Can’t argue with any of this
Problem is the entire system failed in Pathankot- the terrorists should never have gotten anywhere near the airbase, they should’ve been intercepted by local police (we know instead they were helping the terrorists get to the airbase), they shouldn’t have been able to breach the perimeter (they did very easily) as DSC and IAF police are meant to protect from that, only then was it a Garud problem. The role Garuds play in these strategic bases is QRT hence they will always be there in limited numbers. Yes this incident may have highlighted the limitations in deploying them in such limited numbers but at the same time it’s not that feasible to have them in significantly larger numbers at all these foreword airbases considering they have other primary roles.
After pathankot I believe the IAF plans to double the strength of Garuds so perhaps they are looking to address this but IMO that’s treating the symptom and not the cause. Instead the airbases need to be fortified, technology employed and the actual force protection security forces like DSC/IAF police need to be upgraded, unskilled and expanded.
This is generally the problem with India- failings are systemic and not individual hence the incentive is always to brush things under the carpet for fear of tainting everyone. There’s the Swiss cheese model but in india there are 10x as many holes and they are much bigger so they align much more often.
Garuds will never live up to their potential until they get more autonomy and the IAF actually understands their role, it’s not good enough just to raise a SOF, the IAF needs to raise entire rescue squadrons of which Garuds are just one part.
For what it’s worth: