THE SILENT PEACEKEEPERS

[Major Shaitan Singh]

Subedar Dharmesh Sangwan's coffin who martyred in the Conflict

Its truth that most of the Indian population is least interested in the “Military Field” and even less interest in the life’s of a soldier. He’s one who gave up his today for a better and safer tomorrow for us. This post to show our gratitude to these brave hearts who not only fight defending our own country but also protecting international missions. This is a story about a platoon these 36 brave hearts serving UN mission under the Indian Flag. These brave hearts we are talking about were ambushed by about 2000 Sudan rebels in December 2013. Two of the brave jawans made the ultimate sacrifice while saving 100’s of UN employees and thousands of refugees.

An calm early morning start to the Indian soldiers posted outside Akobo,Sudan to serve the UN representing India one of the biggest contributor to UUN peace keeping mission. With a watchful eye around the base the soldiers went around following their orders of protecting ”Top UN officials” . Akobo was one of the strategic bases homing several key UN officials, Indian mission command and home to a few hundred rebels. The base provided excellent hospital care in Sudan. But the command picked hostile movement along the base and the men guarding the base took up defensive positions to protect their second home.
Sooner the command picked up a large group of rebels coming toward the post. Soon the rebel group was identified as Lou Nuer youth operating illegally under ethnic reasons. The group kept a demand for the handover of the tribal Sudanese who had taken up refuge inside the base. The Commander in charge of the outpost refused the Rebels request and refused to hand over the refugees. Soon within the minuets the Rebels encircled the Indian Outpost. With the hostile stand off for a couple of hours the Indian mission never agreed to allow access for refugees. With their requests shot down the rebels resorted to firing with assault rifles. Sensing a huge fall out the Indian mission resorted to returning fire. Encircled by a force of around 2000 rebels the mission soon requested for back up by the UN. Though a back up party arrived it comprised only of a helicopter with seven Soldiers and another helicopter for EVAC the Outpost, a BMP was dispatched to the base. But faced with severe shortage the Indian army fought with full valour. Engaging the enemies head on, the jawans slaughtered the rebels accounting for around 200+ kills. Faced with very high number of casualties the rebels started pulling back from the base.

After a three hour gun fight Two Brave Indian Army hero's made the ultimate sacrifice for the nation facing the enemy. The brave hearts who made the nation proud were Subedar Dharmesh Sangwan (8 Rajputana rifles) and Subedar Kumar Pal Singh (Army Medical Corps) while Naik Sahabul Mandal was left seriously injured. And 10 other tribal south Sudanese also killed during the battle. The whole Indian mission at the base was EVAC to Malakkal another UN facility. With combined efforts by the Sudanese army and the UN mission the rebels group was flushed out.

Mr. Hilde Johnson Special secretary of the UN secretary General paid tributes to the Indian Soldiers in a Memorial ceremony in Juba capital of South Sudan, and said “brave and courageous soldiers,” and extended her heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of the fallen Soldiers.

Ms. Johnson, head of UNMISS said in a statement

" As a Mission, we are inspired by the dedication shown by the Indian troops,” “Had it not been for their bravery, the death toll at the (UNMISS base) could have been higher.”


Indian Soldiers in UN Mission


Indian Soldiers Patrolling Sudan © Japan Times


Indian Soldiers Patrolling Sudanese Streets

 

[Bornubus]

RIP to our brave soldiers....stories like these vindicated India's claim of permanent seat in security council.

 

[Sine Nomine]

RIP...

 

[That Guy]

RIP to our brave soldiers....stories like these vindicated India's claim of permanent seat in security council.

Un peacekeepers are commendable, but no, this doesn't make a case for India's goal of a permanent seat at the unsc. If it did, then bd and Pakistan would be just as qualified.

 

[OrionHunter]

Un peacekeepers are commendable, but no, this doesn't make a case for India's goal of a permanent seat at the unsc. If it did, then bd and Pakistan would be just as qualified.

A permanent seat in the SC is not about peacekeeping missions alone. It's also about the strength of India's economy and the largest democracy in the world.

 

[Bornubus]

Un peacekeepers are commendable, but no, this doesn't make a case for India's goal of a permanent seat at the unsc. If it did, then bd and Pakistan would be just as qualified.

yes,i acknowledge Pak peacekeeping role in UN but for permanent seat its not the only criteria.....but one of the criteria.

 

[That Guy]

yes,i acknowledge Pak peacekeeping role in UN but for permanent seat its not the only criteria.....but one of the criteria.

No it isn't. Most of the unsc members have never contributed peacekeeping forces under the un flag.

A permanent seat in the SC is not about peacekeeping missions alone. It's also about the strength of India's economy and the largest democracy in the world.

My point was that sending peacekeepers is not a criteria for unsc permanent membership.

 

[Bornubus]

No it isn't. Most of the unsc members have never contributed peacekeeping forces under the un flag.

Korean war,Kosovo etc etc


and if you mean china their army is committed to long border and internal security.

France they have a presence in Africa for a long time

 

[That Guy]

Korean war,Kosovo etc etc


and if you mean china their army is committed to long border and internal security.

France they have a presence in Africa for a long time

Korea, yes, but that was a very long time ago. Kosovo was fought under the NATO flag, not un. France is I Africa under its own initiative, mostly in former French colonies. Mali is Frances most recent military intervention, and again, they went in without un approval.

 

[Abingdonboy]

My point was that sending peacekeepers is not a criteria for unsc permanent membership.

This is a fair point, it makes for a nice talking point and a boost to India's bid (only somewhat) but it is not really all too relevant to the permeant UNSC seat bid. Realistically once India has got that seat it should/most likely will (it has been drawing down its forces for some time) withdraw the vast majority of its UN peacekeepers as have pretty much all other UNSC permeant members. I don't see why India should be losing good lives like this in thankless missions.

 

[Taygibay]

Korea, yes, but that was a very long time ago. Kosovo was fought under the NATO flag, not un. France is I Africa under its own initiative, mostly in former French colonies. Mali is Frances most recent military intervention, and again, they went in without un approval.

??? You missed out on a lot in that statement, man.
France went to Mali because of a treaty with it that includes that each was to provide assistance against foreign attack that would threaten the State. The same type of deal exists with Germany too, nuclear protection by France for German territorial integrity included! Neither are UN related in any way anymore than the UN could dictate a co-defense pact between Pakistan and Bangladesh? For example …

The presence in Central African Republic is UN sanctioned and it took 3 and a half months Sept-Dec. between France asking and UN accepting. There is that in Lebanon, protecting it from Israeli and Syrian attacks. So was the ugly Rwanda affair where France was called to replace Canadian troops that had witnessed the initial massacre without having the authority to fire their weapons and were understandably shaken.
In 2013, Paris provided 8 out of the 16 active Peace Keeping Operations held in the World. Ex-colonies or not, our troops in Lebanon from above, Côte-d'Ivoire (UNOCI ) ( were we protected the electoral victory of the party less favorable to us ) and Chad are there under UN demands. Similarly, most of our military actions are backed by UN resolutions : Côte-d'Ivoire ( Licorne ), Mali ( after the country was secured ) and Sangaris are all in that case! The last conflict where we went by ourselves was Lybia and Afghanistan before it; in Kosovo & Bosnia, etc we provided both BH and NATO and EUFOR/EULEX.
We have these people out right now :

And lastly, over ISIL, because of the Syrian quagmire where we oppose Bachar, we went in direct answer to the present Iraqi government's request right after the US and not within the later's coalition either. But if history is yours to remember, there was a more important reason for us to do it that way, namely that we had opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq as unfounded to the point of having stopped a UN backing asked by Washington to make it legal by telling our American friends that our veto would come inexorably? It would have been unsavory to team up over Baghdad. *
Maybe if you started considering the facts instead of repeating opinions, you'd see France in a different light and stop confusing us with the USA or Australia.

Of the 10 200 troops officially out of France today, 70 deployed on French civilian ships and 150 ( a frigate ) are in Operation Enduring Freedom with the US both against piracy, 350 are ( colonial type ) mentoring with Western African nations, 600 in Chammal Operation with the Iraqi government, 3 000 in Barkhane Operation with Mauritania, Burkina-Faso, Mali, Niger and Chad, 2,600 are in our Indian Ocean autonomous presence that India knows lots about, 923 are Blue Helmets and the rest, 2,407 are under UN sanctioned military operations.

And let me offer thanks to Morocco, that is with us in CAR, also on the really difficult mandate of securing enough peace for the BH to work without which peacekeepers would never be able to get a foothold.

And last, India ( 8,139 ) having been named, let me acknowledge Pakistan with an average monthly contribution of 7,936 total personnel which is 2nd for any nation and in ratio to India impressive ( Ethiopia comes third at 7,807 ! ) and China who now has BH in Mali with 2,181 as its role grows slowly.

By comparison, Canada and America provide less than Zambia ( 134 ) and Russia even less with 75!

If we opened a thread for it, I'd discuss the view of some of these as post-colonialism with you no problem.
You'd be surprised how I could agree on some but for now, these are the facts, sorry!

Good day to you and all, Tay.

* Of course there is information sharing by all operating there at present but so you know, our airmen decide strikes in coordination with Iraqi command based on intelligence provided by both and accept only those deemed reasonable without too much of a collateral damage risk which is why we bomb less than others per day per plane!

 

[That Guy]

??? You missed out on a lot in that statement, man.
France went to Mali because of a treaty with it that includes that each was to provide assistance against foreign attack that would threaten the State. The same type of deal exists with Germany too, nuclear protection by France for German territorial integrity included! Neither are UN related in any way anymore than the UN could dictate a co-defense pact between Pakistan and Bangladesh? For example …

The presence in Central African Republic is UN sanctioned and it took 3 and a half months Sept-Dec. between France asking and UN accepting. There is that in Lebanon, protecting it from Israeli and Syrian attacks. So was the ugly Rwanda affair where France was called to replace Canadian troops that had witnessed the initial massacre without having the authority to fire their weapons and were understandably shaken.
In 2013, Paris provided 8 out of the 16 active Peace Keeping Operations held in the World. Ex-colonies or not, our troops in Lebanon from above, Côte-d'Ivoire (UNOCI ) ( were we protected the electoral victory of the party less favorable to us ) and Chad are there under UN demands. Similarly, most of our military actions are backed by UN resolutions : Côte-d'Ivoire ( Licorne ), Mali ( after the country was secured ) and Sangaris are all in that case! The last conflict where we went by ourselves was Lybia and Afghanistan before it; in Kosovo & Bosnia, etc we provided both BH and NATO and EUFOR/EULEX.
We have these people out right now :
View attachment 198427

And lastly, over ISIL, because of the Syrian quagmire where we oppose Bachar, we went in direct answer to the present Iraqi government's request right after the US and not within the later's coalition either. But if history is yours to remember, there was a more important reason for us to do it that way, namely that we had opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq as unfounded to the point of having stopped a UN backing asked by Washington to make it legal by telling our American friends that our veto would come inexorably? It would have been unsavory to team up over Baghdad. *
Maybe if you started considering the facts instead of repeating opinions, you'd see France in a different light and stop confusing us with the USA or Australia.

Of the 10 200 troops officially out of France today, 70 deployed on French civilian ships and 150 ( a frigate ) are in Operation Enduring Freedom with the US both against piracy, 350 are ( colonial type ) mentoring with Western African nations, 600 in Chammal Operation with the Iraqi government, 3 000 in Barkhane Operation with Mauritania, Burkina-Faso, Mali, Niger and Chad, 2,600 are in our Indian Ocean autonomous presence that India knows lots about, 923 are Blue Helmets and the rest, 2,407 are under UN sanctioned military operations.

And let me offer thanks to Morocco, that is with us in CAR, also on the really difficult mandate of securing enough peace for the BH to work without which peacekeepers would never be able to get a foothold.

And last, India ( 8,139 ) having been named, let me acknowledge Pakistan with an average monthly contribution of 7,936 total personnel which is 2nd for any nation and in ratio to India impressive ( Ethiopia comes third at 7,807 ! ) and China who now has BH in Mali with 2,181 as its role grows slowly.

By comparison, Canada and America provide less than Zambia ( 134 ) and Russia even less with 75!

If we opened a thread for it, I'd discuss the view of some of these as post-colonialism with you no problem.
You'd be surprised how I could agree on some but for now, these are the facts, sorry!

Good day to you and all, Tay.

* Of course there is information sharing by all operating there at present but so you know, our airmen decide strikes in coordination with Iraqi command based on intelligence provided by both and accept only those deemed reasonable without too much of a collateral damage risk which is why we bomb less than others per day per plane!

Most of the info you provided is irrelevant, as defense treaties are not the same as un authorization. Even then, un authorization does not mean flying under the un flag. Libya is a prime example of this, the air operation was un sanctioned, but NATO did not fly under the un banner.

At the end of the day, most of the unsc nation members don't contribute troops to unpkf, that is just a fact.

 

[Taygibay]

You're being obtuse on purpose I believe, mate. Did you even read my post : I voluntarily classified Libya as a conflict France entered alone since we called for it and began strikes without either NATO or UN oversight!!!
As for defense treaties they still are legally binding documents the UN registers and recognizes.
And I mentioned the top contributors to Blue Helmets with Pakistan in 2nd place worldwide either in total after India or in ratio to population behind Ethiopia which is admirable without reservations ( bravo again ).


Still, the Central African Republic shows how PKF are usually a bandage once the fighting has been done by green helmets forces :
Sept. 2013 France asks for a UN mandate to go in to stop a massacre;
Dec. 2013 We get it and intervene;
( Sangaris which “prevented the situation from degenerating even further” dixit Ban Ki-Moon );
April 2014 The MINUSCA is approved by UNSC;
June 2014 Its C.O. is named
Sept 15 2014 It takes over from MISCA a full year after France asked to go in.
And our troops are still there clearing tough spots for them ( last in mid-Feb. ).
If PKF had been the only troops coming … how many deaths exactly during those 9-10 months?
So your attempt to dismiss that is worth zero, sorry!

The essential thing is that some contribute directly to PKF only while some contribute by national ops covered by UN mandates and that both should be taken into account. Hint, with 126 PKF troops total and almost never under a UN mandate because they do not want their soldiers under foreign jurisdiction save in NATO, the USA contribute the less per population worldwide while maintaing more soldiers deployed out of their borders than any other nation!
As for your pseudo fact, check the real sources or get called a liar?
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2015/jan15_1.pdf
You then need to add UNSC approved ops one by one as green helmets are not counted in PKF.

You can howl at the moon all you want, it will still hang up there on most nights, Tay.

 

[The_Sidewinder]

Rest in peace brave hearts.