'Next Kargil could happen in the Andamans'

[janon]

I am quite surprised and shocked by such languid comparisons between advantages and disadvantages of ' keeping' far away islands .
There is no iota of doubt that advantages of having control over such a vast archipelago far exceeds than any logistic disadvantages that may exist .

One single fact should put all the doubts to the rest and that - the chain of Andman and nicobar islands extends India's exclusive economic zone by 300,000 sq km . accounting for 30 % that is almost 1/3 rd of total EEZ area claimable by India .

It is rather shocking to even hear about the lamentations of logistical disadvantages of administrating or maintaining Andaman Nicobar when US,UK, France hold overseas hundreds of territories , islands millions km away from home land across the seven seas .....


This being one of the most cyclone and tsunami prone area - these islands act as important warning outposts which can save mainland from catastrophe that happened in 2010 !

The sheer scientific , economic , military , social , strategic , political , historical importance on Andaman Nicobar islands is so overwhelming that the so called disadvantages should not be even mentioned ...not in same breath ....not in same space ....!

I am quite surprised that Indian members are even discussing this ....

Your "surprise and shock" arose from a simple misunderstanding, due to which your entire post is akin to tilting at windmills.

The "advantages and disadvantages" I mentioned were not of having A&N in our possession - yes, any fool can see that the advantages comprehensively trump any disadvantages. In fact, I cannot even think of a disadvantage of possessing A&N.

The point was about the advantages and disadvantages of A&N being far away from the mainland for our operational planning, and military affairs. The adv and disadv of distance, not of possession itself. Adv being that it acts as a forward base, and disadv being that continous reinforcement might be difficult in an all out war to the end. Adv for offense, disadv for defence.

 

[Indo-guy]

Yes Coco island was part of British Burma.Nobody is disputing that.
The point I am making is Indian govt. at time of partition leveraged INA's conquest of A & N archipelago (including Coco island) to get those territories from GB.British govt. did not hand over willingly.
I am not blaming Nehru but someone messed up.

Bro ! although both andman and nicobar islands were acquired by East india Company , coco islands were transferred British Burma right in 1882 officially ( this happened because Coco islands are close to Burma just 300 km than India ( almost 800 km away from mainland , although just 20 km away from Andaman island ) ... since then they have always remained under British Burma officially .

We never controlled the coco islands even as part of British India ....no question of we losing them to Myanmyar ....

 

[godofwar]

Bro ! although both andman and nicobar islands were acquired by East india Company , coco islands were transferred British Burma right in 1882 officially ( this happened because Coco islands are close to Burma just 300 km than India ( almost 800 km away from mainland , although just 20 km away from Andaman island ) ... since then they have always remained under British Burma officially .

We never controlled the coco islands even as part of British India ....no question of we losing them to Myanmyar ....

Bro, A & N islands were not part of India either but we managed to get them from British.Shame we couldn't get Coco too.Thats all I am saying.Neither us or Burma had a rightful claim on it.

 

[Indo-guy]

Your "surprise and shock" arose from a simple misunderstanding, due to which your entire post is akin to tilting at windmills.

The "advantages and disadvantages" I mentioned were not of having A&N in our possession - yes, any fool can see that the advantages comprehensively trump any disadvantages. In fact, I cannot even think of a disadvantage of possessing A&N.

The point was about the advantages and disadvantages of A&N being far away from the mainland for our operational planning, and military affairs. The adv and disadv of distance, not of possession itself. Adv being that it acts as a forward base, and disadv being that continous reinforcement might be difficult in an all out war to the end. Adv for offense, disadv for defence.

Your post was in response to the exclamation that " I thought it was always advantageous to have them" ...which was very general remark and as such your remark also had to be comprehensive less it paints wrong picture .

you talk of advantages and disadvantages in same breath. it could give wrong notion to the person whom you replied.

Here it is not question of whether any ' fool' can understand that advantages comprehensively trump any disadvantages ...

question is whether your reply needed to be 'narrow' to the 'general' and ' loose ' remark of the person whom you replied ? and answer is No , because it does not serve the purpose rather betrays it .

 

[janon]

Your post was in response to the exclamation that " I thought it was always advantageous to have them" ...which was very general remark and as such your remark also had to be comprehensive less it paints wrong picture .

you talk of advantages and disadvantages in same breath. it could give wrong notion to the person whom you replied.

Here it is not question of whether any ' fool' can understand that advantages comprehensively trump any disadvantages ...

question is whether your reply needed to be 'narrow' to the 'general' and ' loose ' remark of the person whom you replied ? and answer is No , because it does not serve the purpose rather betrays it .

Wrong. That's not what the post said. Can't you verify the post, before repeating it erroneously? Please check post number 49 to see what it really says.

 

[Indo-guy]

Your "surprise and shock" arose from a simple misunderstanding, due to which your entire post is akin to tilting at windmills.

The "advantages and disadvantages" I mentioned were not of having A&N in our possession - yes, any fool can see that the advantages comprehensively trump any disadvantages. In fact, I cannot even think of a disadvantage of possessing A&N.

The point was about the advantages and disadvantages of A&N being far away from the mainland for our operational planning, and military affairs. The adv and disadv of distance, not of possession itself. Adv being that it acts as a forward base, and disadv being that continous reinforcement might be difficult in an all out war to the end. Adv for offense, disadv for defence.

Since when aspiring blue water navy started finding large archipelago at 'mere' 700 km as far away and difficult to reinforce ... especially if it has stated tasks of policing millions and millions of kilomteres of Indian ocean region ???

I do not think this is disadvantage considered by Indian Navy ...some Indian members here may find it disadvantageous ...not Indian Navy !!!

Your statement even on the narrow ground of military position is neither correct nor valid.

 

[janon]

Since when aspiring blue water navy started finding large archipelago at 'mere' 700 km as far away and difficult to reinforce ... especially if it has stated tasks of policing millions and millions of kilomteres of Indian ocean region ???

I do not think this is disadvantage considered by Indian Navy ...some Indian members here may find it disadvantageous ...not Indian Navy !!!

Your statement even on the narrow ground of military position is neither correct nor valid.

You made a mistake in comprehending a post. That is OK, mistakes happen. But you don't have to keep attacking my post simply to somehow emerge right. Let it go.

It is a fact that defending something farther away is more difficult than defending something closer. It's as simple as that. Is it impossible? No.

 

[Indo-guy]

Wrong. That's not what the post said. Can't you verify the post, before repeating it erroneously? Please check post number 49 to see what it really says.

wrong ! You read post 49 and all posts before that ...as well as context in which that statement was made . It is very loose and general statement . And if your are replying to that statement your response should have been comprehensive .
Given that you are one of the most thoughtful and responsible and highly regarded member here .
I myself always regard and follow your posts closely .
I just noted the anomaly in your post because it gives really imbalanced picture .

You made a mistake in comprehending a post. That is OK, mistakes happen. But you don't have to keep attacking my post simply to somehow emerge right. Let it go.

It is a fact that defending something farther away is more difficult than defending something closer. It's as simple as that. Is it impossible? No.

No I am not attacking you personally . Please remove any such misconception . I always seconded your posts which I agreed and always voice my dissent if I find something amiss .
afterall these platforms are meant for discussion. we learn from each others mistakes ....

I am not here for any ego trip.
I do not make irresponsible comment and do not talk without evidence or proof.
I don't deny that I am also wrong at times ...
But I have nothing personal against you or anybody .

I simply do not agree with you that having Andaman and Nicobar 700 km away can be considered as disadvantageous by Indian navy even in military sense .

It is the single most strategic asset that Indian Navy has ...

 

[Indo-guy]

Bro, A & N islands were not part of India either but we managed to get them from British.Shame we couldn't get Coco too.Thats all I am saying.Neither us or Burma had a rightful claim on it.

Andaman and Nicobar islands were being administered by British India since early of 18'th century . They had built largest far away penal colony there for Indian prisoners . It is also testimonial of our great freedom struggle .Two of the greatest freedom fighters of India like Savarkar and Netaji are intimately associated with its history.
In that sense we have rightful claim towards ownership of Andaman and Nicobar islands . same does not hold true for Coco islands unfortunately .

 

[godofwar]

Andaman and Nicobar islands were being administered by British India since early of 18'th century . They had built largest far away penal colony there for Indian prisoners . It is also testimonial of our great freedom struggle .Two of the greatest freedom fighters of India like Savarkar and Netaji are intimately associated with its history.
In that sense we have rightful claim towards ownership of Andaman and Nicobar islands . same does not hold true for Coco islands unfortunately .

All these islands are part of the same archipelago.
You can not say with a straight face that we can claim all of these islands except one.
Were Savarkar and others moved around to all the islands expect the Coco ?

 

[BATMAN]

weel our Navy Chief is quite confident of the fact that the Indian Ocean is firmed under Indian control and no other country except the U.S.A. has the power or capability to challenge our supremacy in this part of the world

I didn't ask your opinion, i was referring to Indian naval chief's statement.
Which presents a picture, quite opposite to your claim!

 

[Indo-guy]

All these islands are part of the same archipelago.
You can not say with a straight face that we can claim all of these islands except one.
Were Savarkar and others moved around to all the islands expect the Coco ?

Unfortunate it is ..but as the principal of succession commands we had to follow administrative decisions taken by British India.
If we refuse to do that then it will open can of worms...
Do you understand the huge implications ?

The administrative arrangements by British India with Tibet led to demarcation of so called Mc Mohan line which India accepts as valid boundary between India and and Tibet which off course China refuses to accept .

If we go on reversing decisions by British India ,then it will be catastrophic.

Because several other such claims will arise which India will not be able to fulfill.

We can't just go back and try to revise historically agreed facts several decades , centuries later because they are not to our liking .

such revisionist agenda can be very dangerous , better we accept our lot and move on ....

we can't keep fighting with the past and bungle our present in the process and future thereupon !!!

 

[rockstar08]

every operation is either a victory or a defeat, depending on whether end objectives are attained or not...Any further classification is normally done by the losing side to make defeat more palatable.. Just my 2 cents ...

so according to your theory , when your army try to take over lahore , and you failed to do so , should i consider as your defeat

 

[AUz]

Owned so much so that the mighty India had to run to, Pakistan's paternal uncle, the US to beg them to force Pakistan away from Kargil, threatening the world of Nuclear engagements!! Owned so much so that 35000 Indian Soldiers backed by 10 Squadrons of IAF were unable to retake all the peaks held by roughly 5000 Men (Soldiers + Mujahideen) for over 6 months until the Pakistanis were ordered to retreat! Owned so much so that all this happened while PAF & PA never had to bother with supplies or support!! Owned so much so that neither IAF nor the IA dared to cross a single inch of the border!!! Owned so much so that even today Pakistan holds one of the most strategic posts!!!

Yeah, Pakistan really got owned!!

not to mention, Pakistan still hold indian peaks such as point 5353, Dalu Nag, and Saddle Ridge

 

[karan.1970]

so according to your theory , when your army try to take over lahore , and you failed to do so , should i consider as your defeat

For that battle.. Yes... Just like for the whole 1965 war where the objective of Pakistan was to take over Kashmir and it failed and hence it was a defeat for Pakistan.. That's precisely why its ironical that Pakistan, who started the hostilities to capture Kashmir and had to end up defending its own city of Lahore, celebrates a victory day for successfully defending the city irrespective of losing the bigger war where its agenda to capturing Kashmir came to naught.