India Pakistan conflict along LoC and counter terrorist operations

Status
Not open for further replies.

Marliii

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees
New Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2020
Messages
5,610
Likes
34,394
Country flag
CDS certainly should have watched his tongue.he shouldn't have compared IAF to a support element in the army.If IAF have some problems with theatrisation they should be dealt with.calling them that is just a disgrace to the air men who did their job
 

DivineHeretic

New Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
1,153
Likes
1,897
Country flag
Have always wanted to ask you about India's position vis a vis china and pakistan.

Why is our leadership so hesitant to initiate action is it simple diplomacy or something more do we have strategies or plans in place to eventually deal with this current predicament.
Two very different questions with no straightforward answers to either I am afraid. I also cannot claim to know exactly why things are the way they are. That said, following is my understanding of the dynamics that in part affected strategic discourse in the country over the last 70-75 years.

First and foremost, in hierarchy of importance is the overall national philosophy wrt foreign policy. India has always positioned itself as a peaceful status quo power with no avarice for territory. It is purely a defensive country that would never attack but respond to provocations. This is a philosophy that has been drilled down right from childhood to higher learning across generations. Think “India has never invaded another country in 1000 years”. The first two generations of political class, taught in UK in a post war left dominated ecosystem were enamored of socialist and left liberal principles and carried their hatred of military aggression and general disdain for armed forces to political decision making in India. Sardar Patel was an exception to the norm and understood ground realities and made pragmatic choices. For the others, ideals were always placed above pragmatism, and hence we had this weird image globally, of a nation that talks peace when the enemy has kicked in its front door. Behind the back of India’s political class, the international political class and intelligentsia laughed at our disconnect with reality. “The land of snake charmers”

This is a cultural phenomenon, and its impact can be felt to this day. Indians in general find it very hard to grasp the concept of being the attacker. Ask yourself, how comfortable you would be with Indian army attacking unprovoked across international borders? How comfortable would people you know be with such an action?

The entire Indian population has been rendered passive and pacifist and are not mentally and philosophically equipped to reimagine an aggressive, forceful India that uses violence as an instrument of state policy. Think of BJP/NDA spokespersons’ commentaries and statements within India. You will find hints of the imprint of this subconscious passivity and reactiveness within their statements. It has been very hard for strategic think tanks and academicians, who are the purveyors of strategic discourse in any country to even advocate or simulate proactive approaches because of the inherent hesitancy of majority of Indians. They fear being mislabeled as hawks. You will not find this strategic hesitancy amongst the think tank community and academia in US, UK.

All of this affects everyone: The Political class, the diplomatic class, the armed forces, the intelligence agencies. It is a self-imposed mental block that narrows field of view to strategic alternatives.

Next, Indian strategic community, the political class and the armed forces have struggled to define strategic objectives. Except for 1948, 1961 & 1971, we have always suffered from ambiguity about our own strategic objectives and therefore by extension the victory conditions or war winning conditions.

Now for an offensive to succeed the two most important preconditions are demarcation of war winning objectives and having a war closure plan. A war winning objective is something that both sides recognize as being decisive to the outcome of the conflict, and forcing the loser into either strategic escalation or into a war closure position.

What is our war winning condition for a war with Pakistan? CSD postulated the capture of 50-70km sliver of land across a broad front. Does anyone here seriously believe Pakistan will surrender or stop fighting just because they lost 70 km of land? What happens if PA continues permanent resistance post IA securing objectives? I would argue that given that PA is (or was) aware that IA objectives only extend to capture of 70 km land, PA would pull back from all nonessential fronts and conserve its forces to ensure permanent sustained combat capability. PA wins just by continuing engagements and showing that they remain a potent fighting force. As for the land, they already know it will be returned post war in negotiations. The victory condition for PA is merely survival without significant loss of combat potential or firepower. This is an example of muddled strategic thought process resulting in poor strategic objective identification leading to poor war outcome. A more effective war winning objective would be either capture of POK (AJK is a Pakistani fantasy, doesn’t exist) and/or destruction of the strike corps of PA. The destruction of Mangla based I Corps & Multan based II corps for example, would severely degrade PA combat capability and render conventional resistance unsustainable against the overwhelming force of IA. PA therefore is forced to either escalate strategically or seek peace. As such it is a decisive event and therefore a war winning objective. Same for annexation of POK, it is a strategic loss for PA and leaves PA with no choice but to either escalate or seek peace. Conventional resistance would be pointless at that point and have no impact on strategic positioning of IA.

I ask the same question for the China front. What would constitute a war winning objective? What is our war winning objective? Are those war winning objective attainable for our armed forces? What would force PLA to rethink the strategic calculations wrt a war with India? Would capturing slivers of land force any change in PLA operations? The way I see it, the only way PLA rethinks operations against IA is the destruction and degradation of PLA forces facing the India theater to an extent that PLA believes current operations would be ineffective and therefore forcing PLA to escalate the conflict massively or back down. These are difficult questions to answer.
 

Ayushraj

New Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Messages
2,404
Likes
19,518
Country flag
If the next CDS is navy then 3rd carrier is on its way.
India already have 2 natural aircraft carrier.
Andaman& nicobar and lakshadweep.
So India have 4 aircraft carrier (2 natural +ins viktamaditya+ins vikrant)and just 45 mig 29 k to man them.
Indian navy lacks jets as of now . Ins vikrant has no jet available as of now. New jet will be most probably f18 (some report also say 36 rafale).
3 rd aircraft work will be started after 2030
Indian navy will be more focussed on submarine for area denial purpose in these 10 years
 

DivineLight

New Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
1,194
Likes
5,487

Watch the interview. He didn't say IAF only role is just air support to army in general. When working in theatres, IAF is required to provide air support. He emphasised on it and said how it is like artillery support to the ground forces.

Lol. India Today is at its job. Lol. Totally outta context. They snipped small portion of the video and made it into something else. :rofl:

Are we sure Rajdeep - the greatest spinner - isn't behind this hitjob on our CDS?

@Knowitall you watch the whole thing. Make your arguments again.
 

fire starter

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
9,609
Likes
84,139
Country flag

Watch the interview. He didn't say IAF only role is just air support to army in general. When working in theatres, IAF is required to provide air support. He emphasised on it and said how it is like artillery support to the ground forces.

Lol. India Today is at its job. Lol. Totally outta context. They snipped small portion of the video and made it into something else. :rofl:

Are we sure Rajdeep - the greatest spinner - isn't behind this hitjob on our CDS?

@Knowitall you watch the whole thing. Make your arguments again.
I think we are creating unnecessary ho
Halla.
 

another_armchair

New Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
12,096
Likes
54,387
Country flag
CDS certainly should have watched his tongue.he shouldn't have compared IAF to a support element in the army.If IAF have some problems with theatrisation they should be dealt with.calling them that is just a disgrace to the air men who did their job
Given how IAF bailed them out in Kargil, loudmouth Rawat shouldn't have stirred the inter-services rivalry with his thoughtless jibes.
 

DivineLight

New Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
1,194
Likes
5,487
I think we are creating unnecessary ho
Halla.
It's not we. There are forces who are hell bent on throwing dirt on BiRa. I am seeing it since he became CDS. He is doing great work. But some vested interests trying to paint him as something else.

The video is enough proof. All they need is little ammo, they will froth at mouth and say all nasty words to him. Lol.

If you are real nationalist, please check his every interview and so called 'controversies'. Everything is manufactured. Their target is not just him.They want to cripple our armed forces.

Modi had to do all kinda gymnastics to buy just 36 Rafale. I used to think he was so weak couldn't bulldoze it. And then you realise how fu*ked the whole system is They won't even let him buy them.
 
Last edited:

Tactical Doge

𝕱𝖔𝖔𝖑𝖘 𝖗𝖚𝖘𝖍 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖑𝖘 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖗
New Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
9,954
Likes
60,451
Country flag
CDS certainly should have watched his tongue.he shouldn't have compared IAF to a support element in the army.If IAF have some problems with theatrisation they should be dealt with.calling them that is just a disgrace to the air men who did their job
At least he should have addressed the IAF as a Support arm with respect to the Theatre commands
He is from the army itself so obviously he is going to be biased
 

Tactical Doge

𝕱𝖔𝖔𝖑𝖘 𝖗𝖚𝖘𝖍 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖑𝖘 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖗
New Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
9,954
Likes
60,451
Country flag
If the next CDS is navy then 3rd carrier is on its way.
That should be atleast after this decade
(And I'm being optimistic)

Priority should be P75I and SSN/SSBNs
Carrier can wait and more importantly, it should be flattop supercarrier like the Chinese type-003
 

Knowitall

New Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
7,930
Likes
35,898

Watch the interview. He didn't say IAF only role is just air support to army. When working in theatres, IAF is required to provide air support. He emphasised on it and said how it is like artillery support to the ground forces.

Lol. India Today is at its job. Lol. Totally outta context. They snipped small portion of the video and made it into something else. :rofl:

Are we sure Rajdeep - the greatest spinner - isn't behind this hitjob on our CDS?

@Knowitall you watch the whole thing. Make your arguments again.
Have already watched the whole thing and I am pretty sure the air cheif too watched the whole thing before he decided to rebuff the CDS.

His exact line:-

Airforce is required to provide support to the ground forces. Do not forget that airforce continues to remain a supporting arm to the armed forces just like rhe artillery support and engineer suport.

There is no twist or misinformation here he said what he said that's it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Articles

Top