Kompromat
ADMINISTRATOR
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 40,366
- Reaction score
- 416
- Country
- Location
LOC Skirmishes: Updates & Discussions
- Thread starter A1Kaid
- Start date
A1Kaid
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2008
- Messages
- 9,667
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
What news is coming out about Pakistani Army at this stage?
Another question, what do you guys make of General Kayani's potential leadership and capability in a war scenario, is he an Alexander or another Niazi? Not only him but the top brass. Is this the finest top brass we've had in decades or not?
Another question, what do you guys make of General Kayani's potential leadership and capability in a war scenario, is he an Alexander or another Niazi? Not only him but the top brass. Is this the finest top brass we've had in decades or not?
Irfan Baloch
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 20,975
- Reaction score
- 214
- Country
- Location
yes I have
just goes to show that how much smoke is noise is being created that the whole sense of the sequence of events is lost. and the argument of I never did it ends up to who did it first. you did it ... NO.. YOU DID it first NO... you DID it
the current media image of Pakistan/ Pakistanis regarding Al Qaeda/ taliban terrorism works very much in favour of India, their media and government has a laundry list of examples no matter how irrelevant they maybe in order to show the world that hey there is no surprise here , high what our soldiers do is never found out because we have a tight hold over the press and it knows its place anyway while reporting Kashmir whereas Pakistani and rest of the world media shows enough skeletons in Pakistani closet to declare a guilty verdict even before the charge is brought.
I have time and again said that Pakistani state and its institutions fail very badly when it comes to presenting their point of view, showing itself favourably and showing its adversary badly. taliban despite their video recordings of beheading enjoy unqualified support from a considerable section of our society which calls its own military naPak army and addresses it in third person as if talking about Indian or American army.
there have been many incidents where Indians killed Civilians and soldiers along the LoC that can look very shocking and against the norms of war but not only that our own media chose to ignore it and didnt even give it a fraction of attention but our state departments failed to highlight that.
while my stay in Azad Kashmir, I am personally aware of buses being fired at by the Indians while on hilly roads and then falling into ditches 100s of meters below or drowning into the rivers. people being slaughtered by intruding Indian combat patrol across the LoC. the wheat and corn bails being lit up with tracer fire and villagers being shot at who try to save their livelihood. thats just civilians I am not talking about soldiers because well they are at war.
I get a sense of denial from the Indians as well, while they are naturally upset over the alleged beheading and mutilation of their two soldiers, they are forcefully denying or choosing to ignore the same reports about their own army. either its patriotism or the complete ignorance of the reality of war in that part of the world where normal rules of civilised society dont apply and are safely kept 100s of miles away in the plush drawing rooms.
Last edited by a moderator:
notorious_eagle
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,666
- Reaction score
- 34
- Country
- Location
This is what i wrote on another thread
As far as leadership capabilities of Gen Kayani are concerned i would argue that he is a brilliant officer and a soldier. I wouldn't go as far as calling him an Alexander, but he showed his worth during the 2001 standoff. It was under his watch that Pakistan Army mobilized with such amazing efficiency and were present at the border long before the Indians arrived. The top brass right now is filled with some very capable individuals, certainly very good ones with decades of experience under their belt.
A1Kaid
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2008
- Messages
- 9,667
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
Agreed with @notorious_eagle from why I've read we have the most competent and capable military high command in decades if not ever, tested and proven individuals and leaders, I honestly feel confident in the Pakistani military command unlike previous high commands this one is less likely to commit blunders in a war scenario. I think we may have the war winning high command we need. With this high command we may very well see strategic brilliance.
We also have a new Chief of Air Staff Tahir Butt, what do you make of him, I don't know much about him. Though he is a Kashmiri Butt and if war is on the horizon he should take this next war ultra personally, all Kashmiri Pakistanis take this conflict deeply.
When I had last visited Pakistan I was in Sialkot and since I come from a Kashmiri family I remember my Uncle telling me as he, I, and his business affiliates were discussing politics he said to me Yeh humari jang hein. It was that moment I realized this conflict is more personal for Kashmiri families in Pakistan than families of other ethnicities, no disrespect to other ethnicities
I am glad we have a Kashmiri Pakistani serving as as Chief of Air Staff because Yeh humari Jang hein.
We also have a new Chief of Air Staff Tahir Butt, what do you make of him, I don't know much about him. Though he is a Kashmiri Butt and if war is on the horizon he should take this next war ultra personally, all Kashmiri Pakistanis take this conflict deeply.
When I had last visited Pakistan I was in Sialkot and since I come from a Kashmiri family I remember my Uncle telling me as he, I, and his business affiliates were discussing politics he said to me Yeh humari jang hein. It was that moment I realized this conflict is more personal for Kashmiri families in Pakistan than families of other ethnicities, no disrespect to other ethnicities
I am glad we have a Kashmiri Pakistani serving as as Chief of Air Staff because Yeh humari Jang hein.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jango
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,530
- Reaction score
- 99
- Country
- Location
Last edited by a moderator:
Kompromat
ADMINISTRATOR
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 40,366
- Reaction score
- 416
- Country
- Location
New Delhi: As New Delhi raged over the attack by Pakistani troops claiming the lives of two Indian soldiers on Indian soil, and the mutilation of the bodies, the Union Ministry of Home has received inputs that suggest that Indian Army units in the Uri sector could have provoked the incident. While there was sporadic firing exchanged in some parts of the LoC, a cross-border raid by the ghatak (commando) platoon of the 9th Maratha Light Infantry (MLI) in the early hours of Sunday could have been the provocation.
Top sources in the Union Home and defence ministries said that the Pakistani attack was in all likelihood a retaliation for the attack carried out by 9 MLI.
The Commander of the 161 Brigade, stationed in the Churchunda sub-sector, Brigadier Gulab Singh Rawat, had decided to take a very aggressive posture. Sources said that he asked the commanding officer of 9 MLI to take “proactive action”, to launch a quick raid against a post that was harassing Indian positions.
The successful Indian raid led to the death of a Pakistani non-commissioned officer and escalated tensions across the LoC.
Normally, such an escalation leads to the issuing of a formal alert from the Udhampur-based North Command of the army to all its formations. This alert should have gone out to all the three corps that it commands — the Nagrota (Jammu) based 16 Corps, the Srinagar-based 15 Corps and the Leh-based 14 Corps.
Of these, 14 and 15 Corps are the most active as they man the LoC from Jammu right through to Kargil, from where 14 Corps takes over.
Incidentally, the neighbouring 12 Brigade in Uri had just seen a change of command after Brig RK Singh took over from Brig BS Raju. Any change of command of a major formation on the LoC is a sensitive time and troops are expected to be on high alert. The absence of the alert led to all the formations running things as business as usual. That was when the Pakistanis decided to retaliate in the Mendhar sector that is part of the northern Jammu region.
This area is manned by the 25th Division of the Indian Army and 13 Rajputana Rifles was one of the battalions manning this sector.
While Army headquarters believes that the attack was carried out by men from the Baloch regiment, it has not ruled out the role of a team of the Special Service Group (SSG) which is part of the elite Pakistani Special Forces. Reports suggest that the attacking party was dressed in black dungarees usually preferred by the SSG.
Another intelligence input suggests that this could have been an attack carried out by irregulars from the LeT after its chief, Hafeez Saeed started raising “Border Action Guards” to attack Indian troop positions on the LoC. Indian intelligence experts have ruled out the attack as a major shift in policy on part of the Pakistani General Headquarters (GHC) in Rawalpindi.
“We believe that this was a local action purely in retaliation of what the raid our troops carried out in the Uri sector,” a senior intelligence official said. The Union Home Ministry is also looking at the role played by Brig Rawat and whether his “aggressive posture” could have been avoided.
There is a feeling in the government that Brig Rawat has a very “aggressive track record” which could have escalated tensions on the LoC at a time when the nine-year-old ceasefire was holding up well. An inquiry into the incident has been ordered by Army Headquarters and a decision on Brig Rawat could also be taken in the coming days.
DNA
http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation...gs_821941.html
Top sources in the Union Home and defence ministries said that the Pakistani attack was in all likelihood a retaliation for the attack carried out by 9 MLI.
The Commander of the 161 Brigade, stationed in the Churchunda sub-sector, Brigadier Gulab Singh Rawat, had decided to take a very aggressive posture. Sources said that he asked the commanding officer of 9 MLI to take “proactive action”, to launch a quick raid against a post that was harassing Indian positions.
The successful Indian raid led to the death of a Pakistani non-commissioned officer and escalated tensions across the LoC.
Normally, such an escalation leads to the issuing of a formal alert from the Udhampur-based North Command of the army to all its formations. This alert should have gone out to all the three corps that it commands — the Nagrota (Jammu) based 16 Corps, the Srinagar-based 15 Corps and the Leh-based 14 Corps.
Of these, 14 and 15 Corps are the most active as they man the LoC from Jammu right through to Kargil, from where 14 Corps takes over.
Incidentally, the neighbouring 12 Brigade in Uri had just seen a change of command after Brig RK Singh took over from Brig BS Raju. Any change of command of a major formation on the LoC is a sensitive time and troops are expected to be on high alert. The absence of the alert led to all the formations running things as business as usual. That was when the Pakistanis decided to retaliate in the Mendhar sector that is part of the northern Jammu region.
This area is manned by the 25th Division of the Indian Army and 13 Rajputana Rifles was one of the battalions manning this sector.
While Army headquarters believes that the attack was carried out by men from the Baloch regiment, it has not ruled out the role of a team of the Special Service Group (SSG) which is part of the elite Pakistani Special Forces. Reports suggest that the attacking party was dressed in black dungarees usually preferred by the SSG.
Another intelligence input suggests that this could have been an attack carried out by irregulars from the LeT after its chief, Hafeez Saeed started raising “Border Action Guards” to attack Indian troop positions on the LoC. Indian intelligence experts have ruled out the attack as a major shift in policy on part of the Pakistani General Headquarters (GHC) in Rawalpindi.
“We believe that this was a local action purely in retaliation of what the raid our troops carried out in the Uri sector,” a senior intelligence official said. The Union Home Ministry is also looking at the role played by Brig Rawat and whether his “aggressive posture” could have been avoided.
There is a feeling in the government that Brig Rawat has a very “aggressive track record” which could have escalated tensions on the LoC at a time when the nine-year-old ceasefire was holding up well. An inquiry into the incident has been ordered by Army Headquarters and a decision on Brig Rawat could also be taken in the coming days.
DNA
http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation...gs_821941.html
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Weekend Edition January 11-13, 2013
Decapitation v. Capitulation
India and Pakistan: a Perpetual War?
by FARZANA VERSEY
Mumbai.
Are India and Pakistan at war? If we take a pragmatic view, then there has never been peace between the two nations. Does this translate into war? Should crossing the border, killing soldiers, infiltrating be treated as war during peacetime?
On January 8, the Pakistani army killed two Indian jawans, Lance-Naik Sudhakar Singh and Lance-Naik Hemraj. It was made out to be as though they ambled across, fired at the two, beheaded one and took away the head as trophy or proof. But this wasn’t a random act. The mainstream media has largely been talking in terms of “giving them a bloody nose” whether it is stated explicitly or implied.
Combat across the Line of Control (LoC) where both countries are involved does not amount to “diversionary manoeuvre to push infiltrators into J&K”, especially if the Intelligence Bureau was aware of it.
Winters in Jammu & Kashmir were generally considered as downtime for infiltration, the snow making it difficult for such incursion. If the IB had tipped off the Army, why were there no adequate pre-emptive steps taken? This is where it gets interesting.
False peace
Pakistan has, expectedly, denied any such killings. But what has the Indian government done? It termed it “provocative action”. The Indian Army also called it “grave provocation”. If the ceasefire is not respected, it is beyond provocation. This is not some game.
Foreign minister Salman Khurshid said, “I think it is important in the long term that what has happened should not be escalated…We have to be careful that forces … attempting to derail all the good work that’s been done towards normalisation (of relations) should not be successful.”
Who are these abstract forces that want to derail the peace process? Unlike in most countries that have a dispute, here peace is the Damocles Sword that hangs over the heads of India and Pakistan. It is ridiculously forced and caters primarily to the commercial and elite classes that gain points at seminars and encourage exchange of artistes to uphold a common heritage. If the heritage is common, why do we need clones?
Has any treaty been signed without ho-humming about the Kashmir issue? No. So, let us accept that the two governments are not interested in peace or a solution to Kashmir. We treat such casualties as collateral damage for a non-existent détente.
The two sides have taken position – away from the border – and ironically both are using the same excuse: non-state actors. This is particularly perplexing, for after the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai India had categorically blamed the Pakistani government and finally its ‘non-state actor’ Ajmal Kasab was hanged to death. This time, Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde has suggested that the mastermind behind those attacks, Hafiz Saeed, was seen having a chat with people across the LoC and therefore the Lashkar-e-Toiba could well be responsible.
How, then, can we blame the Pakistani government for being in denial? If this is an act of terror, then no government will accept the blame, even if there is complicity and jihad training camps.
Besides, between different versions of truth and lies, facts become the casualties. According to a Reuters report: “The body of one of the soldiers was found mutilated in a forested area on the side controlled by India, Rajesh K. Kalia, spokesman for the Indian army’s Northern Command, said. However, he denied Indian media reports that one body had been decapitated and another had its throat slit.”
The theory of provocation assumes that needling is part of our respective foreign policies.
Diversions
From provocation to diversion is a small step. Pakistan accuses India of using such tactics to hide its own record of such unwarranted killings. Pakistani senator and member of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security, Mushahid Hussain, while accusing India of diverting attention from its domestic scandals, said, “Pakistan has its hands full with a full-blown insurgency inside its borders. It doesn’t suit Pakistani interests at all to raise the temperature along the LoC.”
Such straight-faced analysis is at best amusing. The simplistic subtext is that we are so busy dealing with demons within that even if the devil aims at us we’d be too preoccupied to react. The fact is that for the Pakistani army dealing with inside forces is hardship posting.
The problem is that the armies of India and Pakistan, though vastly different, have a lot at stake. They need to ensure that the politicians are safe and always have an issue to keep the dispute machinery well-oiled. The nationalism of the two nation-states depends on it, not to speak of the varied responses of opposition parties.
The Hindu had a fairly balanced report that was slightly marred by its sensational beginning about how a grandmother, 70-year-old Reshma Bi, crossing the LoC “sparked off a spiral of violence”. This happened in September last year, and the report itself mentions how construction of barriers to prevent movement had been taking place for a while now, opposed by Pakistan. There are many grandmothers and grandchildren who have been separated.
The article quoted a senior government official who said, “Let’s just put it this way, there was no formal permission to stage a cross-border raid to target Sawan Patra. However, in the heat of fighting, these things have been known to happen. Pakistan has done this, and our forces have done this, ever since fighting began in Jammu and Kashmir in 1990.” Another military official said, “It is almost certainly a retaliation for what happened in Charonda. This kind of thing has often happened in the past, though it hasn’t got quite so much media attention.”
This could well be only one of the reasons. Pakistan has objected to the barrier for years. It is already equipped with state-of-the-art alerting techniques and electrified barbed wire fencing. If a grandmother can cross over, it would not be too difficult for lithe soldiers, not to speak of the more driven terrorists.
The LoC is a 460 mile stretch. By bringing villagers into the discussion, ordinary people are made into suspects. It also does not quite address the real issue of who is violating the ceasefire – India for adding more barriers to prevent infiltration (that seems nebulous enough to allow crossing over to the other side) or Pakistan for objecting to it and then taking an aggressive stand, which results in retaliation?
Kargil’s no show
Many commentators are making a disingenuous comparison of the recent incident with the Kargil face-off in 1999. It is India’s nemesis. A father tired of demanding justice for his son because of the Indian government’s apathy has been forced to approach the Supreme Court. Captain Saurabh Kalia, the hero has a road and a forest park named after him as well as a statue. His father does not think that can erase the torture he went through where his body was mutilated beyond recognition in a most inhuman manner. For 13 years his fight has continued: “I have approached three presidents. From all of them, I have just received one standard reply: ‘Your letter has been received and would be forwarded for necessary action’…I am afraid every parent would think twice to send their wards in the armed forces if we all fall short of our duty of safeguarding the prisoners of war and let them meet the fate of Lt Saurabh Kalia.” (He was promoted on the battlefield.) If this had happened to American or Israeli soldiers the culprits would have been hounded around the globe. I received assurances from the government, but in due course the matter got diluted.”
Here, it must be mentioned that the Armed Forces Tribunal had dismissed his case on the grounds that it did not come under its jurisdiction. Pakistan cannot take action against its soldiers because they say they have not been identified. It is a bilateral government issue.
The third option
There is a constant demand to take these incidents to the International Court of Justice. The Geneva Convention does have a small provision for peacetime intervention, but there will be splitting of hairs whether such cases fall into human rights abuses. If there is aggression from both sides, there may not be scope for parity in justice.
In this particular case, there is also the obvious problem of the LoC not even being recognised as an international border. It is a mutually agreed-upon division between India and Pakistan to have a ‘no-man’s land’.
A day before this incident, Inder Malhotra had written in The Indian Express about General Ayub Khan after the 1965 war with India “…he was deeply worried that his people, misled by his government’s false propaganda that Pakistan had won the war, might not accept a ceasefire on the terms set by the UNSC. Since Pakistan’s entire strategy was to use brief military action within Kashmir to force India to negotiate on this ‘core issue’, he insisted that the ceasefire be accompanied by an agreement to ‘settle the Kashmir issue through negotiations and, if necessary, arbitration’. Indeed, he seemed convinced that he could shame his American allies — who had ‘betrayed’ him after the ‘Indian invasion’ – into supporting Pakistan over the inclusion of Kashmir in the UN resolution.”
It is pertinent that while Pakistan has wanted to internationalise such cases, India has been reluctant. It is good policy. However, the intentions are not as simple as they appear. (On a tangential note, it was shocking to watch an Indian armyman on a panel discussion state that we should have bargained with the United States for leverage over Pakistan by using our commercial markets as bait.)
The moment any activity in the region is taken to an international forum, the indian army’s own record detailed by the International Human Rights Commission will come tumbling out. And there are clear provisions to protect the civilian population according to the Geneva Convention.
This fact is known to the separatists who have often demanded that their cause be given a global platform. The mainstream media pulls them up for being anti-national. Yet, the past few days television channels have been shouting about how the government needs to take it up with a ‘third party’. Any government that needs outside assistance – unless it is a non-partisan intervention during wartime – is insecure.
Unfortunately, we are willing to use this insecurity as bait. “What kind of animals do you have?” asked the host on a news channel to a participating armyman in Pakistan. The provocation had moved into the confines of a studio.
“Remember Kargil?” he prodded. The Pakistani shook his head and then said, “Yes, your soldiers were crying.” This is what happens when the war lands up in the studios. One might add here that Kargil was India’s first war with Pakistan where the bunkers became TV news. This formed the template for what we are seeing today. The real-time accounts of blood and gore generate extreme aggression in the peaceful populace that is even sold peace aggressively.
Farzana Versey is the Mumbai-based author of ‘A Journey Interrupted: Being Indian in Pakistan’. She can be reached athttp://farzana-versey.blogspot.in/
Decapitation v. Capitulation
India and Pakistan: a Perpetual War?
by FARZANA VERSEY
Mumbai.
Are India and Pakistan at war? If we take a pragmatic view, then there has never been peace between the two nations. Does this translate into war? Should crossing the border, killing soldiers, infiltrating be treated as war during peacetime?
On January 8, the Pakistani army killed two Indian jawans, Lance-Naik Sudhakar Singh and Lance-Naik Hemraj. It was made out to be as though they ambled across, fired at the two, beheaded one and took away the head as trophy or proof. But this wasn’t a random act. The mainstream media has largely been talking in terms of “giving them a bloody nose” whether it is stated explicitly or implied.
Combat across the Line of Control (LoC) where both countries are involved does not amount to “diversionary manoeuvre to push infiltrators into J&K”, especially if the Intelligence Bureau was aware of it.
Winters in Jammu & Kashmir were generally considered as downtime for infiltration, the snow making it difficult for such incursion. If the IB had tipped off the Army, why were there no adequate pre-emptive steps taken? This is where it gets interesting.
False peace
Pakistan has, expectedly, denied any such killings. But what has the Indian government done? It termed it “provocative action”. The Indian Army also called it “grave provocation”. If the ceasefire is not respected, it is beyond provocation. This is not some game.
Foreign minister Salman Khurshid said, “I think it is important in the long term that what has happened should not be escalated…We have to be careful that forces … attempting to derail all the good work that’s been done towards normalisation (of relations) should not be successful.”
Who are these abstract forces that want to derail the peace process? Unlike in most countries that have a dispute, here peace is the Damocles Sword that hangs over the heads of India and Pakistan. It is ridiculously forced and caters primarily to the commercial and elite classes that gain points at seminars and encourage exchange of artistes to uphold a common heritage. If the heritage is common, why do we need clones?
Has any treaty been signed without ho-humming about the Kashmir issue? No. So, let us accept that the two governments are not interested in peace or a solution to Kashmir. We treat such casualties as collateral damage for a non-existent détente.
The two sides have taken position – away from the border – and ironically both are using the same excuse: non-state actors. This is particularly perplexing, for after the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai India had categorically blamed the Pakistani government and finally its ‘non-state actor’ Ajmal Kasab was hanged to death. This time, Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde has suggested that the mastermind behind those attacks, Hafiz Saeed, was seen having a chat with people across the LoC and therefore the Lashkar-e-Toiba could well be responsible.
How, then, can we blame the Pakistani government for being in denial? If this is an act of terror, then no government will accept the blame, even if there is complicity and jihad training camps.
Besides, between different versions of truth and lies, facts become the casualties. According to a Reuters report: “The body of one of the soldiers was found mutilated in a forested area on the side controlled by India, Rajesh K. Kalia, spokesman for the Indian army’s Northern Command, said. However, he denied Indian media reports that one body had been decapitated and another had its throat slit.”
The theory of provocation assumes that needling is part of our respective foreign policies.
Diversions
From provocation to diversion is a small step. Pakistan accuses India of using such tactics to hide its own record of such unwarranted killings. Pakistani senator and member of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security, Mushahid Hussain, while accusing India of diverting attention from its domestic scandals, said, “Pakistan has its hands full with a full-blown insurgency inside its borders. It doesn’t suit Pakistani interests at all to raise the temperature along the LoC.”
Such straight-faced analysis is at best amusing. The simplistic subtext is that we are so busy dealing with demons within that even if the devil aims at us we’d be too preoccupied to react. The fact is that for the Pakistani army dealing with inside forces is hardship posting.
The problem is that the armies of India and Pakistan, though vastly different, have a lot at stake. They need to ensure that the politicians are safe and always have an issue to keep the dispute machinery well-oiled. The nationalism of the two nation-states depends on it, not to speak of the varied responses of opposition parties.
The Hindu had a fairly balanced report that was slightly marred by its sensational beginning about how a grandmother, 70-year-old Reshma Bi, crossing the LoC “sparked off a spiral of violence”. This happened in September last year, and the report itself mentions how construction of barriers to prevent movement had been taking place for a while now, opposed by Pakistan. There are many grandmothers and grandchildren who have been separated.
The article quoted a senior government official who said, “Let’s just put it this way, there was no formal permission to stage a cross-border raid to target Sawan Patra. However, in the heat of fighting, these things have been known to happen. Pakistan has done this, and our forces have done this, ever since fighting began in Jammu and Kashmir in 1990.” Another military official said, “It is almost certainly a retaliation for what happened in Charonda. This kind of thing has often happened in the past, though it hasn’t got quite so much media attention.”
This could well be only one of the reasons. Pakistan has objected to the barrier for years. It is already equipped with state-of-the-art alerting techniques and electrified barbed wire fencing. If a grandmother can cross over, it would not be too difficult for lithe soldiers, not to speak of the more driven terrorists.
The LoC is a 460 mile stretch. By bringing villagers into the discussion, ordinary people are made into suspects. It also does not quite address the real issue of who is violating the ceasefire – India for adding more barriers to prevent infiltration (that seems nebulous enough to allow crossing over to the other side) or Pakistan for objecting to it and then taking an aggressive stand, which results in retaliation?
Kargil’s no show
Many commentators are making a disingenuous comparison of the recent incident with the Kargil face-off in 1999. It is India’s nemesis. A father tired of demanding justice for his son because of the Indian government’s apathy has been forced to approach the Supreme Court. Captain Saurabh Kalia, the hero has a road and a forest park named after him as well as a statue. His father does not think that can erase the torture he went through where his body was mutilated beyond recognition in a most inhuman manner. For 13 years his fight has continued: “I have approached three presidents. From all of them, I have just received one standard reply: ‘Your letter has been received and would be forwarded for necessary action’…I am afraid every parent would think twice to send their wards in the armed forces if we all fall short of our duty of safeguarding the prisoners of war and let them meet the fate of Lt Saurabh Kalia.” (He was promoted on the battlefield.) If this had happened to American or Israeli soldiers the culprits would have been hounded around the globe. I received assurances from the government, but in due course the matter got diluted.”
Here, it must be mentioned that the Armed Forces Tribunal had dismissed his case on the grounds that it did not come under its jurisdiction. Pakistan cannot take action against its soldiers because they say they have not been identified. It is a bilateral government issue.
The third option
There is a constant demand to take these incidents to the International Court of Justice. The Geneva Convention does have a small provision for peacetime intervention, but there will be splitting of hairs whether such cases fall into human rights abuses. If there is aggression from both sides, there may not be scope for parity in justice.
In this particular case, there is also the obvious problem of the LoC not even being recognised as an international border. It is a mutually agreed-upon division between India and Pakistan to have a ‘no-man’s land’.
A day before this incident, Inder Malhotra had written in The Indian Express about General Ayub Khan after the 1965 war with India “…he was deeply worried that his people, misled by his government’s false propaganda that Pakistan had won the war, might not accept a ceasefire on the terms set by the UNSC. Since Pakistan’s entire strategy was to use brief military action within Kashmir to force India to negotiate on this ‘core issue’, he insisted that the ceasefire be accompanied by an agreement to ‘settle the Kashmir issue through negotiations and, if necessary, arbitration’. Indeed, he seemed convinced that he could shame his American allies — who had ‘betrayed’ him after the ‘Indian invasion’ – into supporting Pakistan over the inclusion of Kashmir in the UN resolution.”
It is pertinent that while Pakistan has wanted to internationalise such cases, India has been reluctant. It is good policy. However, the intentions are not as simple as they appear. (On a tangential note, it was shocking to watch an Indian armyman on a panel discussion state that we should have bargained with the United States for leverage over Pakistan by using our commercial markets as bait.)
The moment any activity in the region is taken to an international forum, the indian army’s own record detailed by the International Human Rights Commission will come tumbling out. And there are clear provisions to protect the civilian population according to the Geneva Convention.
This fact is known to the separatists who have often demanded that their cause be given a global platform. The mainstream media pulls them up for being anti-national. Yet, the past few days television channels have been shouting about how the government needs to take it up with a ‘third party’. Any government that needs outside assistance – unless it is a non-partisan intervention during wartime – is insecure.
Unfortunately, we are willing to use this insecurity as bait. “What kind of animals do you have?” asked the host on a news channel to a participating armyman in Pakistan. The provocation had moved into the confines of a studio.
“Remember Kargil?” he prodded. The Pakistani shook his head and then said, “Yes, your soldiers were crying.” This is what happens when the war lands up in the studios. One might add here that Kargil was India’s first war with Pakistan where the bunkers became TV news. This formed the template for what we are seeing today. The real-time accounts of blood and gore generate extreme aggression in the peaceful populace that is even sold peace aggressively.
Farzana Versey is the Mumbai-based author of ‘A Journey Interrupted: Being Indian in Pakistan’. She can be reached athttp://farzana-versey.blogspot.in/
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Indo-Pak Border Clashes and Relations
•A Pakistani soldier was killed on Thursday in the Battal area of Kashmir by “unprovoked” firing from Indian troops across the Line of Control (LoC), in the third deadly incident in the area since the weekend. Pakistani troops returned fire, but with no fatalities. Officials on both sides have expressed anger and lodged diplomatic protests, while maintaining that the attacks will not result in military escalation. While Pakistan called for the UN to investigate its alleged attack on Indian soldiers on Tuesday, India has said that it will not do the same for Thursday’s incident. India suggests that Pakistani militants, including Lashkar-e-Taiba leader Hafiz Saeed, could be to blame for the rise in violence.[1]
•New information, as reported by Indian media outlets, has come to light on the source of the recent upswing in skirmishes across the LoC. In September of last year, an Indian grandmother reportedly crossed the LoC into Pakistani territory in order to be with her sons and grandchildren, who were living there to escape charges of cross-border trafficking. The Indian military was alarmed at the ease of her crossing, and began to build an observation post to monitor villages close to the LoC, thereby breaking the terms of a 2003 ceasefire agreement with Pakistan. After requests to stop the construction were ignored, Pakistani troops regularly conducted harassment firing on the post, and retaliation from both sides has continued.[2]
•Indian sources suggest that Tuesday’s killing of two Indian soldiers by Pakistani’s troops could have been in retaliation for the killing of a Pakistani officer in an Indian raid on Sunday. An Indian commander, Brigadier Gulab Singh Rawat, deployed to the LoC, and known for having a “very aggressive posture,” reportedly tasked the 9th Maratha Light Infantry with conducting a raid across the LoC in which a Pakistani soldier was killed and another injured. That attack led to either a Baloch Regiment or possibly a Special Service Group attack killing the two Indians in retaliation. Neither government attributes the increase in violence to a policy shift by the other, but rather an instance of local revenge. Indian officials are reviewing Brig. Rawat for the role he played in escalating tensions.[3]
•A Pakistani soldier was killed on Thursday in the Battal area of Kashmir by “unprovoked” firing from Indian troops across the Line of Control (LoC), in the third deadly incident in the area since the weekend. Pakistani troops returned fire, but with no fatalities. Officials on both sides have expressed anger and lodged diplomatic protests, while maintaining that the attacks will not result in military escalation. While Pakistan called for the UN to investigate its alleged attack on Indian soldiers on Tuesday, India has said that it will not do the same for Thursday’s incident. India suggests that Pakistani militants, including Lashkar-e-Taiba leader Hafiz Saeed, could be to blame for the rise in violence.[1]
•New information, as reported by Indian media outlets, has come to light on the source of the recent upswing in skirmishes across the LoC. In September of last year, an Indian grandmother reportedly crossed the LoC into Pakistani territory in order to be with her sons and grandchildren, who were living there to escape charges of cross-border trafficking. The Indian military was alarmed at the ease of her crossing, and began to build an observation post to monitor villages close to the LoC, thereby breaking the terms of a 2003 ceasefire agreement with Pakistan. After requests to stop the construction were ignored, Pakistani troops regularly conducted harassment firing on the post, and retaliation from both sides has continued.[2]
•Indian sources suggest that Tuesday’s killing of two Indian soldiers by Pakistani’s troops could have been in retaliation for the killing of a Pakistani officer in an Indian raid on Sunday. An Indian commander, Brigadier Gulab Singh Rawat, deployed to the LoC, and known for having a “very aggressive posture,” reportedly tasked the 9th Maratha Light Infantry with conducting a raid across the LoC in which a Pakistani soldier was killed and another injured. That attack led to either a Baloch Regiment or possibly a Special Service Group attack killing the two Indians in retaliation. Neither government attributes the increase in violence to a policy shift by the other, but rather an instance of local revenge. Indian officials are reviewing Brig. Rawat for the role he played in escalating tensions.[3]
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Kashmir Clashes Unlikely To Create Further Escalation
Jan. 9, 2013 - 03:15PM | By USMAN ANSARI
ISLAMABAD — Recent clashes by Indian and Pakistani forces are not likely to escalate further, analysts say, as both nations have a stake in calming matters along the Line of Control (LoC) bifurcating Kashmir between the two rival states.
“I think there are strong incentives on both sides to control the escalation in this case. Delhi and Islamabad have only recently started to mend their ties. There are incentives on both sides to contain this issue and nip it in the bud,” says Harsh Pant, Reader in International Relations, Department of Defence Studies, King’s College, London.
He said despite the heightened emotions on the Indian side due to allegations that the bodies of Indian soldiers were mutilated, “Delhi will have to carefully balance its anger with the long-term stability in the subcontinent. ... there will be a slowdown in the broader normalization of ties, that’s for sure.”
Despite a cease-fire being in place along the LoC, there are occasional clashes, normally involving artillery, but it is unusual for there to be casualties because one side intruded into opposing territory, and matters are generally quickly resolved by opposing senior officers.
The initial Jan. 6 clash, therefore, was somewhat unusual.
A statement from the Pakistan military’s Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) said Indian soldiers had raided the Sawan Patra Pakistani post leading to injuries and the death of one soldier, Naik Aslam, but were repulsed, leaving behind a “weapon and a dagger”.
When contacted, a spokesman for ISPR said no further details were available but that “the heads of the military will get in touch with each other and sort things out.”
At that point it appeared the situation would de-escalate, but the alleged Pakistani raid on the night of Jan. 8 has inflamed the situation.
A spokesman from ISPR also was unable to provide any further details regarding this incident beyond what had been revealed in a press release, in which a Pakistani military official dismissed the Indian allegations as “propaganda” and said it was an attempt to divert attention from the Indian raid.
A later ISPR statement said that “A Pakistan Army soldier, Havildar Mohyuddin embraced Shahdat [was martyred] due to unprovoked firing by Indian troops at Hotspring Sector in Battal at 1440 hours today [Jan. 10]. Indian troops resorted to unprovoked firing at a Pakistani Post named Kundi. Further details to follow.
Former Australian defense attaché to Islamabad, Brian Cloughley, said the truth behind the incidents may never be known, but flatly rejected the allegation that Pakistani soldiers may have mutilated the bodies of Indian soldiers claimed to have been killed.
“If these people had ever seen the body of someone killed in an ambush they would know that it would be torn to bits by a hail of lead. In any event, in an ambush nobody has time to hang around slitting throats or whatever. You fire like crazy for maybe half a minute then get the hell out of it, taking a prisoner if you can,” he said.
An effective way of avoiding future potential flare-ups lies with the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), which was formed in 1948 to observe and report cease-fire violations, he said.
“The whole affair simply reinforces my long-held contention that the U.N. Mission in Kashmir should be given authority to do what their remit lays down. In fact, it would make total sense for all Indian and Pakistani troops to withdraw from the LOC, which would then be patrolled by U.N. forces. There would be no clashes, then,” he said.
Cloughley does not believe that India will agree to Pakistan’s suggestion that UNMOGIP investigate the matter despite it being “the obvious course,” as “neither side will ever agree on what did or didn’t happen.”
time to chill out !!!
Jan. 9, 2013 - 03:15PM | By USMAN ANSARI
ISLAMABAD — Recent clashes by Indian and Pakistani forces are not likely to escalate further, analysts say, as both nations have a stake in calming matters along the Line of Control (LoC) bifurcating Kashmir between the two rival states.
“I think there are strong incentives on both sides to control the escalation in this case. Delhi and Islamabad have only recently started to mend their ties. There are incentives on both sides to contain this issue and nip it in the bud,” says Harsh Pant, Reader in International Relations, Department of Defence Studies, King’s College, London.
He said despite the heightened emotions on the Indian side due to allegations that the bodies of Indian soldiers were mutilated, “Delhi will have to carefully balance its anger with the long-term stability in the subcontinent. ... there will be a slowdown in the broader normalization of ties, that’s for sure.”
Despite a cease-fire being in place along the LoC, there are occasional clashes, normally involving artillery, but it is unusual for there to be casualties because one side intruded into opposing territory, and matters are generally quickly resolved by opposing senior officers.
The initial Jan. 6 clash, therefore, was somewhat unusual.
A statement from the Pakistan military’s Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) said Indian soldiers had raided the Sawan Patra Pakistani post leading to injuries and the death of one soldier, Naik Aslam, but were repulsed, leaving behind a “weapon and a dagger”.
When contacted, a spokesman for ISPR said no further details were available but that “the heads of the military will get in touch with each other and sort things out.”
At that point it appeared the situation would de-escalate, but the alleged Pakistani raid on the night of Jan. 8 has inflamed the situation.
A spokesman from ISPR also was unable to provide any further details regarding this incident beyond what had been revealed in a press release, in which a Pakistani military official dismissed the Indian allegations as “propaganda” and said it was an attempt to divert attention from the Indian raid.
A later ISPR statement said that “A Pakistan Army soldier, Havildar Mohyuddin embraced Shahdat [was martyred] due to unprovoked firing by Indian troops at Hotspring Sector in Battal at 1440 hours today [Jan. 10]. Indian troops resorted to unprovoked firing at a Pakistani Post named Kundi. Further details to follow.
Former Australian defense attaché to Islamabad, Brian Cloughley, said the truth behind the incidents may never be known, but flatly rejected the allegation that Pakistani soldiers may have mutilated the bodies of Indian soldiers claimed to have been killed.
“If these people had ever seen the body of someone killed in an ambush they would know that it would be torn to bits by a hail of lead. In any event, in an ambush nobody has time to hang around slitting throats or whatever. You fire like crazy for maybe half a minute then get the hell out of it, taking a prisoner if you can,” he said.
An effective way of avoiding future potential flare-ups lies with the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), which was formed in 1948 to observe and report cease-fire violations, he said.
“The whole affair simply reinforces my long-held contention that the U.N. Mission in Kashmir should be given authority to do what their remit lays down. In fact, it would make total sense for all Indian and Pakistani troops to withdraw from the LOC, which would then be patrolled by U.N. forces. There would be no clashes, then,” he said.
Cloughley does not believe that India will agree to Pakistan’s suggestion that UNMOGIP investigate the matter despite it being “the obvious course,” as “neither side will ever agree on what did or didn’t happen.”
time to chill out !!!
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Opinion
Beating the nationalist drum
Brian Cloughley
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Before proposing the best way to resolve difficulties or at least improve the situation along the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir, let me make it clear that claims of beheading of an Indian soldier by troops of the Pakistan army are nonsense. There was certainly some sort of clash, probably an ambush, that resulted in the deaths of two Indian soldiers, but if – and it’s a big ‘if’ – the incident involved an ambush by a Pakistan army unit (as distinct from a terrorist group), there is no possibility whatsoever that it carried out mutilation of dead bodies. I won’t go into the moral implications of this aspect of the affair, because that would be futile. But, ‘without prejudice’ as the lawyers say, I’ll examine the practicalities.
There has been a great deal of hysterical commentary by people who should know better and who obviously have no idea what an ambush is like. It’s terrifying, extremely bloody, and very fast moving.
A professional ambush takes only minutes from detection of an enemy to vacation of the scene by the ambushers. There is a very short burst of concentrated fire, perhaps half a minute – which is a very long time in war – when thousands of rounds can be fired and directional mines triggered at chest-height. It is more than probable that a human target could have his head ripped from his body by such an intense blitz. Then the attackers move very quickly indeed to get out of the area. There will be artillery fire brought down immediately (if the ambushed group belongs to a thoroughly professional organisation, which describes the Indian army), rapid movement of reserve forces to block likely escape routes, and scrambling of ground attack aircraft to strafe the ambush party. Those who conducted the ambush don’t have time to go round slitting throats or beheading people. They are concentrating on one thing and one thing only: survival by getting out of the area as rapidly as possible.
When one examines the known facts, it appears most unlikely that a Pakistan army unit was involved. The claims and counter-claims, the allegations and refutations will continue to be exchanged concerning this incident and the earlier one in which a Pakistan army soldier was killed. It is useless to debate all this, because inevitably there will continue to be flat statements, followed by flat contradictions, followed by virulent abuse. Hysteria abounds, and ultra-nationalism is rearing its slavering, blood-fanged head. What is certain is that soldiers of both armies have died, and everything possible should be done to ensure that incidents of this sort should not happen again.
Which brings us to international law; whether India likes it or not, the fact remains that on the books of the UN Security Council (UNSC) the Kashmir region is a disputed territory. UNSC Resolution 122 has not been repealed or amended. It states, inter alia, that “the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.”
Furthermore, Security Council Resolution 307 “demands that a durable cease-fire and cessation of all hostilities” involving withdrawal of troops “to positions which fully respect the cease-fire line in Jammu and Kashmir supervised by the UN Military Observer group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP).”
India desperately wants to be a permanent member of the Security Council and dare not take any action that would diminish its (perfectly reasonable) claim for inclusion, so it simply ignores the inconvenience of the Kashmir Resolutions.
But it is time the UNSC flexed its muscles about Kashmir, and these recent incidents could be the spur for action. Few could now propose in all seriousness that India should give up the valley and its environs. There is no point in pursuing this, because India will simply never give up the territory it has taken, Security Council or no Security Council, and we have to accept this unpalatable fact. But there is now an opportunity to defuse tension and reduce the possibility of clashes along the LoC.
India staunchly resists UN involvement in Kashmir. Unlike Pakistan, it refuses cooperation with the UN military mission, UNMOGIP. I recollect being denied access to the Indian side of the Line of Control, while carrying out an official investigation of the shooting at a UN observer who was under Indian machine gun fire for an hour. There was no doubt he was under fire; I even retrieved a bullet-shredded UN flag. And he didn’t dream it up, although Delhi flatly denied it happened. But the time has come for India to cooperate with the UN over the Line of Control.
Quite simply, there should be withdrawal of troops of Pakistan and India from the immediate vicinity of the LoC. They should relocate to positions at a minimum of two miles from it, and be replaced by UN troops on both sides. There is a plan for this in the UN headquarters in New York; it’s all been worked out before. It would not be an easy redeployment for either army. Indeed it would be time-consuming, costly and inconvenient. But it would reduce tension, save money in the longer-term, and (although this doesn’t seem to be high on the list of politicians’ priorities) actually save soldiers’ lives. This is one of the many international squabbles in which discussion and mediation should win hands down over the wild-eyed rhetoric of nationalist fanatics. But, as in so many of such disputes, it’s more attractive to beat the nationalist drum than implement measures that would actually further the cause of peace. And, as usual, it is the soldiers who pay the price.
The writer is a South Asian affairs analyst. Website is Brian Cloughley
Beating the nationalist drum
Brian Cloughley
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Before proposing the best way to resolve difficulties or at least improve the situation along the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir, let me make it clear that claims of beheading of an Indian soldier by troops of the Pakistan army are nonsense. There was certainly some sort of clash, probably an ambush, that resulted in the deaths of two Indian soldiers, but if – and it’s a big ‘if’ – the incident involved an ambush by a Pakistan army unit (as distinct from a terrorist group), there is no possibility whatsoever that it carried out mutilation of dead bodies. I won’t go into the moral implications of this aspect of the affair, because that would be futile. But, ‘without prejudice’ as the lawyers say, I’ll examine the practicalities.
There has been a great deal of hysterical commentary by people who should know better and who obviously have no idea what an ambush is like. It’s terrifying, extremely bloody, and very fast moving.
A professional ambush takes only minutes from detection of an enemy to vacation of the scene by the ambushers. There is a very short burst of concentrated fire, perhaps half a minute – which is a very long time in war – when thousands of rounds can be fired and directional mines triggered at chest-height. It is more than probable that a human target could have his head ripped from his body by such an intense blitz. Then the attackers move very quickly indeed to get out of the area. There will be artillery fire brought down immediately (if the ambushed group belongs to a thoroughly professional organisation, which describes the Indian army), rapid movement of reserve forces to block likely escape routes, and scrambling of ground attack aircraft to strafe the ambush party. Those who conducted the ambush don’t have time to go round slitting throats or beheading people. They are concentrating on one thing and one thing only: survival by getting out of the area as rapidly as possible.
When one examines the known facts, it appears most unlikely that a Pakistan army unit was involved. The claims and counter-claims, the allegations and refutations will continue to be exchanged concerning this incident and the earlier one in which a Pakistan army soldier was killed. It is useless to debate all this, because inevitably there will continue to be flat statements, followed by flat contradictions, followed by virulent abuse. Hysteria abounds, and ultra-nationalism is rearing its slavering, blood-fanged head. What is certain is that soldiers of both armies have died, and everything possible should be done to ensure that incidents of this sort should not happen again.
Which brings us to international law; whether India likes it or not, the fact remains that on the books of the UN Security Council (UNSC) the Kashmir region is a disputed territory. UNSC Resolution 122 has not been repealed or amended. It states, inter alia, that “the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.”
Furthermore, Security Council Resolution 307 “demands that a durable cease-fire and cessation of all hostilities” involving withdrawal of troops “to positions which fully respect the cease-fire line in Jammu and Kashmir supervised by the UN Military Observer group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP).”
India desperately wants to be a permanent member of the Security Council and dare not take any action that would diminish its (perfectly reasonable) claim for inclusion, so it simply ignores the inconvenience of the Kashmir Resolutions.
But it is time the UNSC flexed its muscles about Kashmir, and these recent incidents could be the spur for action. Few could now propose in all seriousness that India should give up the valley and its environs. There is no point in pursuing this, because India will simply never give up the territory it has taken, Security Council or no Security Council, and we have to accept this unpalatable fact. But there is now an opportunity to defuse tension and reduce the possibility of clashes along the LoC.
India staunchly resists UN involvement in Kashmir. Unlike Pakistan, it refuses cooperation with the UN military mission, UNMOGIP. I recollect being denied access to the Indian side of the Line of Control, while carrying out an official investigation of the shooting at a UN observer who was under Indian machine gun fire for an hour. There was no doubt he was under fire; I even retrieved a bullet-shredded UN flag. And he didn’t dream it up, although Delhi flatly denied it happened. But the time has come for India to cooperate with the UN over the Line of Control.
Quite simply, there should be withdrawal of troops of Pakistan and India from the immediate vicinity of the LoC. They should relocate to positions at a minimum of two miles from it, and be replaced by UN troops on both sides. There is a plan for this in the UN headquarters in New York; it’s all been worked out before. It would not be an easy redeployment for either army. Indeed it would be time-consuming, costly and inconvenient. But it would reduce tension, save money in the longer-term, and (although this doesn’t seem to be high on the list of politicians’ priorities) actually save soldiers’ lives. This is one of the many international squabbles in which discussion and mediation should win hands down over the wild-eyed rhetoric of nationalist fanatics. But, as in so many of such disputes, it’s more attractive to beat the nationalist drum than implement measures that would actually further the cause of peace. And, as usual, it is the soldiers who pay the price.
The writer is a South Asian affairs analyst. Website is Brian Cloughley
A1Kaid
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2008
- Messages
- 9,667
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
How would they even ascertain such information? When the attackers who infiltrated were undetected and likely unseen through the duration of their operation, and supposedly safely returned to their territory of control. Besides, I doubt the infiltrators would have worn any identifiable clothing for such a task.
The fact that they use the word "or" is an indication they themselves don't know the truth.
That's nice, hope he stays close to his troops in occupied Kashmir, so when the green light is given, he too can share the same fate as them. Does anybody have a photo of this Sardar?
Pakistani military can pick up where Aurangzeb left off, and be just as brutal.
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
COMMENT
Recent events along the LoC bear some similarities to the events that led to the 1999 Kargil conflict, which was triggered by Pakistan-backed infiltrators who occupied parts of the Kargil heights. Indian Army troops were deployed to try and push back infiltrators before the Indian Air Force carried out air strikes on targets in the mountainous terrain. Seen in this light, ACM Browne's recent statements may refer to the option of carrying out precision-guided munition attacks.
While the media and international observers have been quick to contemplate an escalation in conflict, there are a few reasons to think that India will not choose to retaliate militarily.
Winter border skirmishes and the 26 January Republic Day celebration in New Delhi are habitual triggers for anti-Pakistani rhetoric in India. The Indian media reported on 14 January that security had been tightened along the LoC as Republic Day is drawing close. Furthermore, adopting an aggressive stance is symbolically important for the Indian Army, which is still recovering from the March 2012 revelations by the Chief of Army Staff General Vijay Kumar Singh about severe equipment shortages.
The situation along the LoC has no doubt worsened over the past week, but while military leaders have adopted strong language, political leaders have insisted that they will not be moved by calls to retaliate. Unless the situation substantially worsens in Kashmir, it appears that India's response shall remain rhetorical rather than kinetic.
JDW
Recent events along the LoC bear some similarities to the events that led to the 1999 Kargil conflict, which was triggered by Pakistan-backed infiltrators who occupied parts of the Kargil heights. Indian Army troops were deployed to try and push back infiltrators before the Indian Air Force carried out air strikes on targets in the mountainous terrain. Seen in this light, ACM Browne's recent statements may refer to the option of carrying out precision-guided munition attacks.
While the media and international observers have been quick to contemplate an escalation in conflict, there are a few reasons to think that India will not choose to retaliate militarily.
Winter border skirmishes and the 26 January Republic Day celebration in New Delhi are habitual triggers for anti-Pakistani rhetoric in India. The Indian media reported on 14 January that security had been tightened along the LoC as Republic Day is drawing close. Furthermore, adopting an aggressive stance is symbolically important for the Indian Army, which is still recovering from the March 2012 revelations by the Chief of Army Staff General Vijay Kumar Singh about severe equipment shortages.
The situation along the LoC has no doubt worsened over the past week, but while military leaders have adopted strong language, political leaders have insisted that they will not be moved by calls to retaliate. Unless the situation substantially worsens in Kashmir, it appears that India's response shall remain rhetorical rather than kinetic.
JDW
notorious_eagle
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,666
- Reaction score
- 34
- Country
- Location
It appears that the family was not allowed to look at the body according to this article. This raises some serious questions in my opinion.
Jai Singh, the martyr’s brother, who is also on a hunger strike, also sounded a note of doubt. “What was brought to us was a body covered in white sheet. Now it could be anyone’s body. We were not allowed to see what was inside,” he said, highlighting that he has spent his childhood with Hemraj and knew that he had a mole on the back.
“I would have checked it but they didn’t allow me to do that,” he added.
The Hindu : States / Other States : Soldier
Jai Singh, the martyr’s brother, who is also on a hunger strike, also sounded a note of doubt. “What was brought to us was a body covered in white sheet. Now it could be anyone’s body. We were not allowed to see what was inside,” he said, highlighting that he has spent his childhood with Hemraj and knew that he had a mole on the back.
“I would have checked it but they didn’t allow me to do that,” he added.
The Hindu : States / Other States : Soldier
Similar threads
