Discussion in 'Military History' started by A.V., Mar 24, 2009.
Its true that Indians have an elephantine memory but some things are just not worth it.
But PoK's strategic value makes it worth it. It contains the Karakorum Highway, which forms China's link between Xinjiang and the Indian Ocean, and will also give India direct access to Afghanistan and Central Asia (Wakhan Corridor).
It is, but it cannot be taken militarily but at the table, most probably after the next war (Inshallah) in which our use of cold start has given us good bargaining power.
At that time PA was arming Nukes across LOC over POK..
Real opportunity was during Op Parakram..
In that scene siachen is worthless..
Comparing an uninhabited Glacier to an 85,000 sq Km populated landmass bothering China, Afghanistan, Tribal Areas and Pakistani Punjab ? Sorry sir but thats like comparing Apples to Kurt Vonnegut.
Here Apples to Kurt Vonnegut serve the same needs, though Its better to have apple rather maintaining that treacherous Kurt Vonnegut..
J&K already bordering every other nation except Astan..
Reasons to get parts of POK
1. Better control of the ground through road ways inside POK..
2. POK is middle of Pak and China, a big land mass..
3. Siachen is a delicate balance dont give 100% assurance against a full scale invasion..
4. Our forces in J&K are concentrated, a spread out force in key places like key airbases in POK assure a strong position in battle besides their are not many objectives in Pok..
From what I understand, you are saying that there are only 4 reasons to free PoK from clutches of Pakistan. I could give you a dozen more reasons. So in that I agree obtaining PoK would be cool.
However, you need to understand,we are scarcely able to keep hold of J&K. Freeing PoK is not even an option at this point in time. We have to contend with a hostile population(detestable mirpuris), hundreds of thousands of enemy troops and jihadis, unforgiving terrain, absolutely no supply chain etc.
Having fantasies is good, but being practical is better.
PS:Similarly there are more than 4 reasons for India to occupy tracts of CoK/SriLanka/Diego GarciaTibet/Turkestan/Afghanistan/Tajikistan/Burma etc...
So call fantasy is not according to IA, IA have plans to capture key installation in POK and always improving modifying as per thread..
Where you got that info abt we scarly able to hold J&K? also abt supply chain ?, its all false information..
We are fighting since independence there the harsh terrain is our friend we rule those terrain, and tangos born in POK..
Those 4 points are basic..
I think we are having a problem understanding each other's position.
What I am saying is that for IA to solely focus on capturing PoK unilaterally a la Op Gibraltar that Pak tried would be futile.
From my understanding what you are saying is that IA is capable of seizing key strategic points in case of a war, and has plans for the same. This I agree with.
Yes, that is what i meant..
The IA plans are coordinated with IAF and Navy in such operations..
Capturing strategic locations like airfields key roads and junctions will paralysis enemy movement and leadership..
The capture bases will be used for Our needs..
As far as Siachen is concerned, I posted a thread few weeks back where some pointers are included, along with a map.
I hope that thread will contribute to this discussion.
Here it is - http://defenceforumindia.com/military-multimedia/23574-siachen-map-output-my-timepass.html
Pakistan military caused disaster called Kargil: Daily
The last thing that Pakistan needs at this critical juncture is institutional infighting, said a Pakistani daily as it reminded the military that "its definition of national security led to the loss of half the country in 1971 (and) led to a disaster called Kargil".
An editorial in the News International said that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani 's remarks about a "state within a state" caused quite a sensation in political circles.
"In Pakistan, 'national security' has always been defined by the military even though in any modern democratic state, it is defined by the government in consultation with its subservient military.
"The military in Pakistan considers itself a state within a state and uses the jihadist networks to defend its national security paradigm," it said.
The editorial added that it would not be wrong to "remind the military that its definition of national security led to the loss of half the country in 1971, it led to a disaster called Kargil, and the same 'national security' is now responsible for the kill and dump policy being pursued by our military in Balochistan".
The Kargil conflict between Pakistan and India took place in 1999.
"It is time to allow the democratic government to define what constitutes national security instead of making one blunder after another... The last thing this country needs at this critical juncture is institutional infighting," the editorial said.
Capturing POK is not as easy as is made out in various threads and in various forums.
If it were so simple then we should have been able to capture POK in the four wars we have had with Pakistan.
One may peruse the accounts of the various battles right from the first war.
Suffice it to say that the area is underdeveloped and without communications (roads) pursuing a battle is very arduous, time consuming and requires a huge amount of reserves in all facets.
India does not get the time necessary to pursue the aim since powers that be intervenes and also, the Indian economy cannot sustain such a huge campaign without serious adverse effects. Of course, Pakistan would have collapsed in all aspects before India is in a tight corner economically, but then the powers that be do not want Pakistan to collapse since it is in their interest to keep India in check. This ensures that the wars are fought in very limited and tight timeframe where achievements as desired becomes difficult.
The Pakistani fiasco in Kargil, where they achieved strategic and tactical surprise, is a pointer towards this end.
As far as Siachen is concerned, it is an important area strategically, even if a frozen waste.
Siachen prevent China from linking up Aksai Chin with the Shaksgam Valley that has been ceded by Pakistan illegally to China.
The linking up of the Shaksgam Valley with Aksai Chin would give depth to the Karakorum Highway connecting Aksai Chin with Pakistan.
This is why Zorawar and the British captured Northern Areas:
General Zorawar Singh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I take it that Opposition capabilities and terrain plays a role. As also, the mode of conducting warfare.
Zorawar was fortunate. There were no international powers that be in the times of Zorawar, neither any worry about elections, populist schemes and GDP to worry about.
Ranjit Singh did marvels towards Afghanistan!
But....today, it is not feasible.
Even a callous country like China finds it impossible to execute her dreamworld 'justified' by them by their colourful history, half of which are fables and myths!
I believe you have answered the question yourself. The reason we have not made a move towards capturing PoK is far more complex. It's a logistical nightmare to hold on to the captured territory and once we come close to the Karakoram highway, China will intervene with all they've got. There's no USSR to have them looking over their shoulders. Plus, Pakis being the rabid dogs they are will launch nukes even before our tanks roll into Skardu. How I wish we could have reinforced the division defendong Skardu in 1948, we would have severed any links between Pakis and their overlords.
When the oppurtunity presented itself, we HAVE made gains. We firmly made Siachen a part of our territory and neither the Pakis nor Chinese can do much about it. We gained a foothold into Baltistan by capturing Turtuk in 1971. We had to return Haji Pir on 1965 and had we held on, logistics would have been much simplified.
In the mountains and HAA, logistics and arty sp are the nightmare.
By holding the Siachen we are not aiming to capture anything, but preventing the Chinese with Pakistanis as proxy make a continuous stretch joining the two and in addition, being a threat in being.
Separate names with a comma.