India’s Failure of Imagination

Re: anarayan

Agreed. A full fledged air war will only make matters worse and yes, it is in Pakistan`s interest to make India bleed in this case.

As to PAF`s lack of success in ground support operations, I would ask you to find a good topographical map of the region and you will soon see why ground support is a difficult prospect. PAF can not provide ground support, because the fighting is happening on the Indian side of LoC and it can only do so by crossing the LoC. PAF`s lack of ground support is not determined by its lack of will, but because of political calculations. In a tactical sense, you are right to say that IAF is pounding the opposition, but the IAF is also been unable to provide effective ground support to its own troops advancing against the occupied heights.

There are three reasons for this. One is the mis-allocation of resources by the Indians. The IAF is using its Mirage 2000s in a ground support role and to jam Pakistani missile radars. The Mirage can do an excellent job of confusing Pakistani radars, but in the ground support role it will prove ineffective. The reason is that the Mirage 2000 was designed as a dedicated air superiority fighter and not with the intentions of a fulling a ground interdiction role. It is akin to taking a Porsche 911 and trying to go four wheeling with it; it may seem like a good idea, but unfortunately it will not work out as planned!

The last reason is that effective ground support demands the presense of forward air controllers to direct the in-coming aircraft to their targets, because IAF`s time over targets is barely more than a few second and that is not enough time to locate, identify and engage targets with positive results. Since the nature of fighting is mostly up close and personal, that is hand to hand, IAF is weary of hitting its own troops and thus, it seeks to target the opposition from a safe distance. You are absolutely correct to say that IAF can effectivily hit the supply dumps etc., but the nature of warfare in Kargil is one of fluidity and mobility based on the principles of guerilla warfare in the mountains.

If the Soviet air forces could not defeat the Afghans from the air and NATO could not destroy Serbian forces from heights of 15k plus, IAF is not going to do it either. Also, please remember that military ops are taking place at heights of 15k above sea level, and that there is still late summer snow in those areas. Even if IAF bombs those areas with pin point accuracy, its 500, 1k lbs. laser guided bombs have a tendency to sink into the snow and thus, the resulting explosions are relativily muted and do not result in wide spread collratral damage.

Like I said in another post, military ops in the region are a headache for both sides logistically and tactically.

Concerning Pakistan`s alleged Northern Light Infantry, that smacks too much of a British regimental title and Pakistani infantry forces, in the northern areas, are known as Frontier Forces. I am not denying that Pakistani soldiers are not involved, but I highly doubt it that regualar troops belonging to established units of Pakistani Army are operating in the area. The more realistic possibility is that if there are Pakistani troops, they belong to the Special Services Group.

During the Afghan war, special units of Pakistan`s SSGs were detached from regular duty for intelligence ops inside Afghanistan and to coordinate attacks against the Soviet Red Army. It is logical to assume a similar approach is being made in this case too. The nature of warfare in Kargil is unorthadox and is more suited to the temperment of special forces, who train for such ops, than a regular army unit.

On the issue of re-claiming bodies of supposedely dead Pakistani soldiers. That has more to do with the nature and inacccesibility of the terrain than it has to do with Pakistan`s mea culpa in the matter. Since military ops are happening on the Indian side of LoC, those dead bodies come under the preview of the Indian military and so far, to the best of my knowledge, it has not brought down the bodies of those killed from the heights. Only way Pakistan can re-claim those bodies is by ingressing into the Indian side of LoC and we all know that is a verboten idea.

As to the dishonor of slain soldiers, when was the last time the Indians brought all of their dead down from the battlefield? The mountain sides are still littered with the dead of both sides and this is a war that either side will admit as being a war.

My friend, in this matter you have to read between the lines and you should not believe everything you read or hear. In other words, on one end of the spectrum you have the truth and on the other end, you have have the lie and some where in between these two imposters lies the reality of the situation!

Well, Mr.Oberoi certainly does not lack in imagination as is evident in this article. He throws in a few facts, a lot of ``imagination`` and lo - an article is ready.

Pakistanis always want peace. What rubbish? It is India which has always been the defender in all three occasions that we went for war with Pak and once with China. Pakistan will not settle for peace or friendship with India, because its whole identity and existance will become questionable then.

That is right. What is Pakistan? Ostensibly, historians claim that Pakistan is the home of all the Muslims who were a part of British India. This is what Pakistanis claim too. However, they are all at a loss to explain how India still has more muslims than Pak itself!

There is a concept in semi-conductor physics called a ``hole``. It is not a physical entity - it is merely the absence of an electron. It is condemned to be the negative image of an electron, which is the one that really exists. Pakistan is in a similar situation when it comes to India.

If it happens that India and Pak co-exist peacefully, then the world will start wondering if it was necessary to create a separate Pak out of India at all! After all, if everything is peaceful, why can`t the two countries reunite like Germany or Yemen?

It is the inability to face this question that makes Pakistan the juvenile agressor that it is today. So, Mr. Oberoi, please realise that a peace-loving Pakistani is an oxymoron.

Re: Ferozk Reply #: 30

Dear Feroz,

Despite your sincere explanations, everyone knows why the PAF is avoiding the IAF. An air battle would be the beginning of a full-fledged war which pakistan wants to avoid at any cost.



What a predicament. Pakistan`s air force cannot come to the aid of its own soldiers. Indian planes have been bombing the daylights out of pakistan`s Northern Light Infantry almost from day one (everyone knows who the so-called mujaideen fighters are). The PAF coming to their aid would be tantamount to admitting the truth.



This sad state of affairs is also affecting hundreds of pakistani families since the Pakistan Govt.is officially refusing to accept the bodies of its slain soldiers.

Can there be a greater dishonour to the memory of a soldier ?

Re: veeresh

PAF is on BARCAP (Barrier Combat Air Patrol) over LoC. That means it is flying defensive race track patterns beyond the LoC to avoid accidently ``tripping the wire`` and crossing into Indian side of the LoC. Air operations are tricky in that area, because of the high mountains most of the planes have a minimal turning radius, and by operating close to LoC they might egress over it for a few seconds while undertaking turns.

Since most air ops are undertaken by flying nap of the earth, over the valley floors, to avoid AAA (anti aircraft artillery) situated on the heights above, planes have to contain with the restrictions of limited airspace and given the narrow defiles, the speed of the aicraft at around 350-500 IAS (Indicated Air Speed), a turning radius is nearly five to eight miles and hence, difficult to avoid crossing the LoC.

Contary to what the Pakistanis may claim, I think most of the Indian incursions into Pakistani side of the LoC were accidential and the PAF knows this and hopes that some day the Indians will return the favor too!

Another reason why the PAF planes are operating beyond the LoC and away from the IAF air ops is to avoid being caught in the ``kill box``. The air ops over Kargil is a free fire zone and missiles do not discriminate between PAF and IAF planes! There are tactical reasons why PAF is keeping its distance from the IAF. Besides, with the operational use of P-3Cs of PAF, PAF has ample warnings and time to detect and vector an interdiction of IAF ingressions from a safe distance and it does need to go ``eyeball to eyeball`` with the Indians. Also, by being away from the LoC, PAF is causing the IAF an element of uncertainity as to when they might have get ``jumped`` by PAF BARCAP!

As to Pakistan`s mumitions, Pakistan has enough war stocks for 50 days of sustained combat operations against the Indians. The critical element in this is not the war stocks, but the international reaction to a conventional war and how it will impact Pakostan`s overall financial situation.

``In 1971, India enjoyed overwhelming military superiority over Pakistan......people have come to take this superiority as a law of nature, rather than as simply the balance of military advantage at a specific point in time``

Well said!

OK. Let them have Kashmir. I am all for it. What has Kashmir done for me lately?

ap

In reply to Rohan Oberoi :

First, as far as the Pakistani English newspapers on-line are concerned -- Dawn, Nation, Jang, Frontier-Post -- it is very difficult to discern a desire for peace with India from the letters to the editor, the opinion pieces and the editorials.

The occasional Urdu pieces that are translated and published in forums like India Abroad are even more belligerent.

Second, dealing with the matter of Indian perceptions, rightly or wrongly, India has felt betrayed by the UN and so disregards it. The issue that India brought before the UN in 1948 was that of an invasion of Kashmir by Pakistan. Instead of a clear statement on that issue, the matter took different twists and turns. What India was hoping for then was exactly what has happened in this round -- the G-8 and China have placed the responsibility for creating the current hostilities squarely on Pakistan. So, in the future India may be more open to mediation -- but the Indian public will be in no mood to yield anything.

Finally, while Sartaj Aziz may be right in that the Pakistani people will not accept a dialogue in which there is no progress on Kashmir, the point is that before the Lahore bus trip there was no dialog worth the name. By precipating military action so close to the bus trip, the length of dialog with no progress on Kashmir cannot be more than two-three months it seems. Under such circumstances, no progress is possible.

The potential peacemakers must also answer the question as to why India would want to make peace with a country that is in the state Pakistan is.

For example, as far as I know, Pakistan is one of only two countries that recognizes the Taliban, and is probably the prime supporter. There can not be peace between an aspiring secular democratic state and the Taliban, and by extension, with Pakistan.

-arun gupta

re: UR

errr....even the ``fighters`` in Kargil today disregard those issues. Your stand is typically DUAL in nature as described by the article by Fauziya Khan. You argue self-determination and human rights, but dish out and support Islamic fundamentalism and holy war against the kafir.

Do you honestly believe that Islamic mercenaries (lashkar-e-tayyiba fame) are fighting for the liberation of Kashmiri people ? (on the Indian side first ??????)
Do you honestly believe that the Pakistan army is fighting to liberate the Kashmiri people ? If that were the case, they could start by `liberating` POK, or maybe even stop non-Kashmiri migration to POK ?
And if you do so believe that `the Kashmir issue` will be decided by Kashmiris then why do you support this war (and therefore this motley crew of Islamic crazed fighters and Pakistan) ?

The only `civil` way for Kashmiris to get their `due` is to form an autonomous govt. that negotiates with the Central govts (on both the Kafir and Muslim side) on more and more autonomy. ie politically. Maybe you ought to find out about the autonomy the J&K govt has achieved over the past 53 years no thanks to the so called `Mujahideen`.
Just as most Muslim countries around the world are tussling between the Islamic fundamentalists and the seculars, have you ever wondered that even Kashmiris may not see rabid fundamentalists as their `liberators`. THeir view on them being part of the Indian Union has nothing to do with it. THe only victims are Kashmiris (kafir and Muslim) and the Indian army.

In terms of referendums, I would only support a division on the basis of religion if that were to be held everywhere in India. Not once am I saying that Kashmir is an integral part of India. But I do see the Islamic separatism as a threat to secularism. We dont want more 1947`s. Our parents had no clue what was going on in 1947 and were removed from their ancestral homeland by some decision taken by a few who thought division on the basis of religion was necessary, although India should remain multi-religious and secular ???? We want this narrow minded nonsense to STOP.
Kashmir has already seen the division on the basis of religion. HIndus and other kafirs have all been driven out, not by the average Kashmiri believing in Kashmiriyat, but by the Islamic terrorists. (In 1991 alone 300,000). Frankly, it is time the seculars in India woke upto the politics of the Islamic separatist. We dont want to be fighting Islamic mercenaries for the rest of our lives, now, do we ?

Your facts about human rights organizations in Kashmir are false. For some time in the 80s there were no human rights orgs allowed. Now it is a different story. You ought to read what some of them say.

UR:

Does tolerance require us to tolerate the intolerant? That is the fundamental question. The will of the Kashmiri valley people is anti-India because they have been exposed to the two-nation theory, a singularly nasty and quixotic piece of ideology. Your argument is that this will should be given free expression and if it leads to secession so be it. I happen to believe that certain ideologies such as slavery should be resisted militarily. Clearly there is a big jump from slavery peddlers to mujaheedeens. However, people who claim to be carrying out the will of God through arms should be resisted. These jihadis and there ideology are people who should be resisted. We have seen two very bloody secessionist movements (Pakistan at a cost of a million people and Bangladesh at a cost of millions as well). Self-determination as a positive projection of ones identity as opposed to a rejection of another larger identity is a subtlety that is missed in our part of the world.

Fine political principles are often missed in the roughness and bluntness of South Asian politics. That is why Jinnah for all his fastidious in creating a secular state for Muslims eventually was the handmaiden for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, a virtually minority-free state. That is because most of his followers missed his subtle points. I can virtually guarantee you Kashmir will end up the same way. Some may argue in favor of a secular independent Kashmir - I am almost certain the rank and file of Kashmiris will view it as Muslims disassociating from Hindus and soon these subtleties will be lost. That is why we are fighting in Kashmir. This may not be a fight between India and Pakistan, or Hinduism and Islam but it is a fight between Islamic identity and secular identity. You say there is a secessionist movement - let it run its course. We say - WHY is there a secessionist movement. Lets address that and change the course of the secessionist movement. Regards.

All the arguments seem to disregard two issues:

1. Kashmir is still considered disputed territory, according to the UN. The fact that India or Pakistan occupies it, does not make it undisputed. None of the agreements Simla, Lahore etc. declared Kashmir to be undisputed territory.

2. The future of Kashmir must be decided by the Kashmiris, not by Pakistanis or Indians. Regardless of what kind of logic Indian supporters present, and how much they try to blame Pakistan for the Kahsmir problem, they still cannot answer one simple question, i.e. if Kashmir is an integral part of India, and most of the Kashmiris (apart from the freedom fighters) want to side with India, then why is India so reluctant to hold a vote there?

The independence of Kashmir will not be decided by India or Pakistan, or any of the other countries of the world. It will be decided by the people of Kashmir. People that want independence have to fight and sacrifice for it, themselves. That is what the Pakistanis had to do to get Pakistan, and that is what the Indians had to do to get India. Just like the British had to be forced out, similarly the Kashmiris will have to force out the Indians.

The international governments have turned a blind eye to the fact that India has not allowed human rights organizations to enter Kashmir. USA and other countries do not want to, ``rock the boat`` with India. They are very hypocritical when it comes to human rights. What the Kashmiris need to do is bring their struggles into the homes on the common man in these countries through the various news sources like CNN, BBC etc. That is when the general population of the world will get up and notice, and force their governments to denounce Indian actions.

Armies cannot go on commiting human rights violations forever. They are not trained to kill civilians. Eventually something has to give. If the Kashmiris can continue with their struggle, then that is what is going to happen with the Indian army in Kashmir.

This should not be looked at as a battle between Pakistan and India; nor is it a battle between Islam and Hinduism. This is a battle between the oppressed (Kashmiris) versus the oppressors (India). Whether India and Pakistan like or dislike each other is immaterial, because it is the innocent Kashmiris that are being victimized.

To quote a famous Kashmiri, from 1947:

``We have decided that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the Kashmiri people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not, and cannot, back out of it. We are prepared, when peace and law and order have been established, to have a referendum held under the auspices of the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people, and we shall accept the verdict. I can imagine no fairer and juster offer.``

Jawahar Lal Nehru (Oct 1947, All India Radio)

It is time that India held up its side of the bargain.

Rohan:

Overall, I liked your piece. I agree with you that a lot of Indians just tune out what Pakistan is saying and also make a lot of stupid arguments for India`s claim on Kashmir.

Here are my reasons why India should not agree to Kashmir`s secession:

1. India has not changed Kashmir`s demographics - for 50 years India had the opportunity but not the will to do this. This is probably the best testimonial to the fact that, absent a separatist ideology, Kashmir could have a secular autonomous framework.

2.Kashmiris desired Urdu as their language - they have it.

3. The adminstrative framework has not desired to project Hinduism. Tibetan Buddhists are even more different from majority North Indian Hindus as Kashmiri Muslims are from the Hindus but there is no secessionist movement in Ladakh. The Ladakhi Buddhist feel no threat from ``Hindu`` India. The only reason why there is a secessionist movement in Kashmir is because of the Nazi two-nation theory that exists in Pakistan has infected the people of Kashmir. We are not fighting for Akhand Bharat, we are fighting for a principle. The principle is multi-religious multi-ethnic multi-lingual states can work. In different ways, other Muslim countries are fighting the same battle - specifically Egypt, Turkey & Algeria against their own fundamentalists.

4. Finally, there are plenty of Hindu fundamentalists as well. A secession of Kashmir will unleash the barbarism latent in these fundamentalists against India`s Muslim minority. This is a risk not worth taking. One day when we get to Quebec-Canada type of civility or Czech-Slovak type of civility we can try this good fences make good neighbours approach. India is more like the Balkans in handling secession. The creation of Pakistan has institutionalized the fissures in our society. To recognize a Kashmir-India fissure is not to automatically assume that the right answer is secession.

The core issue remains the two-nation theory, not Kashmir. We must kill the appeal of that theory. In our rejection of the two nation theory, we initially went to the other extreme - everybody is the same - clearly a lie. Now, we will arrive at a more honest equilibrium - there are differences in views among a lot of Hindus and a lot of Muslims. Not all these differences translate into a different country.

Mihir:

You apparently missed my discussion of the terms of the Shimla Agreement:



Article 4(ii) declares that ``neither side shall seek to alter [the Line of Control] unilaterally``

and that ``both sides undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force``, while Article 1(ii) states that ``neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation`` and that ``both shall prevent ... any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations``.



Even if you reject the argument that the Siachen action of 1983-1984 sought to extend the Line of Control, thereby seeking to alter it, there is no argument that the action was a ``unilateral alteration of the situation`` by the Indian Government in violation of Article 1(ii), as well as an act clearly detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations.

So yes, the Siachen operation did violate the Shimla Agreement (and please understand that this is independent of whether or not it violated/altered the Line of Control).

re: Rohan Oberoi

I still miss your point.

Let me try and re-phrase my view.
In your article you state:
``Given the clarity and persistence with which Pakistanis have repeated their country`s simple one-point position (ONE Peace with India and TWO Kashmir stands in the way that peace), and given the broad spectrum of Pakistani opinion that supports this position, this level of confusion in India is astounding.``

Maybe you should explain how the Kargil attack reflects this SIMPLE ONE POINT POSITION. Or more importantly HOW is it a MEANS to that GOAL ? What does it possibly achieve ? Not sure how much you have been reading up on this whole Kargil saga, but you could read about it from ALL sides (every newspaper on the internet) and conclude. If you could explain that, I am sure there would be no more confusion or `lack of imagination` (????I think we are using too much imagination and hence giving the masterminds of this conflict too much credit, hence the confusion????)

And its not just about the Army in Pakistan. Since every power centre has given different statements at different times regarding the Kargil issue it is not clear to anyone about what exactly is going on or what was supposed to happen.

I wonder how many people like you believe that Afghani and other foreign Mujahideen (from Pakistan govts official statement regarding their having NO CONTROL over these holy warriors and hence NO PULLOUT) are fighting for the rights of Kashmiri people. THE ONLY CIVILIAN CASUALITIES OF THIS WAR ARE KASHMIRIS !!!!!!! Start by analysing the `fighters` ( both sides) , who they are, what do they represent, and what are their projected goals.

You really should explain some of this before drawing the kind of high handed conclusions you draw in your article.

.....meanwhile on the Kargil issue.....
Even Pakistani newspapers are asking the same questions with same level of `confusion`. With the recent DEAL between Nawaz and Clinton in which they supposedly agreed to a pullout of troops from Indian side of the LoC, people in Pakistan rightfully want to know what did they gain and what did they lose ? Afterall, what was the point ?

Among many flaws: the occupation of Siachen was not a violation of the line of control as the LoC was not drawn as far as the glacier either in 1949 or in 1971-72 . So that invalidates your point. Pakistan has undoubtedly violated the Simla Agreement now.

A great analysis, would have been fairly accurate if the role of religion could be wished away. A country dominated by a backward looking interpretation of the religion, where the public policy is guided by the dictates of religion, a constitutional amendment to declare sharia the supreme law has been passed by the elected representatives, one has to discount ant analysis which ignores the political and foreign policy implications of islam.

It simply cannot be coincidence that the muslim dominated regions, the latest is kosovo, where the muslims cannot live in peace with neighbours of another religious belief.

I was struck by the parallels between kosovo and pakistan, now that the muslims are cleaning out the serbs, a pakistan is created there, while in the rest of yugoslavia, muslims will continue to stay as in india. May be a reading of Koran on how the kafirs should be treated could have added a touch of realism to the analysis.

Any analysis of indo-pak relations with out listening to the promptings of islam is a verbiage, after all pakistan is an ISLAMIC country, a secular analysis has not much relevance.

Re: Faraz Reply #: 16

``Whether you like it or not, there is genuine intrinsic unrest in Kashmir..``

Nobody is questioning that. The issue is WHO is responsible for it. Who created it and who is sustaining it.

``I doubt you would be willing to give the pakistani military credit for necessitating 2/3 million troops remaining in Kashmir around the year.``

You do have a point there. After all nearly 100,000 pakistani soldiers preferred to raise their hands rather than fight to the death in Bangladesh (incidentally, this was the largest number of POWS in one operation ever in history). But let me answer your question. Maybe these Indian troops are there to prevent `Operation Gibraltar`. Oops, I made a mistake. That was in 1965, when pakistan launched a kargil-like operation - pakistani regulars in civvies infiltrating into kashmir by the battalion. However the local kashmiris refused to oblige them (note this please), and the pakistanis were thrown out by the Indian Army. Ah ! Now I remember, the troops are there to counter `Operation Topaz` - launched by Zia-ul- Haq in the late eighties. A proxy-war with India,taking advantage of the long porous border to push in trained mercenaries (kashmiri, afghan,arab, sudanese...anybody) at regular intervals to cause havoc in kashmir. The operation is just big enough to totally disrupt normal life in kashmir - but not big enough to cause a war to be declared. For your information nearly 3000 such merceneries are lined up near the border every year for infiltration as the snows are melting. It has been a grand success. If you are truly ignorant of these facts, I don`t blame you. After all even your PM does`nt seem to know what the army is up to.

``It does discourage me from thinking about a viable peace if Indians still cannot accept that FACT.``

Most Indians are least bothered about the FACT of pakistan. Most Indians are very much bothered by another FACT - pakistan has slowly become a breeding ground for narco-terrorism whose dollar power is being used by its army to create trouble for India.

``Everyday I read in Indian papers of several militants killed, yet the number remaining seems to stay constant at 700; this despite assurances from the Indian military that they have stopped new infiltrations.Where are these replacement militants coming from.``

How would you estimate the enemy strength in such a situation ? Obviously it is just an approximation. So many in this bunker and so many in that. Peaks are being cleared one by one. No new peaks have been infiltrated. Where are these replacement militants coming from - hmm, lets see, it can`t be from India, so I guess its from pakistan.

Its interesting that you peruse Indian papers - don`t you believe Brigadier Qureshi ?!!!

``The ball is clearly in India`s court ...``

Yes it is. But it came from Pakistan`s court. And most Indians hope India will go for a smash.