Myth of 700000 forces in kashmir

[Paan Singh]

NEW DELHI: India plans to withdraw 10,000 paramilitary troops from Kashmir in 2011 and renew efforts to hold talks in the rebellion-hit Himalayan region, a top government official said Sunday.

A separatist insurgency has raged in Kashmir for 20 years and at least 114 people died in street protests last summer in pitched battles with security forces.


"I think this year we can easily take out 10 battalions (10,000 personnel), if not more," Indian Home Secretary Gopal Pillai told the Press Trust of India news agency.

"Irrespective of the situation, I can take out 10 battalions and it would not have any impact."

There are currently 70,000 paramilitary troops in Indian Kashmir plus 100,000-150,000 army soldiers.

Many state politicians in Kashmir believe their huge presence has fuelled recent deadly violence.

"There are more than adequate forces in Kashmir and it can do with less central forces," Pillai, the home ministry's top civil servant, said.

"You have to start talking to other people and get fresh ideas so I think we have to reach out to the people of Kashmir."

Security forces opening fire at separatist demonstrations have triggered a cycle of violence in Kashmir over recent summers, and the government in New Delhi is keen to calm tensions in the year ahead.

India to pull 10,000 troops from Kashmir - Economic Times

I m sick of the 700000 number used by pakistanis about the indian army presence in kashmir.So i posted a article of 2011 which tells about the number of forces in kashmir.I have seen 700000 number in even western media many times but there is nothing like dat.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Never understand why people cry foul even if there were 700000 troops.

Kashmir is a region where India's external threats geographically coincide. Also in the past wars, we"ve lost land in this region, as defence has been traditionally difficult, its natural Kashmir will be well consolidated.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Correct or not, 700000 sounds much better for propaganda and mass frenzy. Any case, as I've said its not a bad thing if Pakistan keeps focus on Kashmir.

 

[Paan Singh]

Never understand why people cry foul even if there were 700000 troops.

Kashmir is a region where India's external threat geographically coincide. Also in the past wars, we"ve lost land in this region, as defence has been traditionally difficult, its natural Kashmir will be well consolidated.

Other reason is....

WE are not capable to deploy troops in mass if needed urgently so we stationed dem there permanently until unless we dont get the capability to shift troops swiftly.

we saw in kargil even,we cudn't deploy them in short time.

 

[Yogi]

Never understand why people cry foul even if there were 700000 troops.

Kashmir is a region where India's external threats geographically coincide. Also in the past wars, we"ve lost land in this region, as defence has been traditionally difficult, its natural Kashmir will be well consolidated.

Thats what Pakistanis r feed at schools n by media, they same way they cry India is 7 times larger than Pak, Hindus Baniyas r busy prosecuting Muslims all over India....

 

[Windjammer]

Thats what Pakistanis r feed at schools n by media, they same way they cry India is 7 times larger than Pak, Hindus Baniyas r busy prosecuting Muslims all over India....

indeed, with you Indians it's an acute case of blind leading blind....much obsession Pakistan, even a report in GSO discriminates that figure.

By the beginning of 1995, over 400,000 troops were reportedly deployed in Kashmir, including eight army divisions and other independent brigades across the state. At least fifty-six of 148 battalions of Border Security Forces - each including one thousand men - were engaged in Kashmir. Thirty-nine in the valley and seven in Doda District are involved in counter-insurgency operations, and ten along the line of control are involved in border security operations.

Border Security Forces - India

And remember, the 400,000 figure is for 1995, several years before the insurgency really picked up resulting in India pushing even more troops into IOK.

 

[Wickerman]

And remember, the 400,000 figure is for 1995, several years before the insurgency really picked up resulting in India pushing even more troops into IOK.

So if there is insurgency what is wrong with India deploy its forces to protect its land? And where does this insurgency come from? Hmm? Lets take a wild guess.

 

[KS]

So what if its 400,000 for 1995. Those were the days the militants were openly manning bunkers in and around Sri Nagar with impunity and running the show.

Compare that with now when militancy is at an all time low. There are hardly more than 2 lakh security forces (Army + paramilitary) in J&K now.

 

[shuntmaster]

Majority of the troops are located on the Indo-Pak LOC and the LAC with China. Very few are actually involved in the anti-insurgency operations in the valley. Most of the law and order activities are done by the local J&K police and paramilitary forces like CRPF.

And remember, the 400,000 figure is for 1995, several years before the insurgency really picked up resulting in India pushing even more troops into IOK.

The ****** militancy in Kashmir peaked in 1995, with many areas in the valley and other muslim majority districts of J&K declared as 'liberated' and Indian troops feared to go there. Many analysts had written-off J&K as a lost cause then. We have come a long way since then.

 

[Windjammer]

So what if its 400,000 for 1995. Those were the days the militants were openly manning bunkers in and around Sri Nagar with impunity and running the show.

Compare that with now when militancy is at an all time low. There are hardly more than 2 lakh security forces (Army + paramilitary) in J&K now.

And those were the days, there was indeed over half a million Indian troops deployed in IOK.
Without looking into the psyche of the situation, the OP thinks it's a myth created by Pakistan.

 

[Roybot]

Errrrr OP why are you trying to justify anything to anyone. Its our country, we ll deploy millions of troops if we have to, should be of no one's concern.

I don't think Indian Army or the Government gives two shytes about moaning, you shouldn't either.

 

[surya kiran]

Bhaiya, 7 lacs or 10 lacs. Its none of Pakistan's business. Simple logic

 

[kumarkumar1867]

Never understand why people cry foul even if there were 700000 troops.

Kashmir is a region where India's external threats geographically coincide. Also in the past wars, we"ve lost land in this region, as defence has been traditionally difficult, its natural Kashmir will be well consolidated.

Pakistaniyo ko seekhaaya gaya hai ke in warfare

1 Momin Pakistani = 10 Bhartis

Aisi ulti madarse ki taaleem se hisaab toh bigarhnaa hi thaa

Ab Kashmir mei haath pair maarkar pata chala ke kuch hisaab mein gharbarh ho gayi hai..... issliye 70000 indian soldiers ko 700000 samajhne lage!

 

[Windjammer]

Pakistaniyo ko seekhaaya gaya hai ke in warfare

1 Momin Pakistani = 10 Bhartis

Aisi ulti madarse ki taaleem se hisaab toh bigarhnaa hi thaa

Ab Kashmir mei haath pair maarkar pata chala ke kuch hisaab mein gharbarh ho gayi hai..... issliye 70000 indian soldiers ko 700000 samajhne lage!

Aur Bahratioun key bhajey mein yea ghalat fahmey hey key woh China aur Pakistan dounou key saath yak musht jung lar saktey hein, jab key, dar haqeeqat 700,000 ya 700,00 sey chandh hazar mujahideen ko bi na control kar sakey.

Kia Piddey aur kia Piddey ka shorba. !!

 

[dollarman]

indeed, with you Indians it's an acute case of blind leading blind....much obsession Pakistan, even a report in GSO discriminates that figure.

Border Security Forces - India

And remember, the 400,000 figure is for 1995, several years before the insurgency really picked up resulting in India pushing even more troops into IOK.

Insurgency peaked in Kashmir in the 1989 era when Pakistan "won" in Afghanistan against Soviets, and decided to divert these very Jihadis to Kashmir. Violence is Kashmir has been going down since...