India Rejects Pak Proposal to relocate Heavy Artillery away from LoC

[Imran Khan]

Great decision. If pak convinces India to reduce artillery in LoC, then pak gets a chance to relocate them at afgh-pakborder and increase their assets over there. Till today pak was focusing only on India and hence are able to use their assets effectively with low budget. Now time has come for pak to split their arsenal and India should at no point allow them to relax.

for hell sake you read it?

proposal was 30km back not withdraw

how the hell man can we windrow from indian border? its now 10 years of WOT we don't need anymore assests from indo-pak border .for your kind info pakistan has very large numbers of artillery guns

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There have been multiple cases of pakistani forces providing cover to terrorists crossing over to Indian side in Kashmir this year as well. Even Kashmiris trapped on the Pakistani side were protesting

BBC News - Anti-militant protests in Pakistan's Neelum valley

Maybe Pakistan made this proposal to provide relief to these neelum valley residents, not for confidence building.

Wouldn't the relocation of artillery in fact reduce the ability of Pakistani forces to 'provide cover to insurgents/freedom fighters' crossing the LoC?

 

[StormShadow]

for hell sake you read it?

proposal was 30km back not withdraw

Are you nuts??? Why do you think pak asked India to move the guns 30kms? Just to see how they do it? If India pushes it's artillery, then pak can reduce the number of guns at LoC. Check this PAKISTANI link!!!

Pakistan May Reduce Artillery at LoC

 

[notsuperstitious]

Wouldn't the relocation of artillery in fact reduce the ability of Pakistani forces to 'provide cover to insurgents/freedom fighters' crossing the LoC?

The question is of intention of PA and ability of India to respond and make such efforts painful for PA. Obviously Indians assessment is that we need the guns to do that, and PA assessment is they can still provide cover without heavy guns.

Very difficult to trust PA, for anyone, and the measures were discussed with the civilian govt of Pakistan.

The real peace move Pakistan can offer is closing the tap completely, but with JUD publically holding rallies calling for Jihad in major pakistani cities, its difficult.

 

[Imran Khan]

Are you nuts??? Why do you think pak asked India to move the guns 30kms? Just to see how they do it? If India pushes it's artillery, then pak can reduce the number of guns at LoC. Check this PAKISTANI link!!!

Pakistan May Reduce Artillery at LoC

lolz you are the one whom behave like nut here dude . pakistan can not trust india and can't leave empty space for you guys .for artillery just check the numbers of guns and there locations before open your mouth .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If India pushes it's artillery, then pak can reduce the number of guns at LoC.

But wasn't the Indian rationale in rejecting the proposal precisely that Pakistan provides 'covering fire for insurgents' - so a reduction of Pakistani guns along the LoC would in fact address some of the Indian allegations ...

Ajeeb logic hai Indian military leadership ki ... but perhaps not so ajeeb, if we finally realize that it is the Indians who are the war-mongers and 'obsessed with Pakistan' ...

 

[StormShadow]

lolz you are the one whom behave like nut here dude . pakistan can not trust india and can't leave empty space for you guys .for artillery just check the numbers of guns and there locations before open your mouth .

It was pak which asked to reduce the guns at border. And you claim pak cannot trust India. Seriously...does it make any sense?

 

[Imran Khan]

The question is of intention of PA and ability of India to respond and make such efforts painful for PA. Obviously Indians assessment is that we need the guns to do that, and PA assessment is they can still provide cover without heavy guns.

if they are doing it you may feel heat like in 90s .pakistan was the one purpose ceasefire on LOC and pakistan is now sitting and watching otherwise let me remember you guys failed hundreds time to fence LOC before ceasefire . and cannot make 10metter fence till ceasefire .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The question is of intention of PA and ability of India to respond and make such efforts painful for PA. Obviously Indians assessment is that we need the guns to do that, and PA assessment is they can still provide cover without heavy guns.

Very difficult to trust PA, for anyone, and the measures were discussed with the civilian govt of Pakistan.

The 'cover' provided without heavy artillery would be far more direct and would require the units providing cover to be much closer to the LoC (and therefore to Indian troops and their fire).

In essence, 'covering fire' without heavy artillery would expose Pakistani troops providing the cover to more casualties and damage, and since the Indian side would maintain their infantry and light artillery, the argument that they would not be able to offer a 'proper response' is invalid.

 

[StormShadow]

But wasn't the Indian rationale in rejecting the proposal precisely that Pakistan provides 'covering fire for insurgents' - so a reduction of Pakistani guns along the LoC would in fact address some of the Indian allegations ...

Mere bhai...When India says pak provides cover for insurgents, It doesnot mean pak start shelling Indian positions with 120mm/150mm guns!!! It means pakistani soldiers fire with their assault rifles at Indian checkposts/troops.

 

[Imran Khan]

It was pak which asked to reduce the guns at border. And you claim pak cannot trust India. Seriously...does it make any sense?

pull back the artillery means trust and sleep tight ? guns can be bring on at 30 minutes notice dude . its not trust but good gesture and peace making effort which you guys reject like you are GODs .since 64 years when we ask for remove guns ? we have no issue to keep them there more 164 years . we start making our own artillery guns now . we are making each and every projectiles at WAH .i think you need to learn .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Mere bhai...When India says pak provides cover for insurgents, It doesnot mean pak start shelling Indian positions with 120mm/150mm guns!!! It means pakistani soldiers fire with their assault rifles at Indian checkposts/troops.

And what is stopping the Indians from responding with their own assault rifles? You do realize that the range of those things means engagement distances of a few hundred meters tops, so what is the point of artillery there?

 

[Yeti]

There is a trust deficit on this issue, perhaps a step too far at this stage due to some valid concern's raised by the Indian army but going forward it may well be adopted if things progress on the peace front.

 

[notsuperstitious]

The 'cover' provided without heavy artillery would be far more direct and would require the units providing cover to be much closer to the LoC (and therefore to Indian troops and their fire).

In essence, 'covering fire' without heavy artillery would expose Pakistani troops providing the cover to more casualties and damage, and since the Indian side would maintain their infantry and light artillery, the argument that they would not be able to offer a 'proper response' is invalid.

Not if Indian artillery enjoys an advantage, over all or in critical areas of the LOC. In that case we would have no reason to give that up and expose our soldiers to unnecessary attrition at the hands of non state actors that are cheap and expendible.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is a trust deficit on this issue, perhaps a step too far at this stage due to some valid concern's raised by the Indian army but going forward it may well be adopted if things progress on the peace front.

What are the 'IA's valid concerns' that have not been addressed on this thread, for example?