India’s armed forces

[Irfan Baloch]

I don't entirely agree. On balance, I would like to say that the civilians have far more influence over strategy and over foreign policy in India. The reason why you see excessive aggression from India, relatively speaking, is one that you have pointed out yourself; it was '...from Vajpai (sic) to this day.'

Precisement, Monsieur..

thanks for confirming and qualifying your word as "civilians" . the quoted person stresses that the elected government makes the calls on policy decisions.. I used the word establishment (hawks) both military and civilians who insist that the Pakistan's current predicament due to its involvement in American WOT is Godsend and must be utilised to keep up the pressure and refuse normalisation hoping that Pakistan will capitulate and will accept most unfavourable and hurtful proposals possible.
it doesn't look like it yes? but it is, your version of JuD or Jamat Islami is RSS which has made good penetration in the Indian security establishment. don't get me wrong here.. I am not making a moral argument between civilian and military input. CPEC is just one example where RAW & Indian military is driving the Indian campaign against the project.. though its own military maneuvers and blackops in Baluchistan and in Afghanistan.
the "civilian" government and institutions are not Doves either, they thrive on warmongering.. and the Indian military (in the background) ensures that they stay on course.
normalisation of relations between Indian and Pakistan will hit the Indian military the most (many fold .. looking at its budget) its just a happy coincidence that the current Indian PM has upped the ante against Pakistan.

 

[Joe Shearer]

thanks for confirming and qualifying your word as "civilians" . the quoted person stresses that the elected government makes the calls on policy decisions.. I used the word establishment (hawks) both military and civilians who insist that the Pakistan's current predicament due to its involvement in American WOT is Godsend and must be utilised to keep up the pressure and refuse normalisation hoping that Pakistan will capitulate and will accept most unfavourable and hurtful proposals possible.
it doesn't look like it yes? but it is, your version of JuD or Jamat Islami is RSS which has made good penetration in the Indian security establishment. don't get me wrong here.. I am not making a moral argument between civilian and military input. CPEC is just one example where RAW & Indian military is driving the Indian campaign against the project.. though its own military maneuvers and blackops in Baluchistan and in Afghanistan.
the "civilian" government and institutions are not Doves either, they thrive on warmongering.. and the Indian military (in the background) ensures that they stay on course.
normalisation of relations between Indian and Pakistan will hit the Indian military the most (many fold .. looking at its budget) its just a happy coincidence that the current Indian PM has upped the ante against Pakistan.

Too true, too true.

wo karein to raam lila ham karein to character dhela


Ab zee news ney 200 bandey maR diye ham 8000 ko bemar bhi na karwayien kahan gayi hamari desh bakhti

LOL.


OK, OK, your point, for the sheer wit.

 

[Arsalan]

Quote

“Every Pakistan post through which infiltration takes place should be reduced to rubble by artillery fire,” blustered a retired brigadier who now mans a think-tank in New Delhi, India’s capital.

Unquote.

Above quote is a typical war mongering diatribe bordering on arrogance. There is basic assumption that Indian attacks on selected areas of Pakistan would not invite similar response from Pakistan. India is not US and it is certain that any overt hostile action by the Indian military would invite a similar response from Pakistan and to hell with the consequences.

There is little doubt that in conventional forces terms, even discounting the Indian Navy; India is far stronger than Pakistan. Imbalance in the conventional forces now is worse than it was in 1971. Let us hypothetically analyse likelihood scenarios of an armed conflict between India & Pakistan.

Pakistani forces may not be strong enough to withstand Indian might for a long period, but for a limited war Pakistan has sufficient strength to withstand Indian onslaught. Therefore most likely scenario would be a limited war with International powers intervening to stop the conflict before the nuclear threshold is reached. Almost a repeat of the previous three wars on the India’s western front which resolved nothing. This means needless loss of life on both sides as the status quo remains.

An Indian break- through and resulting capture of substantial Pakistani territory would certainly invite use of tactical nukes which could expand into an all-out nuclear war. Believe me, there are no victors in a war where both sides have used nuclear weapons.

In the event that Pakistanis lose their nerve and don’t use nuclear weapons and are therefore defeated; Pakistan would be like Libya or Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Russian forces. This power vacuum would most likely result in the take-over by the jihadi elements. How would Indians cope with such an overtly hostile neighbour? Even if India permanently annexed Azad Kashmir & Punjab, given the troubles in IOK, would India like to face hundreds of suicide bombers who are able to move freely anywhere because they would then be Indian citizens?

As I have mentioned in an earlier post; notwithstanding the rhetoric; both the Indian Military High Command and the Indian gov’t realize that GOP has little control over the non- state actors. And that an armed India-Pak conflict, even limited to conventional weapons, would leave Pakistan too weak to combat the likes of TTP & Al-Qaida. Certainly not in the long term interest of India.

Indian interests are best served if Pakistan remains embroiled in internal struggle with the TTP in KPK, Punjab and in Karachi and with the Baluch separatists in the west. This would leave Pakistan military too occupied to do much about Indian actions in Kashmir but still strong enough to keep Islamic extremists in check. This is why India is helping Baluch insurgents and also the TTP through her Afghan missions and a change in Indian gov’t does not and would not translate into any change in Indian policy towards Pakistan or Kashmir; only difference being in the intensity of anti-Pakistan rhetoric.

In my considered opinion Indian reluctance to attack Pakistan by senseless bombardment as advocated by the arrogant Brigadier is the result of cool and calculated thinking. A proxy war in Baluchistan inflicts maximum damage to Pakistan without any loss of Indian life.

Excellent analysis sir, as always!

Can you share your thoughts on one more thing?

. A proxy war in Baluchistan inflicts maximum damage to Pakistan without any loss of Indian life

What if this is not working?
Or
What if this is not working as well as Indians would have wanted this to work?

It is quite obvious that a proxy war on our western front will keep us occupied to look eastwards and keep draining those limited resources. However let us consider a situation, and you can see that this is not pure fiction, where that hole is plugged by the Pakistan army and the government? What will be the Indian response then?

Allow to me explain it a bit further and also share what I think about this situation.

The thing is that, as you have correctly pointed it is way better for India to keep Pakistan occupied on the western front via proxies. However we cannot ignore the fact that PA have achieved significant success against TTP and its offshoots. The thing with BLA have not gotten the traction one would have wanted it to get. Also Baluchistan being a very low populated area and a very small part of that already small population involved, because of there even lesser number of prominent tribal leaders, in the Baluchistan unrest, it won’t have the desired effects. The numbers are likely to go down even further (and we see and hear about some small village and tribe leaders pledging alliance to army even now) as the general well-being of the area is worked upon and improved. Every sane Pakistani knows that if Pakistan is to progress and develop it will have to happen via Baluchistan. It is that untapped resource mine that we can work on. Huge lands sitting ideally to be transformed into modern urban spaces. With CPEC underway the future for that part of the country looks promising and the infrastructure development along with investments in shape of various small projects will form a nice base to build upon and will go a long way in improving the situation in the region. Also we see that the idea of getting more vocal about Baluchistan had not been welcomed with open arms by Iran or Afghanistan. Plus you never know when the alignment of these countries, like any other country, changes again! That is how things are now. So in short, with project BLA not really taking off and the project TTP shot down (both as explained are “quite possible” as I would not use the term “likely” for the sake of a balanced argument) what is the next move or alternate options?

Can it be getting involved directly on our eastern border? I do not see this as a sensible move and I do not think all people sitting in Delhi are nonsense!

Will it be getting directly involved by from the western side? Again, I am not sure how much Iran or even Afghanistan will welcome such a direct approach of hostility toward Pakistan and that too together with India.

Will be keep diplomatic pressure and a constant pressure to keep us on the back foot? This is the most likely situation but as the recent month or so have shown the concerned authorities are quite capable of messing and screwing up all the hard work of years and they are well supported by a idiotic media in such a campaign (reference to Kashmir problem and the attempts to cover up that followed with drop scene being the Uri attack and the week that followed)

I think this is something that only time will tell for sure and all we can do is speculate right now.

I think this is something that only time will tell for sure and all we can do is speculate right now.Will like to read what you have to say about this?

You too @WAJsal @Joe Shearer @hellfire @waz @Slav Defence ?
What do you have to say about this?

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Quote

“Every Pakistan post through which infiltration takes place should be reduced to rubble by artillery fire,” blustered a retired brigadier who now mans a think-tank in New Delhi, India’s capital.

Unquote.

Above quote is a typical war mongering diatribe bordering on arrogance. There is basic assumption that Indian attacks on selected areas of Pakistan would not invite similar response from Pakistan. India is not US and it is certain that any overt hostile action by the Indian military would invite a similar response from Pakistan and to hell with the consequences.

There is little doubt that in conventional forces terms, even discounting the Indian Navy; India is far stronger than Pakistan. Imbalance in the conventional forces now is worse than it was in 1971. Let us hypothetically analyse likelihood scenarios of an armed conflict between India & Pakistan.

Pakistani forces may not be strong enough to withstand Indian might for a long period, but for a limited war Pakistan has sufficient strength to withstand Indian onslaught. Therefore most likely scenario would be a limited war with International powers intervening to stop the conflict before the nuclear threshold is reached. Almost a repeat of the previous three wars on the India’s western front which resolved nothing. This means needless loss of life on both sides as the status quo remains.

An Indian break- through and resulting capture of substantial Pakistani territory would certainly invite use of tactical nukes which could expand into an all-out nuclear war. Believe me, there are no victors in a war where both sides have used nuclear weapons.

In the event that Pakistanis lose their nerve and don’t use nuclear weapons and are therefore defeated; Pakistan would be like Libya or Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Russian forces. This power vacuum would most likely result in the take-over by the jihadi elements. How would Indians cope with such an overtly hostile neighbour? Even if India permanently annexed Azad Kashmir & Punjab, given the troubles in IOK, would India like to face hundreds of suicide bombers who are able to move freely anywhere because they would then be Indian citizens?

As I have mentioned in an earlier post; notwithstanding the rhetoric; both the Indian Military High Command and the Indian gov’t realize that GOP has little control over the non- state actors. And that an armed India-Pak conflict, even limited to conventional weapons, would leave Pakistan too weak to combat the likes of TTP & Al-Qaida. Certainly not in the long term interest of India.

Indian interests are best served if Pakistan remains embroiled in internal struggle with the TTP in KPK, Punjab and in Karachi and with the Baluch separatists in the west. This would leave Pakistan military too occupied to do much about Indian actions in Kashmir but still strong enough to keep Islamic extremists in check. This is why India is helping Baluch insurgents and also the TTP through her Afghan missions and a change in Indian gov’t does not and would not translate into any change in Indian policy towards Pakistan or Kashmir; only difference being in the intensity of anti-Pakistan rhetoric.

In my considered opinion Indian reluctance to attack Pakistan by senseless bombardment as advocated by the arrogant Brigadier is the result of cool and calculated thinking. A proxy war in Baluchistan inflicts maximum damage to Pakistan without any loss of Indian life.

in the words of an Indian diplomat

A former Indian diplomat, M.K. Bhadrakumar has criticised the Indian media as well as the "bombastic" [Indian] leadership for misleading and making the Indian public “delusional” on Pakistan.


yet another comment by another Indian contrary to Chrstine fair's touting of going aahead with war

Ajai Shukla, a former Indian army colonel who is now the strategic affairs editor of the Business Standard, told CNN that India was “not strategically prepared” to launch an attack.

“One also cannot ignore the fact that Pakistan has the 11th biggest army in the world,” he said. “We’re in a symmetrical relationship. The consequences of any form of attack are far worse than people realise.”

 

[Mrc]

It would be India's mistake to regard Pakistan as "not a match at all". It has a formidable military indeed. And India's social development is just as abysmal as Pakistan's. In terms of the economic struggle, they are pretty evenly matched right now. Let's see who pulls ahead this time, but that will take a sustained emphasis on the economy and away from the military.

Telling it to people who have just put 9 billion USD down the drain.... french rafael drain

 

[niaz]

Excellent analysis sir, as always!

Can you share your thoughts on one more thing?

What if this is not working?
Or
What if this is not working as well as Indians would have wanted this to work?

It is quite obvious that a proxy war on our western front will keep us occupied to look eastwards and keep draining those limited resources. However let us consider a situation, and you can see that this is not pure fiction, where that hole is plugged by the Pakistan army and the government? What will be the Indian response then?

Allow to me explain it a bit further and also share what I think about this situation.

The thing is that, as you have correctly pointed it is way better for India to keep Pakistan occupied on the western front via proxies. However we cannot ignore the fact that PA have achieved significant success against TTP and its offshoots. The thing with BLA have not gotten the traction one would have wanted it to get. Also Baluchistan being a very low populated area and a very small part of that already small population involved, because of there even lesser number of prominent tribal leaders, in the Baluchistan unrest, it won’t have the desired effects. The numbers are likely to go down even further (and we see and hear about some small village and tribe leaders pledging alliance to army even now) as the general well-being of the area is worked upon and improved. Every sane Pakistani knows that if Pakistan is to progress and develop it will have to happen via Baluchistan. It is that untapped resource mine that we can work on. Huge lands sitting ideally to be transformed into modern urban spaces. With CPEC underway the future for that part of the country looks promising and the infrastructure development along with investments in shape of various small projects will form a nice base to build upon and will go a long way in improving the situation in the region. Also we see that the idea of getting more vocal about Baluchistan had not been welcomed with open arms by Iran or Afghanistan. Plus you never know when the alignment of these countries, like any other country, changes again! That is how things are now. So in short, with project BLA not really taking off and the project TTP shot down (both as explained are “quite possible” as I would not use the term “likely” for the sake of a balanced argument) what is the next move or alternate options?

Can it be getting involved directly on our eastern border? I do not see this as a sensible move and I do not think all people sitting in Delhi are nonsense!

Will it be getting directly involved by from the western side? Again, I am not sure how much Iran or even Afghanistan will welcome such a direct approach of hostility toward Pakistan and that too together with India.

Will be keep diplomatic pressure and a constant pressure to keep us on the back foot? This is the most likely situation but as the recent month or so have shown the concerned authorities are quite capable of messing and screwing up all the hard work of years and they are well supported by a idiotic media in such a campaign (reference to Kashmir problem and the attempts to cover up that followed with drop scene being the Uri attack and the week that followed)

I think this is something that only time will tell for sure and all we can do is speculate right now.

I think this is something that only time will tell for sure and all we can do is speculate right now.Will like to read what you have to say about this?

You too @WAJsal @Joe Shearer @hellfire @waz @Slav Defence ?
What do you have to say about this?

Even the best plans do not work as intended. I am hoping that Indian plans will fail as well. However my post was in response to the article that discussed the reasons as to why India with her overwhelming military supriority is not responding in the way Israel does to the Palestinians, where for each Israeli soldier killed, Israeli reprisal bombing kills more than 100 Palestinians.

I believe that reason for India not making a preemptive strike or a direct military response; even though it has been threatened is result of calculated analysis.

 

[Arsalan]

Even the best plans do not work as intended. I am hoping that Indian plans will fail as well. However my post was in response to the article that discussed the reasons as to why India with her overwhelming military supriority is not responding in the way Israel does to the Palestinians, where for each Israeli soldier killed, Israeli reprisal bombing kills more than 100 Palestinians.

I believe that reason for India not making a preemptive strike or a direct military response; even though it has been threatened is result of calculated analysis.

hmmmm...
So i wont be able to get anything more out of you on that "What if.... "


(I got your point the first time as well, just wanted to know what you have to say about the future )

 

[VCheng]

I believe that reason for India not making a preemptive strike or a direct military response; even though it has been threatened is result of calculated analysis.

Sir, Pakistan's policies are just as calculated as India's, to be able to push things to the limit, but no further. It has kept issues at the right sort of boil without flashing over. In the longer term, the economy will determine who gets their way.

 

[Hellfire]

@Arsalan

I did point out the validity of the points of @niaz , especially the third point, you may refer to @nair , who has had to listen to my innuendos to no end in that regard. Did not tag you on that as am right now avoiding any lengthy discussions for another few days as you are aware, and yo being you, are tenacious and need an exhaustive engagement.

Hold onto that thought. I have some more to say on that once am free.

However, as @Irfan Baloch has mentioned about Ajai Shukla, the gentleman's actions have some vested interests. I would not only not ignore him, I would rather rule him out with the 'snort of derision' as I have had the pleasure of interacting with him in his blog on numerous earlier occasions and half his contentions were debunked by me, especially over armor and tank induction policy of IA, and then I merely gave up.

@Syed.Ali.Haider has adequately summed up the situation. The sub-threshold approach towards waging a hybrid warfare by both the nations. Only, if you recollect, I have been emphasizing calibrated escalation of costs for Pakistan being the mainstay of policy for India.

The only area where there has been a policy shift in the GoI has been in the differentiation between calibrated 'proportional response' being changed over to calibrated 'disproportional response' in order to establish a regime of incrementally exacting the costs in order to enhance a dissuasive effect.

 

[nair]

in the words of an Indian diplomat

A former Indian diplomat, M.K. Bhadrakumar has criticised the Indian media as well as the "bombastic" [Indian] leadership for misleading and making the Indian public “delusional” on Pakistan.


yet another comment by another Indian contrary to Chrstine fair's touting of going aahead with war

Ajai Shukla, a former Indian army colonel who is now the strategic affairs editor of the Business Standard, told CNN that India was “not strategically prepared” to launch an attack.

“One also cannot ignore the fact that Pakistan has the 11th biggest army in the world,” he said. “We’re in a symmetrical relationship. The consequences of any form of attack are far worse than people realise.”

While agreeing to the over all point you made, Do no count too much on "Ajay Shukla".....

Also we see that the idea of getting more vocal about Baluchistan had not been welcomed with open arms by Iran or Afghanistan. Plus you never know when the alignment of these countries, like any other country, changes again!

@hellfire We have an unfinished agenda.... May be towards second week of october ????

 

[Arsalan]

@Arsalan

I did point out the validity of the points of @niaz , especially the third point, you may refer to @nair , who has had to listen to my innuendos to no end in that regard. Did not tag you on that as am right now avoiding any lengthy discussions for another few days as you are aware, and yo being you, are tenacious and need an exhaustive engagement.

Hold onto that thought. I have some more to say on that once am free..

@hellfire We have an unfinished agenda.... May be towards second week of october ????

Sure thing

 

[SrNair]

It would be India's mistake to regard Pakistan as "not a match at all". It has a formidable military indeed. And India's social development is just as abysmal as Pakistan's. In terms of the economic struggle, they are pretty evenly matched right now. Let's see who pulls ahead this time, but that will take a sustained emphasis on the economy and away from the military.

I dont think so.
You can compare the benefits of our military,ex military with that of Pakistan's.
Economic situation in Southeen India is best in South Asia and comparable to other parts of Asia.
Of Course they have military ,but what is the use of that formidableness when you dont have an economy to back up you in this world.

Pakistan is struggling in international forums because of our economic might.

 

[VCheng]

I dont think so.
You can compare the benefits of our military,ex military with that of Pakistan's.
Economic situation in Southeen India is best in South Asia and comparable to other parts of Asia.
Of Course they have military ,but what is the use of that formidableness when you dont have an economy to back up you in this world.

Pakistan is struggling in international forums because of our economic might.

As long as Modi has not delivered on the hype about India's miracle economy that was the reason for his election, Pakistan and India are more evenly matched in long term economic prospects than many realize. India's strengths are its size and its better governance, but Pakistan has its plus points too, such as an establishment willing to pay any price in social development to keep parity in certain chosen areas.

@Syed.Ali.Haider has adequately summed up the situation. The sub-threshold approach towards waging a hybrid warfare by both the nations. Only, if you recollect, I have been emphasizing calibrated escalation of costs for Pakistan being the mainstay of policy for India.

The only area where there has been a policy shift in the GoI has been in the differentiation between calibrated 'proportional response' being changed over to calibrated 'disproportional response' in order to establish a regime of incrementally exacting the costs in order to enhance a dissuasive effect.

As long as the escalated costs are paid up as a matter of national survival, Pakistan will continue to play this rather successfully. Remember that asymmetric warfare can be surprisingly economical for the disadvantaged side.

 

[SrNair]

As long as Modi has not delivered on the hype about India's miracle economy that was the reason for his election, Pakistan and India are more evenly matched in long term economic prospects than many realize. India's strengths are its size and its better governance, but Pakistan has its plus points too, such as an establishment willing to pay any price in social development to keep parity in certain chosen areas.



As long as the escalated costs are paid up as a matter of national survival, Pakistan will continue to play this rather successfully. Remember that asymmetric warfare can be surprisingly economical for the disadvantaged side.

Weird logic.
Long term prospects can only work if you have current strong prospects.India already scoring 7plus GDP.Now GST passed and at least it will increase 1 .5% even if GoI couldnt do further reforms (that wouldnt be the case).

Economic wise Pakistan has the GDP of our one state Maharashtra.
Pakistan's parity is only in nuclear weapons .No more no less.Be it in S&T,Space Research etc .
They are already outclassed.

 

[VCheng]

Weird logic.
Long term prospects can only work if you have current strong prospects.India already scoring 7plus GDP.Now GST passed and at least it will increase 1 .5% even if GoI couldnt do further reforms (that wouldnt be the case).

Economic wise Pakistan has the GDP of our one state Maharashtra.
Pakistan's parity is only in nuclear weapons .No more no less.Be it in S&T,Space Research etc .
They are already outclassed.

But that is exactly the beauty of asymmetric warfare. Keep in mind that India's global aspirations may have a much harder time being achieved without settling its issues with Pakistan.