Cold Start Doctrine - Pakistani Response. By Jhungary

[Kompromat]

• Pakistan will know before the decision to attack goes from the highest to the lowest chain of command, thanks to our Human Intelligence network inside India.
  
  
• Pakistan has prepared a Warfare Doctrine of its own, which led to 5 military exercises for validation over the last 6 years. The name and details of that counter cold start doctrine are classified. My own opinion is that Pakistan would not only take defensive steps but would also attack and hold Indian territory in another sector.
  
  
• The location of a CSD inspired war has also been identified.
  
  
• Pakistan also holds an option to open up its dams and flood the area with water before Indian Army can mobilise there.
  
  
• CSD will not achieve anything for India as it has been projected by numerous studies. Its objective would be to give some cookies to the uber nationalist Hindu population who badly want a war with Pakistan.

 

[anonymus]

.....i seems to be not able to quote member on my mobile phone

@anonymus

Indeed, most city are in close border with India, and this would mean if Pakistan want to defend the assault, they woukd have to use their city as a static defence point. Much like starlingrad during ww2 and seeing how short the notice are from Indian moblisation to actual launching of the attack, there would not be time for civilian evacuation. Hence the civvies casualty would be tentamount.

Otherwise you can only expect the pakistani to use the Afghanistan depth and move west, but i doubt India would and could chase them across the country in just a few days of war...

So either fight in the city, or leave and fight another day...Thats would be tye hold your ground way apporach to this doctrine

I do not think use of Afghanistan's depth is possible or even envisioned. The reason for doing so is two-fold. First, India would not be invading Pakistan with an intention of occupying it.High Population of Pakistan means that Indian religious demographic stability would be undermined by occupation of Pakistan. It would be invading Pakistan with an intention of dividing it. Retreat to Afghanistan in this scenario would mean that India would walk into provincial capital or Baluchistan (Quetta), and declare it a new country. Second, Afghanistan has boundary dispute with Pakistan. It considers Khyber-Pakhtunwala and FATA of Pakistan ( in Short everything west of Indus) as part of Afghanistan.Afghanistan could be considered as a safe destination for regrouping only in initial stages. If war has progressed to such an extent that PA, need Afghanistan for regrouping, you could not be sure that Afghanistan would not join India in order to retrieve it's provinces.

Pakistan would use nukes before being pushed into such a position.While nuclear ceiling of Pakistan is not as low as fanboi on this site (including Administrator, see post above) imagine, it certainly would be lower than what conventional wisdom would suggest.


Regarding use of cities as fortress, i have serious doubt that IA would even enter them, if it is waging a limited war. In a limited war, India's primary aim would be to degrade military capability of PA for which entering in cities is not required and may even be counterproductive. IA may only occupy a Punjabi city as a psych-ops against Pakistani population.



BTW,I do not think that India would go to war with Pakistan without a credible BMD in place.

exactly what is an old doctrine?

While doctrine can be outdated on one hand, warfare actually didnt change much on the other

Cold start may have become a doctrine which is no longer followed. Cold start doctrine was formulated to negate the high mobilization time requirements by Indian Army. As Indian infrastructure is improving, mobilization time of Army is getting reduced.

Army chief gave a statement couple of months ago stating that now Indian army require less than a week to mobilize today, compared to 27 days it needed in 2001.

These developments may have rendered Cold start doctrine, redundant.

 

[SrNair]

I have read somewhere that CSD was a response to the problems that we faced during Operation Parakram.That ops was
very sluggy and caused casualities .So they need to reduce the response time.
CSD is virtually impossible at current scenario .We cant be that sure about acomplete sweeping of possible 60km circle.And if we accidentially spare a single battery and if they managed to initiate a single launch it would be disaster.
Our former top official Shyam Saran was
cleared some misconception about our second strike capability.Be it small or Large our response would be a massive retaliation.
So a single Nasr can changeit in to a nuclear war .Pak Nasr batteries are completely under the control of local commanders.So a local commander can decide that fate.

I think the doctrine may slightly change due to the ever changing power equation.

Not sure if I quoted the right piece, but I wanted to discuss the can't defend everywhere point. India is no Soviet or US, it's strategic lift is severely limited. Right now only the US has the necessary power to lift that many troops that quickly.

Russia no longer has this power, and China is still working on it and would take at least 10-15 more years.

India has about two dozen large transports, that's not nearly enough for a quick mobilization. Through rails, it would cripple India economically, not to mention, with the way Indian rails are, it's not going to be fast even if it didn't.

On roads, India lack the large expressways that US and China have.

List of countries by road network size - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have seen during the last time India wanted to do this, it failed and mobilization and concentration took far too long.


But let's set that aside, and say India has some 200+ large transports and hundreds more of medium transports and can charter even more civilian airliners, assuming they have such a program. That would still require large airports and many of them, which they also don't have.

Countries Compared by Transport > Airports. International Statistics at NationMaster.com



Then we need to look at supply, India would need to be able to move supplies fast to its troops even if it can get the troops there on time, that would require completely utilization of all of its road networks to 100% capability, and due to it's lack of expressways, there's really so many ways India can do this without running out of ammo, or even water.



So why would Pakistan need to defend everywhere? Pakistan can easily figure out the few places that India can attack without being completely cut off from supplies, or even just getting there on time or near on time.

What's your opinion on this?

Well we are talking about Indo Pak Border not Sino Indian border.There is a hell of difference between two borders.

We dont need that much of strategic lift capacity to deal with Pakistanis. Contrary to Sino border Pakistan has a lot of major important installation within the 100 km of LoC.

 

[acid rain]

@jhungary

For this exercise, I think you can draw information our of the 1971 war which was based on similar objectives - had to be hard and fast before international pressure bore on India. That war was a two front war with territorialterritorial gains on both fronts and started and ended in 3 days.

 

[PoKeMon]

read a report from pentagon once about the nuclear situation in S Asia, although the report is not directly address the Cold Start doctrine, it did mention the red line in which Pakistan would likely use their nuclear stockpile.

Can not tell you what it is exactly or what report was it. As far as i can tell you is the threshold is low..

Would like to discuss this issue without going nuclear....

They do have threshold low or they pretend to have it low to counter much bigger threat - that's my point.

 

[third eye]

1.) Take out the provoking factor, i know this is kind of lame, and Pakistani member probably don't wanted to hear this, but this way is the easiest way to make sure Cold Start Doctrine would never actually start. By shaping up the country and eliminate the "Provoke Factor" with the terrorist, that would directly shut off the reason to maintain a cold start.

Effectiveness of Nasr Missile

Its interesting to note that the Cold Start is still on the Pak radar.

The best way to counter a cold start or any other doctrine is what is highlighted above, why would 2 nations want to go to war ?

Here in an Indo Pak context we are faced with a unique situation where we have a nation whose Govt is not in control of what happens within its borders yet has to face the flak for what its ' non state ' actors do. Ironically , the ' actors' enjoy patronage of those tasked to defend the nation. This leads one to believe that the intent is on brinkmanship .

It would cost Pak a great deal less to control these so called fringe elements from striking India again.

A great deal of emphasis is laid on the Nasr Missile. Good, after all its been developed for a purpose so why not ?

Once a Nuke is used ( even within Pak territory) all bets are off. So long as this has been factored in Pak must use it.

The rivers in Pak flow North - South, its anybody's guess where the contamination shall flow. The idea of having a dam / barrage full of contaminated water that has to flow downstream is something I assume Pak planners have also factored in.

Like the old adage goes 'precaution is better than cure", and there has not yet been a cure for the likes of Chernobyl.

@jhungary

For this exercise, I think you can draw information our of the 1971 war which was based on similar objectives - had to be hard and fast before international pressure bore on India. That war was a two front war with territorialterritorial gains on both fronts and started and ended in 3 days.

Not the right example to quote or draw lessons from.

Everything was different back then.

 

[acid rain]

[QUOTE="third eye, post: 6588131, member: 10858"^]

Not the right example to quote or draw lessons from.

Everything was different back then.[/QUOTE]

How so?

The differences have proportionately changed. Intensity would be higher. We are discussing tactics here, so same principles can be applied at a much larger scale.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

• Pakistan will know before the decision to attack goes from the highest to the lowest chain of command, thanks to our Human Intelligence network inside India.
  
  
• Pakistan has prepared a Warfare Doctrine of its own, which led to 5 military exercises for validation over the last 6 years. The name and details of that counter cold start doctrine are classified. My own opinion is that Pakistan would not only take defensive steps but would also attack and hold Indian territory in another sector.
  
  
• The location of a CSD inspired war has also been identified.
  
  
• Pakistan also holds an option to open up its dams and flood the area with water before Indian Army can mobilise there.
  
  
• CSD will not achieve anything for India as it has been projected by numerous studies. Its objective would be to give some cookies to the uber nationalist Hindu population who badly want a war with Pakistan.

Yup thats true...... Even i know a few things abt our new doctrine. Like u said pak would not only defend but will attack and hold indian territory too ie we will invade the indian territory in another sector. Our doctrine is basically a Offensive-Defensive type Doctrine. Its name, actual purpose other details will remain classified though but a general idea is what u have stated.

Secondly what usually......(if i could say nicely), is that the foreign analysts including indians some times ''impress'' me by their analysis on Pakistan! How much these people underestimate us forgetting that we are the reason why USSR broke and America became a super power in the first place. People forget that without studying the 1965 and 1971 wars in great details which West Pakistan fought they usually extract their opinions based on their own experiences which are of outside the domains of South Asia. If they would have studied the battle of Chawinda, Battle of Chumb, Defense of Lahore etc these are a few main battles that Pak fought and won which really are the main battles fought in the Western side of South Asia they might have a little idea abt us and our 'versatility' in fighting a war specially this battle of chumb which the experts describe as the text book offensive battle in South Asia.

But the best advantage we have in south asia which in my view is greatest then any other SA nation is that we have the 'win' tag for many important battles we have fought in history which were essential in not only the outcome of wars but also militarily far superior then anyother.

 

[jhungary]

• Pakistan will know before the decision to attack goes from the highest to the lowest chain of command, thanks to our Human Intelligence network inside India.
  
  
• Pakistan has prepared a Warfare Doctrine of its own, which led to 5 military exercises for validation over the last 6 years. The name and details of that counter cold start doctrine are classified. My own opinion is that Pakistan would not only take defensive steps but would also attack and hold Indian territory in another sector.
  
  
• The location of a CSD inspired war has also been identified.
  
  
• Pakistan also holds an option to open up its dams and flood the area with water before Indian Army can mobilise there.
  
  
• CSD will not achieve anything for India as it has been projected by numerous studies. Its objective would be to give some cookies to the uber nationalist Hindu population who badly want a war with Pakistan.

infact my wife doubt if this doctrine ever existed. The whole thing is quite counter productive.

If i were to initiate an assault on somebody after an event, i would not say much other than i will strike you. But CSD did more than that. This is actually a formal battleplan.

A doctrine need to be clear, but also need to be ambigous so not to dictate the tactical thinking. But CSD would venture just that.

i would not want to comment on pakistani counter offensive. but i would just say if pakistan miltary actually did that then they are putting a risk on being an underhand

simply because of we assume Indian and Pakistani trooo quality is 1 to 1, then pakistan offensive will be less effective as India have more strategic death on their side and you can only launch an offensive or defensive one at a time but you cant possibly defense pakistan and strike into India the.same time. You will either need more troop.at hand or more time. Both of which is lacking.

I do not think use of Afghanistan's depth is possible or even envisioned. The reason for doing so is two-fold. First, India would not be invading Pakistan with an intention of occupying it.High Population of Pakistan means that Indian religious demographic stability would be undermined by occupation of Pakistan. It would be invading Pakistan with an intention of dividing it. Retreat to Afghanistan in this scenario would mean that India would walk into provincial capital or Baluchistan (Quetta), and declare it a new country. Second, Afghanistan has boundary dispute with Pakistan. It considers Khyber-Pakhtunwala and FATA of Pakistan ( in Short everything west of Indus) as part of Afghanistan.Afghanistan could be considered as a safe destination for regrouping only in initial stages. If war has progressed to such an extent that PA, need Afghanistan for regrouping, you could not be sure that Afghanistan would not join India in order to retrieve it's provinces.

Pakistan would use nukes before being pushed into such a position.While nuclear ceiling of Pakistan is not as low as fanboi on this site (including Administrator, see post above) imagine, it certainly would be lower than what conventional wisdom would suggest.


Regarding use of cities as fortress, i have serious doubt that IA would even enter them, if it is waging a limited war. In a limited war, India's primary aim would be to degrade military capability of PA for which entering in cities is not required and may even be counterproductive. IA may only occupy a Punjabi city as a psych-ops against Pakistani population.



BTW,I do not think that India would go to war with Pakistan without a credible BMD in place.





Cold start may have become a doctrine which is no longer followed. Cold start doctrine was formulated to negate the high mobilization time requirements by Indian Army. As Indian infrastructure is improving, mobilization time of Army is getting reduced.

Army chief gave a statement couple of months ago stating that now Indian army require less than a week to mobilize today, compared to 27 days it needed in 2001.

These developments may have rendered Cold start doctrine, redundant.

about the afghanistan thing, its jst an example what they cando beside fighting in a bloody urban warfare, it was never an option and i think i said that quite clear in my last post

About pakistan nuclear response, their threshold is low, but they will still try to fight it out until that too become impossible. That is a fine line to walk if India wanted a limited war with Pakistan

as for the city defence part, those are the only land that worth something or anything in an negotiation tabke which CSD originally intented, you will not strike Pakistan and try to attack rice paddy or rocky cave or any open ground, you would need to go for city in the end and being a short war, indian would have to enter the city and expel the defender as you cannot lay siege with less a than a week fighting

and finally, as i said. Old doctrine would still have their value, CSD is only a name, what it meant can be change, we saw doctrine got outdated and revised and updated for future usequite often

I have read somewhere that CSD was a response to the problems that we faced during Operation Parakram.That ops was
very sluggy and caused casualities .So they need to reduce the response time.
CSD is virtually impossible at current scenario .We cant be that sure about acomplete sweeping of possible 60km circle.And if we accidentially spare a single battery and if they managed to initiate a single launch it would be disaster.
Our former top official Shyam Saran was
cleared some misconception about our second strike capability.Be it small or Large our response would be a massive retaliation.
So a single Nasr can changeit in to a nuclear war .Pak Nasr batteries are completely under the control of local commanders.So a local commander can decide that fate.

I think the doctrine may slightly change due to the ever changing power equation.



Well we are talking about Indo Pak Border not Sino Indian border.There is a hell of difference between two borders.

We dont need that much of strategic lift capacity to deal with Pakistanis. Contrary to Sino border Pakistan has a lot of major important installation within the 100 km of LoC.

CSD is flawed as i mentioned time and again. The only good use of it is for deterrant factor only, its quite impractical as you said and quite counter productive

@jhungary

For this exercise, I think you can draw information our of the 1971 war which was based on similar objectives - had to be hard and fast before international pressure bore on India. That war was a two front war with territorialterritorial gains on both fronts and started and ended in 3 days.

View attachment 178779

i th8nk the 1971 war is a bit different, the situation is more complicated and that was an liberation war instead of a general assault.

A better example should be 6 days war in 1967 for the israeli

They do have threshold low or they pretend to have it low to counter much bigger threat - that's my point.

they do have a low threashold and i can understand why. The threshold is more or less the same as the US in case of a fulk armour assault by soviet russia...

Its interesting to note that the Cold Start is still on the Pak radar.

The best way to counter a cold start or any other doctrine is what is highlighted above, why would 2 nations want to go to war ?

Here in an Indo Pak context we are faced with a unique situation where we have a nation whose Govt is not in control of what happens within its borders yet has to face the flak for what its ' non state ' actors do. Ironically , the ' actors' enjoy patronage of those tasked to defend the nation. This leads one to believe that the intent is on brinkmanship .

It would cost Pak a great deal less to control these so called fringe elements from striking India again.

A great deal of emphasis is laid on the Nasr Missile. Good, after all its been developed for a purpose so why not ?

Once a Nuke is used ( even within Pak territory) all bets are off. So long as this has been factored in Pak must use it.

The rivers in Pak flow North - South, its anybody's guess where the contamination shall flow. The idea of having a dam / barrage full of contaminated water that has to flow downstream is something I assume Pak planners have also factored in.

Like the old adage goes 'precaution is better than cure", and there has not yet been a cure for the likes of Chernobyl.



Not the right example to quote or draw lessons from.

Everything was different back then.

i avoided talking about the effectiveness of nuclear NASR missile, that would be a whole other can of worm if we open that discussion

For the Nasr, i would only go so far and say they are definitely not a game changer, regardless if Indian can perform a complete swept.

To be called a game changer, they have to either completly able to stop or at least have your enemy alter their plan. Thing is Indian would not deviate the plan any ev3n if they were hit by nuclear missile, i.fact what we taught in the military is situation can change yet the fight is still on. Even if that mean your certain death

 

[Genesis]

What are you taking about?

India and Pakistan are neighbours and most of population centers of Pakistan lie within 100Km from India. We do not need capacity to even lift a single soldier.

After all we are not invading Beijing.


And your own link states that India has larger road network than China and what is this fetish with expressways?

Every road is an expressway during war.

So all your troops are stationed in one place? You would need to concentrate troops and that requires air power, I mean if you want to get there before getting old.

As to "fetish" with expressways, India includes way too much unpaved roads that leads from nowhere to nowhere. It plays no part in getting your troops to where they need to be. Expressways go from one major centre to another, it's also many lanes, with faster speeds and better road conditions to allow heavy equipment to move quickly.

@Genesis

if this is a substained operation, then your point would be valid, but seeing this type of operation would only last 3 to 7 days (7 days being extremely generous) The supply problem is not that important

the indian in this case would have fought on only what they had bought with, and they can launch their strike by virtually any mean they choose.

In war the defending armyusually cannot guess where the assasult is being launched. The brits done it by guessing which way the japanese is going to attack in Malaya campaign, and they ended up guessed wrong and the whole campaign turned out to be a joke, same think the egyptian did during 68 war with Israel.

If pakistan cannot post troop to cover every section of its border, that was be equal to raising a sign saying "attack here" on the section you did not defend.

You can thin out your troop and post tactical and strategic reserve behind your line but you would still have to man every section of your border

Seeing as a single soldier can only bring a couple hundred round, that would be gone soon. Never being a soldier maybe I'm wrong, but a war with Pakistan, would a few hundred rounds be enough, if they can carry that much. They don't have Humvees for every 4 troops so they would be limited in carry ability.

There's also satellites now, and a large concentration of troops cannot be unnoticed.

Why would Pakistan post troops everywhere, due to the nature of modern warfare, I doubt India dares to kill civilians, and thus must actively looking to take out Pakistani army, which makes the operation even more predictable.

Lastly, what's your view on how many troops India would need to conduct this operation. To me it must be around if nto more than a hundred thousand men to have any effect.

The Indian ground force have no advantage in weaponry if at all.

 

[GR!FF!N]

) Take out the "mobile" factor, this is based on Russia Armoured Doctrine, where it was tried and tested during WW2. Which involve setting up defensive perimeter along the border with multiple delaying defences. The universal answer to lack of depth is to strength static defence

I want to quote regarding this...

Soviets restrained Germans by placing a massive anti tank defense during Kursk..the reason Blitzkreig failed there is because now,"Bypassing the Threat" means you'd have to travel hundreds of KMs..I don't think Pakistan is anywhere near to make that kind of defense.

you're correctly predicted the situation.but it is pretty much common that India would attack Pakistan either in Punjab or Rajastan,where tank is operable.in fact,Punjab will be most vulnerable as it is the heart of Pakistan.

@Genesis has said some funny points about Indian "AIrlift Capability","Road Conditions" etc.he doesn't know that you don't need that to fight in plains.the only problem is that Indian Sword Corps,or the Strike Corps are based deep inside Indian Heartland and it takes time to bring them near border.but then again,Indian Army practiced several times a large scale offensive exercises with satisfactory result.

 

[Genesis]

@Genesis has said some funny points about Indian "AIrlift Capability","Road Conditions" etc.he doesn't know that you don't need that to fight in plains.the only problem is that Indian Sword Corps,or the Strike Corps are based deep inside Indian Heartland and it takes time to bring them near border.but then again,Indian Army practiced several times a large scale offensive exercises with satisfactory result.

I never said you need lift or roads to fight, just to get all your troops in one place. You said satisfactory results, but why are the Indian sources I read saying they couldn't get them all into one place in time and it's vastly delayed the operation.

It might be talked about in this one, I'll confirm later.

 

[jhungary]

So all your troops are stationed in one place? You would need to concentrate troops and that requires air power, I mean if you want to get there before getting old.

As to "fetish" with expressways, India includes way too much unpaved roads that leads from nowhere to nowhere. It plays no part in getting your troops to where they need to be. Expressways go from one major centre to another, it's also many lanes, with faster speeds and better road conditions to allow heavy equipment to move quickly.



Seeing as a single soldier can only bring a couple hundred round, that would be gone soon. Never being a soldier maybe I'm wrong, but a war with Pakistan, would a few hundred rounds be enough, if they can carry that much. They don't have Humvees for every 4 troops so they would be limited in carry ability.

There's also satellites now, and a large concentration of troops cannot be unnoticed.

Why would Pakistan post troops everywhere, due to the nature of modern warfare, I doubt India dares to kill civilians, and thus must actively looking to take out Pakistani army, which makes the operation even more predictable.

Lastly, what's your view on how many troops India would need to conduct this operation. To me it must be around if nto more than a hundred thousand men to have any effect.

The Indian ground force have no advantage in weaponry if at all.

if this attack were to go ahead they would have been mechanized attack. Being a 3 to 5 or maybe 7 days operations. Most large ticket supply item (like gun barrel for tank) would not be needing much and generally small item are the one that needed replenishment (like food, ammo and daily necessarity like toilet paper and so on)

You can bunch it up with a few truck at the end of a column or you can airdrop such item. And FYI a soldiee usually carry food water and ammo for a 3 days operation. they can be stretch out for 5 or even 7 if you ration them. 300 rounds of ammo, 3 days mean and 5 liters of water enough for you to survive in battle for at least 3 days

about the SAT data uplink thing, yes they would have spoted the troop build up before the actual assault but the who doctrine is build base on Before Pakistani can mobilise and counter that attack, seeing it build up is not of concern as you still have something called "response" time. Which is what this doctrine exploit.

The reason Pakistan need to hold the whole line is because you cannot allow gap in an armoured assault. This is actually passing on from the time alexander the great fought with cavalry. If you dont hold the whole line, enemy will slip thru from the unopposed sector, turn around and attack some other target or the line from behind, then the defender will be caught with their pants down. This is basic tactics 101 stuff....

Depending on the lay out of Pakistan defence and the commanding ability of IA, you would need anywhere between 50k to 80k troop for this kind of operation

I want to quote regarding this...

Soviets restrained Germans by placing a massive anti tank defense during Kursk..the reason Blitzkreig failed there is because now,"Bypassing the Threat" means you'd have to travel hundreds of KMs..I don't think Pakistan is anywhere near to make that kind of defense.

you're correctly predicted the situation.but it is pretty much common that India would attack Pakistan either in Punjab or Rajastan,where tank is operable.in fact,Punjab will be most vulnerable as it is the heart of Pakistan.

@Genesis has said some funny points about Indian "AIrlift Capability","Road Conditions" etc.he doesn't know that you don't need that to fight in plains.the only problem is that Indian Sword Corps,or the Strike Corps are based deep inside Indian Heartland and it takes time to bring them near border.but then again,Indian Army practiced several times a large scale offensive exercises with satisfactory result.

the requirment is different from kursk and for CSD

German needs Nd wanted to engage the soviet armoured head on at some place, so they can weaken the soviet assault firc3, kursk is choosen for 2 reasons, 1, an attack on kursk would flatten the front line, mean you need less german troop to.defend against the soviet incursion 2 Area surround kursk is prime land for armored assault. The city of kursk is not of any importance for the german objective

Howevee, for cold start to work, indian need to occupy Pakistani city so they can barter on the negotiation table. You cannot hold the area surrounding lahore and hope to go get something out of the negotiation table.

that would mean they must attack and engage in Pakistani city, then thos3 city would become a serious strategic depth if pakistani decided to fight it out on urban warfare..

 

[GR!FF!N]

Howevee, for cold start to work, indian need to occupy Pakistani city so they can barter on the negotiation table. You cannot hold the area surrounding lahore and hope to go get something out of the negotiation table.

I doubt we need to capture cities to make it work.most of the times,Cities aren't fortified positions.even then,one can simply bypass and cut off the city's access points to make it work.not every time,occupation is needed.

 

[anonymus]

So all your troops are stationed in one place? You would need to concentrate troops and that requires air power, I mean if you want to get there before getting old..

No, in Flat rolling planes, there is no need of Air supply. It is costly and a single goods train could deliver more ammunition that a 300 plane fleet. Also there are more than enough Indian cantonments within 100 Km of border.

Indo-Pak border is well connected by both Railways and Roadways, and a Train journey from Indore to Amritsar just take 16 hours.

As to "fetish" with expressways, India includes way too much unpaved roads that leads from nowhere to nowhere. It plays no part in getting your troops to where they need to be. Expressways go from one major centre to another, it's also many lanes, with faster speeds and better road conditions to allow heavy equipment to move quickly.

No it does not include unpaved roads. They are not counted in any road statistics because they are not under jurisdiction of any authority.

And expressways are not synonymous with roads connecting urban centers.Probably only in China they are. Expressway means entry/exit controlled toll roads with higher speed limits. There are national highways, and state highways which connect Urban centers , apart from Expressways ( at least in India). Total length of such roads in India is 231160 Km which is more than double the length of Chinese expressways.And most of these highways are 4 laned.

Expressway does not give magical capacity to vehicles plying on it. It allows higher than normal speed by controlling access, thus reducing traffic. In war, every highway would be access controlled to allow faster military movement. Expressway is a civilian concept.