Modi's India: A Paper Elephant?

"Desh ka bahut nuksaan hua hai", acknowledged Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi after his military's recent failures against Pakistan in Balakot and Kashmir. This marked a major shift in Modi's belligerent tone that has been characterized by his boasts of "chhappan inch ki chhati" (56 inch chest) and  talk of  "munh tor jawab" (jaw-breaking response) and "boli nahin goli" (bullets, not talks) to intimidate Pakistan in the last few years.  The recent events are forcing India's western backers to reassess their strategy of boosting India as a counterweight to China.



Balakot and Kashmir:

Indian government and media have made a series of false claims about Balakot "militant casualties" and "shooting down Pakistani F16".  These claims have been scrutinized and debunked by independent journalists, experts and fact checkers. There is no dispute about the fact that Squadron Leader Hasan Siddiqui of Pakistan Air Force (PAF), flying a Pakistan-made JF-17 fighter, shot down Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman of Indian Air Force (IAF) flying a Russia made MiG 21. Abhinandan was captured by Pakistan and then released to India.

Beautiful Balakot, Kaghan Valley, Pakistan


Western Narrative:

The widely accepted western narrative about India and Pakistan goes like this: "India is rapidly rising while Pakistan is collapsing". In a 2015 report from South Asia, Roger Cohen of New York Times summed it up as follows: "India is a democracy and a great power rising. Pakistan is a Muslim homeland that lost half its territory in 1971, bounced back and forth between military and nominally democratic rule, never quite clear of annihilation angst despite its nuclear weapons".

India-Pakistan Military Spending: Infographic Courtesy The Economist

India: A Paper Elephant?

In an article titled "Paper Elephant", the Economist magazine talked about how India has ramped up its military spending and emerged as the world's largest arms importer. "Its military doctrine envisages fighting simultaneous land wars against Pakistan and China while retaining dominance in the Indian Ocean", the article said. It summed up the situation as follows: "India spends a fortune on defense and gets poor value for money".

After the India-Pakistan aerial combat over Kashmir, New York Times published a story from its South Asia correspondent headlined: "After India Loses Dogfight to Pakistan, Questions Arise About Its Military".  Here are some excerpts of the report:

"Its (India's) loss of a plane last week to a country (Pakistan) whose military is about half the size and receives a quarter (a sixth according to SIPRI) of the funding is telling. ...India’s armed forces are in alarming shape....It was an inauspicious moment for a military the United States is banking on to help keep an expanding China in check".


Ineffective Indian Military:

Academics who have studied Indian military have found that it is ineffective by design. In "Army and Nation: The Military and Indian Democracy Since Independence",  the author Steven I. Wilkinson, Nilekani Professor of India and South Asian Studies and Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at Yale, has argued that the civil-military constraints that have helped prevent a coup have hurt Indian military effectiveness and preparedness in at least three important ways:

(1) the weakening of the army before the 1962 China war;

(2) the problems caused for defense coordination and preparation by unwieldy defense bureaucracy, duplication of functions among different branches and lack of sharing of information across branches and

(3) the general downgrading of pay and perks since independence which has left the army with huge shortage of officers that affected the force's discipline capabilities.

Summary:

India's international perception as a "great power rising" has suffered a serious setback as a result of its recent military failures against Pakistan which spends only a sixth of India's military budget and ranks 17th in the world, far below India ranking 4th by globalfirepower.com.  "Desh ka bahut nuksaan hua hai", acknowledged Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi after his military's recent failures in Balakot and Kashmir. This marked a major shift in Modi's belligerent tone that has been characterized by his boasts of "chhappan inch ki chhati" (56 inch chest) and  talk of  "munh tor jawab" (jaw-breaking response) and "boli nahin goli" (bullets, not talks) to intimidate Pakistan in the last few years.  The recent events are forcing India's western backers to reassess their strategy of boosting India as a counterweight to China.

Here's a discussion on the subject:

https://youtu.be/tEWf-6cT0PM




Here's Indian Prime Minister Modi making excuses for his military's failures:

https://youtu.be/QIt0EAAr3PU




Comments

Riaz Haq said…
#NYTimes editorial board: "As long as #India and #Pakistan refuse to deal with their core dispute — the future of #Kashmir, India’s only #Muslim-majority state — they face unpredictable, possibly terrifying, consequences." #Balakot #PakistanStrikesBack https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/opinion/kashmir-india-pakistan-nuclear.html

The current focus on North Korea’s growing arsenal obscures the fact that the most likely trigger for a nuclear exchange could be the conflict between India and Pakistan.

Long among the world’s most antagonistic neighbors, the two nations clashed again last week before, fortunately, finding the good sense to de-escalate. The latest confrontation, the most serious between the two nations in more than a decade, gave way to more normal pursuits like trade at a border crossing and sporadic cross-border shelling.

But this relative calm is not a solution. As long as India and Pakistan refuse to deal with their core dispute — the future of Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state — they face unpredictable, possibly terrifying, consequences.

The current crisis dates to Feb. 14, when a Kashmiri suicide bomber killed at least 40 Indian paramilitary officers in the deadliest attack in three decades in Kashmir, a region that Pakistan has claimed since partition in 1947. The militant group Jaish-e-Muhammad, which seeks independence for Kashmir or its merger with Pakistan, took responsibility. While it is on America’s list of terrorist organizations and is formally banned in Pakistan, the group has been protected and armed by the Pakistani intelligence service.

Last week, India sent warplanes into Pakistan for the first time in five decades. Indian officials said they had struck the group’s “biggest training camp” and killed a “very large number” of militants, although those claims have been called into doubt. Pakistan counterattacked, leading to a dogfight in which at least one Indian jet was shot down and a pilot was captured by the Pakistanis.

The situation could have easily escalated, given that the two countries have fought three wars over 70 years, maintain a near constant state of military readiness along their border and have little formal government-to-government dialogue.

Adding to the volatility, India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, is waging a tough re-election campaign in which he has used anti-Pakistan talk to fuel Hindu nationalism.

With Pakistan’s army most likely shaken by the Indian raid and unwilling to slide into protracted conflict, Prime Minister Imran Khan returned the pilot to India, in what was seen as a good-will gesture, called for talks and promised an investigation into the bombing. Mr. Modi took the opportunity to back off further escalation.

The next confrontation might not end so calmly.
Riaz Haq said…
Alison Redford: For too long, #Pakistan’s actions have been unreasonably characterized as aggressive. #India’s tactics have been increasingly violent, leading to more international criticism of its conduct and occupation of #Kashmir. #Modi #Hindutva https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-this-not-the-same-old-india-pakistan-conflict/

First, in media reports, India refers to 40 years of terrorist attacks against India by Pakistan without equal mention of terror attacks perpetrated by India on Pakistani soil, as recently as three months ago in Karachi, or India’s support for independence insurgents operating in the Northwest of Pakistan over the past 10 years.

Second, although in the past there have been allegations that Jaish-e-Mohammed has been supported by Pakistan, the organization has been banned in Pakistan since 2002 and support for its operations and training activity was withdrawn. Yet, India continues to assert this position, without providing evidence to support it.

Third, it is against the fundamental principles of international law to launch a military attack on civilian targets, which can be considered an act of war. In those circumstances, one can argue that Pakistan had the right to defend itself and that its response was both measured and reasonable.

On the Kashmiri question, Pakistan has called for United Nations mediation, but India has refused, saying that it is an internal issue, while violently suppressing a growing, and younger, local insurgent movement. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights criticized India for using excessive force in 2017. More than 500 people, including 100 civilians, have been killed in 2018.

In recent months, India’s tactics have been increasingly violent, leading to more international criticism of its conduct and occupation of Kashmir, including most recently by British parliamentarians, and two resolutions at the OIC this past weekend condemning its violent actions in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Prime Minister Narendra Modi also faces criticism domestically from Indian opposition leaders such as Rahul Gandhi, for manipulating these events to bolster Mr. Modi’s political support in an election year.

There have been times when both countries have been accused of being involved in unwarranted actions against the other and the international community is quick to ignore the complicated dynamics in the region and rely on history. Instead, each incident should be assessed on its own merits to avoid dangerous rivalries from being perpetuated. With a real nuclear risk, we cannot afford to be complacent.
Riaz Haq said…
Ex #Indian Official's advice to #Modi:"Sub-conventional war with #Pakistan is the only option.The recent events, post-#Pulwamaattack, have amply demonstrated the limited utility of launching a conventional war with Pakistan." #BalakotAirStrike #Kashmir https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-commentary/sub-conventional-war-with-pakistan-is-the-only-option/

Covert operations by an intelligence agency are unlike the acts of terror groups, i.e., acts of mindless violence meant to terrorise the peopleand render the governments helpless against such asymmetrical acts of warfare. They are designed to create and promote disaffection against the governments and generally play up the existing fault lines and have long term devastating effects.

First and foremost, we should revive our support to the groups in Baluchistan fighting for their independence. Secondly, we should extendsupport to the Shia minority groups in Gilgit- Baltistan that have been ruthlessly suppressed by the Pakistan Army for the last 4 decades. Significantly Prime Minister Modi made a dramatic reference to their long-standing struggles in his speech from the ramparts of the Red Fort on 15th August 2016 and much hope was raised in both quarters. That however proved to be illusory as there was no follow up action.

Thirdly, we should support other disaffected groups such as the Mohajirs in Sindh, the Saraikinationalist movement in Punjab, and the non-Taliban Pakthuns in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa that have suffered untold misery in the hands of the majoritarian Punjabi army and the ISI who haveruthlessly murdered or caused disappearances of its leaders.

It is noteworthy that we don’t even have to waste time in creating well -trained and highly motivated terror groups or ‘fidayeens’. They are all there in Pakistan and in plenty. A cursory count indicates that there are over 65 terrorist organizations in Pakistan that have been banned from August 2001 to mid -2017 and are in diverse states of disarray and at least over 50 must be totally starved for funds. All we need is to pick up a handful of them, province wise and start funding. They will certainly work for anyone if the money is right and if channeled through the right sources, say a Saudi billionaire. Tehrik e- Taliban comes right on top of the list because of its excellent track record in targeting Pakistan’s military and air-force installations and security agencies including the ISI.

And surely, this entire effort will cost less than one Rafale aircraft and the damage it will do, could equal the efforts of a squadron.

Cyber operations

The most effective low–cost, high- impact tool of modern warfare is offensive cyber warfare and this is one area that needs immediate and utmost attention. The fact that a handful of computers in the hands of highly skilled hackers could cause untold havoc to the critical infrastructure of the target country is, by now well understood by our policy makers. Unfortunately, the existing set-up the NTRO created for this task is woefully inadequate for the challenges. It is therefore urgent that we involve the huge IT and IT enabled services of the private sector, on a selective basis, to outsource the jobs that the NTRO is unable to do.

In most countries in the West, not every security related job is done by government agencies but by private firms that have core competence in the required field. Outsourcing jobs to them after vetting their security clearances and embedding them with government agencies is the utmost need of the hour. Since we are already handing over defence contracts to private entrepreneurs, there should be no problem in involving them in Cyber operations, as long as the choice of targets, nature of attacks and the timing and location of it are cleared at the highest levels of government so that the responsibility for the impact and possible retaliation rests with them.
Riaz Haq said…
Praveen Sawhney: Little Cause to Cheer the Balakot Airstrike and its Aftermath

https://www.thekashmirmonitor.net/little-cause-to-cheer-the-balakot-airstrike-and-its-aftermath/


The Modi government might still win the war of perception within India, but India’s conventional deterrence has been compromised. Its war-fighting capabilities – pivoted on air power – have been blunted without a fight. This will have implications for the on-going proxy war by Pakistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan maintained credibility of both its first combined civil-military government and its air power.

" It was evident that the operation was meant for publicity. A case in point, unsubstantiated media reports claimed that 300 to 350 Jaish terrorists in Balakot were eliminated by IAF strikes, a claim that has since been questioned by the international media, which was allowed by Pakistan to visit the target site. Subsequently, other media reports have emerged claiming that the IAF fighters did not actually cross the Line of Control. Instead, Balakot was attacked using stand-off weapons. Hence, deliberate confusion continues."

"Since the war was neither on, nor imminent, it would have taken any professional air force (PAF is no exception) minimum 10 minutes from detection to reaction and interception. Moreover, the PAF did not have its airborne early warning aircraft in the air (AWACS cannot stay more than 24 hours in air), and the time was such that observers manning the Ground Based Air Defence System (GBADS) could not have been vigilant (it is not possible to remain on high alert 24×7 in peacetime)."

" Pakistan was faced with the dilemma of how to avenge India’s unprecedented action: to use or not to use the PAF. It was decided that the PAF too would breach Indian airspace while calling it a non-military strike. Unlike the IAF, the PAF strike would be done with menacing force in broad daylight ensuring that Indian military installations close to the Line of Control were not damaged enough to compel India to raise the ante."


https://youtu.be/YX4qXrR34PI
Riaz Haq said…
Nadir in the valley: #India’s #Modi government is intensifying a failed strategy in #Kashmir. The conflict has claimed 50,000 lives since the 1980s. https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/03/09/indias-government-is-intensifying-a-failed-strategy-in-kashmir?frsc=dg%7Ce via @TheEconomist

Guns have slipped back into holsters and diplomats behind their desks; the Samjhauta or “Concord” Express has resumed its reassuring bi-weekly chug connecting Lahore Junction and Old Delhi Station. Relations between India and Pakistan are returning to the normal huffy disdain after a week of military brinkmanship. For the divided and disputed border region of Kashmir, there is relief. Yet in the Kashmir Valley, a fertile and densely populated part of the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir, this comes tempered with weariness. For its 7m inhabitants, most of them Muslim, a return to normal means a large and growing pile of frustrations. Some, such as bad government services and a deepening shortage of jobs, are familiar to all Indians. Others are unique to the valley.

Pakistan views the valley’s Muslims as sundered citizens; its constitution prescribes what should happen not if, but “when”, Kashmiris vote to join Pakistan. And since independence in 1947, Pakistan has never ceased trying to hasten this moment by sending guerrillas over the border to stir up jihad—although this week it claimed to rounding up such militants. India, for its part, says that Kashmir was lucky to fall to a secular, democratic country at partition and not to its violent, narrow-minded neighbour. But Indian governments turn deaf the moment people in the valley speak of greater autonomy, let alone azadi (independence). Their efforts at counter-insurgency have been disturbingly bloody. The conflict has claimed 50,000 lives since the 1980s.
Riaz Haq said…
Are #India’s Think Tanks filled with retired armchair generals Cheered on by #Indian media, Promoting Conflict With #Pakistan ? #Modi #Hindutva - Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-07/are-india-s-think-tanks-promoting-conflict-with-pakistan

Peace appears to have been given a chance in South Asia. Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, striving to play the statesman, has not only released a captured Indian pilot but also detained several alleged Pakistani militants. Still, there’s good reason to worry that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi might once again ratchet up tensions against a nuclear-armed neighbor as he approaches the most crucial election of his political life.



Modi’s militant nationalism, loudly amplified by Indian television anchors, isn’t the only flammable element in a volatile situation. India’s burgeoning military-intellectual complex also deserves the world’s close and skeptical scrutiny.

One wing of this community consists of superannuated and clearly bored generals, titillating hyper-patriotic television anchors and themselves with visions of do-or-die wars and glorious victories. Their jingoism far exceeds the capacity of the Indian military, which, an internal report recently revealed, is encumbered with “vintage” equipment.

Perhaps more worrying, though, are the credentialed members of what a recent report by Brookings India identified as India’s “strategic community.” Though much more sober than the fire-breathing talking heads on cable TV, they seem equally attracted to the “temptation,” as U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower put it in his classic warning against the military-industrial complex, of “some spectacular and costly” military action.

Perched in privately funded think tanks, many of these connoisseurs of “surgical strikes” did not seem in the least shocked or disturbed that an Indian leader who has, as the Economist put it last week, “made a career of playing with fire” was now playing with Armageddon by launching airstrikes into Pakistan. Rather, they echoed the Hindu nationalist consensus that India was now finally dictating the terms of engagement with its rival — a triumphalism shattered the very next day when Pakistan raised its own threshold for conflict with India by striking within Indian territory and bringing down an Indian warplane.

Eisenhower’s fear in 1961 of vested interests acquiring “unwarranted influence” is freshly pertinent in today’s New Delhi. With hopes rising that India would soon be a superpower closely allied to the U.S., as well as a strategic counterweight to China, much Indian and foreign money has gone into creating a luxurious ecosystem for strategic experts and foreign-policy analysts.
Riaz Haq said…
Are #India’s Think Tanks filled with retired armchair generals Cheered on by #Indian media, Promoting Conflict With #Pakistan ? #Modi #Hindutva - Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-07/are-india-s-think-tanks-promoting-conflict-with-pakistan

---------------

There’s ample reason to fear that such an often murkily funded and influential security establishment outside government won’t serve the cause of democracy and peace in the Indian subcontinent. In the U.S., a series of reports by the New York Times in 2016 alleged that on all kinds of issues, including military sales to foreign countries, think tanks were “pushing agendas important to corporate donors, at times blurring the line between researchers and lobbyists.” If intellectual dishonesty mars analysis in Washington, it can be expected to be more pervasive in New Delhi, where the line between paid service for corporate donors and research work is even fuzzier.

It may seem melodramatic to fear that a few well-connected intellectual racketeers might endanger democracy and social stability. But America under President Donald Trump confirms that Eisenhower was right to worry that an axis of government, corporations and intellectuals-on-hire might skew national priorities, or that, pathologically obsessed with an enemy, his country might degenerate into “a community of dreadful fear and hate.”

Already by 1984, George F. Kennan, arguably America’s finest diplomat, was lamenting that the “habit” of constantly preparing for “an imagined war” with the Soviet Union had “risen to the status of a vast addiction of American society.” This habit, Kennan presciently warned, “would be difficult to eradicate in the future,” long after the U.S.S.R. had disappeared.

In India, Hindu nationalist politicians and their sympathizers in the media have similarly turned an imagined punitive war on Pakistan into another vast addiction, and the military-intellectual complex increasingly aggravates this national habit. Focused on Islamabad’s backing for the militant insurgency in Kashmir, they’ve successfully externalized a problem that is primarily domestic: the Modi government’s resolve to suppress, rather than address, Kashmiri demands for democracy and civil liberties.

Ajai Shukla was one of the very few mainstream Indian writers on security issues to point out that “the wider story in a crisis with such potential devastation is that the Modi government has launched a nationwide anti-Muslim agenda that regards Muslims as unpatriotic, Pakistan as a cunning and implacable foe and Kashmiri separatists as its willing tools.” Thus, Shukla argues, Kashmiris protesting against Indian brutality have come to be widely seen as “Muslim traitors, rather than the manifestation of a political problem that has to be discussed and resolved, not militarily crushed.”

Zealously pushing a military solution to a political problem, India’s political, media and security establishment suffered a debacle last month. They ought to “learn,” as Eisenhower exhorted, “how to compose differences not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose” — above all in Kashmir, which is the key, now more than ever, to the health of civil society in both India and Pakistan.
Riaz Haq said…
#India, #Pakistan threatened to unleash #missiles at each other. #India threatened to fire at least six missiles at Pakistan, and Islamabad said it would respond with its own missile strikes “three times over”. #Balakot #Kashmir #Modi https://reut.rs/2HzpotM

The way in which tensions suddenly worsened and threatened to trigger a war between the nuclear-armed nations shows how the Kashmir region, which both claim and is at the core of their enmity, remains one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints.

The exchanges did not get beyond threats, and there was no suggestion that the missiles involved were anything more than conventional weapons, but they created consternation in official circles in Washington, Beijing and London.

Reuters has pieced together the events that led to the most serious military crisis in South Asia since 2008, as well as the concerted diplomatic efforts to get both sides to back down.

The simmering dispute erupted into conflict late last month when Indian and Pakistani warplanes engaged in a dogfight over Kashmir on Feb 27, a day after a raid by Indian jet fighters on what it said was a militant camp in Pakistan. Islamabad denied any militant camp exists in the area and said the Indian bombs exploded on an empty hillside.

In their first such clash since the last war between the two nations in 1971, Pakistan downed an Indian plane and captured its pilot after he ejected in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir.

Hours later, videos of the bloodied Indian pilot, handcuffed and blindfolded, appeared on social media, identifying himself to Pakistani interrogators, deepening anger in New Delhi.

With Prime Minister Narendra Modi facing a general election in April-May, the government was under pressure to respond.


That evening, Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval spoke over a secure line to the head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), Asim Munir, to tell him India was not going to back off its new campaign of “counter terrorism” even after the pilot’s capture, an Indian government source and a Western diplomat with knowledge of the conversations told Reuters in New Delhi.

Doval told Munir that India’s fight was with the militant groups that freely operated from Pakistani soil and it was prepared to escalate, said the government source.

A Pakistani government minister and a Western diplomat in Islamabad separately confirmed a specific Indian threat to use six missiles on targets inside Pakistan. They did not specify who delivered the threat or who received it, but the minister said Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies “were communicating with each other during the fight, and even now they are communicating with each other”.

Pakistan said it would counter any Indian missile attacks with many more launches of its own, the minister told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“We said if you will fire one missile, we will fire three. Whatever India will do, we will respond three times to that,” the Pakistani minister said.

Doval’s office did not respond to a request for comment. India was not aware of any missile threat issued to Pakistan, a government official said in reply to a Reuters request for comment.

Pakistan’s military declined to comment and Munir could not be reached for comment. Pakistan’s foreign ministry did not respond to a Reuters request for comment.

---
U.S. security advisor Bolton was on the phone with Doval on the night of Feb 27 itself, and into the early hours of Feb 28, the second day of the Trump-Kim talks, in an attempt to defuse the situation, the Western diplomat in New Delhi and the Indian official said.

Later, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who was also in Hanoi, also called both sides to seek a way out of the crisis.

“Secretary Pompeo led diplomatic engagement directly, and that played an essential role in de-escalating the tensions between the two sides,” State Department deputy spokesperson Robert Palladino said in a briefing in Washington on March 5.
Riaz Haq said…
#Islamabad should not anticipate #Modi’s hostility towards Pakistan to abate after #India's elections. To the contrary, any #BJP win will reinforce their conviction that aggression against #Pakistan and the #Kashmiris is a winning formula. #Balakot https://www.dawn.com/news/1470123

Any belief in India that its military adventurism has ‘worked’ could erode the stability of mutual deterrence which Pakistan’s military response of Feb 27 re-established. If New Delhi is convinced that Pakistan can be cowed by a combination of military and diplomatic pressure, it may feel emboldened in the next crisis to conduct military strikes at a ‘higher’ level.


Pakistan must, therefore, take steps to expose India’s falsehoods before, during, and after the military exchanges of Feb 26-28. It should advertise that India’s bombs destroyed trees and killed a crow. It must reveal to the world, including the people of India, how Pakistan could have destroyed Indian military targets but chose not to do so. It should point out that India’s captured pilot could have been humiliated and India could have had its nose rubbed in the dirt by requiring a minister or its air chief to come and retrieve him. Finally, it should be made clear that Pakistan’s actions against militant organisations are designed to implement its own National Action Plan, not in response to Indian or other external pressure.

Islamabad should not anticipate that Modi’s hostility towards Pakistan will abate after the Indian national elections. Apart from their ideological animus, if Modi and the Hindu alliance succeed in the forthcoming elections, it will reinforce their conviction that aggression against Pakistan and the Kashmiris is a winning formula.

Unfortunately, India’s aggressive posture is being actively encouraged by the US which is now firmly aligned with New Delhi in its global rivalry with China. Pakistan enjoys some leverage in the context of Afghanistan; but this does not seem to have prevented Washington’s one-sided pressure on Pakistan during and after India’s military incursion.

Yet, this does not imply that the Kashmir issue will fade away. Despite all odds — massive Indian oppression, over 100,000 killed, Pakistan’s frequent indifference — the Kashmiris have persisted in their struggle for freedom from Indian rule for over 70 years.

The current uprising in occupied Kashmir is led by the third generation of Kashmiris. It is entirely indigenous. It has continued for four years without external support and is likely to be sustained. Like Afghanistan, Kashmir is mountainous, and India is a large and fractured country where active insurgencies are under way in 119 districts (according to former prime minister Manmohan Singh) and can find succour from various internal sources.

The BJP’s plan to ‘resolve’ the Kashmir ‘problem’ is to colonise it and transform it into a Hindu-majority state. A first step in this plan would be to eliminate Jammu & Kashmir’s ‘special’ and autonomous status under the Indian constitution. If Modi and the BJP proceed with this plan, the Kashmiri resistance will obviously intensify. The Hindu fundamentalists may then be tempted to resort to the outright genocide of the Kashmiri Muslims.

As the blood flows, the Kashmiri diaspora, and sympathetic Pakistanis, will seek to join the freedom struggle, including from Pakistan’s territory. The Pakistan government will then face a binary choice: facilitate the freedom fighters or fight them as ‘terrorists’.
Riaz Haq said…
#Pakistan: No links found in probe of #India's #Pulwama dossier. At least 54 individuals had been arrested, 22 locations investigated and a number of phone numbers tracked as part of the investigation@AJENews https://aje.io/bzmy8

Pakistan says it has conducted initial investigations into a dossier provided by neighbouring India on the Pulwama suicide attack in Kashmir, concluding that so far no links can be drawn between Pakistan and the bombing, the foreign office said.

At least 54 individuals had been arrested, 22 locations investigated and a number of phone numbers tracked as part of the investigation, said a Pakistani foreign office statement released on Thursday.

Pakistan said it had shared its findings with India a day earlier, while also briefing top diplomats in the capital Islamabad.

Tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours spiked last month after a suicide bombing in the Indian-administered Kashmir town of Pulwama killed at least 40 Indian security forces personnel.

India blamed Pakistan for "controlling" the attack and launched punitive air raids on what it termed "a training camp" on Pakistani soil shortly thereafter.

Pakistan said the air attacks hit an uninhabited forest, and launched its own air attacks adjacent to Indian military targets, causing no casualties.

Both sides deployed fighter jets and in an aerial dogfight, an Indian aircraft was shot down, resulting in the capture of its pilot.

With his return two days later, tensions began to subside, although both countries' militaries remain on high alert.

On Wednesday, Pakistan fully reopened its airspace for flights originating or departing from the country for the first time in a month. Transit flights over Pakistani airspace remain suspended.

Shortly after the attack, a video emerged of alleged suicide bomber Adil Dar, a native of Indian-administered Kashmir, claiming responsibility for the attack and swearing allegiance to Pakistan-based armed group Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM).

Riaz Haq said…
When They Want #War, #India and #Pakistan Will Always Have #Kashmir. This year, it was Pakistan, rather than India, that came out looking like the adult on this occasion. #Balakot #PulwamaAttack https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-they-want-war-india-and-pakistan-will-always-have-kashmir?ref=scroll

The essentially violent nature of Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva, has now been laid bare by events. Countless Kashmiris in other parts of India spent most of late February avoiding lynch mobs—many of them helped by activists like Shehla Rashid, who you will hear from later in this series. Many gruesome scenes that recalled the 2002 Gujarat riots, which left countless people, mostly Muslims, dead.

The Indian media, up to and including ostensibly liberal journalists like Barkha Dutt, devolved in the wake of the Pulwama attack into an unthinking, bloodthirsty rabble. Bollywood actors, who have only ever played at war, became all-too-willing mongers for it.

Hindutva Twitter—which has long made MAGA Twitter look quaint—seethed with denunciations of “traitors” and “Pakapologists” and writhed with demands for ever greater violence. The extent to which Modi’s anti-Muslim rhetoric has entered the Indian mainstream—its bloodstream—seemed scarily absolute.


-------------

On February 14, an Indian-born Kashmiri named Adil Ahmad Dar drove 300 kilograms of explosives into a convoy of Indian military vehicles in Pulwama, a district of Indian-administered Kashmir. In addition to himself, Dar killed 40 Indian soldiers, rendering the attack the deadliest in decades. A Pakistan-based militant group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, claimed responsibility for his actions, and the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was quick to allege Pakistani involvement. Pakistan denied the charge.

A quickly escalating game of tit-for-tat followed. Indian jets crossed the infamous Line of Control and, according to official statements, bombed a terrorist training camp on Pakistani soil. Pakistan denied this, too, saying the planes hadn’t destroyed much of anything and certainly hadn’t killed any terrorists.

Meanwhile, Pakistan sent its own planes across the LoC in response. For the first time since the 1971 war that led to the creation of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan engaged in dogfights over Kashmir. When an Indian plane was shot down on the Pakistani side of the LoC, its pilot, Abhinandan Varthaman, was captured. He was returned to India on the first day of March in a move that Pakistan described as a “gesture of peace.” The stand-off has largely been limited to cross-border shooting and shelling since. A number of Kashmiris on both sides of the LoC have been killed.

Bill Clinton once described Kashmir as “the most dangerous place in the world.” Christopher Hitchens once described the LoC—from a vantage point on the Pakistani side—as “the near-certain flash point of a coming war that could well become an Asian Armageddon.”

For the moment, that war appears to have been averted. Cross-border shelling is business as usual in this part of the world.

But Hitchens would have been surprised to learn that it was Pakistan, rather than India, that came out looking like the adult on this occasion. Then again, Hitchens, who wrote his dispatch in 2007, had long been convinced that the U.S. alliance with Pakistan was a form of geopolitical self-harm, and Hitchens died before Modi came to power in India in 2014. He did not foresee the rise of an Islamophobic nationalist government in Delhi and couldn’t have guessed at the manner in which that government would wind up radicalizing a whole generation of Indian Kashmiris through its militarization of the region and the brutality it would inflict on its citizens there.
Riaz Haq said…
LESSONS FROM THE BRINK
Ejaz Haider Updated March 10, 2019

https://www.dawn.com/news/1468744


India thought — and many experts agreed — that there was a band in which India could act militarily and punitively. That, if India were to play within that band, it would make it extremely difficult for Pakistan to escalate to the nuclear level because such escalation would be considered highly disproportionate and would draw international opprobrium and consequences. The argument was that the certainty of international diplomatic and economic isolation would force Pakistan to stay its hand and not escalate to the nuclear level.

--------------
The banal equivalent of such a situation would be someone punching another person in a crowded bazaar and the victim, instead of keeping the fight to fisticuffs, chooses to draw and fire a pistol. Not only would such a person lose the sympathy of the crowd, he would also invite the full coercive and normative weight of the law.

---------------------

The interesting assumption in all this, and one that should not be missed is this: the first-round result. Every subsequent assumption flows from what India could achieve militarily in the opening hand.


------------------------

It is precisely for this reason that the opening round is so crucial for the aggressor, in this case India. To recap, as noted above in the list of assumptions, every subsequent assumption flows from the success of the opening round.

--------------------

what is important is not whether Indian planes came into Pakistan (original claim), whether they struck in a stand-off mode (i.e. when aerial platforms are used from a safe distance, away from defensive weapons, and use precision munitions such as glide bombs to attack a distant target without actually coming upon the target and swooping down for a bombing run) or even whether they could or could not make a hit. The important and crucial point was that India had challenged Pakistan and Pakistan needed to put an end to the “new normal” talk. Pakistan chose its targets, struck to show resolve and capability and then also won the dogfight.

Later, we are told that India had thought of using missiles to hit nine targets in Pakistan. But Pakistan readied its missiles and informed India that it will hit back. That forced India to back off. If this is true — and it comes to us from a briefing by Prime Minister Imran Khan — then it seems that Modi had nursed the idea of playing a very dangerous hand, which he couldn’t because that would have meant exchange of missiles between a nuclear dyad — a development which has remarkable escalation potential. Missilery between nuclear powers is a big no. There’s no known technology in the world that can determine whether the incoming missile has a tactical or a strategic (nuclear) warhead and that can lead to response miscalculation.

The two sides are back to the ‘old normal’ — artillery and small-arms duelling across the LoC. The attempt by an Indian submarine to enter Pakistan’s territorial waters was also deftly picked up by Pakistan Navy, with the sub forced to return. It could have been sunk but Pakistan, in keeping with its policy of not escalating, chose not to make a hit.

From here on, there’s nothing more for India but to understand the imperative of positive engagement through a sustained dialogue. The framework for such engagement is already in place. There is no alternative to talking and walking that talk. But that will not happen until we see the electoral contest in India and its results.

-------------------

At the same time, Pakistan must not underestimate India based on these limited rounds. While India could not coerce Pakistan militarily at this moment, if the growth differential between Pakistan and India continues to grow, the technological asymmetry will increase to the point where strategies of coercion could kick into play. That scenario could see very different results on the ground. For instance, India will possess the anti-access, area-denial (A2/AD) S-400 system by 2020.
Riaz Haq said…
"Despite official figures #India’s economy slowed sharply due to #Modi's mis-steps while promised #jobs and #investments have not materialized...India has gone backwards under him. He is lying about the #GDP numbers....#Indian MBAs are working as waiters" https://www.ft.com/content/14baecba-56c5-11e9-91f9-b6515a54c5b1

Mr Modi swept to power in New Delhi in 2014, pledging to bring acche din, or good times, for India, with accelerated economic growth and millions of new jobs. But his record of delivery on these promises is highly contentious.

The prime minister insists India’s economy has grown faster under his leadership than ever before, with an average annual GDP growth of 7.3 per cent, compared with an annual average of 6.7 per cent under the previous Congress-led government. But many economists have questioned the credibility of official data, amid perceptions of unprecedented political interference. Even by New Delhi’s own numbers, India’s GDP growth slowed to 6.6 per cent in the three months ending December 31, its slowest pace in five quarters.

New Delhi has also suppressed a major report which apparently indicated rising joblessness among youth. In a Pew Research Center survey of 2,521 Indians last summer, 76 per cent cited lack of employment opportunities as a major concern. “The gap between the hype and the promises was clearly wide and clearly visible,” Mr Varshney says.

Farmers have been squeezed hard as part of the effort to curb once rampant inflation, their anger displayed in a series of large-scale protests. “We are very unhappy”, says Lakshman Ram, a 61-year-old farmer at the Jodhpur spice market, where he was selling a mound of fragrant cumin seeds to traders. “He has killed us farmers. He has finished us. I’m just waiting for Congress — they think about us.”

---------------

The Zomato and Swiggy delivery boys, however, brim with enthusiasm for Mr Modi, especially his recent authorisation of a missile strike on an alleged terrorist training camp in neighbouring Pakistan. Their excitement is mirrored by Akshay Bhati, 25, whose father supplies milk to the shop.

“The power of the nation has gone up,” the younger Mr Bhati says. “Before, any enemy country would come and attack India and just get away with it — India would not do anything. Now, we will enter your house and kill you.”

The divergent views among the evening crowd at Pokar’s reflects the deep faultlines among India’s 900m eligible voters, as they gear up for what has become an unusually personality-driven general election contest. The voting will serve as a national assessment of how well the charismatic populist Mr Modi has lived up to the high expectations he raised of a “New India”, when he took power in 2014 after 10 years of disappointing rule by the Congress party.

----
The premier’s Bharatiya Janata party, with its deep pockets and sophisticated political machinery, is urging India’s voters to give Mr Modi another five years in power to continue his efforts to remake India.

Fragmented opposition parties — including the BJP’s arch-rival Congress, led by Rahul Gandhi, and a diverse array of smaller regional parties — are trying to counter by accusing Mr Modi of failing to live up to expectations, and inflicting unnecessary misery on the population, while simultaneously taking potshots at one another. Results will be known only on May 23, as voting is spread over six weeks.

“It is undoubtedly a referendum on Mr Modi,” says Ashutosh Varshney, director of the Center for Contemporary South Asia at Brown University, of the contest. “It’s a very presidential style election.”

Riaz Haq said…
#Indian defense analyst Pravin Sawhney: Fighting tactical battles for one-upmanship. #Rafale and #S400 would certainly help Indian Air Force, but would not tilt the operational level balance in #India’s favor in conflict with #Pakistan https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/fighting-tactical-battles-for-one-upmanship/760082.html via @thetribunechd

The issue, thus, is about tactics and operational level of war. The Pakistan military, learning from the Soviet Union, has always given importance to the operational level. This is why in the 1965 and 1971 wars, despite being more in bean-counting of assets, India never won in the western sector. Proof of this are the ceasefire line and the Line of Control, which otherwise would have been converted into international borders.

The situation, regrettably, remains the same today. Separate doctrines of the Army and the Air Force, and with each service doing its own training is evidence that no amount of modernisation would help if the focus of service chiefs remains on tactics. For example, after the Balakot operation, a senior Air Force officer told me that the PAF would not last more than six days. He believed in tactical linear success. What about the other kinetic and non-kinetic forces which impact at the operational level?

This is not all. Retired senior Air Force officers started chest-thumping about the Balakot airstrike having set the new normal. Some argued that air power need not be escalatory, while others made the case for the use of air power in counter-terror operations like the Army. Clearly, they all were talking tactics, not war. Had India retaliated to the PAF’s counter-strike, what it called an act of war, an escalation was assured. It is another matter that PM Narendra Modi had only bargained for the use of the IAF for electoral gains.

Talking of tactics, Air Chief Marshal Dhanoa spoke about relative technological superiority. Perhaps, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman would not have strayed into Pakistani airspace if his MiG-21 Bison had Software Defined Radio (SDR) and Operational Data Link (ODL). The SDR operates in the VHF, UHF, Ku and L bandwidths and is meant to remove voice clutter. The ODL provides the pilot with data or text, in this case from the ground controller. The officer, separated from his wing-man, and without necessary voice and data instructions, unwittingly breached the airspace and was captured by the Pakistan army. There are known critical shortages of force multipliers in addition to force levels in the IAF. Surely, the IAF Chief can’t do much except keep asking the government to fill the operational voids. But, he could avoid making exaggerated claims since his words would only feed the ultra-nationalists, and support the Modi government’s spurious argument of having paid special attention to national security.

The same is the case with Rafale and S-400. These would certainly help, but would not tilt the operational level balance in India’s favour. For example, the IAF intends to use S-400 in the ‘offensive air defence’ role rather than its designed role of protecting high-value targets like Delhi, for which it was originally proposed. For the protection of high-value targets, the Air Headquarters has made a strong case to purchase the United States’ National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS). This is ironic, because while S-400 can destroy hostile ballistic missiles, NASAMS can’t do so. It can only kill cruise missiles and other aerial platforms. The thinking at the Air Headquarters is that since there is no understanding on the use of ballistic missiles — especially with Pakistan — both sides are likely to avoid the use of ballistic missiles with conventional warheads lest they are misread and lead to a nuclear accident. So, NASAMS may probably never be called upon to take on ballistic missiles.

Given the direction of the relationship between the India and Pakistan, this assumption may not be the best to make when procuring prohibitively expensive high-value assets.

Riaz Haq said…
#Modi threatens #Pakistan: We have not kept our nuclear arsenal for Diwali: PM Narendra Modi warns Pakistan. #India #BJP #nukes https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/news/we-have-not-kept-our-nuclear-arsenal-for-diwali-pm-narendra-modi-warns-pakistan/videoshow/68978935.cms

Prime Minister Narendra Modi today issued a stern warning to Pakistan and said that India no longer fears Pakistan's nuclear threats. PM Modi further said that India's nuclear arsenal are not saved for Diwali. The BJP leader's comment came during a rally at Rajasthan's Barmer. PM Narendra Modi said, "India has stopped the policy of getting scared of Pakistan's threats ... Every other day, they would say 'we have nuclear button'. Our media used to write that Pakistan too has nuclear weapons ... What do we have then? Have we kept ours (nuclear arsenal) for Diwali?"
Riaz Haq said…
Ex CM of #India Occupied #Kashmir Mehbooba Mufti hits back at PM #Modi , says #Pakistan #nuclear bombs not kept for Eid either

https://scroll.in/latest/920944/pakistans-nuclear-bombs-are-not-kept-for-eid-either-mehbooba-mufti-hits-back-at-pm-modi

The former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister’s statement came after the prime minister had bragged about India’s nuclear capability.

Peoples Democratic Party chief and former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti on Monday hit out at Prime Minister Narendra Modi for bragging about India’s nuclear capability. She accused Modi of “stooping low” and lowering the country’s political discourse.

On Sunday, Modi had said that his government had refused to be intimidated by Pakistan’s nuclear threats and that with the Balakot air strike, India had given Pakistan a “fitting reply”. “What do we have then? Have we kept our nuclear bomb for Diwali?” Modi had said at a rally in Barmer district of Rajasthan. Modi had said that his government had made the terrorists afraid from across the border and the results of it were visible as there were no blasts anywhere in the country in the last five years.

On Monday, Mufti said, “If India hasn’t kept nuclear bomb for Diwali, it’s obvious Pakistan’s not kept theirs for Eid either. Don’t know why PM Modi must stoop so low & reduce political discourse to this.”

Addressing reporters in Kulgam, Mufti once again criticised Modi for his remark. “What Pakistan [nuclear bombs] possesses would not be saved for Eid either. We are evenly placed in this matter,” she said.
Riaz Haq said…
Author Ashutosh in"Hindu Rashtra" talks about call to arms for #Gandhi’s #Hindus . “#Hindutva has an infinite appetite to quarrel with the past” under #Muslim rule. #Modi wants “masculine and martial nationalism” aimed at “#Kashmir, #Pakistan and #Islam” https://www.asianage.com/books/210419/a-call-to-arms-for-gandhis-hindus.html

As time moves forward, Hindu Rashtra will take its rightful place as a well-researched attempt to explain the unfolding of the Modi years. Review by Mani Shankar Aiyar

Ashutosh takes the reader by the hand, as it were, through the beginnings of Hindutva: the invention of this hitherto unknown word by V.D. Savarkar, its elaboration by M.S. Golwalkar, and its being put into political practice by the current icon of “masculine and martial nationalism”, Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

“Hindutva,” the author observes, “has an infinite appetite to quarrel with the past”. The past is seen, in Savarkar’s words, as “millions of Muslim invaders from all over Asia (falling) over India century after century with all the ferocity at their command to destroy the Hindu religion, the lifeblood of the nation”. Savarkar held that in this the Muslim invaders succeeded only because the Hindus had become “weak and cowardly” by upholding the “perverted virtues” of “compassion, tolerance, non-violence and truth”. The answer lay in recasting the Hindu as “masculine and martial”, the very qualities that Mr Modi seeks to embody. Ashutosh continues: “Modi epitomises Hindutva nationalism, which is founded on an adversarial attitude towards Muslims and believes that India’s history is one of Hindus being tortured in their own homeland for thousands of years because of the ruthlessness of Muslim rulers”.

But why continue this quarrel with the past even unto the 21st century, well after India, albeit a partitioned India, gained her Independence? M.K. Gandhi laid down the fundamental parameter of our contemporary nationhood in the following terms: “The assumption that India has now become the land of the Hindus is erroneous. India belongs to all who live here”.

Golwalkar held in direct contrast that the coming into being of Pakistan “is a clear case of continued Muslim aggression”. This led Nathuram Godse to justify assassinating Gandhi as, “Gandhiji was himself the greatest supporter and advocate of Pakistan… In these circumstances, the only effective remedy to relieve the Hindus from the Muslim atrocities was, to my mind, to remove Gandhiji from this world.”

This meshes seamlessly, as cited by Ashutosh, with Vinay Katiyar, several times BJP MP from Faizabad, asserting in an NDTV interview on February 7, 2018: “Muslims should not stay in this country. They have partitioned the country. So why are they here? They should go to Bangladesh or Pakistan. They have no business being here in India”. And that explains the conflation of “Kashmir, Pakistan and Islam” which Hindutva enjoins as “the duty of every Indian to fight”.

It is from such beliefs, argues Ashutosh, that have arisen the horrors of lynching and murder in the name of gau raksha and “love jihad”, assault and assassination of “anti-nationals”, the undermining of the institutions of democracy, and the nurturing of a new breed of “right-wing television channels that have become platforms for the propagation of Hindutva ideology: muscular nationalism; warmongering; militarism; bashing of Islam, Kashmir and Pakistan; and ridiculing and condemning liberal and secular values”.

The writer goes into each of these, and more, linking them to the ideology that inspires such hate and prejudice. The basic dream of Hindutvavadis, he shows, is “to make Hindus ruthless and masculine as they assume Islam did to its followers” by “effectively us(ing) state power to spread religion”.
Riaz Haq said…
International Civil Aviation Organization (#ICAO) data shows #Pakistani closed #airspace was affecting as many as 350 flights daily after #India #Pakistan air skirmishes over #Kashmir #Balakot. #Pakistan lies in the middle of a vital #aviation corridor. https://graphics.reuters.com/INDIA-KASHMIR-AIRLINES/010091M92G7/index.html

Pakistan continues to restrict its airspace after an air strike in late February by the Indian military in northern Pakistan. The disruption is forcing international airlines to take costly and time-consuming detours to the north and south, adding flight time for passengers and fuel costs for airlines.

Hundreds of commercial and cargo flights are affected each day. Reuters counted 311 such flights between four airports in Europe and four in Southeast Asia.

Pakistan lies in the middle of a vital aviation corridor. In the week before the air space was closed, almost all the flights analysed passed directly over Pakistan, some coming extremely close the Kashmir region - the epicentre of tensions with India - including aircraft operated by Singapore Airlines, British Airways, Lufthansa and Thai Airways, according to flight tracking service FlightRadar24. Routes that run through Pakistan on a north-south axis are not affected.

OPSGROUP, which monitors international flight operations, used International Civil Aviation Organization data to calculate that the closed airspace was affecting as many as 350 flights daily. Most rerouted as far south as Oman’s airspace, the group said.

Flight information regions (FIR) are how airspace is divided up for control. Pakistan has two: Karachi and Lahore. They, and the Kabul FIR, have seen a notable drop in air traffic since the conflict. Muscat, however, has seen an increase.

Flights between Europe and Southeast Asia are still suffering from the disruption. The group of 311 flights that Reuters analysed has taken different routes to avoid Pakistan, according to FlightRadar24.

OPSGROUP calculates that routing south to Oman, passing through the Muscat flight information region, adds about 280 miles (451 kilometres) to a flight from London to Singapore and 410 miles from Paris to Bangkok.

Lengthy delays
Reuters analysed flight time data from FlightRadar24 for several routes from Europe to Southeast Asia. For each individual route, 14 flights prior to Feb. 27, the day air space was closed, were compared to 14 recent flights prior to April 9.

Some flights are consistently delayed. KLM, Lufthansa and Thai Airways flights are taking up to two hours longer than before the conflict

Riaz Haq said…
#India's Air Force making excuses for failures against #Pakistan Air Force. Claims #tech failures in aerial battles with Pakistan. #IAF says Pakistan “has been consistently enhancing its air defense and offensive capabilities.” #Balakot #Kashmir – https://www.rt.com/news/457701-iaf-report-admits-failures-pakistan/

Airstrikes against ‘terrorist’ targets in Pakistan and subsequent aerial battles with Islamabad’s warplanes would have been more successful if India had better technology, a service report cited by local media admits.
The Indian Air Force’s ‘lessons learnt’ assessment primarily covered February’s retaliatory airstrike on a suspected jihadist training camp in Balakot, Pakistan, resulting in a military flare-up with its neighbor. It found that IAF warplanes would have been able to do serious damage to their Pakistani adversaries – if they had access to weapons capable of doing so in the first place.

The wording of the report was somewhat careful about admitting this fact openly, suggesting that they would have been able to compete with their opponents more effectively if they had possessed “technological asymmetry.”

A litany of technical issues was found to have hampered the IAF’s combat prowess. On top of problems integrating new weapons with the available hardware, one of the fighter jet’s missiles apparently failed to deploy from the aircraft altogether due to issues with its navigation system. The same issue had featured in an earlier embarrassing report which suggested that India had likely shot down its own helicopter with a malfunctioning missile while attempting to target encroaching enemy craft.

The latest review also noted that since 1999’s Kargil War, Pakistan “has been consistently enhancing its air defense and offensive capabilities,” demonstrated in the recent clashes by their use of F-16 fighter jets, giving Islamabad an edge. India’s hardware, meanwhile, has become increasingly outdated.


“We felt we could not punish the adversaries appropriately. So we need to bolster technological asymmetry so that the enemy does not even dare to come close to the border,” one source told India’s Economic Times. While things didn’t go exactly as expected, the report reminds readers that “no battle plan ever survives the first contact with the enemy.”

India also maintained that it carried out the assault into Pakistani airspace in order to strike a training facility used by the terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), which had carried out an attack in Pulwama, killing 40 Indian troops. However, Pakistan has consistently denied the existence of such camps, and said that the raid had merely destroyed some trees.
Riaz Haq said…
Military expenditure in Asia and Oceania has risen every year since 1988. At $507 billion, military spending in the region accounted for 28 per cent of the global total in 2018, compared with just 9.0 per cent in 1988.

In 2018 India increased its military spending by 3.1 per cent to $66.5 billion. Military expenditure by Pakistan grew by 11 per cent (the same level of growth as in 2017), to reach $11.4 billion in 2018. South Korean military expenditure was $43.1 billion in 2018—an increase of 5.1 per cent compared with 2017 and the highest annual increase since 2005.

‘The tensions between countries in Asia as well as between China and the USA are major drivers for the continuing growth of military spending in the region,’ says Siemon Wezeman, a senior researcher with the SIPRI AMEX programme.

https://sipri.org/media/press-release/2019/world-military-expenditure-grows-18-trillion-2018

https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/Data%20for%20all%20countries%20from%201988%E2%80%932018%20in%20constant%20%282017%29%20USD%20%28pdf%29.pdf

https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/Data%20for%20all%20countries%20from%201988%E2%80%932018%20as%20a%20share%20of%20GDP%20%28pdf%29.pdf
Riaz Haq said…
"#Modi is campaigning as a strongman with the character to stand up to #Pakistan .. sending warplanes to bomb #India’s nuclear neighbor earlier this year was not so much an act of strength as recklessness that could have ended in disaster"https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/05/04/under-narendra-modi-indias-ruling-party-poses-a-threat-to-democracy via @TheEconomist

When the Bharatiya Janata Party (bjp) won a landslide victory in India’s general election in 2014, its leader, Narendra Modi, was something of a mystery. Would his government initiate an economic lift-off, as businessfolk hoped, or spark a sectarian conflagration, as secularists feared? In his five years as prime minister, Mr Modi has been neither as good for India as his cheerleaders foretold, nor as bad as his critics, including this newspaper, imagined. But today the risks still outweigh the rewards. Indians, who are in the midst of voting in a fresh election (see article), would be better off with a different leader.

Mr Modi is campaigning as a strongman with the character to stand up to Pakistan for having abetted terrorism. In fact, sending warplanes to bomb India’s nuclear neighbour earlier this year was not so much an act of strength as recklessness that could have ended in disaster. Mr Modi’s tough-guy approach has indeed been a disaster in the disputed state of Jammu & Kashmir, where he has inflamed a separatist insurgency rather than quelling it, while at the same time alienating moderate Kashmiris by brutally repressing protests.
Riaz Haq said…
#Indian Navy forgot to close the hatch on $3 billion #submarine #Arihant, caused extensive damage that almost sunk it. #India #IndianNavy

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/india-did-major-damage-new-3-billion-submarine-leaving-hatch-open-52292

The modern submarine is not a simple machine. A loss of propulsion, unexpected flooding, or trouble with reactors or weapons can doom a sub crew to a watery grave.

Also, it’s a good idea to, like, close the hatches before you dive.

Call it a lesson learned for the Indian navy, which managed to put the country’s first nuclear-missile submarine, the $2.9 billion INS Arihant, out of commission in the most boneheaded way possible.

The Hindu reported yesterday that the Arihant has been out of commission since suffering “major damage” some 10 months ago, due to what a navy source characterized as a “human error” — to wit: allowing water to flood to sub’s propulsion compartment after failing to secure one of the vessel’s external hatches.

Water “rushed in as a hatch on the rear side was left open by mistake while [the Arihant] was at harbor” in February 2017, shortly after the submarine’s launch, The Hindu reports. Since then, the sub “has been undergoing repairs and clean up,” according to the paper: “Besides other repair work, many pipes had to be cut open and replaced.”

It’s hard to articulate how major a foul-up this is, but Kyle Mizokami does a good job at Popular Mechanics: Indian authorities ordered the pipe replacement because they “likely felt that pipes exposed to corrosive seawater couldn't be trusted again, particularly pipes that carry pressurized water coolant to and from the ship’s 83 megawatt nuclear reactor.” For context, a submarine assigned to Britain’s Royal Navy narrowly avoided a complete reactor meltdown in 2012 after the power sources for its coolant system failed.

The incident is also quite an embarrassment — and strategic concern — for the Indian Armed Forces. A Russian Akula-class attack sub modified to accommodate a variety of ballistic missiles, the Arihant represented a major advance in India’s nuclear triad after its completion in October 2016. (India in 1974 became the 6th country to conduct a successful nuclear test.) Indeed, the Arihant’s ability to deliver K-15 short-range and K-4 intermediate-range nuclear missiles was envisioned as a powerful deterrent against India’s uneasy nuclear state neighbor, Pakistan.

“Arihant is the most important platform within India’s nuclear triad covering land-air-sea modes,” the Hindu reports. Well, it’s important if it works — and it probably helps to make your submarine watertight.

This is just some sloppy, dangerous seamanship, and the Indian Navy better get its act together fast. Either that, or perhaps follow the Royal Navy’s lead and install the 2001-era Windows XP as an operating system on all your most vital vessels. That way, you can blame the blue screen of death instead of “human error” for the next critical foul-up. Although even outdated software probably knows enough to dog down on all the hatches.

Riaz Haq said…
#India’s Only #AircraftCarrier Recently Caught On #Fire And #China Says It’s Due to incompetence of #IndianNavy men | The National Interest

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/india%E2%80%99s-only-aircraft-carrier-caught-fire-and-china-thinks-it-knows-why%C2%A0-56272

ndia’s only aircraft carrier suffered a fire that left one sailor dead.

And China, which is India’s rival, says this is because Indians aren’t competent enough to operate advanced military equipment.

The fire broke out in the engine room of the carrier Vikramaditya as it entered the Indian naval base at Karwar on April 26.

The blaze was extinguished, but not before an Indian Navy lieutenant commander, who led the firefighting effort, was overcome by fumes and later died in hospital, according to Indian media. He had gotten married just a month earlier.

The Indian Navy reported that the fire had not seriously damaged the combat capabilities of the vessel, which is India’s only operational carrier. The 45,000-ton Vikramaditya – the ex-Soviet carrier Admiral Gorshkov -- had just completed a deployment in the Arabian Sea, and was preparing to begin joint exercises with the French Navy’s only aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, off the Indian coast.

The cause of the fire has not yet been disclosed. But Chinese media quickly ran a story that suggested the fire was the result of Indian incompetence. Li Jie, a Chinese naval expert, told the state-owned Global Times newspaper “that the fire was more likely to be out of human error rather than mechanical problems. The fire and the extinguishing process suggested that they are unprofessional and unprepared to address such an emergency, he said.”

“India has been actively developing its military in recent years, but ‘its military culture is lax and it has loose regulations,’ which cannot effectively train soldiers to operate advanced military equipment, Li said.”

That criticism comes despite that fact that India has far more experience than China in operating aircraft carriers. India’s first carrier, the Vikrant, a former World War II British carrier, was commissioned in 1961. It performed combat duty in the 1971 India-Pakistan War. China’s first carrier, the Liaoning – the ex-Soviet carrier Varyag – wasn’t commissioned until 2012. It has yet to see action.

Ironically, both India and China are in the midst of ramping up their carrier fleets. India is completing a new Vikrant, which will be the nation’s first domestically-produced carrier. It has also announced plans to build a 65,000-ton carrier, which might even be based on the Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth-class vessels.
Riaz Haq said…
PAF fighter pilot Sattar Alvi who flew a Syrian Air Force MiG 21 and shot down a much more advanced Israeli Mirage III claims that his knowledge of Mirage weakness helped him in the dogfight over Syria:

"A Mirage is good at high speeds and poor at slow speed combat. The Mirage leader made his high speed pass at me and as I forced him to overshoot he pulled up high above me. His wingman followed in the attack and I did the same with him; followed by a violent reversal and making the aircraft stand on its tail. The speed dropped to zero. The wingman should have followed his leader.

To my surprise he didn’t, and reversed getting into scissors with me at low speeds. That was suicidal and a Mirage should never do that against a Mig-21. But then, the game plan probably was for the wingman to keep me engaged while the leader turned around to sandwich and then shoot me. It was a good plan, but not easy to execute. The only difficulty in this plan was that the second Mirage had to keep me engaged long enough without becoming vulnerable himself. This is where things began to go wrong for the wingman because his leader took about 10 seconds longer than what was required."


https://tribune.com.pk/story/855837/50-years-on-memories-of-the-1973-arab-israeli-conflict/
Riaz Haq said…
#India to buy 100 more of the #Israeli bunker-buster "smart" bombs... the kind that failed to hit targets in #Balakot #Pakistan in February this year. #Modi #IAF — RT World News https://www.rt.com/news/461289-israel-india-bombs-spice-pakistan/


The Indian Air Force has inked a deal with an Israeli defense firm to restock its arsenal with an advanced version of a bunker-buster bomb it had used in an airstrike against an alleged terrorist hideout in Pakistan in February.
New Delhi will purchase 100 more SPICE-2000 bombs for an estimated $43.2 million. SPICE stands for “smart, precise-impact and cost-effective” and is manufactured by the Israeli defense technology company Rafael. The munitions are expected to be delivered to the Indian Air Force (IAF) within the next three months.

Designed to destroy bunkers and other buildings, the bombs are an advanced version of the munitions deployed when the IAF attacked the suspected terrorist compound in Balakot, Pakistan, earlier this year. Islamabad responded with strikes of its own the next day, eventually downing an Indian F-16 after a brief dogfight.

The high-tech SPICE bomb has a range of 60 km and uses real-time data to adjust its flight path according to changing factors.

Since February’s brief clash, India and Pakistan have traded hostile rhetoric, with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi accusing Pakistan in April of allowing terrorists to attack India, and threatening to hit Pakistan with“the mother of all nuclear bombs.”

That comment prompted Pakistan military spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor to warn India against testing his country’s “resolve.”

India’s Air Force hasn’t always been so lucky to possess cutting-edge technology. Last month, Modi was widely mocked after suggesting that the IAF may have used clouds to evade Pakistani radar during February’s air raid.
Riaz Haq said…
After complaints from #Indian users and #Hindu Nationalist government of #India's prime minister #Modi, #Twitter in mid-June 2019 suspended several users and suppressed the #truth about #Indian-#Pakistani military conflict. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/india-trying-suppress-military-analysts-twitter-63282

The suspensions targeting the so-called “open-source intelligence,” or OSINT, community raises serious questions about Twitter’s commitment to fairness, facts and intellectual freedom. Equally troubling is the Indian government’s apparent influence on a social-media platform with millions of users all over the world.

The accounts Twitter targeted all had one thing in common. They questioned the Indian government’s claims in the aftermath of the brief but intensive aerial clash between Indian and Pakistani warplanes over Kashmir in February 2019.

The battle began when Indian planes on Feb. 26, 2019 attempted to bomb an alleged Pakistani training camp outside Balakot, near the border with Kashmir. Both India and Pakistan claim the mountainous region. Military skirmishes and militant violence are frequent in Kashmir.

At least one Indian warplane, a MiG-21, was destroyed. Pakistani troops briefly held the pilot before repatriating him. New Delhi claimed its own forces shot down a Pakistani F-16 fighter, but provided no evidence.

OSINT accounts closely followed the fighting and challenged claims from Indian and Pakistani sources. Open-source intelligence practitioners usually rely on a mix of news reports, social media, commercial satellite imagery and public ship- and flight-tracking software to keep tabs on military operations.

The OSINT analyst with the Twitter handle @ELINTNews the day of the initial Indian air raid questioned India’s claim that its jets shot down an F-16. “No evidence so far to corroborate India’s claim of it downing a Pakistani plane,” ELINTNews noted. By contrast, images quickly appeared on-line confirming Pakistan’s destruction of an Indian MiG.

A count of Pakistani F-16s later confirmed that none were missing.

Months later, India retaliated against the Twitter OSINT community. Reporter Snehesh Alex Philip summarized the situation in a June 18, 2019 story in The Print. “The social media giant has told handles like the popular @ELINTNews, that they’ve been suspended for ‘violating Indian laws.’”


“Seems they're knocking off the big OSINT accounts due to Indian complaints that they're terrorists, or something,” Steffan Watkins, a prominent Canadian OSINT analyst, told The National Interest.

“The move has led to speculation that the Indian Air Force is behind it,” Philip explained. “However, sources in the IAF remained tight-lipped about this development, with some also expressing ignorance.”

A notice Twitter sent to @ELINTNews confirmed that the social-media company had received “official correspondence” that prompted the ban.

Great Game India, a journal based in Hyderabad, celebrated Twitter’s attack on OSINT. “Very welcome step,” the journal tweeted. The journal in May 2019 conducted what one reporter described as an “independent social media tracking operation” and accused OSINT analysts of being fronts for the Pakistani government.
Riaz Haq said…
One Pakistani Navy Submarine Outsmarted the Entire Indian Navy

https://propakistani.pk/2019/06/25/one-pakistani-navy-submarine-outsmarted-the-entire-indian-navy/

It’s not been long since the two nuclear states, Pakistan and India, stood at the brink of war. Soon after the Pulwama incident, the Indian Air force attacked and violated Pakistan’s airspace. But that was not the only operation the Indian military was carrying out at that time.

It has been revealed by an India publication that the Indian Navy was also in action at that time. According to the media report, the Indian Navy pulled a major part of its fleet from an exercise and deployed it close to Pakistani territorial waters.

The fleet included nuclear and conventional submarines. As the tensions between the two countries simmered, India started keeping a close eye on Pakistan Navy’s movements. It was unable to locate an advanced Pakistani Agosta-class submarines-PNS Saad.

The missing Pakistani submarine made the entire Indian Navy go on a hunt that lasted for 21 days. “All the areas where it could have gone in the given timeframe, extensive searches were carried out by the Indian Navy. P-8Is were pressed into service to locate the submarine along with the coastal areas of Gujarat followed by Maharashtra and other states,” states the media report.

The P-81s have been recently acquired by India from the US. They are the advanced maritime surveillance aircraft having potent anti-submarine warfare capabilities.

Perceived Threat
According to the Indian government sources, the PNS Saad had vanished from near Karachi, and it could reach the Gujarat coast, India, in three days and the western fleet’s headquarters of Mumbai within five days. It was deemed a major threat to the security of India.

The Indian Navy took all the necessary steps to locate PNS Saad. The option of punitive military force was also made open, in case the submarine refused to surface. The country’s Navy committed its most potent assets to the search points. It employed satellites for the search and kept expanding its areas of search.

However, India claims that they finally located the Pakistan submarine in the country’s western territorial waters.

If the past events are recalled, Pakistan Navy had disclosed on May 5 that it had thwarted an Indian submarine from entering into Pakistani territorial waters, releasing a video as well. The claim was downplayed by the Indian side.
Riaz Haq said…
#Pakistan #airspace denial: students, diplomats urge #India to end impasse. “Earlier we paid around Rs. 30,000 but while returning in June, I had to pay around Rs. 60,000. We are students and cannot afford such high rates that airlines are charging us" https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pakistan-airspace-students-diplomats-urge-india-to-restore-air-corridor/article28281219.ece

Denial of airspace by Pakistan is affecting Indian students and hindering the smooth conduct of diplomacy. Indian students based in Central Asia and diplomats of various countries have urged the Government of India to engage Pakistan on restoring airspace rights that were suspended after India hit targets in Pakistani territory on February 26.

“Earlier we paid around ₹30,000 but while returning in June, I had to pay around ₹60,000. We are students and cannot afford such high rates that airlines are charging us. We have reached out to former External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj on social media but our complaints were not addressed,” says Ashutosh Kumar Singh, a fifth year MBBS student of the Kazakh National Medical University of Almaty.

Students say that apart from the hike in ticket prices, they also have to deal with the extra long distance that Central Asian airlines are forced to fly, as Pakistan remains out of bounds for India-bound flights. “We have to spend a day or more in airports of Central Asia or the Gulf region before boarding a connecting flight that will fly the elongated route,” says a student who studies in Kazakhstan.

Students who booked tickets months in advance were inconvenienced when Air Astana, the biggest Central Asian airline suspended its flights to India after Pakistan denied airspace. It restarted flights on June 29, but it is yet to start the earlier daily flights. At present, the flights are operated only on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays.


Kartarpur religious corridor
Students say that despite the tense ties, India has managed to maintain dialogue with Pakistan over the construction of the Kartarpur religious corridor. “If government can hold talks for religious corridor project with Pakistan, why is it not discussing the air corridors that is the requirement of thousands of inbound and outbound air passengers,” asks Zubair, a medical student

Diplomats too are disturbed by the difficulties they are facing in travelling to India. A Russian diplomat pointed out that Moscow was waiting for the end of Pakistan’s airspace denial. “It’s a bilateral issue that is affecting a huge number of countries. All Central Asian countries are facing enormous difficulties because of this issue. We are waiting for the opening of the airspace,” he said, adding that the Delhi-Moscow travelling time now took eight hours, and often connecting flights were lost because of the long duration flights that airlines needed to fly because of Pakistan’s blockade.

A Ukrainian diplomat also pointed out that the flying time from Delhi to Kiev had become at least two hours longer, leading to cancellation of connecting flights.
Riaz Haq said…
How incompetent is the #Indian Navy? Read scathing assessment of #US Naval Officer who spent 5 days onboard the Indian Navy warship, INS #Delhi . AMA. - LessCredibleDefence

https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/9uwqzk/iama_us_naval_officer_who_spent_5_days_onboard/

I see a lot of disappointments/shock in your comments. Were there any positives? Did they have good food?

Actually, their food was excellent. They also made really good tea, too. I drank nothing but hot milk tea my entire 5 days there because I was afraid of drinking the water (I saw their reverse osmosis units, dear god).

How bad was it?

15+ years old and they looked like nobody had done any maintenance in the last 5+ years. Their ROs were in such poor shape that despite having a greater fresh water production capacity than my ship by several thousand gallons, they were still on water hours.

How do they runs things differently then the USN?

Their engineering practices were abysmal. No undershirts, no steel-toed boots - they wore sandals - no hearing protection in their engineering spaces. No lagging (sound dampening material) in any space. No electrical safety whatsoever. No operational risk management. No concept of safety of navigation. Absolutely did not adhere to rules of the road. They more or less did not have any hard-copy written procedures for any exercise or event, at all. They had no concept of the coded fleet tactical system that US coalition forces and allies utilize (they literally made it up as they went along, and when I tried to interject and explain to them how it worked, they ignored me). When I arrived onboard they thought I was a midshipman and treated me as such. I had to be frank and explain that I was a commissioned officer and that yes, I stood officer on the deck onboard my ship and was a qualified surface warfare officer. They don't entrust their people with any responsibility until they are very senior Lieutenants (O-3s) and junior Lieutenant Commanders (O-4s). At this point in the US Navy there are literally guys commanding ships, and these guys couldn't even be trusted to handle a radio circuit.

How knowledgeable did you find the officers to be?

Well, their captain was driving the ship when it came within 50ft of the stern of a USNS replenishment ship and at any given time there were multiple officers on the bridge screaming at each other. They were generally clueless and had almost zero seamanship skills. I found their enlisted guys to be far more competent than their officers on the bridge.

Why do you think they're so incompetent and have such crappy operations?

Well, coming within 50ft of another ship at sea is never a good sign. But, afterwards, the general consensus/excuse that they came up with during their mini-debrief was "oh well, rough seas, better luck next time" not "holy ******* ****, we parted a tensioned wire cable made of braided steel under hundreds of thousands of pounds of tension". And wearing sandals during replenishment/helo ops/boat ops/in engineering spaces pretty much says it all. They legitimately didn't understand why I was wearing steel-toed flight deck boots. Things like these aren't cultural differences, they are golden exhibitions of their sheer lack of common sense and seamanship.

1. Are you breaking any US Navy rules by telling us all this?

2. How did they do in the exercise? Did they get "sunk" five times or what?

3. Were there equivalent Indian Navy personnel on a US Navy ship and do you happen to know their assessment? Were they disappointed by the lack of slaves?

4. Let's say * * * * hits the fan. India and Pakistan (or any other country. Take your pick) are at war and the ship you were on is sent into action. Would they be an effective fighting force or are they on the bottom of the ocean before the first day of shooting? Great AMA btw!

Riaz Haq said…
#India’s ex chief economist Arvind Subramanian to produce new paper to defend his claim India’s #GDP is overestimated. Actual growth was just 4.5% from 2011 to 2017. #Modi #BJP #economy

https://theprint.in/economy/arvind-subramanian-to-produce-new-paper-to-defend-his-claim-indias-gdp-is-overestimated/261668/

Former chief economic adviser Arvind Subramanian is set to produce another working paper on GDP estimation, as he looks to address criticism about his claim that India’s GDP was overestimated by 2.5 percentage points.

Subramanian’s previous paper, released last month, had pointed out that India may have only grown at an average of 4.5 per cent in the period 2011-12 and 2016-17, and not 7 per cent as suggested by official estimates.

Using various real sector indicators like exports, credit growth, freight rates and factory output, Subramanian had pointed out that these indicators declined significantly post-2011, but GDP growth rate was hardly affected.

Subramanian’s use of real indicators to measure the GDP came in for severe criticism from economists and statisticians. The Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council had pointed out that the methodology used by Subramanian overlooked tax data and didn’t have adequate services sector representation. The council said the correlation between the indicators and GDP growth could change over time.

Subramanian’s defence
Speaking at an event organised by the National Council of Applied Economic Research, Subramanian defended his GDP overestimation claims, saying his framework attempted “not to estimate but to validate GDP growth estimates”.

Discussing a yet to be released follow-up paper to his earlier study, Subramanian said: “India’s overall GDP deflator is substantially underestimated.”

The average differential between GDP deflator and Consumer Price Index (CPI) has increased considerably between the 2002-11 and 2012-16 periods, with CPI exceeding GDP deflator by 0.6 percentage points pre-2011 and by 2.9 percentage points post it, he noted. This underestimation, he said, could be seen as linked to the real GDP growth rate overestimation.

Both GDP deflator and CPI are measures of inflation, and GDP deflator is used as a divisor to estimate real GDP from its nominal counterpart.

Reacting to the arguments made in the past few weeks — that GDP could have grown as a result of government policies or a productivity surge — he went about demonstrating that none of these factors actually explain the high official GDP growth rates post-2011.

Acknowledging that some of the Modi government’s reforms like GST, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and welfare schemes like cooking gas and toilets have been truly transformative, he said that they cannot adequately explain the growth in GDP.

He also rejected the productivity surge argument. “It is unlikely that a productivity surge could have taken place under UPA-2 with its considerable policy collapse and a mini-crisis prevailing,” he said.

He identified India’s twin balance sheet problem — the NPA crisis facing its banks and the huge debt burden of its corporates — as one of the major shock events that may have impeded growth.
Riaz Haq said…
Pro-India #American analyst Christine Fair: #Pakistan came out ahead in #Balakot #Kashmir conflict in Feb 2019. #India does not have the capability to decisively defeat #Pakistan in a short war.. https://youtu.be/erbBPdAWZQg via @YouTube

In a wide-ranging interview to ThePrint, strategic scholar from Georgetown University, Christine Fair talks about her book on Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Balakot air strike, and India's ideal strategy towards Pakistan.
Riaz Haq said…
"Kashmir is not the property of India or Pakistan. It belongs to the Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the Leaders of he Kashmir people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting Kashmir....We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honor for a peaceful solution. As a great nation, we can not go back on it. We have left the question of final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision." Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru quoted in Amrit Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, January 2, 1952.
Riaz Haq said…
Nehru on Kashmir:


https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/They-can-file-a-charge-posthumously-against-Jawaharlal-Nehru-too-Arundhati-Roy/article15718475.ece


1. In his telegram to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Indian Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said, “I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the state to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or state must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view.” (Telegram 402 Primin-2227 dated 27th October, 1947 to PM of Pakistan repeating telegram addressed to PM of UK).

2. In other telegram to the PM of Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said, “Kashmir's accession to India was accepted by us at the request of the Maharaja's government and the most numerously representative popular organization in the state which is predominantly Muslim. Even then it was accepted on condition that as soon as law and order had been restored, the people of Kashmir would decide the question of accession. It is open to them to accede to either Dominion then.” (Telegram No. 255 dated 31 October, 1947).

Accession issue
3. In his broadcast to the nation over All India Radio on 2nd November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, “We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide ------ And let me make it clear that it has been our policy that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir.”

4. In another broadcast to the nation on 3rd November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, “We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir and to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it.”

5. In his letter No. 368 Primin dated 21 November, 1947 addressed to the PM of Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said, “I have repeatedly stated that as soon as peace and order have been established, Kashmir should decide of accession by Plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of United Nations.”

U.N. supervision
6.In his statement in the Indian Constituent Assembly on 25th November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, “In order to establish our bona fide, we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organisation. The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people.”

7.In his statement in the Indian Constituent Assembly on 5th March, 1948, Pandit Nehru said, “Even at the moment of accession, we went out of our way to make a unilateral declaration that we would abide by the will of the people of Kashmir as declared in a plebiscite or referendum. We insisted further that the Government of Kashmir must immediately become a popular government. We have adhered to that position throughout and we are prepared to have a Plebiscite with every protection of fair voting and to abide by the decision of the people of Kashmir.”
Riaz Haq said…
Could Pakistan Sink an Indian Aircraft Carrier in a War?
What does the evidence suggest?

by Robert Beckhusen

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/could-pakistan-sink-indian-aircraft-carrier-war-76086

Essentially, this makes Indian carriers’ self-defeating, with the flattops existing primarily to defend themselves from attack rather than taking the fight to their enemy. Carriers are also expensive symbols of national prestige, and it is unlikely the Indian Navy will want to risk losing one, two or all three. Under the circumstances, India’s investment in carriers makes more sense symbolically, and primarily as a way of keeping shipyards busy and shipyard workers employed.

The Indian Navy has put out a proposal for its third aircraft carrier, tentatively titled the Vishal due to enter service in the latter 2020s. The 65,000-ton Vishal will be significantly larger than India’s sole current carrier, the Vikramaditya known formerly as the ex-Soviet Admiral Gorshkov, and the incoming second one, the domestically-built Vikrantwhich is expected to enter service later in 2018.

To see why Vishal is a big deal for the Indian Navy, one needs only to look at her proposed air wing — some 57 fighters, more than Vikramaditya — 24 MiG-29Ks — and Vikrant‘s wing of around 30 MiG-29Ks. While below the 75+ aircraft aboard a U.S. Navy Gerald R. Ford-class supercarrier, Vishal will be a proper full-size carrier and India’s first, as the preceding two are really small-deck carriers and limited in several significant ways.

The Indian Navy is also looking at an electromagnetic launch system for its third carrier, similar to the one aboard the Ford class. India’s first two carriers have STOBAR configurations, in which aircraft launch with the assistance of a ski-jump, which limits the maximum weight a plane can lift into the air. Typically this means that fighters must sacrifice weapons, or fuel thus limiting range, or a combination of both.

Most likely, India would attempt to enforce a blockade of Pakistan and use its carriers to strike land-based targets. But Pakistan has several means to attack Indian carriers — with near-undetectable submarines and anti-ship missiles — which must also operate relatively far from India itself in the western and northern Arabian Sea. China does not have a similar disadvantage, as the PLAN would likely keep its carriers close and within the “first island chain” including Taiwan, closer to shore where supporting aircraft and ground-based missile launchers can help out.

Thus, Indian carriers would be relatively vulnerable and only one of them will have aircraft capable of launching with standard ordnance and fuel. And that is after Vishal sets sail in the next decade.

To directly threaten Pakistan, the small-deck carriers will have to maneuver nearer to shore — and thereby closer to “anti-access / area denial” weapons which could sink them. And even with a third carrier, the threat of land-based Pakistani aircraft will force the Indian Navy to dedicate a large proportion of its own air wings to defense — perhaps half of its available fighters, according to 2017 paper by Ben Wan Beng Ho for the Naval War College Review.

“Therefore, it is doubtful that any attack force launched from an Indian carrier would pack a significant punch,” Ho writes. “With aircraft available for strike duties barely numbering into the double digits, the Indian carrier simply cannot deliver a substantial ‘pulse’ of combat power against its adversary.”

Riaz Haq said…
#American Enterprise Institute's Derek Scissors: #Modi's #India "conducts policy as if it is already rich". "we should stop clinging to that (India's) potential and start to face reality" #Hindutva #economy http://www.aei.org/publication/time-to-give-up-on-india-economically/

India has an economic policy disease. While needing enormous productivity increases to become rich, it conducts policy as if it is already rich. What’s needed for a boom has been clear for a long time — land and labor reform. Instead, the discussion is of interest rate cuts and central government borrowing. Until that changes, the “India rising” story should be shelved.

There has been an overdone fuss over a quick drop in Indian gross domestic product (GDP) growth, from 8 percent a year ago to 5 percent in the most recent quarter. Most likely GDP decelerated before this year’s election but was manipulated to avoid showing this. The sharpness of the decline is probably due to official data catching up to reality.

India’s obsession with GDP is a more durable problem. GDP is merely correlated with vital outcomes such as employment and wealth; it should not be the performance benchmark. Five percent GDP growth would be adequate if household incomes outpace it, and if it is labor-intensive. We can’t tell because joblessness has never been properly measured. No one in Delhi has wanted to know.

This has become a crippling failure; the principal reason to expect a decade or more of fast growth is the surge of India’s working-age population. The primary goal of policy should thus be gainful and productive opportunities for potential labor market entrants. However, decision makers don’t even see the true state of the labor market, much less make policy on this basis.

It follows immediately that core reforms have little to do with more spending. First, measure joblessness. Second, liberalize labor markets. The vast majority of Indian firms, and all firms with 300 or more employees, cannot fire workers freely. The obvious impact is that they also don’t hire freely. They miss growth opportunities, which means the economy misses growth opportunities.

The same phenomenon put another way: India can only become richer if it becomes more productive. Productivity is hamstrung when basic hiring and firing decisions are warped by the state. Officials talk incessantly about demographic expansion, but labor policy devastatingly discriminates against making new workers productive. Against that failure, government spending pales.

Land reflects labor. The foundation of all development is escaping subsistence farming. Indian policymakers actually fear this because labor restrictions mean the economy can’t absorb the workers created if farming moves beyond subsistence. Rather than trying to boost agricultural productivity, they pass truly abysmal land laws and offer subsidies that do nothing to bring farmers prosperity.

The standard response is that such labor and land liberalization is politically impossible. India can indeed boom for 20 years, with near double-digit annual income growth, to become the third-largest national economy. But if Prime Minister Narendra Modi can’t even start to make it happen after a second, sweeping election victory, we should stop clinging to that potential and start to face reality.
Riaz Haq said…
How the IAF compares with the PAF
Bidanda Chengappa | Updated on March 01, 2019 Published on March 01, 2019

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/how-the-iaf-compares-with-the-paf/article26411688.ece

The IAF has maintained a numerical edge in terms of fighter aircraft over the PAF of almost 3:1. With depletion of numbers in the IAF’s combat squadrons, this edge is currently down to around 1.4:1. The strength of the combat squadrons will soon drop below 30 squadrons. Once the IAF gets back to its sanctioned strength of 42 squadrons, the edge should evolve to 2:1.

An IAF fighter squadron has 18 operationally deployed aircraft with three in reserve. This totals to 900 fighter aircraft of which around two squadrons or 40 aircraft may cease to be fully operational every year as they reach the end of their life. But the IAF is unlikely to get the 42 squadrons till 2035.

-----------------------


The PAF currently has 22 fighter aircraft squadrons that translate into about 410 aircraft. These include around 70 JF-17s, 45 F-16s, 69 Mirage IIIs, 90 Mirage Vs and 136 F-7s. The JF-17, a China-designed aircraft, is claimed to be a fourth-generation, multi-role aircraft. It is reported that another 100 are on order.

The PAF plans to acquire 250 aircraft to replace its Mirage IIIs and F-7s. Some of these would be Block 2 version with 4.5 generation features while some more would be Block 3 and are expected to have fifth-generation characteristics. The PAF is also said to have placed an order for 36 Chinese J-10s a 4.5 generation aircraft. The J-10 is expected to be inducted as the FC-20, an advanced PAF-specific variant.

The PAF’s fighter aircraft currently are of four types, which are planned to be reduced to three multi-role types, namely the F-16, JF-17 and FC-20 by 2025. Russia and Pakistan have also been talking about the possible purchase of the Sukhoi-35 air-superiority multi-role fighter. The PAF plans to procure 30-40 Chinese FC-31 stealth fighter aircraft to replace the F-16 fighter jets. The FC-31 is designed to fly close air support, air interdiction and other missions. However, the PAF is more likely to employ conventional tactical aircraft rather than stealth aircraft in actual missions to support Pakistani ground forces.

Seventh largest
The PAF with a smaller fighter aircraft inventory is the seventh largest air force in the world and the largest in the Islamic world. PAF pilots are well-trained, with battle experience and high morale. The PAF is also an inherently air-defence oriented force. As earlier, in an exclusive Indo-Pak war scenario, the PAF will be kept head-down by the IAF and is likely to be defeated. In the shadow of nuclear stand-off, a full-fledged war is less likely.

In a limited war as a follow-up to a trigger incident or a surgical strike, the IAF will be much better placed on account of its larger weapon inventory and superior platforms. There is a considerable scope for conventional offensive action short of the nuclear threshold.

Lately, the induction of Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft into the subcontinent has altered the regional strategic environment. It enables the two sides to keep an eye on each other, and in India’s case, Pakistan’s ally China. These AEW aircraft provide low altitude coverage for both sides, looking into mountain valleys and across the horizon over the sea.

Pakistan’s diverse terrain, which includes sea, desert, glaciers and mountains, means monitoring these areas was ‘patchy’ because ground based air defence radars cannot cover the sea, and not always the land. While the PAF has two AEW aircraft, the IAF has two AWACS and three AEW aircraft, which will make air warfare that much more challenging in the subcontinent.

The writer is a Professor of International Relations and Strategic Studies at Christ Deemed to be University, Bengaluru
Riaz Haq said…
Narendra Modi’s India
The Prime Minister’s Hindu-nationalist government has cast two hundred million Muslims as internal enemies.
By Dexter Filkins

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/09/blood-and-soil-in-narendra-modis-india

On February 14th, a suicide bomber crashed a car laden with explosives into an Indian military convoy in Kashmir, killing forty soldiers. The attack energized Modi: he gave a series of bellicose speeches, insisting, “The blood of the people is boiling!” He blamed the attack on Pakistan, India’s archrival, and sent thousands of troops into Kashmir. The B.J.P.’s supporters launched a social-media blitz, attacking Pakistan and hailing Modi as “a tiger.” One viral social-media post contained a telephone recording of Modi consoling a widow; it turned out that the recording had been made in 2013.

On February 26th, Modi ordered air strikes against what he claimed was a training camp for militants in the town of Balakot. Sympathetic outlets described a momentous victory: they pumped out images of a devastated landscape, and, citing official sources, claimed that three hundred militants had been killed. But Western reporters visiting the site found no evidence of any deaths; there were only a handful of craters, a slightly damaged house, and some fallen trees. Many of the pro-Modi posts turned out to be crude fabrications. Pratik Sinha, of Alt News, pointed out that photos claiming to depict dead Pakistani militants actually showed victims of a heat wave; other images, ostensibly of the strikes, were cribbed from a video game called Arma 2.

But, in a country where hundreds of millions of people are illiterate or nearly so, the big idea got through. Modi rose in the polls and coasted to victory. The B.J.P. won a majority in the lower house of parliament, making Modi the most powerful Prime Minister in decades. Amit Shah, Modi’s deputy, told a group of election workers that the Party’s social-media networks were an unstoppable force. “Do you understand what I’m saying?” he said. “We are capable of delivering any message we want to the public—whether sweet or sour, true or fake.”

For many, Modi’s reëlection suggested that he had uncovered a terrible secret at the heart of Indian society: by deploying vicious sectarian rhetoric, the country’s leader could persuade Hindus to give him nearly unchecked power. In the following months, Modi’s government introduced a series of extraordinary initiatives meant to solidify Hindu dominance. The most notable of them, along with revoking the special status of Kashmir, was a measure designed to strip citizenship from as many as two million residents of the state of Assam, many of whom had crossed the border from the Muslim nation of Bangladesh decades before. In September, the government began constructing detention centers for residents who had become illegal overnight.
Riaz Haq said…
#Hindu man's crisis of #masculinity fuels #Hindutva. It shows in #Modi's claim of 56-inch chest, and ‘main bhi chowkidar’ slogan and many Hindu Nationalists use as their display pictures the image of an angry Hanuman’s face. | Newslaundry https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/01/14/upper-caste-hindu-masculinity-hindutva-modi-gujarat-riots-rss via @newslaundry

As I browse my Twitter timeline, surfing through replies by people clearly identifying themselves as staunch Hindus and, more importantly, as Narendra Modi’s supporters, a common theme emerges: among other religious and political iconography, they use as their display pictures the image of an angry Hanuman’s face, bathed in half saffron and half black. You can find similar imagery, like a Shiva with six-pack abs or a face sketch that’s half Modi and half lion, but the angry Hanuman seems to be the most popular icon by far. Sketched by Karan Acharya from Kerala, it has become one of the most popular icons for many young men who identify with the Bharatiya Janata Party, Modi, and, by extension, the Hindu nationalist idea of India.

In the unfolding story of India under Modi, one thing that’s constantly evoked is the overt masculinity of our “bachelor” leader, be it the 56-inch chest, the manliness of the Balakot air strike, the ‘main bhi chowkidar’ slogan. (A chowkidar, after all, is meant to protect you from external enemies and who better a watchman than one with the 56-inch chest.) Never mind that if you look at any picture of Modi, you can see he’s not as wide-chested as claimed. (Arnold Schwarzenegger, who stands at six feet two has a chest of 57 inches.) Yet, the myth persists.

On the other side are characters who are defined in clear non-masculine terms to hit home how aggressive, decisive and, therefore, a “proper leader” Modi is. Rahul Gandhi is the perennial baby who refuses to grow up and is, therefore, not man enough, never mind that he is a black belt in Aikido and from all visual samples is much fitter, if not healthier, than “56 inches”. Arvind Kejriwal is always coughing and wrapped in mufflers, thus weak and not the authority figure who should be the leader. Manmohan Singh was old, frail and, worst of all, managed by Sonia Gandhi, a woman, so he was meek and not a strong leader. In fact, the granddaddy of India’s opposition leadership in 2020 is a man who has been dead 56 years, Jawaharlal Nehru. To prove that Nehru was not an ideal leader, he is projected as this lascivious philanderer who gave up on national interests because he was busy satiating his carnal desires. (Being lascivious and philandering arguably doesn’t make one less manly, except in the angry Hanuman ecosystem.) In contrast, “Modi ji the bachelor” does not bother about such petty needs.

Problem of identity

Growing up as an upper caste Hindu man, it’s almost impossible to see caste. It’s so deeply embedded in daily life that even when you see caste discrimination – parents saying how having separate utensils is hygienic and not untouchability, so, of course, there are separate cups and plates for your house maid – you explain it away. On top of this, you’re constantly fed propaganda about how great your motherland and your religion are – propagated through school prayers, pledge of India, Bollywood films, and family lore – that you believe in a certain idea of greatness even if it’s not entirely true. The reason this propaganda is bought by the upper caste Hindu man more than any other person is that it mostly valorises people like him.

The first time many upper caste Hindus see caste up close is when they appear for engineering or medical school entrance exams. When caste, always lurking in the corner but invisible, suddenly appears here it seems almost unfair to this aspirant of unlimited ambitions. This, in a weird way, adds a positive to his established pride in his identity.

Riaz Haq said…
How #Modi Seduced #India With Envy and Hate. He has confirmed that leader of world’s largest #democracy is dangerously incompetent. His much-sensationalized punitive assault on #Pakistan damaged no more than a few trees while killing 7 #Indians. #Hindutva https://nyti.ms/2HznZmN

India under Mr. Modi’s rule has been marked by continuous explosions of violence in both virtual and real worlds. As pro-Modi television anchors hunted for “anti-nationals” and troll armies rampaged through social media, threatening women with rape, lynch mobs slaughtered Muslims and low-caste Hindus. Hindu supremacists have captured or infiltrated institutions from the military and the judiciary to the news media and universities, while dissenting scholars and journalists have found themselves exposed to the risk of assassination and arbitrary detention. Stridently advancing bogus claims that ancient Hindus invented genetic engineering and airplanes, Mr. Modi and his Hindu nationalist supporters seemed to plunge an entire country into a moronic inferno. Last month the Indian army’s official twitter account excitedly broadcast its discovery of the Yeti’s footprints.

Yet in the election that began last month, voters chose overwhelmingly to prolong this nightmare. The sources of Mr. Modi’s impregnable charisma seem more mysterious when you consider that he failed completely to realize his central promises of the 2014 election: jobs and national security. He presided over an enormous rise in unemployment and a spike in militancy in India-ruled Kashmir. His much-sensationalized punitive assault on Pakistan in February damaged nothing more than a few trees across the border, while killing seven Indian civilians in an instance of friendly fire.

Mr. Modi did indeed benefit electorally this time from his garishly advertised schemes to provide toilets, bank accounts, cheap loans, housing, electricity and cooking-gas cylinders to some of the poorest Indians. Lavish donations from India’s biggest companies allowed his party to outspend all others on its re-election campaign. A corporate-owned media fervently built up Mr. Modi as India’s savior, and opposition parties are right to suggest that the Election Commission, once one of India’s few unimpeachable bodies, was also shamelessly partisan.

None of these factors, however, can explain the spell Modi has cast on an overwhelmingly young Indian population. “Now and then,” Lionel Trilling once wrote, “it is possible to observe the moral life in process of revising itself.” Mr. Modi has created that process in India by drastically refashioning, with the help of technology, how many Indians see themselves and their world, and by infusing India’s public sphere with a riotously popular loathing of the country’s old urban elites.

Rived by caste as well as class divisions, and dominated in Bollywood as well as politics by dynasties, India is a grotesquely unequal society. Its constitution, and much political rhetoric, upholds the notion that all individuals are equal and possess the same right to education and job opportunities; but the everyday experience of most Indians testify to appalling violations of this principle. A great majority of Indians, forced to inhabit the vast gap between a glossy democratic ideal and a squalid undemocratic reality, have long stored up deep feelings of injury, weakness, inferiority, degradation, inadequacy and envy; these stem from defeats or humiliation suffered at the hands of those of higher status than themselves in a rigid hierarchy.
Riaz Haq said…
#Indian Army commanders left Brigade HQ in #Kashmir minutes before’ PAF bomb fell in compound 27 Feb. #Pakistan claimed bomb was dropped near Brigade HQ in Rajouri to show its capability. #India believes PAF actually planned to hit the facility. #Balakot


https://theprint.in/defence/indian-army-commanders-left-brigade-hq-minutes-before-paf-bomb-fell-in-compound-27-feb/241324/


When Pakistan Air Force fighter jets dropped a bomb near an Indian defence installation in Jammu and Kashmir on 27 February — a day after the Balakot strike by the Indian Air Force — Islamabad claimed that this was done to display its capability and not target the Indian military.

The H-4 Stand-Off Weapon, a precision-guided glide bomb, dropped by the PAF fell into the compound of the Indian Army Brigade Headquarters in the Rajouri sector, making it a close call.

This call, ThePrint has learnt, was much closer than known earlier as two top Indian Army commanders — Northern Army Commander Lt Gen. Ranbir Singh and 16 Corps Commander Lt Gen. Paramjit Singh — had stepped out of the Brigade Headquarters “minutes before” the bomb fell.

The two commanders, top sources in the defence and security establishment told ThePrint, had left for a nearby post when the PAF bomb fell into the compound of the Brigade Headquarters. This post was less than 700 metres from the spot where the bomb struck.

The Northern Command and the Indian Army headquarters did not respond to requests for comment from ThePrint for this report.


Riaz Haq said…
How #India can defeat #Pakistan in less than a week? "It would depend on how you define that ‘victory’..they can defeat Pakistan, maybe with #China thrown in, in half-an-hour, leaving time for commercial breaks" #Bollywood #war #Kashmir https://theprint.in/national-interest/how-indian-armed-forces-can-defeat-pakistan-in-less-than-a-week/357701/ via @ThePrintIndia

Speaking at the founding day of the National Cadet Corps Tuesday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said all India’s armed forces need to defeat Pakistan is seven to ten days.

Was he talking through his hat? Can the world’s fourth-largest military power defeat the fifth-largest in just about a week or so? Particularly when they are both nuclear-armed?


----------


The Soviets’ failure in Afghanistan ended their ideology and military bloc. Saudi Arabia, enormously richer and more powerful, has failed to defeat poor Yemen in almost five years. Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, hoping to take advantage of chaos in the wake of the revolution there. Eight years later, all the two countries had was corpses, cripples and prisoners of war, but no tangible gains.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. You might, for the sake of an argument, find an example here or there, such as Bosnia. But again, a regime change by a multinational force in such a small country wouldn’t really count for a victory in the sense of a nation defeating another.

Closer home, in 73 years marked with four large wars against two adversaries, China and Pakistan, two have ended decisively. It is easy to remember the one we won, in 1971 against Pakistan, and impossible to forget the one we lost, in 1962 to China.


he war India won, 1971, lasted all of 13 days. The defeat against China, in 1962, also came over about two fortnights of intense operations with a recess of sorts in between. This tells you something counter-intuitive to what our immediate reaction to Modi’s statement on NCC Day would be. So, don’t laugh at the idea that one strong country can defeat another in seven to ten days. Because our generation has seen exactly that at home, twice.

Which brings us to the nub of the issue. How do we define victory or defeat when modern nations fight? In 1971, the moment Dacca fell, Indira Gandhi offered Pakistan ceasefire in the more evenly-matched western sector. The moment Pakistan accepted, she could declare victory. Similarly, in 1962, China offered India a ceasefire unilaterally, even announced it was returning to its pre-war positions (except in some small parts of Ladakh). The moment India accepted it, vowing to fight another day, China could declare victory. The Chinese knew the risk of getting into an unwinnable war of attrition if they ventured into the plains, and Mrs Gandhi, sobered by Soviet allies, also understood the relative military parity in the western sector.

----

Apply this test to some other familiar situations. Kargil was a relatively tiny war and India won it only because Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his counsels defined victory narrowly and precisely as the mere withdrawal of Pakistan to the Line of Control. Pakistan had initiated that war with the objective of grabbing crucial territory and forcing India to negotiate Kashmir. Vajpayee set defeating that objective as his target, and declared victory the moment it was achieved.

Both Pakistan and India claim 1965 as a win. Here is the equation if we follow the parameters we’ve just set. Pakistan started that war, with the objective of grabbing Kashmir. It had the technological, tactical and diplomatic superiority, and the strategic space and cushion to do so.

----

India bombed Balakot, deep inside Pakistani mainland, to deliver a strategic and political message. That objective achieved, it had nothing more to do except brace for a Pakistani counter. Whatever the score in the air skirmish on the following morning, the Pakistanis were left with an IAF pilot and the wreckage of his plane. This enabled both sides to declare victory.
Riaz Haq said…
#India’s Auditor General (CAG) criticizes #IndianArmy for poor quality gear to troops in #Siachen, including 31,779 “substandard” sleeping bags bought at inflated rates & “inferior” backpacks that failed to meet specifications. #KashmirDay | Jane's 360 https://www.janes.com/article/94083/india-s-cag-criticises-army-for-providing-poor-quality-gear-to-troops-in-siachen-region#.Xjo7L9Cs7kM.twitter

India’s Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has censured the Indian Army (IA) for enduring shortages of essential high-altitude clothing, equipment, and rations for soldiers posted in the disputed Himalayan region of Siachen, which borders Pakistan and China, an audit report tabled in parliament on 3 February revealed.

In the report the CAG stated that these “acute” deficiencies persisted for up to four years until 2018, pointing out that shortages of snow goggles ranged between 62% and 98%, while the lack of snow boots compelled soldiers on the Siachen Glacier to use ‘recycled’ footwear.

The audit further criticised the IA for purchasing 31,779 “substandard” sleeping bags at inflated rates, in addition to acquiring “inferior” backpacks that failed to meet the stipulated specifications.
Riaz Haq said…
The India-Pakistan Conflict Won't Be Won By Having The Largest Army
Nuclear weapons are a persistent threat.

by Kyle Mizokami

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/india-pakistan-conflict-wont-be-won-having-largest-army-120206

If the two countries (India and Pakistan) went to war, a major clash between the two armies would be inevitable. Outnumbered and under-equipped, the Pakistani army believes it is in a position to launch small local offensives from the outset, before the Indian army can reach its jumping-off points, to occupy favorable terrain. Still, the disparity in forces means the Pakistanis cannot hope to launch a major, war-winning offensive and terminate a ground war on their own terms. As a result, the Pakistani army is increasingly relying on tactical nuclear weapons to aid their conventional forces.

For its part, the Indian army plans to immediately take the offensive under a doctrine called “Cold Start.” Cold Start envisions rapid mobilization followed by a major offensive into Pakistan before the country can respond with tactical nuclear weapons. Such an offensive—and Pakistan’s likely conventional defeat—could make the use of tactical nuclear weapons all the more likely.

--------------------

The Indian army is the primary land force of the Indian armed forces. The army numbers 1.2 million active duty personnel and 990,000 reservists, for a total force strength of 2.1 million. The army’s primary tasks are guarding the borders with Pakistan and China and domestic security—particularly in Kashmir and the Northeast. The army is also a frequent contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions abroad.

The army is structured into fourteen army corps, which are further made up of forty infantry, armored, mountain and RAPID (mechanized infantry) divisions. There is approximately one separate artillery brigade per corps, five separate armored brigades, seven infantry brigades and five brigade-sized air defense formations.

--------------------

The Pakistani army numbers 650,000 active duty personnel and five hundred thousand reserves, for a total strength of 1.15 million. Although Pakistan resides in what most would consider a rough neighborhood, it is on relatively good terms with neighbors China and Iran. As a result, the army’s primary missions are domestic security operations against the Pakistani Taliban and facing off against the Indian army. Like India, Pakistan is a major contributor of forces to United Nations peacekeeping missions.

The Pakistani army consists of twenty-six combat divisions falling under the control of nine army corps. Most divisions are infantry divisions, with only two armored and two mechanized infantry divisions. Each corps also controls an average of one armored, one infantry and one artillery brigade each. Not only is the Pakistani army smaller than the Indian army, but it features fewer offensive forces capable of attacking India head-on. Special operations forces are concentrated under the control of the Special Services Group, which controls eight commando battalions.
Riaz Haq said…
#Pakistan's ex Gen Kidwai warns of "catastrophic consequences in view of India's historically persistent and insatiable drive for regional domination.. given India's current irrational, unstable and belligerent internal and external policies" #India #Modi https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/610366-lt-gen-r-kidwai-warns-india-not-to-take-pakistans-nuclear-capability-as-a-bluff

"Pakistan must shoulder the responsibility of maintaining the vital strategic balance in the conventional and nuclear equation with India as the particular determinant of the state of strategic stability in South Asia," retired general Kidwai said in his opening remarks.

In his keynote, the former general spoke in great depth about the strategic positions of both India and Pakistan in the event of further escalation between the two hostile neighbours.

"If Pakistan were to allow imbalances to be introduced in this strategic equation, South Asia would list more serious strategic instability," he said.

"This, in turn, would lead to catastrophic consequences in view of India's historically persistent and insatiable drive for regional domination, especially given India's current irrational, unstable and belligerent internal and external policies," he added.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's decision to illegally annex Kashmir, adopt a discriminatory citizenship law, and back a plan to build a temple on the site of the demolished Babri mosque has fanned concerns that he was marginalising the Muslim minority in the country.

Coupled with the decisions taken above, the Indian military chief has also given a slew of irresponsible statements to the media over the past few months regarding Indian plans to target Azad Kashmir, leading to increased tensions between nuclear-armed Islamabad and New Delhi.

"While developing operational plans, the Indian planners may deliberately prefer to skirt around Pakistan's nuclear capability and nuclear thresholds," Kidwai said. "Officials in India, I hope, don't take Pakistan's nuclear capability as a bluff," he added.

Speaking on the escalation of tensions between the two countries, Lt Gen (r) Kidwai said: "It is difficult to predict any kind of escalation management because the two sides do not have any indirect channels, track 2 or track 1 channel, and there's a complete cut off between the two sides as was quite evident in the event of February 29 last year."

Indian fighter jets had attacked Pakistan in February last year but Pakistan had successfully repulsed the attack, downing an Indian jet and capturing the pilot, who was later released as a goodwill gesture by PM Imran.

"We will lurch from one crisis to the other until a third party intervenes as it did in the crisis last year. It's a very unhappy situation," Kidwai said during his address.

"Pakistan's policy in a limited conflict is quid pro quo plus, which amplifies very clearly that we will not take any act of aggression lying down. If that kind of situation reemerges in any future conflict, I don't see any reason why Pakistan will change that policy.

"It's precisely these nuclear weapons which have deterred India from expanding operations beyond a single unsuccessful airstrike," he further stated. "The Indian military has drawn some very wrong conclusions despite whatever they tried at Balakot.

"The Indian media has misled its strategic planners in making it appear as if India was able to come out of this conflict successfully through spinning false stories about the episode," he added.
Riaz Haq said…
So what exactly happened at Munich Security Conference between Indian FM Jaishankar and US Sen Lindsey Graham?

First, Lindsey Graham, a close ally of US President Donald Trump, said this:

"When it comes to Kashmir, I don't know how it ends, but let's make sure that two democracies will end it differently. And if you can prove that concept here, then I think it's probably the best way to sell democracy."
Pat came the reply from S Jaishankar.

"Don't worry, Senator. One democracy will settle it. And you know which one."

#India’s Jaishankar’s main audience is one person: #Modi with his “56 inch chest” and “boli naheen, goli” pronouncements on #Pakistan and #Kashmir. It’s similar to #Pompeo’s main audience being #Trump. https://www.riazhaq.com/2019/03/modis-india-paper-elephant.html?showComment=1581871283614#c6964470296631396399
Riaz Haq said…
#Pakistan Could Have Technical Edge on #Indian Air Force Despite #Rafale jets, says IAF veteran Vijainder Thakur. Determined adversary like the #PAF with its #JF17 jets equipped with long range PL-15 missile could turn the tables on #IAF. https://sputniknews.com/analysis/202003021078443837-pakistan-could-have-technical-edge-on-indian-air-force-despite-rafale-jet-deployment-iaf-veteran/ via @SputnikInt

New Delhi (Sputnik): On Friday, Indian Air Force (IAF) Chief RKS Bhadauria said the 36 Rafale jets were not the whole solution to the IAF's needs. India signed a $7.8 billion contract with French Dassault Aviation to buy the aircraft in 2019.

Sitting beside Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, Air Force Chief Rakesh Kumar Bhadauria issued a strong warning to the political leadership of India, claiming that the Rafale fighter jet is insufficient to meet the country's defence needs.

IAF veteran Vijainder K Thakur told Sputnik that Rafale is definitely the best aircraft in the IAF's inventory now. However, a determined adversary like the Pakistan Air Force could turn the tables on the IAF by deploying longer-ranged Chinese PL-15 missiles on an updated version of the JF-17 jet.

“The technical advantage gained by the IAF through the acquisition of the Rafale would be transient because it would be based largely on the weapon systems and sensors of the Rafale,” Thakur said.
The IAF's excessive focus on platforms rather than sensors and weapon systems was evident during the Kargil conflict with Pakistan two decades ago. “The IAF fulfilled the expectations only after it made emergency purchases of Laser-Guided Bombs and targeting pods,” Thakur said.

Powered Up JF-17
The Pakistan Air Force’s single engine multirole fighter, the JF-17 manufactured by the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation, is due for a major upgrade, similar to the advanced technologies seen on the J-20 stealth fighter, the Chinese newspaper Global Times reported earlier this year.

It is confirmed by the Chinese outlet that the upgraded JF-17 fighter jet will have “an infrared search and track system and a radar cross section reducing ‘pseudo-stealthy’ airframe”.

The JF-17 fighter jet has been also equipping with PL-15 Beyond Visual Range air-to-air missile that has posed serious concern among the US Air Force due to the long range of its missiles.

Herbert J. Carlisle, the then head of the US Air Force’s combat command, was quoted by Flight Global as saying that outmatching the Chinese PL-15 air-to-air missile in particular is an “exceedingly high priority”.
“The PL-15 and the range of that missile, we’ve got to be able to out-stick that missile,” US Air Force’s Command chief had said in 2015.

Lessons From Balakot Strike and Options for India
On February 27 2019, a day after the IAF struck an alleged terror training camp at Balakot, the PAF surprised the IAF with its longer range AMRAAM and better supporting sensor capability.

“IAF allowed itself to be outgunned by focusing on platform acquisitions, rather than weapon system and sensor upgrades. With sufficient military foresight, the IAF could have armed its Su-30MKI with longer range air-to-air missiles acquired from Russia rather than continuing to rely on the lesser ranged missile ordered years ago from Ukraine,” IAF veteran Thakur asserted.
The Indian Air Force ordered a large batch of Russian air-to-air missiles such as R-27, R-73 very shortly after Balakot strike.

Emphasising the importance of indigenous Astra air-to-air missile, Indian Air Force Chief Bhadauria said at a seminar in New Delhi on Friday that when the missile goes on to the Su-30 and MiG-29, that the power of parity and better performance will spread across the air force.

The Indian Air Force will start taking delivery of the Rafale jets in May 2020.
Riaz Haq said…
#USAF Col Fornoff on #Indian Air Force in Red Flag 2008 at Nellis

1. Indian pilots are prone to fratricide – killing friendly aircraft

2. #IAF require 1 min between takeoffs vs 30 secs for other air forces

3. IAF not keen on 1 on 1 dogfights

https://youtu.be/35nBQF5-qhc via @YouTube
Riaz Haq said…
The Pakistanis whipped their [Indians’] a**es in the sky, but it was the other way around in the ground war. The air war lasted two weeks and the Pakistanis scored a three-to-one kill ratio, knocking out 102 Russian-made Indian jets and losing thirty-four airplanes of their own. I’m certain about the figures because I went out several times a day in a chopper and counted the wrecks below.


From: http://www.chuckyeager.org/news/charles-yeager-and-pakistan-air-force-daily-pakistan-global/


Charles Yeager, a retired brigadier general in the United States Air Force and record-setting test pilot, was posted to Pakistan as the US Defense Representative from 1971 to 1973, during the Indo-Pak war on East Bangladesh. Yeager provided the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) with a great opportunity to learn from someone who was at that time the most experienced and perhaps the best fighter pilot in the world.In 1947, he became the first pilot confirmed to have traveled faster than sound.z5The PAF and its fighter pilots learnt as much as they could in that short period.
During the war, he was constantly at hand to advise and organise the PAF’s defences. After the war ended, Chuck Yeager, who had experienced it first had, briefed at length the PAF on what it had done right and on what it had done wrong.Many of Chuck Yeager’s training and combat advice to the PAF was incorporated into PAF training and combat tactics manuals. Chuck Yeager’s affiliation with the PAF was an honour to it. The PAF remains the only foreign air force in the world to have received Chuck Yeager’s admiration – a recommendation which the PAF is proud of.
Here is how he admired the Pakistan Air Force, in his own autobiography:

“When we arrived in Pakistan in 1971, the political situation between the Pakistanis and Indians was really tense over Bangladesh, or East Pakistan, as it was known in those days, and Russia was backing India with tremendous amounts of new airplanes and tanks. The US and China were backing the Pakistanis.

My job was military adviser to the Pakistani air force, headed by Air Marshal Rahim Khan, who had been trained in Britain by the Royal Air Force, and was the first Pakistani pilot to exceed the speed of sound. He took me around to their different fighter groups and I met their pilots, who knew me and were really pleased that I was there.

They had about five hundred airplanes, more than half of them Sabres and 104 Starfighters, a few B-57 bombers, and about a hundred Chinese MiG-19s. They were really good, aggressive dogfighters and proficient in gunnery and air combat tactics. I was damned impressed. Those guys just lived and breathed flying.”

z7One of Yeager’s first jobs there was to help them put US Sidewinders on their Chinese MiGs, which were 1.6 Mach twin-engine airplanes that carried three thirty-millimeter canons. The US government had furnished them with the rails for Sidewinders. Pakistan bought the missiles and all the checkout equipment that went with PAF, and Yeager had an interesting experience watching PAF electricians wiring up American missiles on a Chinese MiG.

He writes: “I worked with their squadrons and helped them develop combat tactics. The Chinese MiG was one hundred percent Chinese-built and was made for only one hundred hours of flying before it had to be scrapped – a disposable fighter good for one hundred strikes. In fairness, it was an older airplane in their inventory, and I guess they were just getting rid of them. They delivered spare parts, but it was a tough airplane to work on; the Pakistanis kept it flying for about 130 hours.
Riaz Haq said…
After A Loss To #Pakistan in Dogfight, #India Wants #Israel To Replace Its #Russian Air-To-Air Missiles. What troubles the #Indian Air Force (#IAF) was that Pakistan Air Force (#PAF) was able to destroy an Indian jet from long range. #Kashmir https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/after-loss-pakistan-india-wants-israel-replace-its-russian-air-air-missiles-137107

“The PAF surprised the IAF by launching air-to-air missiles from inside Pakistan-occupied Kashmir,” said Sameer Joshi, a former Indian Air Force fighter pilot. “The AMRAAM effectively outranged the IAF air-to-air missiles which did not get a command to launch.”

India is now looking to Israel, from whom it has purchased numerous weapons, such as the Heron drone and the Derby, a radar-guided, beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile with a range of 50 kilometers (31 miles). To counter AMRAAM-armed Pakistani F-16s, the IAF is looking at the improved I-Derby, which features a more radar seeker and – most importantly – a 100-kilometer (62 mile) range.
-------------

“In two years from now, the Indian Air Force's frontline Sukhoi-30 fighters may be re-armed with Israeli Derby air-to-air missiles after the jet's Russian-made R-77 missiles were found wanting in air combat operations over the Line of Control on February 27,” NDTV said.

During air battles along the Kashmir border on February 26 and 27 of last year, an Indian Air Force (IAF) MiG-21 was shot down, apparently by a U.S.-made AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile) fired by one of Pakistan Air Force’s (PAF) American-built F-16 fighters. India claims to have downed a Pakistani fighter – which Pakistan denies – but India was still embarrassed by the capture of its MiG-21 pilot, who was shown on Pakistani television and later returned.

What troubles the Indian Air Force was that Pakistan was able to destroy an Indian jet from long range. “Among the Indian Air Force's fighters which were targeted were two Sukhoi-30s which managed to evade the AMRAAMs which were fired at close to their maximum range of 100 kilometers [62 miles],” according to NDTV. “Fully defensive and desperate to escape the incoming AMRAAMs, the IAF Sukhoi-30s escaped being shot down but were unable to retaliate the F-16s because they were out of position and their own missiles, the Russian R-77s, did not have the range to realistically engage the Pakistani fighters. IAF sources told NDTV that the Russian missiles do not match its advertised range and cannot engage targets which are more than 80 kilometers [50 miles] away.”

The early-model AIM-120A/B has a range of up to 75 kilometers (46 miles). But in 2010, Pakistan received a batch of the AIM-120C-5, with a range of 100 kilometers (62 miles). The most advanced AIM-120D has an estimated range of up to 160 kilometers (100 miles).

Riaz Haq said…
These Are the Horrific Weapons India Would Use to Fight Pakistan
Let's hope it never happens.

by Kyle Mizokami

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/these-are-horrific-weapons-india-would-use-fight-pakistan-138692

It’s distinctly possible that any future war between India and Pakistan would involve limited action on the ground and full-scale fighting at sea and in the air. India has the upper hand in both, particularly at sea where it would have the ability to blockade Pakistani ports. Pakistan imports 83% of its gasoline consumption, and without sizable reserves the economy would feel the effects of war very quickly. An economic victory, not a purely military one might be the best way to decisively end a war without the use of nuclear weapons.

-------------

Vikramaditya is 282 meters long and displaces 44,000 tons, making it less than half the displacement of American supercarriers. Nevertheless Vikramaditya’s powerful air wing is capable of executing air superiority, anti-surface, anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare. The carrier air wing is expected to consist of 24 MiG-29K or Tejas multi-role fighters and 10 anti-submarine warfare helicopters. India has ordered 45 MiG-29Ks, with the first squadron, 303 “Black Panthers” Squadron, stood up in May 2013.

While INS Vikramaditya would be the visible symbol of a naval blockade, perhaps the real enforcers would be India’s force of 14 attack submarines. The most powerful of India’s submarines is INS Chakra, an Akula-II nuclear-powered attack submarine.

INS Chakra would be able to fulfill a variety of wartime tasks. It would be a real threat to Pakistan’s Navy, particularly her 11 frigates and eight submarines, only three of which are reasonably modern. Chakra is also capable of covertly laying mines in Pakistani waters and conduct surveillance in support of a blockade.
--------
INS Chakra is armed with not only four standard diameter 533 torpedo tubes but also another four 650mm torpedo tubes. Armament includes the VA-111 Shkval supercavitating torpedo, a high speed torpedo capable of traveling at 220 knots to ranges of up 15 kilometers. Missile armament is in the form of 3M54 Klub anti-ship missiles. Chakra can carry up to 40 torpedo tube launched weapons, including mines. (Five merchant ships were struck by mines during the 1971 India-Pakistan War.) For defensive purposes, Chakra has six external tubes, each carrying two torpedo decoys.

According to the terms of the lease with Russia, Chakra cannot be equipped with nuclear weapons.

India’s recent agreement to purchase the AH-64D Apache helicopter represents a quantum leap in land firepower for the Indian Army. The Apache’s versatility means that it will be able to do everything from engage armored formations in a conventional war scenario to hunt guerrillas and infiltrators in a counterinsurgency campaign.

---------------


The helicopter has four external hard points, each of which can mount four Hellfire missiles. A 30mm cannon capable of engaging light armor, soft targets or personnel is mounted underneath the helicopter chin and slaved to an optical sight worn by the pilot and gunner.

------------
The Su-30MKI is an evolution of the 1980s-era Su-27 Flanker. Thrust vectoring control and canards make the plane highly maneuverable, while the Zhuk active electronically scanned array radar makes it capable of engaging several targets at once. Complementing the Zhuk will be the Novator long-range air to air missile, capable of engaging targets at up to 300 to 400 kilometers.

The Su-30MKI has an impressive twelve hardpoints for mounting weapons, sensors and fuel tanks. The Su-30MKI is arguably superior to any fighter in the Pakistani Air Force, with the possible exception of the F-16 Block 50/52, of which Pakistan has only 18.

A portion of the Su-30MKI force has been modified for the strategic reconnaissance role. Israeli-made sensor pods reportedly give the Indian Air Force the ability to look up to 300 kilometers into Pakistan (or China) simply by flying along the border.
Riaz Haq said…
National Geographic Documentary: From #Pulwama False Flag to the Defeat of #Indian Air Force. It was an ultimate embarrassment for Indian Air Force Which will be remembered for years to come. #India #Pakistan #PAF #Kashmir #Balakot
https://youtu.be/mSS8BTrGBFI via @YouTube

Three Days Standoff: Pakistan - India | 26 Feb 2020 (ISPR Official Video)
"I am proud of the armed forces that responded to Indian aggression across the Line of Control (LoC) in Balakot with maturity which will be remembered by India.
: PM Imran Khan

national geographic documentary on abhinandan varthaman
Riaz Haq said…
#India's big #military purchases from #US: 22 MQ-9 Reaper (Predator B) #drones for $2.6 billion; 6 P-8I maritime #surveillance #aircraft for $1 billion; 2 Gulfstream 550 aircraft for #intelligence for nearly $1 billion; #SAM #missiles for over $1 billion. https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2020/02/04/new-weapons-purchases-suffer-under-indias-latest-defense-budget/#.XpqKVKqPXtE.twitter

India’s defense budget for 2020-2021 will be $73.65 billion, the country government announced Saturday, but officials and analysts are warning the amount is unlikely to meet new demands for weapons purchases and military modernization, as India is set to spend about 90 percent if its defense funds on existing obligations.

Of the total budget, $18.52 billion is for weapons purchases; $32.7 billion is for maintenance of the military’s weapons inventory, pay and allowances, infrastructure, and recurring expenses; and $21.91 billion is for defense pensions.

“The capital budget leaves no room for any big-ticket weapons purchase, as over 90 percent of the allocation capital funds will [be spent] for past [defense] contracts’ committed liabilities," a senior Ministry of Defence official told Defense News.

The limited procurement spending is expected to directly impact “Make in India" defense projects, a policy meant to boost the local economy under the ruling National Democratic Alliance government.

“This also [leaves] no room for any major weapons purchases from U.S. at least for one to two years,” the MoD official added.

India is slated to make a number of purchases through the U.S. Foreign Miltiary Sales program, including 22 MQ-9 Reaper (Predator B) drones for $2.6 billion; and additional six P-8I maritime surveillance aircraft for $1 billion; two Gulfstream 550 aircraft for intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance for nearly $1 billion; and one unit of the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System II for more than $1 billion

During at least the last two years, the Indian military has complained about a lack of funds for resolving existing liabilities. Amit Cowshish, a former financial adviser for acquisitions at the MoD, said the military will likely continue to face the challenge of preventing defaults on contractual payments.

The senior MoD official told Defense News that due to the shortage of funds, at least a dozen pending defense contracts will experience delays. “The current $18.52 billion capital allocation is only [a] marginal increase from [the] previous year [capital] allocation of $18.02 billion [and] does not even adequately cover inflation costs.”

The Indian Air Force is to receive $6.76 billion from the 2020-2021 budget, a drop from the previous year’s $7.01 billion. The money is expected to go toward payments for orders of Rafale fighters from France and an S-400 missile system from Russia.
Riaz Haq said…
#India's big #military purchases from #US: 22 MQ-9 Reaper (Predator B) #drones for $2.6 billion; 6 P-8I maritime #surveillance #aircraft for $1 billion; 2 Gulfstream 550 aircraft for #intelligence for nearly $1 billion; #SAM #missiles for over $1 billion. https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2020/02/04/new-weapons-purchases-suffer-under-indias-latest-defense-budget/#.XpqKVKqPXtE.twitter


The senior MoD official told Defense News that due to the shortage of funds, at least a dozen pending defense contracts will experience delays. “The current $18.52 billion capital allocation is only [a] marginal increase from [the] previous year [capital] allocation of $18.02 billion [and] does not even adequately cover inflation costs.”

The Indian Air Force is to receive $6.76 billion from the 2020-2021 budget, a drop from the previous year’s $7.01 billion. The money is expected to go toward payments for orders of Rafale fighters from France and an S-400 missile system from Russia.

The Indian Navy is to receive $4.56 billion, which is expected to help cover the cost of leasing a nuclear submarine and stealth frigates from Russia, as well as pay for warships from Indian companies. A Navy official said it is unlikely the service will be able to sign a contract for 24 MH-60R multirole helicopters for more than $2 billion from the U.S. next year.

The Indian Army is to receive $5.06 billion to pay cover previous orders of wheeled and ultralight artillery guns, T-90 tanks, and ammunition.

India’s state-owned defense companies continue to receive 60 percent of defense-related business, with 30 percent going to overseas defense companies and 10 percent to domestic private defense firms.

Another MoD official said the armed forces plan to focus on industry-funded defense projects under the government’s “Make-II” category, which allows private companies to participate in the prototype development of weapons and platforms with a focus on import substitution, for which no government funding will be provided.
Riaz Haq said…
#Pakistan successfully test-fires anti-ship missiles. #PakistanNavy said in the statement that warships and airplanes fired anti-ship missiles at sea level which hit their targets accurately. #defense http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-04/25/c_139007483.htm

Pakistan successfully conducted a test firing of anti-ship missiles in the North Arabian Sea, said a statement from the Pakistan Navy on Saturday.

The spokesperson of the Pakistan Navy said in the statement that warships and airplanes fired anti-ship missiles at sea level which hit their targets accurately.

Pakistani Chief of the Naval Staff Zafar Mahmood Abbasi witnessed firing of the missiles and expressed satisfaction over operational preparedness of the Pakistan Navy, the spokesperson added.

The Naval chief said the Pakistan Navy is fully capable to give a befitting response to any aggression, adding that the successful test-fire of missiles is proof of the Pakistan Navy's operational preparedness, according to the statement.

In December last year, the Pakistan Navy also test-fired different anti-ship missiles in the North Arabian Sea, which were fired by warships and airplanes at sea level.
Riaz Haq said…
Pakistan has never actually attacked India proper.

Pakistan’s actions have always been in Kashmir, which it believes is an occupation, and legitimate theater for action.

India twice attacked Pakistan across the International Border in 1965 and 1971.

No country other than #India recognizes #Kashmir to be part of India. The international community rejects India's claim on Kashmir.

Listen to this #JNU Professor Nevidita Menon explain why Kashmir is not and has never been part of India.

https://youtu.be/KWp1E8xrY5E
Riaz Haq said…
More on false-flag ops of #Indian intelligence: #BJP-backed leader Tariq Mir suspected to be arms conduit for "terrorists"....follows earlier arrest of #Indian Occupied #Kashmir Police Officer Darvinder Singh for assisting "terrorists" https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/nia-arrests-former-shopian-sarpanch/article31474190.ece

A former sarpanch, aligned to the BJP, from Shopian in South Kashmir has been arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in a case registered in January, after a J&K police officer Davinder Singh was caught travelling in a car with a Hizbul Mujahideen militant.

Arrested J&K DSP Davinder Singh’s police medal for gallantry ‘forfeited’: Government order

The suspect, Tariq Ahmad Mir, 36, was arrested by the NIA on Wednesday. An official said his name cropped up during the interrogation of Naveed Mushtaq Shah, the Hizbul Mujahideen militant. Shah reportedly told interrogators that Mir was involved in providing weapons to other terrorist groups.

Gram panchayat elections are not fought on party symbols but candidates do get support from political parties. Mir was elected in 2011. An official said the NIA had raided multiple locations in February and Mir’s house was one of them, but he was not arrested then.


Panchayat elections could not be held in the district in 2018 due to prevailing law and order situation. Around 20,000 panchayat seats are vacant mostly in South Kashmir.

NIA shifts Davinder Singh, three militants to Jammu

“Mir is an arms conduit, he was arrested and produced in court which granted six day custody. Further interrogation is on,” a senior NIA official said.

Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Singh was arrested with Naveed, Rafi Ahmed Rather, another Hizbul militant and Irfan Shafi, a lawyer, on January 11 in South Kashmir’s Kulgam. The accused were enroute to the residence of Naveed’s younger brother Syed Irfan Ahmad in Jammu. A PhD scholar, Irfan was arrested on January 24 by the J&K police. The case was subsequently transferred to the NIA.

Another official said though Mir was not directly involved in Davinder Singh’s case, he played an important role in providing weapons to several terrorist groups active in Kashmir Valley including the Hizbul.

Singh’s arrest created a sensation as he was found in the company of Naveed Shah, a former police constable and one of the ‘most wanted terrorists’ in J&K. Police say that Shah was behind the killing of 11 truck drivers, non-local labourers and apple traders in south Kashmir after the August 5 clampdown in the former State after Parliament abrogated Article 370.
Riaz Haq said…
Prof Ashok Swain's tweet: My Piece which no one in India Published: #India must remember that #Balochistan is not #Bangladesh
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia/2016/09/05/india-must-remember-that-balochistan-is-not-bangladesh/

https://twitter.com/ashoswai/status/772678975265107968?s=20

Following Prime Minister Modi’s comments about Balochistan in his independence day speech, Ashok Swain warns that open support for Baloch separatists will not solve the Kashmir conflict. What is more, he writes that by threatening its neighbour’s territorial integrity India risks alienating key allies, and in the worst case scenario intervention could result in a nuclear conflict which would threaten the lives and livelihoods of millions.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his Independence Day Speech on 15 August 2016 raised the issue of Pakistan’s human rights violations in Balochistan. This has brought a new excitement in New Delhi, particularly among the right wing commentators as if India has finally found a solution to the Kashmir issue.

Since the death of a charismatic militant Burhan Wani in the hands of the security agencies on 8 July 2016, Kashmir is witnessing unprecedented violent protest. Modi and his advisors hope that Kashmir unrest will come to an end if India starts spreading the fire in Balochistan. If Modi and his advisors really believe that the Balochistan threat will dissuade Pakistani agencies to stay out of Kashmir and the contested state will be peaceful forever, they are living in a cloud-cuckoo land. History shows that Pakistani military establishment does not succumb to Indian threats. Instead, it uses this threat to accumulate more power for itself. India’s direct support to the East Pakistan liberation movement, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh, did not succeed in changing the perception of Pakistani agencies. It only exacerbated their paranoia towards India further.

In the last decade, while Western attention has been mostly on the Taliban, the separatist struggle is turning quite violent in this scarcely populated but mineral-rich province in the south west of Pakistan. The Baloch have waged two major violent ‘freedom’ struggles against the state: an uprising from 1973 to 1977, which was crushed by the Pakistani Army using brute force. The second ongoing struggle started in 2005.

It is no secret that India has been supporting the separatists in Balochistan in their fight again Pakistani military without openly admitting it. Baloch activists have repeatedly admitted of receiving India’s ‘moral’ support and a representative of Balochistan Liberation Organization (BLO) has been living in New Delhi since 2009. Pakistan has been regularly accusing India for using its consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar to fund, train and arm Baloch militants. A decade back, senior officials of Pakistan had even alleged that 600 Baloch tribals were being trained by India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) in Afghanistan to handle explosives, engineer bomb blasts, and use sophisticated weapons.

Pakistan has failed to provide much proof about Indian involvement, however, according to 2010 WikiLeaks cables, US and British intelligence cautiously agrees with the Pakistani accusations. Last year, Pakistan had handed over a dossier to the UN Secretary General containing ‘evidence’ of Indian support to violence in Balochistan. In March this year, Pakistan claimed to arrest an alleged RAW operative from Balochistan. India has been always denied these accusations, but has continued to remain engaged unofficially. However, by openly committing India to Balochistan’s cause in his speech, Modi is likely to expose India’s geo-strategic limitations without gaining any additional advantage, and there is a lot to lose.
Riaz Haq said…
#India must remember that #Balochistan is not #Bangladesh by Prof Ashok Swain: "After the country split (in 1971), Pakistan did not just sulk and accept Indian domination, it decided to acquire a large nuclear arsenal" #Pakistan #nuclear #Modi http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia/2016/09/05/india-must-remember-that-balochistan-is-not-bangladesh/

It is important to keep in mind that the Balochistan issue is not a straightforward one for India to directly engage in, as was the case with East Pakistan. India does not share a common border with Balochistan and is therefore dependent upon Afghanistan to provide more support to Baloch separatists. This is not as easy as some hawks in India tend to believe, especially as India is struggling to get enough security cover even to protect its own assets in a fast-deteriorating environment in Afghanistan.

India’s expanded engagement in Balochistan might also bring Iran on Pakistan’s side because Baloch nationalists have not only pitched themselves against Pakistan but against Iran as well. Balochs form a majority in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan provinces and, like the Kurds, they are Sunni Muslims. It is not hard to imagine an Iran-Pakistan axis developing rapidly to prevent Baloch aspirations for independence. So getting bogged down in Balochistan risks turning Iran to an enemy of India.

When India went to war with Pakistan over Bangladesh in 1971 it had the blanket support of the Soviet Union, one of the two superpowers in the Cold War. If India picks a fight over Balochistan, Pakistan will receive support from China whose $46 billion USD CPEC investment in the region is at stake, and it is unlikely that any global or regional power will come out openly on India’s side. Both its old friend Russia, and new ally the USA have tried their best to stay out of the Balochistan imbroglio to date. There is no reason to expect that they will change their stance now.

Not only is Balochistan not East Pakistan, the Pakistani Military has moved on since the early 1970s. In 1971 their most prized possessions were the Patton tanks, but today it is their tactical nuclear weapons. After the country split, Pakistan did not just sulk and accept Indian domination, it decided to acquire a large nuclear arsenal by hook or crook. Unlike India, Pakistan has always been very clear about its purpose in acquiring nuclear weapons: to defend itself against Indian aggression. And unlike India, Pakistan also refuses to commit to a ‘no first use’ of their weapons.

Based on the amount of fissile material Pakistan has produced, it is estimated to have 110-130 nuclear warheads compared to India’s 100-120. Both now possess ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and sea-based nuclear delivery systems. Most importantly, Pakistan’s recent deployment of tactical nuclear weapons for its artillery arsenal has taken away any advantage India had previously in the case of a conventional war. This seriously limits India’s manoeuvrability to intervene militarily in Pakistani territory, whether to retaliate against any terror group or support any ‘separatist struggle’.

Provoking Pakistan to an armed conflict now is like playing with fire. If India threatens the territorial integrity of Pakistan as it did in 1971 there is a real possibility of that the Pakistani military will retaliate with its prized weapons. It has the capacity to launch a nuclear strike against India within 8 seconds and could strike Delhi in five minutes.

Riaz Haq said…
Lessons from Balakot
Electronic and information warfare can be game changers
Shahid RazaShahid Raza


"PAF has collected vast amounts of experience in EW during the bilateral Shaheen series exercise w/ China. These exercises offer the PAF a rare opportunity to both fly and contest against the Chinese Su-27 & Su-30 aircraft to learn about their capabilities, weaknesses & tactics"


http://forceindia.net/guest-column/lessons-from-balakot/

The PAF was forged in the inferno of the Indo-Pakistani wars of 1965 and 1971. Its organisational growth continued during the Soviet-Afghan war when the PAF was engaged in combat against the Soviet Air Force and its Communist Afghan allies. The PAF also learned valuable lessons on indigenisation during the so-called ‘lost decade’ of the Nineties during which the PAF was unable to equip itself adequately due to the US sanctions.

When the Indo-Pakistani conflict broke out in the remote mountainous regions of Kargil, the PAF found itself poorly equipped to handle the crisis, especially due to the lack of a Beyond Visual Range (BVR) capability on its F-16 fighters. The ‘BVR Gap’ between the PAF and IAF tilted airpower dynamics in favour of the IAF throughout the Kargil crisis, therefore its focus remained primarily on maintaining homeland defences. The seriousness of the situation for PAF during that time cannot be better exemplified than the fact that the IAF lost two aircraft during the Kargil conflict, none of which were shot down by PAF.

This situation for the PAF changed after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, as the Americans suddenly found themselves in the need for Pakistani assistance in Afghanistan, and consequently, the sanctions imposed on the PAF were lifted. This opened a gateway for new development and acquisition programmes initiated by the PAF leadership at that time, to conduct fast-paced modernisation of the entire PAF. This is the time when the PAF launched its JF-17 Thunder fighter development initiative with China, placed an order for the F-16 C/D Block-52+ fighters, sought delivery of its remaining F-16 fighters which were placed under long-term storage in the US and put forth a requirement for the Mid Life Upgrade (MLU-MIII) for its F-16 A/B Block-15 aircraft.

During the past two decades, despite economic challenges, the PAF maintained a steady pace of modernisation – it not only acquired new aircraft but also inducted new capabilities by purchasing high-end assets such as the SAAB 2000 EriEye AEW&C from Sweden, ZDK-03 Karakoram Eagle AWACS from China, SPADA-2000+ surface-to-air missile system from MBDA, AN/TPS-77 Long Range Surveillance Radar system from Lockheed Martin, FALCO UAVs from Italy, IL-78 aerial refuelling tankers from Ukraine, and more recently, JY-27A VHF Radar system from China. During this period, the PAF also attained Nuclear Strike Capabilities to complete the aerial delivery element of the ‘Minimum Credible Deterrence’ strategy.

Since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, the PAF provided Close Air Support to the Pakistan Army then engaged in low-intensity conflict against various al Qaida linked militant organisations operating out of the unstable bordering regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and regular patrolling of the Indo-Pakistani border, mostly to deter potential intruders and UAVs. This all suddenly changed on 26 February 2019 when the IAF carried out a ‘Dead Drop’ strike in Pakistan’s Balakot region — across the International Border. This led to a reciprocal action by the PAF, which carried out a similar ‘Dead Drop’ operation across the Line of Control (LC) in the Jammu region, on the morning of 27 February 2019.

Riaz Haq said…
Questions to US Navy Officer about Indian Navy:

http://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=17897.0;wap2

How bad was it?
15+ years old and they looked like nobody had done any maintenance in the last 5+ years. Their ROs were in such poor shape that despite having a greater fresh water production capacity than my ship by several thousand gallons, they were still on water hours.

How do they runs things differently then the USN?
Their engineering practices were abysmal. No undershirts, no steel-toed boots - they wore sandals - no hearing protection in their engineering spaces. No lagging (sound dampening material) in any space. No electrical safety whatsoever. No operational risk management. No concept of safety of navigation. Absolutely did not adhere to rules of the road. They more or less did not have any hard-copy written procedures for any exercise or event, at all. They had no concept of the coded fleet tactical system that US coalition forces and allies utilize (they literally made it up as they went along, and when I tried to interject and explain to them how it worked, they ignored me). When I arrived onboard they thought I was a midshipman and treated me as such. I had to be frank and explain that I was a commissioned officer and that yes, I stood officer on the deck onboard my ship and was a qualified surface warfare officer. They don't entrust their people with any responsibility until they are very senior Lieutenants (O-3s) and junior Lieutenant Commanders (O-4s). At this point in the US Navy there are literally guys commanding ships, and these guys couldn't even be trusted to handle a radio circuit.

How knowledgeable did you find the officers to be?
Well, their captain was driving the ship when it came within 50ft of the stern of a USNS replenishment ship and at any given time there were multiple officers on the bridge screaming at each other. They were generally clueless and had almost zero seamanship skills. I found their enlisted guys to be far more competent than their officers on the bridge.

Why do you think they're so incompetent and have such crappy operations?
Well, coming within 50ft of another ship at sea is never a good sign. But, afterwards, the general consensus/excuse that they came up with during their mini-debrief was "oh well, rough seas, better luck next time" not "holy ******* ****, we parted a tensioned wire cable made of braided steel under hundreds of thousands of pounds of tension".
And wearing sandals during replenishment/helo ops/boat ops/in engineering spaces pretty much says it all. They legitimately didn't understand why I was wearing steel-toed flight deck boots.
Things like these aren't cultural differences, they are golden exhibitions of their sheer lack of common sense and seamanship.
Riaz Haq said…
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar: 'It is crucial today to realise where we have reached in this 15 year-period..." Indian Military scaling down? Cutting #weapons imports? Feel used by Americans? Stop competing with China? #India #Modi #China #US #IndoPacific. https://www.rediff.com/news/column/gen-rawat-hints-at-major-change-in-defence-thinking/20200513.htm


His views reflect radically new thinking. Concepts such as 'cold start', fighting two-front wars, interoperability and so on that were inherited from the UPA government (2004-2014) are being discarded.


The coronavirus pandemic focuses attention on the social sectors and the overall state of the country's economy where a reset of development strategies has become necessary demanding judicious resource allocation.
The country simply cannot afford the armament programme as of today, which is heavily dependent on import of prohibitively expensive arms purchases.
The operational requirements of the armed forces should not be exaggerated.
India's defence strategy is strictly limited to defending the country's borders and dominating the Indian Ocean Region.
A realistic and thorough reappraisal of operational priorities is needed to reduce arms imports so as to optimally utilise the available budget.
Equally, there is imperative need to indigenise the weapon systems. But 'unrealistic GSQRs' (general staff qualitative requirements) stand in the way.
Again, GSQRs should be redefined strictly in terms of our own operational requirements rather than by way of imitating the inventories of the US or other advanced countries.
General Rawat has spoken with remarkable candour. It has a stunning effect already. Especially, since a reasonable assumption is that General Rawat has articulated official thinking with a purpose to calibrate India's defence strategy.

Indeed, what we see here is not a mere 'tweaking' of the defence strategy.

His views reflect radically new thinking. Concepts such as 'cold start', fighting two-front wars, interoperability and so on that were inherited from the UPA government (2004-2014) are being discarded.

The new emphasis is on local products and local supply chains -- self-reliance.

General Rawat's interview appeared two days before Prime Minister Narendra Damodardas Modi's address to the nation on Tuesday where he said, inter alia, 'Making India self-reliant is the only way to make the 21st century belong to India... This era of self-reliance will be our new pledge, we have to move on with new resolve.'

Suffice to say, this week becomes a truly defining moment if one were not to miss the wood for the trees.

The doctrine laid down by the PM and applied to the sphere of defence strategy by General Rawat punctuates a 15-year steady upward curve in the thinking and actions by our bureaucratic and military establishment since the signing of the landmark India-US defence agreement in 2005 by then defence minister Pranab Mukherjee and his American counterpart Donald Rumsfeld.

It is crucial today to realise where we have reached in this 15 year-period in order to fully and properly assess the profundity of what General Rawat has said in his weekend interview.

From the Indian perspective, what began as a much-needed modernisation of our armed forces, metastasized incrementally -- almost inexorably -- over this period as an obsessive drive to attain interoperability between the Indian and US militaries.

The American side has done extraordinarily well in dominating the Indian bureaucracy -- civilian and military alike -- to take us to this point today, where we no longer, as General Rawat plaintively framed it, tend to define our GSQRs not 'as per our own operational requirements", but instead in terms of "what the US or other advanced countries have'.

If the US has seven aircraft carriers, shouldn't we at least have three? Our mind no longer applies logically, rationally.

The thinking is done for us largely by the Americans.
Riaz Haq said…
#Pakistan Air Force (#PAF) to buy more #AWACS from #Sweden. The aircraft can perform multiple missions & comes with a range of sensors, including its Erieye airborne radar. Pakistan is understood to currently operate 6 Saab 2000 Erieyes and #SaudiArabia 2. https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/saab-2000-lands-secretive-aewandc-deal/138431.article#.XsR0AhDAdQw.twitter

Saab has secured an SKr1.6 billion ($165 million) order for an undisclosed number of its Saab 2000 Erieye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) system aircraft.

“The industry’s nature is such that due to circumstances concerning the product and customer, further information about the customer will not be announced,” says the company.

Deliveries will run from 2020 to 2023.

Saab notes that the aircraft can perform multiple missions and comes with a range of sensors, including its Erieye airborne radar.

Pakistan is understood to operate six Saab 2000 Erieyes and Saudi Arabia two.

The Pakistan military’s yearbook for 2017-2018 disclosed that Islamabad also obtained three baseline Saab 2000s for a total cost of $9.3 million.
Riaz Haq said…
Lockheed Martin has received a FMS for Pakistani F16s of Sniper, Infrared Search and Track (IRST); and Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) navigation pod (fixed wing) hardware production.
The total contract is worth $485 million which includes multiple US allies. Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida, and various locations to be identified at the order level. The work is expected to be completed by May 2025.

Lockheed Martin Corp., Orlando, Florida, has been awarded a ceiling $485,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for Department of Defense and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Sniper, Infrared Search and Track (IRST); and Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) navigation pod (fixed wing) hardware production. This contract provides the necessary resources required for the management, fabrication, upgrade/retrofit, integration support and testing and shipping of its non-developmental item (NDI) Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods (ATP) System, NDI LANTIRN Fixed Image Navigation Set upgrades, and the NDI IRST system as it relates to the requirements document associated with each specific delivery order placed under this contract. Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida, and various locations to be identified at the order level. The work is expected to be completed by May 2025. This contract involves FMS to (this list is not all inclusive): Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Egypt, Greece, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Taiwan, Thailand and Turkey. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. FMS funds in the amount of $34,900,000 are being obligated at the time of award under delivery order FA8540-20-F-0034 for the country of Morocco. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, is the contracting activity (FA8540‐20‐D‐0001).


https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2190758/
Riaz Haq said…
Pakistan F16 upgrades contract to Lockheed Martin

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/sensors/article/14176374/electrooptical-targeting-avionics

The Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod provides precision targeting and situational awareness to combat aircraft crews, and is among the most widely deployed targeting system for fixed-wing aircraft in use by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. allies.


The pod provides precision strike, as well as non-traditional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (NTISR) for close air support of ground forces. The pod has electro-optical imagery capability, a video datalink, and J-series coordinates.

The pod has image processing algorithms, stabilization, high-resolution, mid-wave forward-looking infrared (FLIR) and daylight TV sensors, dual-mode laser for geo-location, laser spot tracker, infrared marker, meta-data for video, and common software and hardware interfaces.

The pod has been flown on U.S. Air Force and international F-15E, F-16, B-1, A-10C, Harrier GR7/9, and CF-18 combat aircraft, and is suitable for the B-52 strategic bomber.

LANTIRN is a combined navigation and targeting pod system for use on the F-15E Strike Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon. It enables these aircraft to fly at low altitudes, at night, and under-the-weather to attack ground targets with a variety of precision-guided weapons.


The LANTIRN's AN/AAQ-13 navigation pod provides high-speed penetration and precision attack on tactical targets at night and in adverse weather, and contains a terrain-following radar and a fixed thermographic camera, which provides a visual cue and input to the aircraft's flight control system, enabling it to maintain a pre-selected altitude above the terrain and avoid obstacles.

The system's AN/AAQ-14 targeting pod contains a high-resolution, forward looking infrared sensor, which displays an infrared image of the target to the pilot; a laser designator and rangefinder for precise delivery of laser-guided munitions; a missile boresight; and software for automatic target tracking. LANTIRN has been in full-rate production since 1986.

IRST is a longwave infrared detection system that targets aircraft in a radar-denied environment. The system uses infrared search and track technology to detect and provide weapon-quality track solutions on potentially hostile aircraft.

Related: Raytheon to provide UAV electro-optical targeting systems in $50.2 million contract

The system has a processor, inertial measurement unit, and environmental control unit that fit inside the sensor pod, which attaches to a weapons station underneath the aircraft.

Infrared sensors like the IRST detect the heat from an aircraft's engine exhaust or even the heat generated by the friction of an aircraft as it passes through the atmosphere. Unlike radar, infrared sensors do not emit electronic signals, and do not give away their presence to adversaries.

On this contract Lockheed Martin will do the work in Orlando, Fla., and at locations to be identified with each order, and should be finished by May 2025. For more information contact Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control online at www.lockheedmartin.com, or the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center-Robins at www.robins.af.mil/Units/AFLCMC.
Riaz Haq said…
USA, Pakistan and the F-16: What lies behind US's $125 mn military sales to Pakistan to monitor F-16s

By Brig Kuldip Singh (India)

As in 1979 and in 2001, once again, a crisis in Afghanistan has allowed Pakistan to reset its relations with the US.

https://www.dailyo.in/politics/usa-pakistan-donald-trump-imran-khan-f-16-us-military-aid-to-pakistan/story/1/31680.html

Between 2002 and 2018, the US has given Pakistan about $34.2 billion ($11.3 bn as economic aid, $8.3 as security aid, including $4 billion as Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and about $14.6 billion as Coalition Support Fund (reimbursement for deployment of Pakistan military in aid of US objectives).

Since 2002, Pakistan has received 60 Mid-Life Update (MLU) kits for its 1980s vintage fleet of F-16A/B aircraft. The US partly subsidised these kits, paying $477 million from FMF. This MLU, carried out in Turkey, a NATO member, had upgraded the older F-16A/B aircraft to Block-52 standards. It received 18 new F-16 C/D Block-52 aircraft for $1.43 billion, including 500 x AMRAAMs, advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles — of the kind used to bring down Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman’s MiG-21 in the February 27 dogfight this year.

Another 14x F-16 A/B aircraft were given free by the US, after being deemed Excess Defense Articles. Additionally, Pakistan received six second-hand F-16s (Block-15 Air Defence Fighter (ADF) version) from Turkey.

Enter the US Technical Support Teams

The Pakistani military operates with a mix of western, Soviet/Russian and Chinese equipment — and there are documented instances of Pakistan providing China access to western military technology — particularly that from the US — which Beijing then reverse-engineered

When the US commenced supplying F-16s to Pakistan in the early 1980s, China had expressed explicit interest in its avionics and associated technology. Later, in 2006, when the US agreed to upgrade the PAF’s existing fleet of F-16 A/B and also supply new F-16 C/D aircraft, it did not want China to get access to the advanced F-16 technologies in view of the changed geopolitical circumstances.

Hence, the US insisted that the MLU be carried out outside of Pakistan, and the upgraded and the new F-16s be segregated from PAF’s other air bases where Chinese technicians operate.
Riaz Haq said…
Given Islamabad’s intimate relationship with China and the economic problems currently gripping the country, acquiring the JH-7 heavy strike fighter can both provide its navy with much needed aerial strike capability as well as free up PAF’s core assets to engage with the IAF for supremacy over the battlefields of Kashmir and Punjab.

https://thediplomat.com/2020/05/is-the-chinese-jh-7-an-answer-to-the-pakistan-air-forces-deep-strike-needs/

The JH-7, while utilizing an old air frame, is a highly effective aircraft for deep strike operations. The jet first flew in 1988 and small numbers were delivered to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force during the 1990s. An improved version of the JH-7 fighter-bomber, also known by the NATO designation Flounder, began to be inducted in large numbers after 2004, after the Chinese aviation industry was able to indigenously manufacture a derivative of the Rolls Royce Spey engine. The Spey engine was designed specifically by the British for development of a low flying naval strike aircraft to counter the Soviet Navy in the Cold War.

Faced with cuts in defense expenditure and decreasing global influence after World War II, Britain could no longer afford to operate a sizable navy to deter the Soviet threat. Instead, the British opted for developing naval strike aircraft, such as the Blackburn Buccaneer, to extract a heavy toll on large Soviet Navy cruisers in a future conflict. The Spey engines were later utilized on the Royal Air Force’s fleet of F-4 Phantoms, giving the aircraft greater range and a shorter takeoff distance.

In addition to their low maintenance and impressive safety record, the Spey engine’s utility lies in the fact that it is designed specifically for sustained low altitude flight below the radar horizon of enemy naval vessels. Despite significant advances in jet engine development since the Cold War, the majority of engines today are designed for mid-to-high altitude flight. Flying at low altitude to avoid radar detection for longer periods thus decreases much of the engines’ range.

The JH-7 also complements the Pakistan Navy’s combat doctrine, which is based on the anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) blueprint. The PN’s three Khalid-class submarines form the linchpin of their A2/AD strategy, with the wartime objective of preventing an attempted blockade of the vital Karachi port by the Indian Navy. Acquisition of the JH -7 by Pakistan would provide Islamabad with lethal capability to considerably limit the maneuvering capacity of the Indian Navy in the proximity of Karachi port.

Also, the JH-7, with its longer combat range, heavy payload capacity, and ability to fly under enemy radar cover provides Islamabad with an offensive capacity targeted at India’s protracted western coastline. Hence, acquisition of the JH-7 by Pakistan serves both defensive and offensive purposes. The improved JH-7A variant currently in service with the PLA Air Force is capable to carry over seven tonnes of armament, including four KD-88/YJ-83 anti-ship missiles.

The capability to carry long range anti-ship missiles, which can be launched more than 100 miles away from their targets, means that the JH-7 is able to utilize an asymmetric “hit and run” strategy before enemy air defenses can effectively engage with it. This doctrine was perhaps most aptly demonstrated by the Argentine Air Force during the 1982 Falklands War, as French Super Etendard strike aircraft armed with Exocet missiles sank two British warships.

One alternative to the JH-7 for Pakistan is its existing arsenal of cruise missiles, but this option has its own pitfalls. First, cruise missiles follow a predictable trajectory and are vulnerable to interception by India’s air defense network and fighter aircraft such as the Sukhoi 30 MKI. Second, the use of cruise missiles, even in an all-out conflict, presents a significant leap in terms of escalation. As such, a cruise missile attack by either New Delhi or Islamabad can lead to an eventual nuclear exchange.
Riaz Haq said…
After #spypigeon, #Pakistan sending #locust army to India? #Indian media warn #NewDelhi not to let its “guard down just yet” citing declassified #CIA files of its Cold War in which animals were used to photograph sensitive sites in the former #USSR. https://tribune.com.pk/story/2231962/1-tribune-fact-check-spy-pigeon-pakistan-sends-locust-army-india/

Indian media has claimed that Pakistan is behind the locust attack that has swept the country.

Arnab Goswami, an anchor at Indian news channel Republic TV, made the bizarre allegation on air alleging that the locusts were sent from across the border as a plot to “destroy the country’s agriculture and in-turn the economy”.

Goswami went on to claim tthat the locusts would target Pakistan soldiers.

Indian news outlet The Economic Times, also ran a story probing how the possibility.

The article went as far as to warn New Delhi not to let its “guard down just yet” citing declassified CIA files of its Cold War in which animals were used to photograph sensitive sites in the former USSR.
“As CIA also trained ravens and dolphins, Pakistani locusts should merit closer examination too,” the report states.

The short-horned grasshoppers invaded agriculture fields in both Pakistan and India decimating crops and risking famine in the region.

The locusts entered into the southwestern Balochistan province, from neighboring Iran.

These insects, mainly originating from deserts, eat anything from bark to seeds and flowers while traveling up to a speed of 93.2 miles (149 kilometers) a day.

After destroying crops in western Indian states of Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra, the locusts’ swarms are heading towards national capital Delhi in large numbers.

Indian police also released a pigeon belonging to a Pakistani fisherman after a probe found that the bird, which had flown across the contentious border between the nuclear-armed nations, was not a spy.

“The pigeon was set free yesterday (May 28) after nothing suspicious was found,” said Shailendra Mishra, a senior police official in Indian occupied Kashmir.

It was unclear where the bird was released and whether it flew back to its owner.

The Pakistani owner of the pigeon had urged India to return his bird, which Indian villagers turned over to police after discovering it.
Riaz Haq said…
As tensions escalate with #China and #Pakistan, #India faces tests on two fronts at once. Indian Prime Minister Narendra #Modi spoke Tuesday with President Donald #Trump on "the situation on the India-China border". #Ladakh #Kashmir #CPEC https://www.newsweek.com/china-pakistan-tensions-india-test-two-fronts-1508472


After a spat of unarmed clashes along his country's roughly 2,100-mile with China last month, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke Tuesday with President Donald Trump on "the situation on the India-China border," according to a readout. The U.S. leader had offered to mediate the feud, but both New Delhi and Beijing have rejected the offer and maintained the situation was under control.

"At present, the overall situation in the China-India border areas is stable and controllable," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian told reporters in Beijing on Wednesday.

"On border-related issues, there have been sound mechanisms and channels of communication between China and India, and the two sides are capable of properly resolving relevant issues through dialogue and consultation," he added. "There is no need for any third party to intervene."


But there was no indication that the situation had yet been resolved. After the Communist Party's official publication Global Times reported last week that border forces had been armed with new tanks, drones and helicopters, state television reported that the Chinese military had recently held high-altitude infiltration exercises at the Tanggula Mountains in Tibet, the far western province that borders India.

It was along this contested boundary between China-controlled Aksai Chin and India-administered Ladakh that patrols from both sides clashed several times at the sites of Pangong Lake, Galwan Valley, Demchok and Daulat Beg Oldie. The skirmishes were prompted by India's recent development near the sensitive Line of Actual Control dividing the two countries.

Indian media, which first reported on the conflict and the buildup of 5,000 Chinese troops at the border, reported Tuesday that New Delhi had moved in more personnel to the area. The next day, however, violence was reported elsewhere in the Himalayan region of Kashmir.

The Indian military reported Wednesday that Pakistan had violated their Line of Control ceasefire with small arms fire and heavy mortar shelling against the town of Nowshera in India-administered Kashmir. Days earlier, the Pakistani armed forces claimed the shootdown of two Indian drones.

While India and China fought a brief 1960s war and clashed occasionally along their borders, New Delhi and Islamabad have fought multiple deadly conflicts over Kashmir since the partition in 1947. India and Pakistan engaged in a dogfight and cross-border strikes last year in the first escalation of its kind in decades after India accused Pakistan of harboring insurgents responsible for a suicide attack on security personnel, a charge the country denies.

The situation intensified after Modi reshaped the Indian constitution in August to assert federal rule over India-administered Kashmir and Ladakh. Both Pakistan and China condemned the move as "unacceptable," with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan warning the security and human rights implications could bring the two nuclear-armed rivals to war.
Riaz Haq said…
#Indian Defense Analyst Dr. Pravin Sawhney: "PAKISTAN HAS NEVER LOST TO INDIA. NOT IN 1965! NOT IN 1971! IF INDIA HAD DEFEATED PAKISTAN, THERE WOULD BE NO LINE OF CONTROL IN KASHMIR TODAY". #India #Pakistan #China #Kashmir #CPEC | | JNN | https://youtu.be/QfhG-vtLfUs via @YouTube

Watch at 33 Minutes in 43:12 Minutes video interview
Riaz Haq said…
#BoltonBook on #India-#Pakistan in 2019: “After hours of phone calls, the crisis passed, perhaps because, in substance, there never really had been one....when two nuclear powers spin up their military capabilities, it is best not to ignore it". #Balakot https://theprint.in/diplomacy/india-pakistan-balakot-tensions-were-never-really-a-crisis-in-substance-ex-us-nsa-bolton/446768/


“I thought that was it for the evening, but word soon came that Shanahan (Patrick Shanahan, then Acting Secretary of Defense) and Dunford (Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) wanted to talk to (Mike) Pompeo (US Secretary of State) and me about a ballooning crisis between India and Pakistan,” Bolton writes.

“After hours of phone calls, the crisis passed, perhaps because, in substance, there never really had been one,” he stresses.

“But when two nuclear powers spin up their military capabilities, it is best not to ignore it. No one else cared at the time, but the point was clear to me: This was what happened when people didn’t take nuclear proliferation from the likes of Iran and North Korea seriously,” he says.


In his scathing memoir, Bolton, who was fired by Trump as the US NSA on 10 September 2019, also talks about how some US bureaucrats were in favour of extending India a “waiver”, so that it could import oil from Iran, on which the Trump administration had imposed stringent economic sanctions.

“(State Department) bureaucrats found endless reasons to extend the other waivers, as ‘clientitis’ took hold. ‘But India is so important’, or ‘Japan is so important’, said officials, arguing the interests of ‘their’ countries rather than the US interests at stake,” Bolton writes.


“One of the worst cases involved India, which, like the others, was buying Iranian oil at prices well below the global market because Iran was so desperate to make sales,” he says, adding that India “complained” about being disadvantaged not only because of having to find new suppliers, but also because the new sources would insist on prevailing market prices.

“India’s making this argument was understandable, but it was incomprehensible that US bureaucrats echoed it sympathetically,” he writes.

Bolton goes on to describe a phone call between Trump and Pompeo where they were discussing asking India to bring its oil imports from Iran down to zero.

“In a phone call with Pompeo, Trump had not been sympathetic to India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, saying, ‘He’ll be okay’,” the former US NSA writes.

India completely stopped importing oil from Iran in May last year under US pressure.

Bolton also adds in his memoir that Trump was concerned over news reports emanating from India that New Delhi was planning to buy S-400 air-defence systems from Russia over America’s Patriot defence systems.

Riaz Haq said…
#India’s poor politico-strategic choices. #Modi is in a bind after major blunders in #Kashmir. #Ladakh #Galwan #China #Pakistan https://www.thefridaytimes.com/indias-poor-politico-strategic-choices/
Recently, some in the Indian commentariat have begun talking about India facing a two-and-half front conflict situation. Strictly speaking, this is not new. We first heard the phrase in June 2017, just days before the Doklam standoff between India and China.
It was a comment by then-Indian army chief, now Chief of Defence Staff, General Bipin Rawat. Rawat was speaking to the media. “The Indian Army is fully ready for a two-and-a-half front (China, Pakistan and internal security requirements simultaneously) war,” he was quoted as saying. He also talked about the 17 Mountain Strike Corps being raised from the scratch, as he put it. This Corps is meant specifically for offensive operations against China.
At the time his statement drew many comments in India. Most analysts looked at India’s previous conflicts and determined that politico-military objectives are best gained when a state can focus on a single threat and neutralise it. Two or more fronts, even for a strong state, can be problematic. Resources, both in men and war materials, get divided; logistics can become a nightmare; focus is lost in planning for more than one front at the tactical, theatre and strategic levels; diplomatic space is shrunk when a state is fighting more than one adversary and so on.
Three years from Rawat’s June 2017 statement, India thinks it faces the same situation again. The difference is that unlike the Doklam standoff, the current Sino-India face-off in Eastern Ladakh’s high-altitude barren heights and valleys has drawn blood, Indian blood, while the Chinese army sits comfortably on its gains. India is in a quandary. Despite Rawat’s boast, India doesn’t have many military options against China, not just in a land war scenario but also, as explained in detail by Pravin Sawhney, a former Indian army officer and now Editor of Force Magazine, across the full spectrum of military conflict.
At the Line of Control against Pakistan Army, ceasefire violations continue, however. That said, here too the Indian Army and more notably Indian Air Force know since February 27, 2019, that a misadventure would be costly. It would have been costlier on that morning if the Pakistan Air Force strike package, under directions from the government, had not shown restraint. PAF dominated the skies and controlled communications. Such was the confusion that the air defence unit near Srinagar shot down an Indian Air Force Mi-17 V-5 helicopter belonging to the Srinagar-based No 154 Helicopter Unit. That fratricidal action was even worse than losing a MiG to PAF.
Corollary: the China front is a militarily hopeless situation for India; the Pakistan front is a costly venture. As for Rawat’s half front, the internal security situation, people in the Occupied and now illegally annexed Jammu and Kashmir despise India to the last man and child. Despite a lockdown since August 5, 2019 and incarcerating thousands across jails in India, India has failed to break the spirit of Kashmiris. That front is already lost, unless Rawat, now at the top of the military pecking order as CDS, thinks that killing, maiming, arresting and torturing Kashmiris is a benchmark of success.
------------
India’s trade volume with China stands at USD86 billion with much greater potential. It could have a peaceful South Asia and trade relations with Pakistan and beyond if it decided to work with Pakistan and China in a cooperative rather than a conflictual framework. But no, it won’t do that. After making poor choices it would double down on them, giving Rawat his misplaced two-and-half-front conflict scenario. If that is not stupid, I don’t know what is.
Riaz Haq said…
#India Would Love to Return this Aircraft Carrier It Bought from #Russia. The ship's boilers are a big concern. Keeping INS Vikramaditya supplied with spare parts is a major task. The ship also lacks active air defenses. #IndianNavy #Junk https://news.yahoo.com/india-love-return-aircraft-carrier-193000947.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=tw via @YahooNews

By 2009, the project was deadlocked and word was starting to get around the defense industry. Russian arms exports for 2009 totaled $8 billion, and Sevmash’s delays and extortionary tactics weren’t good for the Russian defense industry as a whole.

In July 2009, Russia’s then-president Dmitri Medvedev made a high-profile visit to the Sevmash shipyard. Indian news reported that the carrier was still half-done, meaning that the yard had done virtually no work on the ship for two years as it held out for more money.

Medvedev publicly scolded Sevmash officials. “You need to complete [Vikramaditya] and hand it over our partners,” the visibly irritated president told Sevmash general director Nikolai Kalistratov.

In 2010, the Indian government agreed to more than double the budget for the carrier to $2.2 billion. This was less than the $2.9 billion Sevmash demanded, and much less than Sevmash’s suggested “market price” of $4 billion.

Suddenly, Sevmash magically started working harder—actually, twice as hard—and finished the other half of the upgrades in only three years. Vikramaditya finally entered sea trials in August 2012 and commissioned into the Indian navy in November 2013.

At the commissioning ceremony, Indian Defense Minister AK Anthony expressed relief that the ordeal was over, telling the press that there was a time “when we thought we would never get her.”

Enduring woes

Now that Vikramaditya is finally in service, India’s problems are over, right? Not by a long shot. Incredibly, India has chosen Sevmash to do out-of-warranty work on the ship for the next 20 years.

Keeping Vikramaditya supplied with spare parts will be a major task in itself. Ten Indian contractors helped to build the carrier, but so did more than 200 other contractors in Russia, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, Finland, France, Norway, Poland, Sweden and the U.K. Some countries, particularly Japan, were likely unaware they were exporting parts for a foreign weapons system.

The ship’s boilers, which provide Vikramaditya with power and propulsion, are a long-term concern. All eight boilers are new. But yard workers discovered defects in them. During her trip from Russia to India, the flattop suffered a boiler breakdown, which Sevmash chalked up to poor-quality Chinese firebricks.

China denied ever exporting the firebricks.

Finally, Vikramaditya lacks active air defenses. The ship has chaff and flare systems to lure away anti-ship missiles, but she doesn’t have any close-in weapons systems like the American Phalanx.

India could install local versions of the Russian AK-630 gun system, but missiles will have to wait until the ship is in drydock again—and that could be up to three years from now. In the meantime, Vikramaditya will have to rely on the new Indian air-defense destroyer INS Kolkata for protection from aircraft and missiles.

As for Sevmash? After the Vikramaditya fiasco, the yard is strangely upbeat about building more carriers … and has identified Brazil as a possible buyer. “Sevmash wants to build aircraft carriers,” said Sergey Novoselov, the yard’s deputy general director.
Riaz Haq said…
No wonder #Nepal cut off #India's channels that broadcast 24X7X365 false news and #Delhi's propaganda against neighbors! #Pakistan #China #Bhutan #SriLanka https://thehimalayantimes.com/kathmandu/indian-news-channels-face-a-broadcasting-ban-in-nepal/


The Multi-System Operators (MSO) have decided to stop the broadcast of Indian news channels in Nepal. The decision will come into effect, immediately, on Thursday.

According to the operators’ latest decision, viewers will not have access to any Indian news channels, except for the Indian state owned Doordarshan news.

While some cable operators implemented the ban immediately, the others are yet to follow suit.

The move comes in the wake of unfounded reports on Nepal carried by some of the Indian news channels, including their defamatory ‘shows’ on the Nepali Prime Minister along with the Chinese envoy.

Earlier today, the spokesperson of the ruling Nepal Communist Party, Narayan Kaji Shrestha had slammed the Indian media for their ‘nonsense’ reports on matters related to Nepal and the Nepali government.

These measures follow the events wherein an Indian news channel, Zee Hindustan, broadcasted an imaginative and defamatory programme linking PM Oli with Chinese ambassador to Nepal Hou Yanqi.
Riaz Haq said…
#India’s New #Rafale Jet vs. #China’s J-20 Stealth Fighter. Do #French Built Planes Stand a Chance? Simple answer: NO! Rafale is lighter & less capable than #Russian Su-30MKI jet of which India currently deploys over 250. Chinese PL-15 missile is superior https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/india-s-new-rafale-jet-vs-china-s-j-20-stealth-fighter-do-french-built-aircraft-stand-a-chance

Looking to the J-20, the fighter has one of the highest altitude ceilings in the world and can comfortably exceed Mach 2 speeds, meaning it will be able to attack the Rafale from above and provide its missiles with much more kinetic and gravitational potential energy. Its range and endurance are among the longest in the world, with the aircraft designed for long distance missions over the Pacific. More important than its flight performance advantages however are its technological ones. As a fifth generation fighter, the J-20 makes use of an advanced radar cross section reducing airframe. Although the fighters in peacetime often deploy with luneburg reflectors or external fuel tanks, making them easy to detect even at long ranges, when in ‘stealth mode’ the fighters have a small fraction of the radar cross section of any fourth generation jet making them extremely difficult to lock onto. The J-20 further benefits from advanced stealth coatings, an asset the Rafale lacks, which absorb radar waves and augment the stealth advantage already provided by the design of its airframe.

In terms of situational awareness both the Rafale and J-20 deploy AESA radars, with France and China being the first two countries after Japan and the U.S. to integrate such radars onto fighter aircraft. It is important to consider that China’s research and development budget is several times higher, which combined with a much larger and generally more sophisticated military industrial base is expected to provide it with more advanced radar and electronic warfare systems. Not only this, but the J-20’s sheer size, more than twice as large as the Rafale, means it can carry a much heavier radar. The latter factor alone guarantees a significant advantage in situational awareness for the Chinese jet. The J-20’s situational awareness is further augmented by integration of state of the art distributed aperture systems, which are currently deployed only by the Chinese fighter and the American F-35 and will provide an important advantage over the Rafale particularly at closer ranges.

------

Finally, looking to weaponry, the J-20 deploys the PL-15 air to air missile with a 250-300km range. The missile makes use of thrust vector controls and has a very high manoeuvrability, although its most outstanding feature is its use of an AESA radar which not only makes it much more difficult to jam than passive radar guided missiles, but also allows it to lock on to its targets at greater distances and better engage stealth targets at range. The Rafale currently deploys the ageing MICA air to air missile, which is effectively obsolete for long range engagements with a range of 80km - respectable for its time but now far surpassed by new Chinese and American technologies. India’s Rafales will, however, soon deploy the Meteor missile which is thought to have a range anywhere between 200-280km, a potential challenge to the PL-15. it remains uncertain whether the Meteor integrates an AESA radar as the PL-15 does, although given the cost equipping missiles with such radars would incur in Europe it is likely that the platform, like the latest American missiles, still uses a passively scanned radar.

Riaz Haq said…
One hard truth that Indians have to contend with is that America has also had difficulty treating India with respect. In recent years, many Americans have proudly proclaimed that America and India have a friendship built on a strong foundation since both are fellow democracies. This argument cuts little ice among thoughtful Indians since most of them remember well that America stood shoulder to shoulder with communist China and dictatorial Pakistan for several decades during the Cold War and beyond. One of the critical weaknesses of Washington, DC, is that the administrations and their officials change regularly; they have poor memories. Many Americans, like many of their fellow Westerners, have a higher degree of respect for Chinese civilization than they do of Indian civilization. Many Americans will deny it because it is an uncomfortable truth. They will proclaim loudly that they respect India as much as they respect China. But you cannot feign respect: it is best demonstrated not through words but in deeds. Every country in the world demonstrates its respect for another country by the amount of time and attention it gives to that country, and America has devoted far more time and attention to China than it has to India. If America wants to develop a close long-term relationship with India over the long run, it needs to confront the deep roots of its relative lack of respect for India. Is it a result of a perception among Western scholars that Indian civilization is not as impressive as Chinese civilization? Is this a result of the fact that the American media has broadcast a steady stream of stories about poverty in India, so much so that just as Americans naturally associate Africa with poverty, they may also do the same with India? Or were America’s condescending cultural attacks a result of romantic fascination with British dramas set in British India, with Indian culture presented as inferior? Unless Americans reflect on the roots of their lack of respect for India, they will fail to develop a strong partnership of equals. The tragedy of this failure is that such a partnership would bring massive benefits to both countries. As the American century gradually fades away in the coming decades and an Asian century emerges in force, America will need to build bridges to engage the new self-confident Asian societies. Clearly, China cannot provide America a bridge to the new Asia as China will be perceived as the main challenger to America for the coming decades. However, India can, as there are several common links to build upon. The first is the exceptional success of the Indian community in America. America’s free enterprise system is, in many ways, the most competitive market in the world for human achievement as the best minds from nations all over the world migrate to America. The pool of migrants in America represents the highest achieving segments of societies around the world. When the best brains of the world compete on a level playing field, which ethnic community does the best? The data show it is the ethnic Indian community in America.


Mahbubani, Kishore. Has China Won? (pp. 239-241). PublicAffairs. Kindle Edition.

Popular posts from this blog

Declining COVID19 Reproduction Rate in Pakistan Now Among the World's Lowest

Karachi's NED University Alum Raises $100 Million For Silicon Valley FinTech Startup

Antibodies Testing in Karachi Reveals COVID19 Exposure Runs in Double Digits