Infiltration bid foiled, five militants killed in J&K

[illusion8]

Militancy in Kashmir is going to be weak with every year passing now. Back in 90s we didn't have proper surveillance on LOC neither LOC was properly guarded(no fence, no electronic survelliance, no drones etc) but now things have changed and going to be better with every day passing. Then we deployed BSF as counter-insurgency force which had no experience in that. Only after 1995, we formed a dedicated CT force 'Rashtriya Rifles' but in very small numbers(5000). Back then Kashmir Police had no role in counter-insurgency neither they had man'power. But atleast these drawbacks have been sorted out now as BSF is no more deployed for counter-insurgency(just safeguarding some places) and Rashtriya Rifles are in great numbers with experience more than anybody in world(80,000 troops). Kashmiri Police has been trained in great numbers and they saw great success recently. LOC has been all fenced and being guarded with modern equipments like drones and Thermal cameras. So conclusion is that, militants can't do better than they are doing now a days. @Abingdonboy @janon @INDIC @illusion8

Sure....our defenses are up - but what about offense?

As the saying goes - RR needs to be lucky every time but the terrorists needs to be lucky just once.

 

[janon]

The same "rag tag mujahideens" who along with pakistan defeated the russians, checkmated the US-NATO in afghanistan but some how the indian army is going bring them under control.

The same rag-tag mujahideens that allegedly brought down the USSR, but cannot take an inch of land from India for so many decades, let alone breaking her up.

Get real. The USSR collapsed because of its own internal troubles. The mujahideen groups could hold off against thm because they were backed, financed and trained by another superpower, the USA. Without the stinger missiles and such advanced weaponry and training by the green berets, the mujahideens would have been mincemeat.

Besides, at that time, the mujahideens were fighting a guerilla war in their own country, which is suited for guerilla warfare. They were not fighting expeditionary war in another country. The notion that they can come to India and take Kashmir is risible. 67 years of past history is testament to that.

The main reason for USSR's collapse was the pressures of the cold war. Not mard-e-momins from Pakistan.

I repeat: Neither the pak army, nor those rag tag bearded gunmen can take our Kashmir from us. You have been trying or several decades, and always ended up as shown in those pictures.

 

[Dillinger]

So you think that pakistan does want a fair settlement on the issue even after musharraff handed you nearly everything you wanted.



When you think its your territory you dont go to the UN and ask them to resolve the issue.



Please... less of the "eternal vigilance"......were not not trying out to be a hollywood script writers job.




I think you will find the balance has swung into pakistan favour after to tested your nukes and pakistan did likewise.......before pakistan would have to think twice before taking kashmir as the indian army would move into punjab but with knowledge that any movement by indian forces into punjab would be met by battlefield nukes in pakistan territory thus keeping the battle confined to kashmir.




A bit more detail on the pictures would be good......how have the bodies ended up in the same spot?.....if its a sniper then why have non of the militants run but rather stood together to get picked off....looks a bit they have been executed rather then snipered.
And going of past indian reports that they killed militants that then turned to be staged i would be careful with indian claims until its been thoroughly proved.



Even after the americans say that india is using proxies against pakistan you bury your head.



The same "rag tag mujahideens" who along with pakistan defeated the russians, checkmated the US-NATO in afghanistan but some how the indian army is going bring them under control.



Simple.......pakistan and india take joint control of kashmir.

A settlement as such is not predicated by the sentiments of the people, any statement asserting otherwise is nothing but a farce. Musharraf's offer can neither be put back on the table by the GOP nor will it be feasible for them to try and posit any arguments in its favor under the current scenario.

The UN is irrelevant in this issue. The time when it could either pressurize us or influence us on this matter is long past. Our stand has always been that this is a bilateral affair and that stand has largely been accepted. One needs to only look at the official release from the White House during the recent LOC violations or the PRC's repeated statements during Kargil which re-assert our stand wrt the nature of the issue.

The nuclear overhang in the subcontinent ensures that a large scale war is not feasible anymore, containing the conflict to Kashmir and rendering it into a LIC-scenario. A scenario which we can live with. Grasp the nuance here, we can live with it but it is not the ideal situation. Of late proxy warfare has opened various avenues for India itself, given that the various proscribed organisations operating in Pakistan have inflicted casualties in the last decade alone which match the quantum of casualties that India has borne in three decades. As such Pakistan's own proverbial Achilles heal has been uncovered, its weak state institutions and fragmented national identity have proven to be ideal road blocks against its otherwise well trained war-fighters in an LIC afflicted nation. Thereby rendering sustained proxy war an option that is no longer without its own costs as far as Pakistan is concerned.

The Indian army and associated forces in the valley have indeed done what neither the US could do nor the Soviets. This success is primarily based on the fact that the operational environment in the valley is far different from the one present in Af. Any sweeping statements or assertions made without taking cognizance of the said unique operational environment, political paradigms and strategic considerations prevalent in the valley are nothing more than abject hyperbole.

There will neither be joint control nor any trade-off. The Kashmir conflict has entered a phase which shall be decided by endurance and Pakistan's endurance has been shown to be poor. India has prospered with the oft japed upon number of 40+ insurgencies which have raged on for nearly 50 years in some cases while Pakistan has all but been brought to its knees under the weight of just one in the last one decade. That is not persistence, not perseverance and most definitely not a mark of endurance.

 

[illusion8]

The India army and associated forces in the valley have indeed done what neither the US could do nor the Soviets.

In a third country with hostiles all around and a back stabbing ally for the US to boot.

This success is primarily based on the fact that the operational environment in the valley is far different from the one present in Af. Any sweeping statements or assertions made without taking cognizance of the said unique operational environment, political paradigms and strategic considerations relevant in the valley are nothing more than abject hyperbole.

I am not denying the successes - but we aren't close to a solution - no where close - Agreed, we have kept the locals away from extremism, we have made the proxy war opponent pay a heavy price - but I don't see any concrete solution - not even aware of what our objective is in the end and what is our targeted time frame and cost analysis of achieving it. Do we even know what we want to achieve there? or the policy is just wait and watch and see how the situation changes over a period of time.

 

[janon]

...
Do we even know what we want to achieve there? or the policy is just wait and watch and see how the situation changes over a period of time.

Oh of course, we have a concrete objective, one that is well within our ability. Our objective is to keep our territory for ourselves. Plain and simple. We have done that so far, and by all indications, we shall continue to do so. Meanwhile our adversarys capability to wage conventional war on us has been rendered non existent, and they have also been severely weakened as a state and as a nation. Those are added bonuses.

 

[illusion8]

Oh of course, we have a concrete objective, one that is well within our ability. Our objective is to keep our territory for ourselves. Plain and simple. We have done that so far, and by all indications, we shall continue to do so. Meanwhile our adversarys capability to wage conventional war on us has been rendered non existent, and they have also been severely weakened as a state and as a nation. Those are added bonuses.

The great status quo mantra - all the while when the opponent keeps nibbling away at it, and god forbid an unfortunate turn of events occurs that brings a lameduck leader like Nehru who writes/ signs off accords like the IWT, Shimla etc that makes us fight for our own territories.

As I said many are pleased with the lucky turn of events (WOT) that considerably eroded - as you say, the conventional fighting ability or messed up the economy but hasn't reduced their proxy war fighting abilities. many are happy with the decade of relative 'reduced infiltration' (owing to WOT and no other reason) that we had to bolster up defenses, which incidentally will make them desperate and make them come really hard at us now. I am glad but not happy, I would be happy on total termination of proxy war capability or at least the means of doing it.

 

[INDIC]

The same "rag tag mujahideens" who along with pakistan defeated the russians, checkmated the US-NATO in afghanistan but some how the indian army is going bring them under control.

But last 25 years has proved that India's counterinsurgency operation in Kashmir is too much successful. I also read that the most of the militants of Punjabi Taliban are the militants who were once fighting in Kashmir.

 

[janon]

The great status quo mantra - all the while when the opponent keeps nibbling away at it, and god forbid an unfortunate turn of events occurs that brings a lameduck leader like Nehru who writes/ signs off accords like the IWT, Shimla etc that makes us fight for our own territories.

As I said many are pleased with the lucky turn of events (WOT) that considerably eroded - as you say, the conventional fighting ability or messed up the economy but hasn't reduced their proxy war fighting abilities. many are happy with the decade of relative 'reduced infiltration' (owing to WOT and no other reason) that we had to bolster up defenses, which incidentally will make them desperate and make them come really hard at us now. I am glad but not happy, I would be happy on total termination of proxy war capability or at least the means of doing it.

Both those bolded parts are wrong. The opponent has not nibbled away even an inch of our territory, and that was my point. Our objective was always to keep our territory, and we always have.

As for the other part - no, the reduction of insurgency was not dues to the WoT, but because of the way our army has sealed off the border, and how a world class counter insurgency force (RR) has taken root in the disputed territory. There is no shortage of uneducated terrorist manpower in Pakistan - it's not like the WoT has produced a serious shortage of jehadis. Even before the WoT began, India had begun achieving successes in reducing the insurgency.

As of now, insurgency has been all but wiped out from our territory. As for foreign militants, we are in a position to ensure that all of them will die at the border. It is not a numbers game any more - whether they can bring in 100 illiterate jehadis or a million, they will first have to infiltrate through the border. That is not possible any more due to the impenetrable and multi layered defensive perimeter that the IA has laid down.

So Kashmir rising up in flames like the early 90s is not going to happen any more. Afghans or talibunnies or jehadis or non state actors or Pakistanis or Uzbeks or militants or terrorists or "freedom fighters" (afghans fighing for freedom near Kashmir) or mujahideens or lashkars cannot do a thing about it.

Indian Kashmir will remain Indian.

 

[illusion8]

Both those bolded parts are wrong. The opponent has not nibbled away even an inch of our territory, and that was my point. Our objective was always to keep our territory, and we always have.

As for the other part - no, the reduction of insurgency was not dues to the WoT, but because of the way our army has sealed off the border, and how a world class counter insurgency force (RR) has taken root in the disputed territory. There is no shortage of uneducated terrorist manpower in Pakistan - it's not like the WoT has produced a serious shortage of jehadis. Even before the WoT began, India had begun achieving successes in reducing the insurgency.

As of now, insurgency has been all but wiped out from our territory. As for foreign militants, we are in a position to ensure that all of them will die at the border. It is not a numbers game any more - whether they can bring in 100 illiterate jehadis or a million, they will first have to infiltrate through the border. That is not possible any more due to the impenetrable and multi layered defensive perimeter that the IA has laid down.

So Kashmir rising up in flames like the early 90s is not going to happen any more. Afghans or talibunnies or jehadis or non state actors or Pakistanis or Uzbeks or militants or terrorists or "freedom fighters" (afghans fighing for freedom near Kashmir) or mujahideens or lashkars cannot do a thing about it.

Indian Kashmir will remain Indian.

Dude, I am not arguing here about India losing territory - when I say they are niggling away at our status quo I mean putting holes via various means in that position.

I am not even saying that they are capable of taking over Kashmir - when I ask for decisive action - that action is to prevent India getting sucked in (as it is right now) into a long prolonged low intensity proxy war, where our more than required troops have to remain active all year round.

They took the foot of the pedal when it comes to insurgency is because of WOT and the presence of various intelligence and government agencies being present in Pakistan for long duration of time and them deploying more troops on their western flank.

I am sure Indian forces are quite capable of taking out each and every infiltrator - what I am talking about avoiding is the long protracted cost in both men, material and resources that we have to expend over decades in that region - what I am saying is Indian forces are being bogged down and kept engaged in Kashmir for a reason.

I am not even saying that there will be large scale terrorism similar to the 90's in Kashmir - what I am saying is that we are taking a defensive position - and that's the only position we are taking as of now, we are killing the rats which are infiltrating but doing nothing to neutralize the source.

What it all concludes into is India is paying a cost because of constant fighting, human rights issues, enormous stress on our troops, occasional deaths of our soldiers, enormous expenses incurred - which logically should have been culled at the source.

 

[janon]

Dude, I am not arguing here about India losing territory - when I say they are niggling away at our status quo I mean putting holes via various means in that position.

...

What it all concludes into is India is paying a cost because of constant fighting, human rights issues, enormous stress on our troops, occasional deaths of our soldiers, enormous expenses incurred - which logically should have been culled at the source.

Yes, I know and understand that that I what you are saying. But as I said before, I too lament the fact that we have to keep spending resources for a seemingly endless confict. But as I also said before, we don't know a way to avoid that and put an end to it once and for all. So even though both of us are unhappy about it, it is something we would have to do.

Also, I should mention that it is possible (actually, it is very likely) if we can maintain this status quo long enough, our cost of maintaining the status quo will keep diminishing - as it has, thus far. Pakistan's ability to sustain this status quo is getting nibbled away (to use your expression) every year. And Pakistan's state is itself in the ICU and worsening, and consequently unable to support the insurgency. There may come a time when it no longer matters to us, because Pakistan's ability to wage asymmetric war will also keep coming, just as their ability to fight a conventional one with us diminished to zero over the decades.

It seems logical that if we keep fighting this war, eventually the weaker side will have to lose.

To quote a song from the old DD serial 'Ramayana' (Anybody remember watching it?):

"Samar mein sada, ek hi paksh jeetha (In war, only one side can ultimately win)
Vijay hogi mandothiri ya ki Sita, (Either mandothiris' side, or Sita's
.....
Bhala Dharm se paap kitna ladega, (How long can wrong war against righteousness)
Ya jhukna padega ya mitna padega (Finally it will have to bow in defeat, or be erased from existence)
..."


Meaning, one side in this Kashmir conflict will eventually win through attrition, and at the moment, only one side seems to be doing so!

 

[illusion8]

Yes, I know and understand that that I what you are saying. But as I said before, I too lament the fact that we have to keep spending resources for a seemingly endless confict. But as I also said before, we don't know a way to avoid that and put an end to it once and for all. So even though both of us are unhappy about it, it is something we would have to do.

Also, I should mention that it is possible (actually, it is very likely) if we can maintain this status quo long enough, our cost of maintaining the status quo will keep diminishing - as it has, thus far. Pakistan's ability to sustain this status quo is getting nibbled away (to use your expression) every year. And Pakistan's state is itself in the ICU and worsening, and consequently unable to support the insurgency. There may come a time when it no longer matters to us, because Pakistan's ability to wage asymmetric war will also keep coming, just as their ability to fight a conventional one with us diminished to zero over the decades.

It seems logical that if we keep fighting this war, eventually the weaker side will have to lose.

To quote a song from the old DD serial 'Ramayana' (Anybody remember watching it?):

"Samar mein sada, ek hi paksh jeetha (In war, only one side can ultimately win)
Vijay hogi mandothiri ya ki Sita, (Either mandothiris' side, or Sita's
.....
Bhala Dharm se paap kitna ladega, (How long can wrong war against righteousness)
Ya jhukna padega ya mitna padega (Finally it will have to bow in defeat, or be erased from existence)
..."


Meaning, one side in this Kashmir conflict will eventually win through attrition, and at the moment, only one side seems to be doing so!

I too get Karan's "monkey trap" and the status quo power game....we just wait for them to end themselves....

but,

There are 3-4 worries about maintaining a long prolonged status quo battle - off the top of my head I'll list down a few here. These are all big "if's".

1. The biggest one is we get into a two front war and as a ceasefire agreement get into signing some kind of treaty.

2. The Islamic propaganda that Pakistan has unleashed puts Kashmir on the map of Islamic jihaad that gets funded and manned by the jihaadi machinery that's at work in Syria, Afghanistan and some African countriesand soon to be unleashed in Burma and Kashmir becomes a hotspot of Islamic terrorism.

3. Some fked up leader comes to power and signs off an unfavorable accord in the hope of bringing non existent peace.

My contention is why leave a wound to fester for so long? when it's apparently clear that we are always caught on the wrong foot and sleeping.

 

[dabong1]

The same rag-tag mujahideens that allegedly brought down the USSR, but cannot take an inch of land from India for so many decades, let alone breaking her up.

Get real. The USSR collapsed because of its own internal troubles. The mujahideen groups could hold off against thm because they were backed, financed and trained by another superpower, the USA. Without the stinger missiles and such advanced weaponry and training by the green berets, the mujahideens would have been mincemeat.

Besides, at that time, the mujahideens were fighting a guerilla war in their own country, which is suited for guerilla warfare. They were not fighting expeditionary war in another country. The notion that they can come to India and take Kashmir is risible. 67 years of past history is testament to that.

The main reason for USSR's collapse was the pressures of the cold war. Not mard-e-momins from Pakistan.

I repeat: Neither the pak army, nor those rag tag bearded gunmen can take our Kashmir from us. You have been trying or several decades, and always ended up as shown in those pictures.

Whats your excuse when it comes to the US-NATO forces getting defeated by the "rag tag bearded gunmen"?

But last 25 years has proved that India's counterinsurgency operation in Kashmir is too much successful. I also read that the most of the militants of Punjabi Taliban are the militants who were once fighting in Kashmir.

Love the way you just have added another 15 years to what was a 8-10 year old battle until sep 11th.

 

[dabong1]

A settlement as such is not predicated by the sentiments of the people, any statement asserting otherwise is nothing but a farce. Musharraf's offer can neither be put back on the table by the GOP nor will it be feasible for them to try and posit any arguments in its favor under the current scenario.

So you understand why pakistan has to use force.

The UN is irrelevant in this issue. The time when it could either pressurize us or influence us on this matter is long past. Our stand has always been that this is a bilateral affair and that stand has largely been accepted. One needs to only look at the official release from the White House during the recent LOC violations or the PRC's repeated statements during Kargil which re-assert our stand wrt the nature of the issue.

Indian govt statements of kashmir are irrelevant as the whole international community knows that state terror is being used on the people of kashmir.

The nuclear overhang in the subcontinent ensures that a large scale war is not feasible anymore, containing the conflict to Kashmir and rendering it into a LIC-scenario. A scenario which we can live with. Grasp the nuance here, we can live with it but it is not the ideal situation. Of late proxy warfare has opened various avenues for India itself, given that the various proscribed organisations operating in Pakistan have inflicted casualties in the last decade alone which match the quantum of casualties that India has borne in three decades. As such Pakistan's own proverbial Achilles heal has been uncovered, its weak state institutions and fragmented national identity have proven to be ideal road blocks against its otherwise well trained war-fighters in an LIC afflicted nation. Thereby rendering sustained proxy war an option that is no longer without its own costs as far as Pakistan is concerned.

And the statements by US officials about indians involvement in terror activity in pakistan must just be lies?

The Indian army and associated forces in the valley have indeed done what neither the US could do nor the Soviets. This success is primarily based on the fact that the operational environment in the valley is far different from the one present in Af. Any sweeping statements or assertions made without taking cognizance of the said unique operational environment, political paradigms and strategic considerations prevalent in the valley are nothing more than abject hyperbole.

You where taking heavy hits in kashmir until sep 11th saved you.......trying to pass it off as some sort of indian success is just a fantasy.

There will neither be joint control nor any trade-off. The Kashmir conflict has entered a phase which shall be decided by endurance and Pakistan's endurance has been shown to be poor. India has prospered with the oft japed upon number of 40+ insurgencies which have raged on for nearly 50 years in some cases while Pakistan has all but been brought to its knees under the weight of just one in the last one decade. That is not persistence, not perseverance and most definitely not a mark of endurance.

Well it wont be long before the US removes its protection of the indians in afghanistan and then it will be fun.
"Pakistan bought to its knees"....wishful thinking

 

[INDIC]

Love the way you just have added another 15 years to what was a 8-10 year old battle until sep 11th.

What you found loving about it, Compared to Kashmir 20 times more people die in Karachi every year in violence.

 

[janon]

Whats your excuse when it comes to the US-NATO forces getting defeated by the "rag tag bearded gunmen"?

Read the post you quoted, and you will know.

1) They did NOT defeat the NATO coalition, on the contrary, they were ousted from power by NATO, and reduced to doing periodic terror attacks.

2) They can continue waging a guerilla war, because as explained in the post you quoted (but presumably failed to read), their country is suited for guerilla war, being full of mountainous regions and barren lands. But it's not like they can touch a hair on the head of one American or other NATO country citizen, away from their own country.

Being guerillas in their own country is very different from expeditionary war in far off lands. For that, you have to be a very strong and professional military power, not bearded gunmen with a primitive ideology. Which is why, as I said before, they may do guerilla war in their country, unable to take control of their country as long as NATO is present, but they will NOT fight away from their homeland. And even within their territory, all they can do is hit and run attacks against their own people.

Them stealing Kashmir from India? Ha ha ha. They won't even get past the LoC, without finding out the mysteries of the afterlife.