Bharat Rakshak

ramana wrote:Jhujar what does he say? One or two sentences.

Satya_anveshi wrote:Pakis requests for talks; Puki sponsors keep lecturing India about talks;

India gets defensive and says talks and terror cannot go on;

After predictable terror incidents, there is always pressure on India to stop talks and pressure on Puki civvies to keep the talks going;

Then there are expectations for talks to be uninterrupted / uninterrupt-able;

All this makes one wonder, what are talks really about?

The perception this definitely leaves is there is something India to lose/give and Pakis (at least a section of pukis) to gain from talks?

If that is so, what are the reasons behind such an expected outcome? How does talks lead to India giving/losing and Pukis gaining?
- Is it the J&K settlement?
- Is it some financial aid that must go thru India?
- Is it pukistan's international isolation (which is definitely not strong)?
- Is it release of military pressure that is too much for Pak to bear?
- or something else?

Now, only fools expect India to engage in one sided giving and not expecting in return - not even a total messed up resident non-indian will think along this line.

Nor India/Indians will shy away from talks for the talks sake - this is one area even worst critic of Indians will have to hand the championship trophy to Indians hands down.

So, what is to be given by Pukis in return that India wants?
- Is it CRE of Puki Nuclear Infra?
- Is it total elimination of non-state infra?
- Is it drastic reduction of Paki military industrial complex?
- Is it access to afghanistan and neutralization of the so called strategic depth?
- Is it MFN which has not much real value for Indian companies?


The stark reality is, if Pakistan isn't able to contain terror at its home, how will it guarantee the same to India and even more so how good is expecting any of the major items listed above in the give/take in talks?

With this background, what good are talks about and why even play that game?

However, we have to get out of the perception battle that talks are unfavorable to India and hence we object to it. We have nothing to lose or gain because Pakistan lacks credibility and even capability to honor the negotiated settlement.

We must open talks at all levels and say we are ready for it provided pukistan pays for all the expense at our designated place in our capital, follow our strict restrictions for people involved in it as with any international engagement, and continue this repeatedly week after week. While at it, increase the covert ops until the time pukistan starts feeling the pain and starts saying it does not want talks with India anymore.


So, what do we really gain out of this approach?

This approach will leave our H&D intact but at an elevated level of offensive engagements and may invite higher rate of reaction. In my view this will eventually lead to war and therefore settlement on our terms.

Question is whether we are ready to bear the increased costs and even be able to handle the settlement that will come with its own problems.

IMO, we can deal with the outcomes and they open up new possibilities.
If I were PM, I will take this new path and issue a "khabardaar"/"saawadhaan" to pukistan.

ramana wrote: From experience, talking to a bad guy when you are in the right empowers the bad guy. You will end up giving something valuable.

Wastern powers want India to talk for that legitimizes the terrorist actions of Pakistan. In other words the thief is given equality with the victim.
They do this for their own reasons.

Normally the victim will ensure the thief wont succeed.
But for various reasons India, the victim, always leaves the door open for the thief to rob and kill Indians.

Example if the Police(Gill etc) or Military(Sunderji) take stern action to lock the door and cut off the thief's arms, the next government elected by peaceful folks will demonize them.
Worse they will turn on attack jackals like Coupta to demonize the military.
And come up with scams to prevent re-armament(AK Anthony).

So I suggest India should clean up inside first and then think of external action. Or else they will fight on multiple fronts with termites second guessing and undermining armed forces morale.

Karan M wrote: Sushma told them the government had intelligence suggesting the terrorists may have come from Bahawalpur in Pakistan's Punjab and may have links with the Jaish-e-Mohammed terror group, known to have had support from sections within the Pakistani army.

"The mistake we have sometimes made in the past is to equate these sections within the Pakistani establishment with the Pakistan government," Pal had told this newspaper on Saturday.

"Yes, there was a time when these sections represented the mainstream in Pakistan. Not any more.".

Satya_anveshi wrote:Logical consequence of the above is for the Pakistani civilian govt invite India to help Pakistan rid of terrorism and publicly issue statement that it will be OK for India to bomb across not just LOC but across IB also.

Satya_anveshi wrote:Funny thing is that we are admitting that most powerful people in India are talking to people who don't have power....but the same powerless people in Pak call for talks as if they are in position to honor anything they agree to.

That means, it is truly a drama. If that is so, why are we objecting to it. We too can find a bunch of folks who won't be authorized to agree to anything but pakistan will incur hosting costs.

India-Pakistan - Comprehensive and Composite Chai pe Charcha Season I thru 100. It can start with Vedic Past of Pakistan/Afghanistan.

Anujan wrote:So much energies spent on debating
1. If calling NSG is a good idea
2. Was there coordination
3. Is DSC capable
4. What's the use of Garuds anyway
5. How could the terrorists breach perimeter
6. Was Shri Doval micromanaging
7. Why did it take so long

If I were running a disinformation campaign, I would ask all these questions first to set the tone for the debates so all energies are expended debating this rather than

1. Why did Pakis do this so soon after Modiji's visit which indicated talks were about to be started
2. Does Badmash know and is playing a double game or is he just Mayor of Isloo and has no control over whatever TFTAs want
3. Badmash's brother is CM of Pakjab. How can huge terror training camps exist in his state without him knowing
4. What's up with the drug trade. Who are the fronts and behinds of it?

If you look at Paki twitter and even articles by so called moderates like the Pak tea house guy, I can sum it up with a story.

Imagine you live in a house, you visit the neighbours house for dinner and the fellow comes over and burns your place. Then the Paki (and our own DDM) gather around and ask.

1. Why didn't you see him setting fire
2. What took you so long to put out the fire
3. Why did the house catch fire? Why did you use wooden doors?
4. Why weren't fire extinguishers stored in easy reach? Why didn't you use Abdul brand extinguisher instead of Ayesha brand which is less effective?
5. Why are there so many trees around the house which limits visibility?
6. Hey by the way, you need to have good relations with your neighbors so do invite the guy over for dinner sometime and don't be upset about this incident too much.


Clouds us from asking the real question

"WHY DID THE NEIGHBOUR MOFO SET THE HOUSE ON FIRE AND WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE SURE HE DOESNT DO IT AGAIN"

deejay wrote:Anujan ji great post. All other discussions (including my posts) are wasting time. Now that you have pointed out very clearly I don't see why we should persist on the old scheme of things unless it is deliberate.

Just a suggestion :

May require moderation but can we start digging into what you have listed instead of self depreciation and calling everything India bad.

1. Why did Pakis do this so soon after Modiji's visit which indicated talks were about to be started
2. Does Badmash know and is playing a double game or is he just Mayor of Isloo and has no control over whatever TFTAs want
3. Badmash's brother is CM of Pakjab. How can huge terror training camps exist in his state without him knowing
4. What's up with the drug trade. Who are the fronts and behinds of it?

rohitvats wrote:

pragnya wrote:<SNIP>He notes pakistan at best is a 'nuisance' than anything. while we make our dislike of the american view of equal equal with pakistan, we do the equal equal ourselves by focussing too much on it and in the bargain play into the hands of pakistan's policy of parity with us - a success of its foreign policy, he notes. he compares pak's size in terms of physical, economical, military, position in the world order etc. to make his points.

pragnya - the argument which BK makes are absurd at many levels. And they seem to not be born out of a detailed thought process. For example - this argument about Pakistan being a nuisance and we doing an '==' ourselves by giving too much focus on them.

My counter-question is this - what role does India play in Pakistan's consciousness, policy and military planning? You know the answer to this one as much as I do. And so do others. If not 100%, 99.9% at least!


The size of Pakistan Army, other Services and nuclear program, not to forget use of religion and jihad, are all because obsession which Pakistan has with India. As a country, Pakistan has one of the highest population to men-under-arms ratio. Now, if Pakistan places half a million troops, some 300-400 combat aircraft, 6-7 most advanced submarines, 1500+ tanks against India, what are we supposed to do?


I will be forced to develop armed forces which not only match my adversary but allow me to win a war - which again means more favorable ratio than simply going toe to toe. But as against BK's assertion, look at numbers from either side will tell you that India does not enjoy clear superiority in numbers. Favorable ratios are to be had and aimed for through intelligent deployment and in geographical/theater sense. So, in Southern Pakistani Punjab and Sindh, India may have 2:1 ratio in battle tanks. And when applying this armored force, we may try and achieve still better ratios.

I'm leaving out the technology as force multiplier bit here for the moment.

But truth be told, India has not actually used its economic muscle to build outright dominating ratios. People would recall that Sundarji's Army Plan 2000 called for 4 x Armored Divisions and 7 x Mechanized Divisions!


Long story short - when my adversary points a gun towards me, I'll have to do one better and point a bloody RL against him. Remember, there are no runner ups in war.

1. reduction/rationalisation of armoured formations - this as per BK, takes 26% of IA budget which is waste of resources and also ATGM proliferating makes their use unviable. he cites IA armour lobby is stuck in world war 2 mentality and unwilling to do this.

how best this can be done without losing the edge? how many of these can be transferred to the Mountain corp where they can be deployed in tankable areas?

This is one argument I've never been able to understand.

Your enemy has 2 x armored divisions, 2 x mechanized divisions, 7/8 independent armored brigades and BK wants India to not have the number of tanks that it has? Hell, I'm one of those who feels India needs a minimum of 4 armored divisions, though I'd prefer 05. And more mechanization.

It was the might of India's three armored divisions arrayed in the desert/south Indian Punjab which made Pakees shit bricks and deploy their famed 1st Armored Division in defensive role...and which compelled Bandicoot to come on PTV and smoke the peace pipe. Not to forget that Pakistan had aimed both its reserves (Army Reserve North and Army Reserve South), their equivalent of Strike Corps, against Indian Punjab when Sundarji has their undies in twist during Operation Brasstacks.

Question is - if IA gives up or downsizes its armored strength, what safety net do we have against Pakistan armored? And how are we to smash through Pakistan's defenses, fight a short and intense war and downgrade its war-fighting potential?

What is maneuver warfare without armored/mechanized formations?

One of the objectives of Cold Start Doctrine has been to ensure Integrated Battle Groups (IBG) with Pivot Corps should be able to attack and create openings through Pakistan's first line. This will force Pakistan to commit it reserves giving an opportunity to Indian planners to deploy own reserves/strike corps in a more favorable manner.

The whole Pakistani response to India's CSD has been to makes their Pivot Corps more stronger so as to not allow IBGs to break through, so that they don't have to commit their reserves. Instead Pakistan is trying hard to ensure that we're back to square one where each side tries to guess the deployment of other's reserves.

As for ATGM and tanks - tanks have evolved along with ATGM. Sure, our mechanized forces will take casualties from ATGM but that does not negate their usage. And the same argument applies to Pakistan Army as well? Ever heard Pakistanis talking about winding down their armored formations?

MSC - only place MSC can use tanks is eastern Ladakh. That too central and south eastern. IA is in process of placing an independent armored brigade there. Whether we have room for a full fledged armored division supported by a mechanized divisions/RAPID is for army to answer.

But the argument makes sense - IA could dual tasks couple of armored brigades for deployment in Ladakh. And train for the purpose and put in place logistics for the same.

2. the three strke corps be restructured as 'one' with many IBGs - he says the manpower/equipment is too huge and not needed.

again how best the manpower/equipment can be optimally transferred to the Mountain corps without impinging on our edge? can atleast one of the corps be disbanded? is it feasible? if yes, how?

First and foremost, we have this business of Strike and Pivot Corps because we lack resources and hence, place the most powerful assets in few formations. And this is not only about tanks but other things like engineering assets, AD missiles, mobile AD assets etc.

Now that we've more things coming in, along with advent of CSD, that assets like SP SAM Group (Kvadrat) which was earlier with one of the Strike Corps has been transferred to 12 Corps in Jodhpur (source: Sainik Samachar). Akash SAM Groups will most likely replace them in Strike Corps.

Again, someone tell me this - if managing three strike corps is difficult, how big will a single strike corps be and how easy/difficult managing such a force will be? And where ALL will you deploy such a corps?

As I said, BK makes arguments w/o elaborating them and we're left arguing basis whatever he shares. Which makes no head or tail. But let us create a scenario.

Assume we retain only one Strike Corps with powerful IBGs. Assets from balance Strike Corps are transferred to Pivot Corps.

Now, how many IBGs can a single Strike Corps throw up? Four at best, I suppose.

But this Strike Corps can best service requirement or be deployed only in a limited geography. What happens to requirement in other sectors? Today, you've Strike Corps in Bhopal, Mathura and Ambala with assets in larger area. They can respond to requirements in certain sectors. But can the same be said of a single such entity?

OK, we assume that multiple powerful IBGs can be deployed independent of the whole Corps. Then Strike Corps becomes more of a shell formation holding assets than formation which works as a whole.

I'd need to place these IBGs in a manner where they're available to respond to requirements in minimum possible time (remember, one of the lessons from Parakaram was to reduce mobilization time?). Also, given the number of such IBGs, you'll need to prioritize area from Samba to Barmer which will be served by these IBGs when required. You can have a situation where 2 x IBGs go north, 1 x IBG goes to northern Rajasthan and last one goes to Barmer. But then, you'll have to position them accordingly.

This also means that Pivot Corps need to have enough of engineering assets required to support larger mechanized force when IBGs from reserve corps joins it.

But what happens to dictum of concentration of force and firepower when you parcel them as IBGs? Will deployment of these IBGs give IA the superiority required in a particular sector?

Assume further that we parcel 8 other armored brigades (from two other armored divisions+(I) armored brigades with other strike corps) to Pivot Corps. And most Pivot Corps end up with 3 independent armored brigades. Well, shouldn't then I simply go ahead and create an armored division in each of Pivot Corps for better command & control?

What the above does is that it places all your cards on the table from word go. And you've limited reserves in your single strike corps and its 4/5 IBGs, though powerful ones.

But the above is not 'doing away' with strike corps. Or, reducing the armor. It's simply redistributing the same assets. Sure, it will lead to cutting down on 'tail' required to maintain whole Corps. This is because when 'teeth' are redistributed from a Strike Corps to a Pivot Corps, then corresponding tail in the Strike Corps goes is not required. Instead, the 'tail' in the Pivot Corps grows from X to X+delta and not 2X.

The above scenario is opposite to Point 1 mentioned above by you. If BK wants Point 1 and Point 2, well, then might as well hand over the keys to Red Fort to the Pakistan Army.

In fact, I remember VKS talking about rationalization of reserves and Strike Corps. He also spoke about a single strike corps but no additional details are available. And I'm sure he wasn't going to implement any harebrained ideas like BK.

3. disbanding the Prithvi missiles

this imo can be done with Prahar taking its place.

most of his points will mean better and optimum utilisation of the budget, manpower, equipment without additional burden (or possibly minimal) and focus shifting to china while retaining the edge on Pakistan. what would be your analysis? TIA.

It is my considered opinion that Prithvi Missiles are with SFC and I think Pakistan knows this. But I'm not sure we're going to use Prithvi for taking out tactical or strategic targets in depth. I think the role is nuclear. And we'll retain them till other missile groups are in place in sufficient numbers.

Brahmos on the other hand is with Army and part of Artillery Divisions. I'm willing to be corrected but I've never heard use of Prithvi missiles in any war-games or exercises.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Balancing out the eastern sector has started happening. Both III and IV Corps had rationalization and augmentation of AOR + troop strength. Both have 3 divisions each. Plus, the new MSC. Sure, we can do better but changes in the gigantic IA takes time.

It saddens me to see Kaneria being at such difficult cross roads in his life - After all he is someone I can associate myself with. Danish got his primary and secondary education from St. Patrick's High School which is a long standing school in Karachi for the past 150+ years; it came into being in 1856. I am myself completed my O/A levels from the said mentioned and I am a proud OP (Old Patrician). Apart from Kaneria there are a lot of other notable people that are OPs (Old Patricians) namely Javed Miandad, Parvez Musharraf, Rashid Minhas, Wasim Bari etc etc What I learned in the 13 years I'd spent in that place, and the best of my life by the way, was that there was a lot of emphasis on being tolerant to other cultures and religions.

St. Patrick's is located at the Old Saddar town right in the city center so naturally a lot kids from Christian, Hindu and other Minority communities also attend it. It is the most diversified schooling community in the country I believe, because growing up some of my best friends we're Christians, Hindus and Parsis and even are right now. However, the one thing that is ingrained over there is that no matter who you are and what religion you follow you're first a Paksitani and then someone else. This creates a very binding loyalty to the country and almost 90 percent of Patricians that you will find will be extreme patriots. Danish is no different and you could see that when he wore the star during his career. This statement is more out of frustration rather than anything else. Give this guy a break, he has been fighting a lone battle for almost 6-7 years now without any support so something like this coming out after so many years of struggle is completely natural and justified from my perspective. It is a step in the wrong direction but when a man is desperate he will do anything to make his ends meet and the treatment that Amir, Asif and Butt are getting is quite disheartening for someone like Danish who # 1 isn't accused of fixing or under performing when donning the Green Jersey and #2 he has services to this nation which are 10X the services of Amir, Asif and Butt combined - I might catch a lot of hell fire for saying this by Amir/Butt/Asif ******* but the truth is the truth.

I know where is he coming from when he uses the religion card because quite honestly I have witnessed the very same in my personal life as well. An OP (Old Patrician) is someone who studies from Grade 1 up until A levels or High School graduation. Coming from elementary to almost Junior high the classes and the batch of students remain the same so in the 8-10 years together those same blokes are quite comfortable with each other and the discipline ingrained throughout the course of our educational careers makes OPs extremely tolerant to religion particularly. When I was there, the year of our transfer from O to A levels saw a lot of new admissions from different other schools of Karachi as well. This new batch of people normally are not exposed to a similar diversified community in their up coming years and when they see mixed gathering between practicing Muslims and non Muslims, it is a very hard pill to swallow for them in general. I'll quote something that happened to me and it was the first time I saw a fellow Muslim shun me for sharing a meal with a Parsi student who had been one of my best buddies growing up; Danny Talati - If you're reading this then yup I am talking about you mate . Nobody got offended then due to the actions of my Muslim friend being intolerant back then but that was the first time I saw the grey bias in people when it comes to religion.

I am not claiming that all Muslims are like that in Pakistan nor am I saying that everyone is extremely welcoming what I'am trying to put through is that Danish's appeal and his claim that he isn't considered our own holds a little bit of water. He might have taken it too far by dragging BCCI into this but truth be told we should at least give him a reprieve to earn a living through the thing he does best. I think no one, and yes that includes players like Sreeshant, Salim Malik etc etc deserve a life ban on something that could be there only livelihood. I am a human, I've made mistakes in my life and I have moved on. I've repented and now I consider myself a decent man. Anybody who disagrees that they have sinned or made an error of judgement are fooling nobody but themselves and I consider such to be delusional and extremely pity worthy. The world is round for a reason and everyone deserves a second chance. The guy might have fixed matches in a British domestic game FGS, he didn't kill someone - Let him have a life through something that could feed his family and children. Concluding my argument I find it quite surprising that why would a man be so driven to sacrifice his entire savings and other life earnings on something that he deliberately did. Either he is mad to begin with or it's just that maybe maybe what he says holds an IOTA of weight - if someone in the PCB is reading this then it wouldn't hurt to just look at his case for 1 second and listen to his side of the official story. Rashid Latif, who I consider someone who would never fix or be involved in any type of fixing backs this bloke. For the love of everything that is holy, please look at his case. That's all.

ramana wrote:Afghanistan and Eastern part of Khyber- Paktunwa is what makes Pakistan tick.

Over the weekend I was asked to talk about Pakistan : state models, power structures, regions, provinces, Muslim history. It struck me Jinnah could not claiming the Pashtun region as it already had a state. Unless they include them, they will always be in search of a homeland. Kashmir is a feint.

maxratul wrote:Ramana,

The bogey of Hindu domination (fed by the Iqbals and the Syed Ahmeds) was casus belli for the Muslim League to launch their political movement of Pakistan. This was a movement whose main soldiers were low class Bihari/UP/Bengali muslims. However, once the objective of Pakistan was achieved, the prime objective for all players (esp. in Pakjab, the power center) became much more self centered - notice how they started their urdu cultural imperialism etc. However, do they do urdu imperialism now? No, they are all wannabe arabis, their current paymasters.

Hindu hatred is their best tool to bind together the diverse interest groups that I mentioned above - Hindu as enemy, Hindu as competitor etcetera. But does that mean that it is Hindu hatred that makes these selfish SOBs tick? no sir. These clowns are driven by pure and simple self interest, they will sleep with whoever needed, will do whatever haramigiri required - islam be damned - in order to maintain their fiefdoms and power bases. They dont have any lofty ideas of religious war or clash of civilizations that they inherently believe in - no muslim country, regardless of their rhetoric, really believe in that hogwash. These are all hard nosed, pragmatic cockroaches, who are continuously trying to figure out how much they can get away with before one throws a rubber sandal at them.

based on discussion on Kaala Vasiyat's plan:

"Upon returning to the United States, the only item on Blackwill's desk at the National Security Council was a tiny figurine of Ganesh, the Hindu elephant-headed god of wisdom and success while a huge map of "Mother India" adorned the walls of his office.[3]"

Why mother India?

K Subbu garu's article on Kaala Vasiyat's de-facto partition of Afghanistan...

"Indeed, Islamabad might need to be persuaded to concentrate, with the United States, on defeating the Pakistan Taliban and containing the Afghan Taliban to avoid momentum toward a fracturing of the Pakistan state.”

The last sentence is pregnant with dark forebodings for Pakistan. A Taliban-dominated Pashtun Afghanistan and Pakistani Pashtun areas under Pakistani Taliban influence are likely to move towards their long-cherished goal of scrapping the Durand Line and uniting to form the independent Pashtunistan. If that were to happen, Baloch, Sindhi and Balti nationalist assertions cannot be far behind. The Taliban dominated Pashtunistan may conclude a deal with the US to break off with al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. In that event, Pakistan, instead of gaining strategic depth in Afghanistan will be in danger of losing Pashtun areas of Pakistan. In the alternative the Taliban may continue its links with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. In that case, their anger at being constantly hit by US airpower may turn on the Pakistan army and state with terrorist attacks on Pakistani Punjab being stepped up. "

Karan M wrote: ...
Your theory is fundamentally flawed because it does not take I into account. I being the faith that insists idol worship and pagan idolators must be hated and fought with.

Self interest does not define the Pathankot suicide squad or multiple such groups which exist. And the rest being "hard nosed pragmatic" etc is the typical wishy washy secoolar worldview we were all brainwashed with, which cannot accept the other side is fanatic and fundamentally getting more and more irrational.

I have seen videos from the 60's with pakistanis mocking hindus. If anything they have grown more rabid after that. In Africa, Pakistani officers were roped in to civilize their troops because on joint missions, the scrawny Pakistanis were spitting at the Indians and calling them kaffirs. The Indians approached their Pakistani counterparts to shut their folks up before some IA troops lost their temper and thrashed the Pakistanis. Pakistani ships are crewed by maniacs while the crew, forget training, stands around yelling AoA.

The country and the people are rabid, only the degree to which the indoctrination is there differs.

Luxtor wrote:What makes Pukistan tick? ....

Well, Pukistan is like a (not so) fine, hand-wind watch ... made by the retreating British, it has been wound up repeatedly by the Americans and the Chinese over its history to suit their respective purposes.

I also saw the video here on this thread about "Why does Pukistan seek a war with India?" .... That jihadi beard said that India is the only place on Earth where idol worship is done. Ha? excuse me? .... What about that huge statue of Jesus in Rio de Janeiro? Millions of Buddha statues through out asian countries including Japan? Every Christian church everywhere in the world has statues of Jesus, Mary and all the apostles and saints. This has always been the problem with the Pukies....they consistently misunderstand the world around them and themselves.

ramana wrote:
India has been engaging Pakistan futilely for last 60 years. With US and UK as interested parties.

In Afghanistan it has been engaging Northern Alliance elements

To help bring this about India needs to engage Pashtuns- both Durrani and Ghilzai to restore peace to the region.

Muppalla wrote:^^^
There are some opportunities now for India. But has to play it aggressively.