Pullout of Mamata sets India at danger

[bd_4_ever]

Latest news is website of Indian HC to maldives is hacked.

Yah i came over that. Done by a Bangladeshi again?


Cheers!!!

 

[bd_4_ever]

...double post...

 

[Dalai Lama]

"i hacxz0rz u. i iz shupa code genius. try hax mai website rite nao!"

Lol?

 

[leonblack08]

This thread is pointless and should be closed asap. No offence to anyone, but I don't see how denying Teesta water to BD puts India at danger. The one in danger is BD.

Mamata is an experienced politician and knows very well what she's doing. Drama at the 11th hour is not mis-communication, neither a last ditch effort to save North Bengal. The gentleman Dr. Monmahan did not see this coming at all, being more of an educated economist than a politician. I have read articles from The Hindu, Times of India and Anandabzar; all agree on one point - the aftermath of the drama is great increase in Mamata's popularity in Bengal, and that's dirty politics. Mark my words, Mamata is eventually going to sign a fair deal.

This is our Bangali way of doing politics. Hasina and Khaleda beats Mamata to it, though!

Spoke my mind

 

[eastbengal]

operate against maoists in lalgarh ?? when was the last time they wer in the news ?? dude update yourself...

lol...for your kind information..Gorkhaland movement is not a separatist movemnet..please educate yourself before posting crap.

shortage of troops ??? you're kidding me...as i said already...the CRPF soldiers themselves have already cleared the majority of the lalgarh area...there is ot even a need of army.

none of the state in north east can function with out army presence.

see the link

Army moves into Maoist area in Chhattisgarh

Should army be used against Maoists

Should army be used against Maoists

THERE IS no doubt that the army is best trained and led to deal with insurgents. But there are four major reasons why army should not be deployed against the Maoist Insurgency.

Firstly, the political leaders and ministers need to understand that every time we deploy the army for counter insurgency duties, we are reducing its capability to fight a conventional war against Pakistan or China. This is because whenever an infantry battalion or an artillery regiment is deployed for counter insurgency operations, their heavy equipment like artillery guns, mortars, anti tank and anti aircraft weapons are mothballed.

Training completely stops. Training in conventional warfare, combined arms operation and air ground operations also stopS. There is no time for basic military training like physical training and drill. This was the objective of former Pakistani President Zia ul Haq’s strategy of weakening the Indian Army by encouraging and supporting insurgency and terrorism and making India bleed from a thousand cuts.

Secondly, the army has not ended any insurgency. It has only contained the level of violence. The Naga insurgency started in 1954 and the army was involved in it from 1956. The insurgency ended with the Shillong Accord of 1974. The Naga insurgents have not surrendered and negotiations still continue. The insurgency in Mizoram started in 1966 and army was deployed.
The insurgency ended in 1987 when Rajeev Gandhi solved it with a negotiated settlement which gave political power to Mizo National Front. Insurgency started in 1965 and army is deployed. The insurgency has not been defeated. The insurgency in Assam started in 1982-83 and army is deployed. The insurgency has not been defeated.
The insurgency in Kashmir stared in 1990 and army has been deployed since then. The insurgency has not ended. Army cannot solve insurgencies. Israel with its military might has not been able to defeat the Palestine militants in 60 years. Insurgencies have to be dealt with politically.

Thirdly, the army does not have forces to deploy against the Maoists. Much of the army, alt least 100,000 soldiers, is deployed for counter insurgency operations in Jammu and Kashmir, a tiny state, to fight 1500 to 3000 insurgents. There is no end to the violence. The army has another 15,000 to 20,000 troops to fight 400 ULFA cadres, 200 Bodo insurgents and 400 or so Manipuri insurgents in the North Eastern states. The affected area is much smaller than the Maoist affected areas which cover almost a quarter of the country.

The area is also the most under developed hilly jungle terrain. The strength of the Maoist armed cadre is between 20,000 and 30,000. An infantry battalion can control at best a “Tehsil” or Subdivision. The army will have to deploy at least seven to ten divisions to have any effect on the level of violence. It cannot deploy such resources without reducing troops on Pakistani and Chinese borders.

Fourthly, army units have to balance field and peace tenures. If this arrangement is disturbed by deploying army against the Maoists, the morale of the army will be affected. Without high morale, no army in the world can fight effectively.

Many retired and serving officers feel that the capability of the Army to fight a conventional war against Pakistan and China is already below acceptable level because of their employment in fighting insurgencies and shortage of officers. What ever be the reality, it will be obvious that army should not be deployed against the Maoists. The Chief of Army and Air Force Staff have clearly said so.

 

[monitor]

“কলকাতার মেয়ে মমতা আমায় কথা দিয়েছে
আসি আসি বলে মমতা ফাকি দিয়েছে
তুমি মমতা হেথায়, দিয়েছিলে কথা
তোমারে না দেখলে আমার মনে লাগে ব্যাথা।":

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

none of the state in north east can function with out army presence.

see the link

Army moves into Maoist area in Chhattisgarh

Should army be used against Maoists

Should army be used against Maoists

THERE IS no doubt that the army is best trained and led to deal with insurgents. But there are four major reasons why army should not be deployed against the Maoist Insurgency.

The Army is not being used against the Maoists. A Brigade minus is establishing a training camp and that is about all. With areas getting urbanised, one of the few areas that are there for training (and it means doing military manoeuvres and note merely squad base training) is in MP and the forests. Even the deserts of Rajasthan is facing the pressure of population and the training areas are getting diminished.

Firstly, the political leaders and ministers need to understand that every time we deploy the army for counter insurgency duties, we are reducing its capability to fight a conventional war against Pakistan or China. This is because whenever an infantry battalion or an artillery regiment is deployed for counter insurgency operations, their heavy equipment like artillery guns, mortars, anti tank and anti aircraft weapons are mothballed.[/quote]

Terrorism is not prevalent everywhere. Where there is no terrorism, and it means the rest of India where troops are also present, all units and equipment are in service, trained and not mothballed.

Training completely stops. Training in conventional warfare, combined arms operation and air ground operations also stopS. There is no time for basic military training like physical training and drill. This was the objective of former Pakistani President Zia ul Haq’s strategy of weakening the Indian Army by encouraging and supporting insurgency and terrorism and making India bleed from a thousand cuts.

Incorrect.

As explained above.

Secondly, the army has not ended any insurgency. It has only contained the level of violence. The Naga insurgency started in 1954 and the army was involved in it from 1956. The insurgency ended with the Shillong Accord of 1974. The Naga insurgents have not surrendered and negotiations still continue. The insurgency in Mizoram started in 1966 and army was deployed.
The insurgency ended in 1987 when Rajeev Gandhi solved it with a negotiated settlement which gave political power to Mizo National Front. Insurgency started in 1965 and army is deployed. The insurgency has not been defeated. The insurgency in Assam started in 1982-83 and army is deployed. The insurgency has not been defeated.
The insurgency in Kashmir stared in 1990 and army has been deployed since then. The insurgency has not ended. Army cannot solve insurgencies. Israel with its military might has not been able to defeat the Palestine militants in 60 years. Insurgencies have to be dealt with politically.

Terrorism cannot be defeated by purely military means, unless it is done as in Sri Lanka, where the people opposing are taken to be 'enemies' and destroyed by every possible means available and without remorse.

Terrorism to be destroyed by the military alone is only possible if there is no external assistance in funds, training and equipment.

Thirdly, the army does not have forces to deploy against the Maoists. Much of the army, alt least 100,000 soldiers, is deployed for counter insurgency operations in Jammu and Kashmir, a tiny state, to fight 1500 to 3000 insurgents. There is no end to the violence. The army has another 15,000 to 20,000 troops to fight 400 ULFA cadres, 200 Bodo insurgents and 400 or so Manipuri insurgents in the North Eastern states. The affected area is much smaller than the Maoist affected areas which cover almost a quarter of the country.

Another incorrect surmise, though is a popular notion abroad for propaganda value.

If the bulk of the Army is deployed in CI areas, then there would be no equitable turnaround and the tenures in the CI grid would be very long. This would create massive morale issues. That itself should indicate the veracity of the claim since the turnaround tenures are similar to that before terrorism hit the area.

The area is also the most under developed hilly jungle terrain. The strength of the Maoist armed cadre is between 20,000 and 30,000. An infantry battalion can control at best a “Tehsil” or Subdivision. The army will have to deploy at least seven to ten divisions to have any effect on the level of violence. It cannot deploy such resources without reducing troops on Pakistani and Chinese borders.

One has to understand how anti CI ops are undertaken to be able to realise that it is not Tehsil based.

Fourthly, army units have to balance field and peace tenures. If this arrangement is disturbed by deploying army against the Maoists, the morale of the army will be affected. Without high morale, no army in the world can fight effectively.

Explained above and it proves that the claim is incorrect that the bulk of the Army is in the CI grid.

Many retired and serving officers feel that the capability of the Army to fight a conventional war against Pakistan and China is already below acceptable level because of their employment in fighting insurgencies and shortage of officers. What ever be the reality, it will be obvious that army should not be deployed against the Maoists. The Chief of Army and Air Force Staff have clearly said so.

It is well within acceptable requirements.

The Army is no longer the same as before. JCOs and NCOs are better trained and more capable than able ever before and have efficiently overcome the shortage of officers.

The Army does not want to get involved with Maoists since that would unnecessary add another area which will make the turnaround between peace tenure and CI not compatible.Further, why should the Army have to take on everything when there is a surfeit of paramilitary forces?