Indian Army used artillery & heavy mortars on LOC targeting Civilian Population

[Robbie]

February last year has set into motion a cascade of inevitability that is yet incomplete.

I apologise for replying to a number of your posts. But I don't agree. India does not have the military capability to do anything about Pakistan. Here is why I think so.

That's an interesting view Notorious Eagle. I disagree though. Pakistan on average has superior forward edge of battle area (FEBA) platforms compared to India.

The Pakistan armed forces have countered Indian weapons effectively by using American or European equipment as the tip of the spear with the rest being comprised of Chinese or other equipment. In contrast, almost all Indian equipment is of Soviet origin. Pakistan's tip of the spear (usually American) is better than Indian (usually Soviet) in most areas. To paint an example, Pakistan's F-16s bring AIM 120 C5, that outrange what IAF possesses by a significant margin. This plays out in almost every area I can think of: A-100 outranges Smerch, M series howitzers outrange IA's artillery (even including the new Korean K-9), etc. Exceptions include Naval platforms as Pakistan does not prioritize the Navy.

Part of this is because Pakistan has preferred US systems which, on average, tended to be better than Soviet/Russian ones (notable exceptions in certain strategic areas). The other part has been India's broken procurement system and consistently declining defence budgets.

It is only in the last few years that India has been more open to Western armament and though modernization has started, is still piecemeal. It has so far not touched the Indian military's tip of the spear. The only exception being Rafales which are till date not in India and in any case, are too few to really constitute anything other than a token force (2 squadrons, split over 2 fronts, compared to 4 squadrons of F-16's all for one front).

The real modernization for India has started happening in the mid-end areas like naval P-8, and logistics area where C-17, C-130, and Chinooks have rather dramatically changed efficacy and capability of the IN's maritime domain awareness fleet and IAF's transport fleet. Apache's and MH-60R will start modernizing battlefield support roles in the next few years. The differences, in terms of availability and sortie rates, are significantly better than what the military has had so far. As Indian comfort with US weapon systems and training philosophy grows, so will the nature of acquisitions, moving towards FEBA platforms.

I am sure you understand that this doesn't mean Pakistan is militarily stronger than India. However, it will take at least a decade more before India's tip-of-the-spear starts changing. Till then, at least, in the context of skirmishes with limited assets at play, Pakistan will be able to bring more lethal force, more precisely, and faster than their Indian counterparts.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-...nd-what-is-needed.660104/page-5#post-12212969

@Joe Shearer , @third eye . I would love your views on this as well. Needless to say, I am open to contrary view.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

It was India which reached out to UN under article 35 complaining of Pakistan intrusion into its sovereign land and UN resolution clearly stated as below

B1. When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the Tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India

No excerpts given but I will give you now, and if you are looking for an opportunity to shut me down, go ahead. @M. Sarmad

1. As part of truce agreement, India and Pakistan was supposed to draft terms and conditions to bring on peace on guiding principle laid by UN resolution Aug 13 and that was

Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall he worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.

A1. As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

http://kashmirvalley.info/un-resolutions/#.XpH4XsgzY2w

2. Onus can be put on India of stalling truce agreement if Pakistan can prove that it agreed to conditions abiding by the principle laid by UN resolutions

3. No such evidence could be provided by Sarmad, infact to contrary he claim Pakistan agreed but on condition of having UN troops, which is sheer violation of guiding principles that authorized India forces for law and order. India, in its own right, can reject this proposal, without being blamed of stalling the process.

4. UN in its guiding principle called presence of Pakistan in kashmir as a material change, and it was accepted by Gov. of Pakistan, thus any further demand of not leaving the state is unwarranted

As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation

5. Pakistan refusal to follow original resolution, in letter and spirit, gives India sufficient rights to reject any further supplement proposals.

6. No evidence posted in all discussion which can establish any proposal refused by Indian side which conform to UNSC resolution on Kashmir 1948.

7. Indian refusal to reject any Pakistani demand, which doesn't meet the expectations set by UN at first, can not be termed as stalling by India, but stalling by Pakistan.

8. Even today, presence of Indian forces conform to UN resolution, but presence of Pakistan is still a material change in Kashmir, thus putting Pakistan in violation and not India.

Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will he administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.



Post UN document claiming so here for all to read.

And are you saying Pakistan didn't put any condition before doing so? Very obedient. Whom are we fooling bro?

Listen pal, which dammed texts are you actually quoting here?

Is it UN resolution 47 or something else??

If you're wasting people's time and quoting Resolution 47 incorrectly, you will be shot down for chanakiya.

http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/47

 

[SIPRA]

Listen pal, which dammed texts are you actually quoting here?

Is it UN resolution 47 or something else??

If you're wasting people's time and quoting Resolution 47 incorrectly, you will be shot down for chanakiya.

http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/47

These all Hindutvadis are very obedient spiritual disciples of Chanakiya.

 

[Inception-06]

@gryphone once we were the punch! Its time again to silence the Indian guns and highlight it!

 

[masterchief_mirza]

These all Hindutvadis are very obedient spiritual disciples of Chanakiya.

To he fair,it's more that I'm here late and can't figure out what is being quoted. I am sure he will provide an answer and set me right but when people quote things without making clear what it is so the full text and context can be established, it makes it hard to follow.

 

[M. Sarmad]

And the fact remain - It was Pakistan which stalled UN resolution and tried to bring upon principle change seeking help from Western allies, and got into an unending conflict with India which further results into its bifurcation.

No, it's not a fact.
You really think that posting the same thing over and over again will somehow prove you right? You haven't been able to produce an iota of evidence to back up your claim

I asked you that if I post secondary UN documents that prove you wrong, then would you reconsider your position?
Let @Joe Shearer be the judge .. what do you say?

 

[IMARV]

To he fair,it's more that I'm here late and can't figure out what is being quoted. I am sure he will provide an answer and set me right but when people quote things without making clear what it is so the full text and context can be established, it makes it hard to follow.

No worries, its absolutely fine to seek clarifications. I have quoted Truce Agreement which constitutes Part 2 of UN resolutions passed on Aug 13, 1948 which was mutually agreed upon both India and Pakistan, and stated the basic principle on which further terms and conditions were supposed to be drafted.

Please note, this UN resolution was mutually agreed upon.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/uncom1.htm

 

[M. Sarmad]

To he fair,it's more that I'm here late and can't figure out what is being quoted. I am sure he will provide an answer and set me right but when people quote things without making clear what it is so the full text and context can be established, it makes it hard to follow.

Bro, we are discussing the UNCIP Resolutions of 13 Aug 1948 and 5 Jan 1949

No worries, its absolutely fine to seek clarifications. I have quoted Truce Agreement which constitutes Part 2 of UN resolutions passed on Aug 13, 1948 which was mutually agreed upon both India and Pakistan, and stated the basic principle on which further terms and conditions were supposed to be drafted.

Please note, this UN resolution was mutually agreed upon.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/uncom1.htm

Yes, and these resolutions established the mutually agreed upon reference frame of:
a cease-fire,
a truce
and a plebiscite

 

[IMARV]

No, it's not a fact.
You really think that posting the same thing over and over again will somehow prove you right? You haven't brrn able to produce an iota of evidence to back up your claim

I asked you that if I post secondary UN documents that prove you wrong, then would you reconsider your position?
Let @Joe Shearer be the judge .. what do you say?

What do you mean by secondary UN documents? If they violates mutually agreed principle document then we are in our right to reject them.

Make UN enforce any such resolution, if you can.

I am yet to see any from you, please show and let Joe be a judge. Spare with the Dixon though.

 

[Aasimkhan]

I apologise for replying to a number of your posts. But I don't agree. India does not have the military capability to do anything about Pakistan. Here is why I think so.

That's an interesting view Notorious Eagle. I disagree though. Pakistan on average has superior forward edge of battle area (FEBA) platforms compared to India.

The Pakistan armed forces have countered Indian weapons effectively by using American or European equipment as the tip of the spear with the rest being comprised of Chinese or other equipment. In contrast, almost all Indian equipment is of Soviet origin. Pakistan's tip of the spear (usually American) is better than Indian (usually Soviet) in most areas. To paint an example, Pakistan's F-16s bring AIM 120 C5, that outrange what IAF possesses by a significant margin. This plays out in almost every area I can think of: A-100 outranges Smerch, M series howitzers outrange IA's artillery (even including the new Korean K-9), etc. Exceptions include Naval platforms as Pakistan does not prioritize the Navy.

Part of this is because Pakistan has preferred US systems which, on average, tended to be better than Soviet/Russian ones (notable exceptions in certain strategic areas). The other part has been India's broken procurement system and consistently declining defence budgets.

It is only in the last few years that India has been more open to Western armament and though modernization has started, is still piecemeal. It has so far not touched the Indian military's tip of the spear. The only exception being Rafales which are till date not in India and in any case, are too few to really constitute anything other than a token force (2 squadrons, split over 2 fronts, compared to 4 squadrons of F-16's all for one front).

The real modernization for India has started happening in the mid-end areas like naval P-8, and logistics area where C-17, C-130, and Chinooks have rather dramatically changed efficacy and capability of the IN's maritime domain awareness fleet and IAF's transport fleet. Apache's and MH-60R will start modernizing battlefield support roles in the next few years. The differences, in terms of availability and sortie rates, are significantly better than what the military has had so far. As Indian comfort with US weapon systems and training philosophy grows, so will the nature of acquisitions, moving towards FEBA platforms.

I am sure you understand that this doesn't mean Pakistan is militarily stronger than India. However, it will take at least a decade more before India's tip-of-the-spear starts changing. Till then, at least, in the context of skirmishes with limited assets at play, Pakistan will be able to bring more lethal force, more precisely, and faster than their Indian counterparts.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-...nd-what-is-needed.660104/page-5#post-12212969

@Joe Shearer , @third eye . I would love your views on this as well. Needless to say, I am open to contrary view.

Well I had heard of FEBA but FEBA weapons is a new concept for me, however its never too late to learn new concepts. I generally agree with you that Pakistan had US weapons mostly and India had Russian weapons so we had a slight edge over indians, but only till 1965. Pakistan's strong defence in 1965 actually surprised India as they were expecting they will be able to celebrate their victory by nightfall in Lahore Gymkhana on 6th of Sep 1965. 1965 onwards India started making deliberate efforts to improve the efficiency of its warfighting apparatus both in equipment and doctrine. from 1965 to 1982 India had a significant edge in Air Force and Navy and almost a balance in Army. Indian Armour was considered better but on the other hand Pakistan's Artillery was considered superior in training as well equipment. As far as numbers were concerned Pakistan was always out gunned and out numbered on the ground, in the air and sea. Things changed when US reduced the sanctions during Zia regime to help Pakistan against USSR. Some equipment came in the shape of F16s, M109 SP Artillery and vehicles etc but it was not at all sufficient to change the balance of power in favour of Pakistan. USA made sure not to antagonize their friend India as it was an emerging market. on the other hand India bought almost 400 Mirage 2000s, Jaguars, SU30MKIs just to take care of 40 F16s of PAF. In Kargil War India had a clear edge over PAF in BVR regime the price of which we paid while sitting on the Tiger Hill when Mirage 2000s started targeting the posts with laser guided ammo after two kills (Sqn Ldr Ajay Ahuja in a Mig 21 and Flt Lt Nachiketa in a Mig 27) were brought down by SHORADS of Pakistan Army.
Coming on to the present and future, India is making an effort to acquire latest systems to teach Pakistan a lesson of a life time after which Pakistan will be silenced for good and India will be able to focus on China which India considers (and rightly so) a major stumbling block in her path to greatness and becoming a superpower. Apaches, C17s, C130s, Rafales, nuclear and diesel submarines, Israeli SAMs, S400s and many other such procurements are significant achievements for a third world country like India which was used to kind of boring, unreliable, cumbersome and heavy equipment from Russia. But unfortunately for India it is not enough. Even if we disregard the nuclear aspect India needs 4:1 superiority to defeat Pakistan in a decisive manner. The rise of China as an alternate economic and military power has tilted the balance of power in favour of Pakistan. For every move which India makes, Pakistan and China are ready with a counter move. Pakistan has become a battle testing ground for Chinese equipment which suits both Pakistan and China. India's lack of imagination, failure to indigenize and political intolerance has also not helped India. Mega corruption in defence procurement (Rafale and Bofors deals being a prime examples) is yet another obstacle. India is buying weapons in bits and pieces where as Pakistan is indoctrinating weapon systems in its military fabric. With more and more budget diverted towards pays and pensions of such a huge Armed Force India is day by day faced with an ever increasing gap in balance of conventional weapons with Pakistan.
I do not see a military solution to the problems being faced by India and Pakistan. Its best for India and Pakistan to sit down and find a solution for Kashmir problem which satisfies Pakistan, India and most importantly Kashmiris. I do not see another solution to Indo Pak enmity unless both the nations want to go up in a nuclear mushroom.

 

[IMARV]

Yes, and these resolutions established the mutually agreed upon reference frame of:
a cease-fire,
a truce
and a plebiscite

But not limited to these only, described a framework and basic algorithm which we can not deviate from.

 

[M. Sarmad]

What do you mean by secondary UN documents? If they violates mutually agreed principle document then we are in our right to reject them.

Make UN enforce any such resolution, if you can.

I am yet to see any from you, please show and let Joe be a judge. Spare with the Dixon though.

India and Pakistan are parties to the dispute and UN the mediator.

You are not willing to accept the UN interpretation of its resolutions and the reports submitted by the official mediators.

Then why are you here? just to peddle Indian state propaganda and lies?

 

[Mrc]

Any updates??

 

[IMARV]

India and Pakistan are parties to the dispute and UN the mediator.

True unfortunately, however I feel Kashmiris should have been the parties and not Pakistan. Pakistan has no locus standi on Kashmir.

You are not willing to accept the UN interpretation of its resolutions and the reports submitted by the official mediators.

Not if they drift away from mutually agreed principles and present a biased lopsided view. It was geo politics and world order at that time which gave you cushion then, same politics snatches that cushion now.

Going from a material change to maintaining armed presence, bias is written all over it.

Then why are you here? just to peddle Indian state propaganda and lies?

For truth, that you used your allies to go back on your words and stalled whole peace and plebiscite process. There is no doubt who ruled the world that time and whose songs you used to sing.

The moment you can show me any proposal which was aligned to mutually agreed principle, I will accept it and drop my line of argument. Till then, its your propaganda.

 

[M. Sarmad]

True unfortunately, however I feel Kashmiris should have been the parties and not Pakistan. Pakistan has no locus standi on Kashmir.

Kashmiris too are a party to the dispute. Read the UN Resolutions

Not if they drift away from mutually agreed principles and present a biased lopsided view. It was geo politics and world order at that time which gave you cushion then, same politics snatches that cushion now.

And who gets to decide that what does (or doesn't) drift away from the mutually agreed principles?
The arbitrator (UN in this case) of course, not the parties.

You yourself chose the arbitrator, but when it didn't act in accordance with your desires, it became biased!!
Do you not realize the glaring weakness in your argument?

For truth, that you used your allies to go back on your words and stalled whole peace and plebiscite process. There is no doubt who ruled the world that time and whose songs you used to sing.

Not the "truth", but your baseless assertions and biased opinions with absolutely nothing to back them up that you are trying to present as facts

And we had no allies in the UN back in late 1940s or early 1950s, nor did we take the matter to UN. At least do your homework properly