Towards a new & Improved Fauj

[Joe Shearer]

Trust is also a major factor, military men do not make assumptions - they would not assume that if Pakistan was to convert it's Mechanized and Armour -ed formations into COIN forces india would reciprocate, their would have to be an agreement - on the other side, this would not be done unilaterally.

The suggestion came up from a Pakistani commentator in response to Pakistan's underlying needs, and wasn't intended to set off a competitive disarmament cycle. It is not that Pakistan would need guarantees from India to do what is in her own interests, as your note implies; it means that Pakistan would do what it safely could to structure its expensive Army for a less adventurous role in the region.

My interjection again is to extrapolate the reactions on the Indian side to such a carefully-calculated but essentially sponsored conversion within the PA. These are extrapolations, as mentioned, and so we deal with them as extrapolations; there is no guarantee here.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Don’t know why we can’t have a serious discussion without bringing in religion.

There is no way that you can get another Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA), Hazrat Omar (RA), Hazrat Osman (RA) or Hazrat Ali (RA) so reference to their time is unreasonable. I don’t much care about other Khalifas (except for 4 years of Omar bin Abdul Aziz). According to Maulana Maudoodi all others were Kings in all but name, thus IMO all those believing in Khilafat are living in cuckoo land.

You can have a very good progressive Islamic state without following the Takfiri/Wahabi tyranny. I am not a very religious man but I hardly missed any Friday prayer or Ramzan fast during my 5 years stay in UAE mainly because there was always a mosque present within 5 minutes’ walk from wherever I lived. In a country (Dubai) where wine is freely available in the hotels as well as there are night clubs at every corner; women can walk alone in the middle of the night without any fear of being molested and minor crime is virtually non-existent. Everyone has freedom choice about what he wants to do in his free time. Can you say the same about Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia? Dubai is a modern Islamic state, not a dark age Afghan like Emirate that Taliban and Khilafat would like Pakistan to become.

No one can deny that Pakistan defence forces are rather large. We need them mainly to fight India. Excluding Kashmir, we have very few other disputes with India. Once Kashmir situation cools down, why do we need to spend 50% of national income on defence? I am only advocating cutting out the deadwood from the services to make them lean and deadly. May be we need more COIN forces rather than tank regiments?

Iqbal said a hundred years ago

Khuda key aashiq to hain hazaaron, banon main phertain hain marey marey
Main uska banda banoon ga jisko khuda key bandon sey piyar hog a

Meaning there are thousands of lovers of God who running around aimlessly in the deserts. I will be slave of that one who loves God’s slaves (human beings).

I am advocating that we put welfare of ordinary men of Pakistan at the top of the list. To do this we need to provide them with jobs, housing and education. We can’t achieve this without sustained growth in the economy; this in turn requires investment in infrastructure and job creating projects for which we need funds.

How else can a nation generate income if not thru taxation of some kind? It is not that Pakistan is really a very poor country; despite 1/3 of the population living below poverty line a lot of people have a lot of money and they don’t pay taxes. During a very recent visit to Karachi to attend wedding of a close family friend’s daughter, I was horrified to know that the wedding suit of the bride cost 4 lakh rupees. This is five thousand dollars!!! Enough to feed four poor families for one year. I am not suggesting to tax the poor (that every budget does) but to get everyone into the tax net to generate income to finance public sector projects.

As it is, a very large percentage of the population is without clean drinking water, public health care is non-existent; education level is going down each year and there is a sever e lack of housing.
Pakistani population is growing at the rate of about 2.5% per year. How are we ever going to educate, provide work, housing and other living facilities to future Pakistanis unless we generate funds. May be some Hon members would like to keep borrowing from IMF?

A robust economy will not only benefit common man but also with additional funds defence forces will be able to afford more modern weapons and thus defence will be strengthened in the long run. Besides a strong economy is a must for ability for sustained fighting capability. Is this not what defence is all about?

I would love to hear alternate views, but please don’t preach Khilafat to me. Give me concrete arguments relevant to present day environment. Remember I am not advocating secularism, I am only proposing ‘Defence thru strong economy’.

no one is preaching anything to you... You associated Khilafat with the dark ages... This basically ends all discussion as far as I m concerned... you can continue discussing with others...

as for those who are interested... the new fauj under the changed system of Khilafat will have massive funds and resources at its disposal... in all probability more than what it has today inshaAllah...

 

[PoKeMon]

Looking at the history of Pak army involvement in different wars along with U.S and its "closeness" with China it can easily be concluded that it has been repeatedly used again and again. One can argue that pakistan is using them for its benefits which comes in term of economic and millitary aid. Look at the current situation Pak is in and you can find who got exploited and by whom.
Is a peaceful Pak with no hostility toward India is in favour of either U.S or China?
Look with an eye of a chinese or an american and the answer would be NO. Then what let the pakistan to be used?
Pakistan public being suspicious of India's intentions(some may called it a paranoia and a mere propaganda and some may argue it as a result of past happenings but it doesn't matter here) or the political and military front surrenders in front of huge foreign money flowing into their accounts. Clearly the army+political views are not in agreement or in sync with general public sentiments. Public is anti U.S while gov is very much pro U.S.
A stable pakistan is only in interest of India not in either of U.S or China. They will loose more than to gain.
Then what should be the path followed:
1- Pak should maintain credible deterrence(which they now posses). It is their very basic right but arm race with India will lead her to destruction.
2- As suggested by Niaz, income tax system has to be revamped to support economy.
3- Bring stability in the region which will encourage foreign investent thus increasing governent revenue.
4- Solve the disputes with India even if it requires some bargain and compromises. Its always better to do best with what you posses rather than to posses more of less worth.
5- Social reforms to bring tolerence in society. Informed Islamic schoars should take the charge and responsibility to do so. All the points mentioned above can only be enacted by a well educated and dedicated society.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

The Khalifa is not a valid solution - the nation states are not going anywhere, and the Pakistan Armed Forces belong to the state and the people of Pakistan.

and the people want Khilafat... so Pakistan Army must listen to its people and not act against the wishes of its people...

 

[BATMAN]

Pakistan army is a big pain for anti Pakistan elements, hence they are shooting left and right.

 

[Rafi]

Khilafat is not a reasonable proposition, the 50 odd nation states that constitute the Islamic world are not going to abolish their nation states, it is simply not plausible.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Khilafat is not a reasonable proposition, the 50 odd nation states that constitute the Islamic world are not going to abolish their nation states, it is simply not plausible.

To you perhaps... but then not everyone thinks like you

Unless we bring in radical change Rafi... all this talk about an improved Fauj is pointless... if you choose to stay within the current framework and system, you are dead and you are going nowhere... this system has been and continues to be tested and we are simply flirting with disaster after disaster... an improved Fauj needs an improved sociopolitical order... tweaks here and there and vague statements like "Tax everyone" mean absolutely nothing... The Indians most obviously want our defence budget slashed (as far as this forum goes anyway )... the people in Pakistan are not happy with the Army due to numerous and obvious reasons... ultimately the sincere elements in Pak Fauj have to take the effort to look at alternatives available to the millet for ruling and governance... there is no two ways about this... we are way too reliant on foreign powers for our defence needs and these very powers are increasingly becoming hostile towards us within their ranks of power... time is most certainly of the essence here...

As for the issue of other 50 odd nations... see how they fall like dominoes... already they ve been shaken to the core due to the action of just one poor and upset person in Tunisia...

 

[TaimiKhan]

Fauj should be there at a decent level, a level which is sufficient to accommodate/face the prevailing threats as well as future ones, be it India or anyone else. Mushy uncle did a good thing by reducing the number of fauj by 50K, to save money and reequip the fauj with that saving and to some extent he was successful too, but alas he is gone and the ones currently running the affairs are more interested in filling their pockets rather then looking at the economy and country.

If we are able to generate funds to sustain things, then i don't see why we should reduce the number of fauj drastically.

By bringing the rich and agriculture sectors under the income tax umbrella only, we can generate a 6-8 Billion $$$ figure annually or even more. So if this becomes possible, then just by allocating another 1.5-2Billion $$$ for procurement can do wonders for us and we can have atleast a 600K armed forces, equipment with some very decent equipment.

But i would recommend that fauj should control its internal expenses also, bring in more accountability at the sections where there is unnecessary spending and control these expenses.

Plus, structural changes should be done with the time as that is required if you need to keep up with the latest developments in the world.

Structure of the armed forces be made in such way that absolute powers does not retains in one's hand, rather there should be check and balances.

And most important of all, our politicians should grow up and start looking at the affairs of the country and for its prosperity, that way they can strengthen themselves and weaken the control of the armed forces from taking over and armed forces would keep loving what they want to do, that is to stay at the borders and keep a watch.

 

[indushek]

Patience; the existence of even one Niaz or Muse or Notorious Eagle is positive. Allow me to point out that they are in fact ahead of us in articulating these harsh truths; where is the corresponding Indian debate? I might draw your notice, or you might draw my attention to the implicit decisions made by the Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy, but shouldn't this be debated by civilians as well? Since it isn't, doesn't this show you that there are elements in Pakistan which are thinking out of the box and in extremely rational, logical ways? Isn't that encouraging and sustaining?

It is to me.

I have no doubt about the existence of saner and beautiful minds on their side. You can't have all people hell bent on harming us can we?

The prolonged stay of a foreign element amidst the Pakistani society and the resulting burdens physical and mental are one of the driving forces for this. Can't rule out other factors like realization of over stretching of armed forces and the morale of them which could be very low as they are fighting their own people instead of others.

My point is the changing schematics of Pakistan and American relation is the main force behind this.

You don't make an enemy of a super power and then keep another one right beside you. It would be foolish even for another super power. If a nowise like me can think of this i am 100% sure Pakistani military and intelligence planners have very wise people thinking of this. However the sections which will find this kind of thinking not so palatable for reasons ranging from just funding to the more aggressive ones (which need not be mentioned here) can't allow this can they. There is also another factor here which impinges directly, that is change management. Long time back i think i read how it is so difficult to manage this, how the workers are averse to this factor.

If we leave conjectures for not changing, the more realistic carrot available is the Chinese umbrella. Now this again is another topic to discuss as it will take up lot of time.

Regarding the reciprocation from us, it would come later wouldn't it Joe? As you and others should very well know by now, in such intelligent matters we are always reactive not proactive.

 

[Rafi]

I am open to idea's but I can tell you from my own point of view, Pakistani Armed Forces are loyal to Pakistan and it's people - that is their first and last duty.

 

[muse]

There seems to be some confusion here because the posts seem not to be about the subject of the thread - And so for distinguished member Rafi and others, Given the three propositions below, how do these apply to the strategic imperatives of Pakistan?? In other words, how should Pakistan respond in recognition of these and to influence these propositions:


1.

the new 21st century threat is the non-state actor who thrives in intra-state strife and is centred on challenging the state and its formal traditional structures to gain operating space and introduce non-formal administrative and judicial structures aimed at instituting ideological or alternate socio-political paradigms. This amounts to challenging the way that a society lives and imposing a way of life that may not be popular. Al Qaeda seeks such operating space to apply its own structures and find an assured base in pursuance of its trans-national agenda. Its affiliate the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan seeks the same in induced internalisation of the ideological frame as a convenient expedient. Their foray into Swat tested the capability of the state to withstand such a challenge; that it was strongly neutralised and confronted drew the limits of Taliban adventurism. They now remain in a struggle to incrementally whittle away at state power, disarming sensitivities sufficiently to overlook a foreboding doom. It is for no other reason that such a war is termed a long war.

2.

inter-state conflict will persist, especially when competition for resources, be it mineral or commodity, will peak in this century. ]Where weak political structures, absence of governance, fractured societies and impoverished economies accompany or complicate the dynamics in varying degrees, the likelihood of a state falling into conflict, whether intra-state or inter-state, increases manifold

.


3.

the nature of war has changed; acquisition of space or destruction of force are no more valid as strategic objectives, since each needs prolonged application of force and is anti-status quo — a contravention of a globalised, interconnected, inter-dependent world. The US remains the only power that flouts this principle in a strange formulation of a political vision that is more skewed than misplaced and confounds international sensibilities. Coercion remains the more applicable strategic objective in application of the levers of power in inter-state conflict. It forces a target nation to comply to a set of policy objectives in line with universal acceptability. Multilateralism, even in wars, now is the prevalent currency. The UN endorses political or military action, including economic sanctions as an interim measure, in pursuit of seeking a more conformist disposition of an erring member state. Think Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya now, as an expose of the neo-modern conflict dynamics.

 

[RazorMC]

... In a country (Dubai) where wine is freely available in the hotels as well as there are night clubs at every corner; women can walk alone in the middle of the night without any fear of being molested and minor crime is virtually non-existent. Everyone has freedom choice about what he wants to do in his free time. Can you say the same about Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia? Dubai is a modern Islamic state, not a dark age Afghan like Emirate that Taliban and Khilafat would like Pakistan to become...

Sorry, but there are some misconceptions regarding Dubai. The availability of alcohol alone has a significant contribution to the continuous rise in crime levels in Dubai and Ajman. But the police here in Dubai is really professional and our own can learn a lot from these guys. Corruption is almost non-exsistent and definitely makes for a better society.

But I agree to the rest of the post. We should not have an attitude that becomes unbearable for the people. The only result of such an attitude is right there in Egypt and Tunisia for everyone to see. There is no coercion in Islam. We need to take other people into consideration as well.

We are in dire need of restructuring our economic priorities. Pakistan has no other option but to maintain a leaner military presence or else fall head over heels into the pit that we have dug for ourselves. Our economy can no longer support a massive defense budget and extravagent government spending-sprees. No amount of training will avial us our military doesn't have the funds to fight wars.

There is one more cause for our economic disaster; Interest on loans from the State Bank and other International Lenders.
The sooner we pay off our debt, the sooner we can breathe freely again.

 

[muse]

Friends:

As you read and find yourself thinking - do think about what the thread and the existence of the pieces you read in it, mean - Ishara -- some misunderstood our criticism as in the "Don't malaign. thread, however we were guided by the sense that while

We cannot improve upon our politicians; let us, at least, improve on those who provide them critical input for decision-making

! :


Restructuring the ISI
By Shaukat Qadir
Published: April 13, 2011

The writer is a retired brigadier and a former president of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute.

I find it essential to begin with a response to a controversy generated by my previous article discussing an extension for the current ISI chief. I did not, at any stage, imply that a serving or retired general must head the ISI. In fact, far from it; I emphasised that most three-star officers took over as novices, to hand over to novices, and so on; pointing out that this is an assignment for a special breed of person. My issue was merely with the duration of the assignment of the ISI chief, whoever he/she might be.

First of all, the ISI has no business being called by that acronym. It never was intended to be, nor is, an organisation for the ‘inter services’. Constitutionally, it functions for and under the chief executive of the country. Perhaps the name was chosen due to the fact that it was initially staffed primarily by personnel drawn from the three military services, but the very name provides the first erroneous impression and, inevitably, leads to the erroneous conclusion that it functions under GHQ/JSHQ; this impression is compounded by the fact that it is invariably headed by a serving three-star officer and, all its divisions, by two-star officers. It should, at the earliest, be given another title, for example, National Intelligence Organisation, CIA or whatever.

Secondly, as I have pointed out, the intelligence business is a very special one, requiring special characteristics. There is little doubt that many serving/retired military personnel do possess the required characteristics, however, I am equally certain that there are many civilians who will also fill the bill; in fact, I could name a few bureaucrats and diplomats who would have been better utilised in intelligence rather than the assignments they held.

For a couple of decades now, the army inducts qualified volunteers into the intelligence corps and, whatever their initial affiliation, they spend their remaining service exclusively in intelligence. These are an invaluable asset and must continue to form the hard core of any premier intelligence agency, alongside their civilian counterparts, who are also selected for their special characteristics and qualifications.

Over the period of time and, particularly in the last 10 years or so, an increasing number of young, intelligent, and gifted civilians have been enrolled in intelligence organisations, including the ISI, but I would like to see them increase in numbers purely on merit. What is more, I am of the conviction that those who rise to command the divisions of the ISI should be elevated from this hard core.

Unquestionably, those selected by the three services to head these divisions are intelligent, aspiring officers who perform commendably, within their limitations! Once again, these limitations are an outcome of their background experience and limited tenure. All serving military officers aspire to command; units, brigades, divisions and corps. Their tenure with the ISI is a stepping stone to that end.

The CIA might not be the best intelligence organisation in the world, but it will suffice as an example. Its director is a political appointee chosen for his qualifications for the said assignment. Presently, General Petraeus is being considered for this assignment after he retires. Despite the prestige and extended tenure that goes with this assignment, several US newspapers reported that Petraeus was “disappointed” since he was “hoping to take over from Admiral Mike Mullen as CJCS”. If Petraeus is selected for this assignment, he won’t be the first ex-soldier to have become director CIA, but he will replace a civilian, and not the first one. In fact, George H W Bush (the senior one; the one who did have some intellect!) served as director CIA many years ago, before becoming the forty-first president of the US!

However, the two deputy directors of the CIA — who look after plans and operations — are hardcore professionals, usually with a lifetime in intelligence (though they have frequently served some time in any of the numerous other intelligence agencies in the US). They can only aspire to a possible political selection as director CIA or post-retirement re-employment heading CIA or another intelligence agency. They are not amateurs, however gifted or intelligent, who serve two- to three-year terms, as a stepping stone in the career of their choice!

Although I have never served, even for a day, in any intelligence organisation, I have lots of friends and students who have, and they were at the highest level. Let me state unequivocally that most of them were ideally suited to commanding the ISI division assigned to them, though there were a fair number who were highly unsuited as well. However, my point is that those suited to their respective assignments should have continued in those assignments. It would be only fair that they be suitably compensated monetarily, and by way of perquisites (perks), but their services must be fully utilised IF they are suitable for the job and they MUST serve long enough to contribute meaningfully.

Intelligence has always been the forward-most line of defence of any nation. In today’s modern world, with increasingly complicated and threatening issues surfacing, it is increasing in importance every day. Rightly or wrongly, intelligence organisations in general, and the ISI in particular, are considered responsible for all our problems and yet, when it is suggested that the incompetence, if incompetence there is, is due to a systemic flaw, we do not seem willing to correct it.

The problem is not of extensions but of tenure. The problem is not just the acronym, ISI, or what it stands for, but the implications that accompany this title. The problem is not in any lack of ‘intelligence’ amongst senior representatives of the ISI, but of sustained experience and continuity which, when coupled with intelligence and swift responses (which figure prominently in the characteristics of intelligence officers of decision-making seniority), provides the ingenuity and instinct that is the flash of genius among high-ranking intelligence officers.

We cannot improve upon our politicians; let us, at least, improve on those who provide them critical input for decision-making!

Published in The Express Tribune, April 14th, 2011.

 

[Alternative]

The quoted article, written by one called 'Shahzad Chaudhry' (Writer), captioned Retooling militaries — changing paradigms and subsequent posts by some poster reminded me of following joke;

An old cowboy sat down at the bar and ordered a drink. As he sat sipping his drink, a young woman sat down next to him. She turned to the cowboy and asked, "Are you a real cowboy?"
He replied, "Well, I've spent my whole life, breaking colts, working cows, going to rodeos, fixing fences, pulling calves, bailing hay, doctoring calves, cleaning my barn, fixing flats, working on tractors, and feeding my dogs, so I guess I am a cowboy."
She said, "I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. As soon as I get up in the morning, I think about women. When I shower, I think about women. When I watch TV, I think about women. I even think about women when I eat. It seems that everything makes me think of women."
The two sat sipping in silence.
A little while later, a man sat down on the other side of the old cowboy and asked, "Are you a real cowboy?"
He replied, "I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian."

Now the original article; Three main (many others were hinted) points were raised;

1. Al-quaida and taliban factors,
2. Other dissenting groups, BLA (my example)
3. Nature of war

and considering above (supposedly) challenges, what should be done? the writer weaves a pattern and build a case, where threat level form insurgency is such high and longterm, and further challenges nature of war itself, to home in his point of major/radical change in army.

Now, first point, Are Taliban groups strong enough, wide spread enough to be destabilize Pakistan?; Bomb blasts, attacks on soft and hard targets are there to stay, and its nothing knew that we have been pit against. But what is the result so far?
Writer has thrown in the other dissent parties to add weight for his cause in paradigm shift in Army.
This has to be understood that Al-quida and Taliban are two different factors and players, two different problems and require two different solutions; but is this enough to convert a regular Army to a SWAT team, Or High tech Guerrilla Force.
A full fledge army to be converted into a fanciful description of lean mean fighting machine. Writer is toeing Americans's lines and demands blowing every thing out of proportions.

How long the problem will linger on, for two decades, as suggest by Writer? may be yes, only if US of A will persist with its presence in Afghanistan for that much period. When US of A is out, menace of Pakistani Taliban will be taken care of in a span of one or two years or less.

Nature of War (war that is), has not change, but only tools/toys of trade and methods of their employment/deployment etc. Writer, it seem to me, has taken that American policies and practices of encircling and entrapment, political bickering, sanctions etc. as a change in nature of War.

Three, the nature of war has changed; acquisition of space or destruction of force are no more valid as strategic objectives, since each needs prolonged application of force and is anti-status quo —............................................................... Think Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya now, as an expose of the neo-modern conflict dynamics.

Pressure, coercion, sanctions (economic or otherwise) etc were/are part and parcel of any war strategy. As of mentioned examples in red, Iraq and Afghanistan are befitting examples of total declared war(of US of A) in all its glory(or hideousness) where are tools and tricks of trade applied, all others had other objectives.
Now the main Part of Article,

Up till, this point in article, the writer, emulating a magician, presented the above 'facts' with flowery style and went on to produce a Rabbit


Major reorientation of Army
While converting one or two brigade strength, for COIN operations in support of Paramilitary Forces hold some value, but to suggest, a major portion of Army to be converted to something like a guerrilla force; just mind boggling.
A whole army be converted to Counterinsurgency force?????

Their specialised roles would mean a composite capability in heli-lift, quick insertion and extrication, with highly mobile, digitally integrated, night-capable troop composition — Robocops, if you will.

As of Red part, G3/MP5/AK47 totting, in fancy battle fatigues,........ a scene from action Hollywood movie.....

..any offensive potential should be to reinforce a defensive capability and should therefore form an integral component of the defensive formation. Deep penetrations either side of the borders are improbable hence heavy dependence on armour should now give way instead to lethality and nimble-footedness — modernised infantry with significantly improved mobility through smart aviation for both logistic support and combat.

Most funny part is this;
"Deep penetrations either side of the borders are improbable"
how so???? writer never cared to explain his grounds of probability analysis
Second most funny part;
"lethality and nimble-footedness — modernised infantry with significantly improved mobility through smart aviation for both logistic support and combat"
Gun totting or with some RPGs to face the armored columns, of Tanks, APCs, IFVs, reinforced concrete bunkers and defensive formation, slit trenches, land mines fields etc. etc......
Moreover, writer seem to limit mobility through "smart aviation"... no need to touch the land.... by air we will prevail......

Money to re-equip must emerge from restructuring; which really means the army will have to go smaller — and significantly smaller at that. Perhaps, with a more modernised and more mobile army, its application flexibility will also improve exponentially,

It is for me very hard to decide that "The writer is more lousy military analyst or Economist" please help me to decide.

Will this change the Indian mindset? It should. India seemingly should have little to gain in initiating war with Pakistan.

With major portion of Kashmir in indian clutch, with major water ways, why would india "initiate" war? indians don't work that way.

In fact, it shall be suicidal to think so, given the

nuclear umbrella

under which South Asia breathes. But If Pakistan’s offensive-defensive orientation is changed to a defensive-offensive one, manifested in the Pakistan Army’s revised structures

,
So if any indian soldier farts at border facing east, nuke the basterd; right?...OK lets disband the army.... and nuke everyone on any hint of aggression.

China as the growing threat for India by Indian claims may just beckon Indian attention far more than Pakistan.

What other reason indians have for the arms buildup, Martian attack???
Indians have adequately (according to their threat perception) build up their forces against Pakistan and now need to bolster the danger of Chinese dragon, as usually done by US of A.

With that will come the compulsion of equipping the Indian military to fight an enemy across the Himalayas. India may then just begin moving troops out from the Pakistani orientation towards their northern borders for the more probable threat.

so indians will replace their tank regiments with mules?

With militaries restructured and existentially free to apply across the entire threat spectrum,

Military is't the right expression here, SWAT is better suited.

Indian- and Pakistani-centrism and their resulting threat status in each other’s country may just give way. With each no more a threat for the other, the politician may just gain his lost freedom to exercise his political liberty to forge a changed paradigm of cooperation in the interest of the two peoples

so what was first, hen or egg; conflict or tools to resolve conflict???

I am quite sure that the article in question would have found its rightful place in GHQ; Dustbin.

 

[SQ8]

I think what is ignored here..
Is that planners in India do realize that detente with Pakistan is fast becoming the best option.. best to leave an infected area alone ..
India knows that there is very little possibility of a quick skirmish to achieve objectives vis a vis Pakistan.
Since it will go down to tit for tat.. and then all out war.. something that leaves a nuclear scenario inevitable due to the obvious conventional superiority enjoyed by India.
In addition to it.. apart from security concerns.. there is no long term economic gain to India with a broken Pakistan.. a marginally unstable Pakistan that can still provide a trade route is better than a gang land.
China on the other hand.. is competing for the same fossil fuel reserves.. and the same trade routes that India wants.
Moreover, it is the Ruling Asian Giant, something the Americans pump up the Indians about everyday.. how can one let such a challenge go unanswered?
So while it will maintain the necessary forces to ensure a comprehensive conventional defeat of Pakistan in a short conflict(hopefully) if the need arises.. as it can do so now...
its focus is shifting to the north..and the south.. where it wishes to exerts its presence in the oceans.

The only possible motive for a disproportionate aggressive response by India to any threat to its security from Pakistan would be concrete assurances that the Nuclear weapons will not come into play.. an assurance only the Americans can ensure.

As for the need for the Improved army, the volunteer nature of the Army has changed to those seeking a career..not longer just for the adventure and love of the motherland.
More and more people enlist in the Army knowing that it ensures some success in terms of capital and land.. compared to other jobs. After all, where else is land is doled out practically free.. which can be used to make a heavy profit later on for an unmatched retirement.
Not to mention the opportunities for business contacts that arise once you reach a higher post.. you dont have to run the business, but nothing stops your brother or cousin from doing it.. and providing you the commission at the side.
Again.. the honest joe's outnumber such opportunists.. but it is such opportunists that endanger the very purpose the Army is for.
A revamp of the Army would need a complete detachment of its commercial ventures, which should be handed over the ministry of defense....under the supervision of the democratic government.
as suggested earlier The ISI needs to follow suit in having more involvement by the government than it is now..
A smaller and leaner operational troop level is needed.. whilst maintaining a large reserves..
The Army is undergoing conversion to a net centric C4I system.. but more needs to be done, the stick and the map.. has to go.. and be replaced by a tablet pc with GPS.

A separate counter insurgency force has to be developed from the main force, so not to take the focus away from the conventional threat.. however, rotating units is still a good idea as it ensures no section of the Army does not understand the dynamics of COIN ops.
The ranger's force as suggested earlier may work, but that then entails a control force.. long term solutions to the various insurgencies must be the governments focus.

the Fauj alone is not what needs change, a change in the strategic depth of the nation is also required, Industrial infrastructure.. especially those critical for national survival have to be move deeper into the nation, whilst avoiding the impression of a Punjabi dominance as will be projected by elements seeking to make political and monetary gains.

Merit is still lost in the Army after the brigadier level.. mainly due to the feudal influence still in the rank and file of this nations fauj.. something that even education has failed to remove.. but unless it is.. the fauj will always keeps its colonial roots.. and sit with the moniker of "Not a nation that controls Army, but an Army that controls a nation".