India's Doctrinal Shift?

[Ray]

Bifurcation as an OPOBJ disappeared long back. It was part of Sundarji doctrine. Op Parakram showed its limitations and Cold Start came in. It calls for shallow gains to take to the table.

The Doctrine was good.

It is just that the Mobilisation which depends on the Railways and the Air, did not keep pace.

I would say the Mobilisation of 1962 was superior to what one faced in Parakrama. In 1962, the military specials were mustered fast and they were moved as Top Priority. One can't say the same for Op Parakrama.

Once again, I go back to the issue of Political Will.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Bifurcation as an OPOBJ disappeared long back. It was part of Sundarji doctrine. Op Parakram showed its limitations and Cold Start came in. It calls for shallow gains to take to the table.

Weather people trust me or not on this one, Bifurcation of Pakistan is the only way we can stop terrorism and other state funded ideologies. Today Bangladesh is a farless threat to world peace than Pakistan is that itself should be proof enough of the goods that will come with the separation of Pakistani states. If all 5 states are united they have some strength to counter others but if they are divided and fractured it would be easy to threaten them and get our work done. Today Pakistan serves no Positive use to humanity and it only pushes us back to the dark ages with helping back ward ideas of religious separation and ethnic divisions.

 

[Yusuf]

Weather people trust me or not on this one, Bifurcation of Pakistan is the only way we can stop terrorism and other state funded ideologies. Today Bangladesh is a farless threat to world peace than Pakistan is that itself should be proof enough of the goods that will come with the separation of Pakistani states. If all 5 states are united they have some strength to counter others but if they are divided and fractured it would be easy to threaten them and get our work done. Today Pakistan serves no Positive use to humanity and it only pushes us back to the dark ages with helping back ward ideas of religious separation and ethnic divisions.

It is certainly good for india but cannot be done in a war as it will certainly invite nuke strike. It has to be done in a covert manner by supporting those wanting freedom from Punjabi domination. Sundarji Doctrine was devised in the 80s when we didnt have both sides declaring their nuke capability. It was a great doctrine for its time. But overt nukes changed a lot and therefore cold start came into the picture.

 

[Ray]

Actually if Pakistan vanishes, it will be good for them and for the world.

But is it possible?

That is the million dollar Q.

 

[p2prada]

With accretions in the manpower and equipment and improvement in the infrastructure, will certainly enhance the offensive capability. There was always opportunity for offensive capability even before. Now, it is sort of guaranteed and fail safe. It is important to remember that the Chinese have improved their infrastructure and the capability for quicker mobilisation and logistic supply, more so with the Tibetan Railway being operational and improving.

Chinese are improving their military presence in Tibet, but their constant worry is the Dalai Lama factor on Tibetans and that would prove to be a thorn on their side in case of a conflict with India. To add to it, the Uighurs of Xinjiang are not really giving the Chinese a worthy night's sleep.

What are the objectives? Maybe some other time. It is important to understand there are objectives right along the border, then there are Intermediate Objectives and then Terminal Objectives. It all depends on what is the political aim.

As per strategic papers, there is a lament that there is no Political Aim as such.

Sir, let's take their offensive capability to be superior to ours in all forms. Will we make a stand or have an offensive doctrine so as to use some of their land as bargaining chip during post war negotiations? Will we be heavily dependent on international support in the end? We obviously cannot take Tibet or risk facing near annihilation if we do try it.

Even with internal troubles aside(we do not have a dearth of Naxals and ULFA ourselves), it will be the real ground situation against us that will have far reaching consequences. PLA can always temporarily subjugate any internal turmoil with a hammer.

Can you direct me to some good strategic papers that's available as open source. Perhaps I can pose better questions after reading them?

I have to agree that they have no political aims to go for an invasion. The current status quo on the border is to their benefit.

@LF.
With the way we are presently, Air power will not play a significant role in our war against China. We do not have capable strike platforms that could possibly scare them. As long as their air force keep ours busy, PLA will not care at all for any losses they have in the air. You can blow up all their AWACS from the sky and it will not make a huge difference on the ground. The little that we can rain down on them will make little difference, except for achieving a morale and PR victory like IAF in Kargil that we can flash in Television sets around the world.

The PLA 2nd Artillery division is more scary than PLAAF and IAF combined.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

The terrain is not great for artillery, but now that you mention it we should have built up our artillery a little/lot more before coming up with a doctrine for China.

 

[Yusuf]

The terrain is not great for artillery, but now that you mention it we should have built up our artillery a little/lot more before coming up with a doctrine for China.

2nd artillery division commands Chinas nukes and ballistic missiles.

 

[Ray]

Sir, let's take their offensive capability to be superior to ours in all forms. Will we make a stand or have an offensive doctrine so as to use some of their land as bargaining chip during post war negotiations? Will we be heavily dependent on international support in the end? We obviously cannot take Tibet or risk facing near annihilation if we do try it.

Even with internal troubles aside(we do not have a dearth of Naxals and ULFA ourselves), it will be the real ground situation against us that will have far reaching consequences. PLA can always temporarily subjugate any internal turmoil with a hammer.

Can you direct me to some good strategic papers that's available as open source. Perhaps I can pose better questions after reading them?

I have to agree that they have no political aims to go for an invasion. The current status quo on the border is to their benefit.

Read the SAAG papers. They are a good education and written by professionally acclaimed thinkers, who have access to govt personalities and research papers, apart from international interaction. My instructor, Brig Subash Kapila (his papers come under the name Dr Subash Kapila) is a good way to understand the strategic situation.

First of all, I doubt if the Chinese will attack or we will attack. The geopolitical environment does not suggest so. What could be the Chinese aim? Capture Arunachal since they claim it? First of all, can they? What will happen to their image of being a benign country with no territorial ambitions that they claim to be? There attempt to capture Arunachal will be a great disaster since they would fail and India will carry out a strategic riposte (one need not spell it out) and the Chinese will lose face. Further, China's aggression will but the SE Asia countries back up and it will be detrimental to Chinese interests. Further, it will draw all into the US embrace and then it is Bole so nihal for China in Asia!!

India is not interested in taking Tibet. Why should we? Tibetans will decide their future. It has nothing to do with India. As far as Tibet and Xingjian, India is too insignificant a player. There are great powers who are interested. Let them do what they want.

PLA cannot subjugate internal turmoil with a hammer. They, too, have many internal contradictions that the general world does not know because of China's closed system.

 

[p2prada]

Read the SAAG papers. They are a good education and written by professionally acclaimed thinkers, who have access to govt personalities and research papers, apart from international interaction. My instructor, Brig Subash Kapila (his papers come under the name Dr Subash Kapila) is a good way to understand the strategic situation.

Will do so. Are there any good articles from non Indian sources too?

First of all, I doubt if the Chinese will attack or we will attack. The geopolitical environment does not suggest so. What could be the Chinese aim? Capture Arunachal since they claim it? First of all, can they? What will happen to their image of being a benign country with no territorial ambitions that they claim to be? There attempt to capture Arunachal will be a great disaster since they would fail and India will carry out a strategic riposte (one need not spell it out) and the Chinese will lose face. Further, China's aggression will but the SE Asia countries back up and it will be detrimental to Chinese interests. Further, it will draw all into the US embrace and then it is Bole so nihal for China in Asia!!

I remember something happening in 1987. We try something and General K Sunderji was involved in it, the Chinese react. The situation was resolved very quickly without escalation. Is there something both sides learnt from that incident? Were there some key differences between 1962 situation and 1987?

India is not interested in taking Tibet. Why should we? Tibetans will decide their future. It has nothing to do with India. As far as Tibet and Xingjian, India is too insignificant a player. There are great powers who are interested. Let them do what they want.

Sir, will Tibet situation maintain status quo even after HH Dalai lama's death in the future?

PLA cannot subjugate internal turmoil with a hammer. They, too, have many internal contradictions that the general world does not know because of China's closed system.

Interesting, even the dragon has it's limits. Can any future unrest escalate to an Egypt like scenario? IMHO, I hardly think the PLA will go as easy as Egypt's military though.