic values.” Gwadar offers a shorter route to western China—via the recently expanded Karakoram highway across Gilgit-Baltistan in northern Pakistan—and an alternative route to vulnerable sea lanes through the Strait of Malacca.

Sixty percent of oil imports to China come from the Persian Gulf while 80 percent of total oil imports have to cross the Strait of Malacca before reaching the mainland—putting China, the world’s biggest energy consumer, in significant jeopardy from the threat of a US Navy blockade of the Strait of Malacca. Choking point with base in Singapore ?The race to secure energy supply routes by China and India is driving a naval arms race for so-called “blue-water navy” capabilities. The US backs India’s projection of its naval power in the Indian Ocean and encourages it to be assertive in the region.

India has joined the US in cutting across Chinese interests in the South China Sea under the guise of “freedom of navigation.” Referring to Chinese opposition to joint Indian oil exploration with Vietnam in the South China Sea, Indian Naval Chief Admiral D.K. Joshi warned last December that when the “country’s interests [are] at stake, we will be required to go there and we are prepared for that.”

Attempts were made later to downplay the significance of the comment, but it underscores the hair-trigger military tensions building up in Asia. These tensions include the deep internal conflicts within Pakistan itself.

Gwadar is located in politically volatile Baluchistan Province, which has poor infrastructure and is gripped with the insurgency of separatist Baluchi nationalist groups. These groups are fighting the Pakistani military and demanding autonomy. Some have appealed to Washington for support and have opposed China’s building of the port at Gwadar.

The US has refused Pakistani requests for the Baluchi insurgents to be placed on a list of terrorist organizations. Sections of the US political establishment have even raised the possibility of supporting “Baluchi self-determination” to warn Islamabad not to tie itself too closely to Beijing.

The General's views have created a sort of unease here. Top Defence Ministry sources said the Ministry is not discussing with the US any plans to base its assets on Indian soil.

"India is not going to allow any foreign country to establish any military base on it's soil," the sources said.

"India carefully maintains ties with countries in the world. As a policy, we are not part of any military and do not intend to be part of any in future as well," they said.

Reacting critically to the US move, the CPI-M said the remarks of the US Air Force General reveals the Pentagon's plans to draw India into its strategic alliance in Asia.

The US has been keen to use our air and naval bases. It is based on the India-US military framework agreement signed in 2006, CPI-M General Secretary Prakash Karat said in his reaction.

He asked the UPA government to publicly state whether it was agreeing to such an arrangement.

"India cannot become a military ally of the US," he said.

venug wrote:US plan to station military aircraft in India? Govt denies

The General's views have created a sort of unease here. Top Defence Ministry sources said the Ministry is not discussing with the US any plans to base its assets on Indian soil.
"India is not going to allow any foreign country to establish any military base on it's soil," the sources said.
"India carefully maintains ties with countries in the world. As a policy, we are not part of any military and do not intend to be part of any in future as well," they said.
Reacting critically to the US move, the CPI-M said the remarks of the US Air Force General reveals the Pentagon's plans to draw India into its strategic alliance in Asia.
The US has been keen to use our air and naval bases. It is based on the India-US military framework agreement signed in 2006, CPI-M General Secretary Prakash Karat said in his reaction.
He asked the UPA government to publicly state whether it was agreeing to such an arrangement.
"India cannot become a military ally of the US," he said.

venug wrote:SwamyG garu, links please

venug wrote:US plan to station military aircraft in India? Govt denies

The General's views have created a sort of unease here. Top Defence Ministry sources said the Ministry is not discussing with the US any plans to base its assets on Indian soil.

"India is not going to allow any foreign country to establish any military base on it's soil," the sources said.

"India carefully maintains ties with countries in the world. As a policy, we are not part of any military and do not intend to be part of any in future as well," they said.

Reacting critically to the US move, the CPI-M said the remarks of the US Air Force General reveals the Pentagon's plans to draw India into its strategic alliance in Asia.

The US has been keen to use our air and naval bases. It is based on the India-US military framework agreement signed in 2006, CPI-M General Secretary Prakash Karat said in his reaction.

He asked the UPA government to publicly state whether it was agreeing to such an arrangement.

"India cannot become a military ally of the US," he said.

venug wrote:Every thing is possible when one is impotent and servile.

SSridhar wrote: Because Trivandrum is the HQ for SAC (Southern Air Command)

Japan and South Korea’s unprecedented joint participation in air force exercises over the state of Alaska shows that America’s two staunchest Asian allies are willing to cooperate on security despite their political differences.

Their aircraft have been flying the annual Red Flag Alaska training drills that end on Friday, along with US and Australian forces. The exercise has included simulated combat maneuvers in which Korean fighter jets helped secure air space for military transport planes from Japan and other nations.

In recent years, Seoul and Tokyo have taken tentative steps to improve security cooperation. They have exchanged observers during military exercises and engaged together in naval training drills. But this is the first time their fighter jets have flown in the same exercise.

Jim Schoff, a former Pentagon adviser for East Asia policy, said that’s a sign Japan and South Korea are not letting their bilateral frictions prevent a slow and steady improvement in their military cooperation. But he said the cooperation remains limited, and is no cure for their political differences that last year derailed a bilateral agreement on sharing military information.

The tensions are rooted in Korean anger over Japan’s attitude toward its colonial past and use of Korean sex slaves during World War II. The two nations also have conflicting claims to tiny Korean-administered islands in the seas between them.

Last week, two Japanese Cabinet ministers visited a shrine dedicated to 2.5 million Japanese war dead, including war criminals. Such visits anger Seoul and Beijing, which also suffered under Japanese colonial occupation. However, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, known for his hawkish views, stayed away from the Yasukuni Shrine.

On the face of it, Japan and South Korea have many of reasons to work together on security. Both are prosperous democracies and host to tens of thousands of American forces.

They share a common interest in deterring a nuclear-armed and unpredictable neighbor: North Korea.

The two-week Alaska exercise, which ends Friday, involves about 60 aircraft and 2,600 personnel, including from the US Air Force, Navy and Marines. Japan and Australia have participated in the annual exercise before, but it is South Korea’s first time.

The exercise is a chance for participants to sharpen their combat skills in a realistic threat environment and integrate various forces in joint training, US Air Force Capt. Joost Verduyn said in an emailed response to questions.

Philip wrote: The astonishing clips showing the Chinese indulging in argy-bargy in Ar.Pradesh pushing Indian troops physically in crossing over a wakll which determines the LAC,NOT open land is the clearest indicator of aggression.With surrender-monkeys in charge of the nation's security,unless the Opposition gets its act together and takes the issue to the streets,forcing the regime to get tough..if it can,we will soon find ourselves watching the replay of '62.

Leonard wrote:Video of the Chinese --

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/vide ... 979719.cms

My uncle spent 35 years on this border, and the "kangress" has made our soldiers appear powerless & handicapped !!

SSridhar wrote:That scenario by Lt. Gen. Bakshi is the most likely one. When we say, China is likely to attack us, we may not mean a full scale war which neither side would want at this juncture for different reasons. But, the Chinese are certainly planning to go one notch up in their usual plan of incrementally occupying our land


We *must" give the Chinese a real bloody nose in what appears to be a skirmish about to happen.

SSridhar wrote:Acharya, that kind of asymmetrical response is not possible by India at present.