Tag Archive | "United State"

Pakistan Army troops wearing the standard sand...

'Dead Reckoning' redefines history of 1971

Pakistan Army troops wearing the standard sand...
Image via Wikipedia

‘Dead Reckoning’ redefines history of 1971

Sarmila Bose’s book ‘Dead Reckoning’: This ground-breaking book chronicles the 1971 war in South Asia by reconstituting the memories of those on opposing sides of the conflict. 1971 was marked by a bitter civil war within Pakistan and war between India and Pakistan, backed respectively by the Soviet Union and the United States. It was fought over the territory of East Pakistan, which seceded to become Bangladesh. Through a detailed investigation of events on the ground, Sarmila Bose contextualises and humanises the war while analysing what the events reveal about the nature of the conflict itself. The story of 1971 has so far been dominated by the narrative of the victorious side. All parties to the war are still largely imprisoned by wartime partisan mythologies. Bose reconstructs events via interviews conducted in Bangladesh and Pakistan, published and unpublished reminiscences in Bengali and English of participants on all sides, official documents, foreign media reports and other sources. Her book challenges assumptions about the nature of the conflict, and exposes the ways in which the 1971 war is still playing out in the region.

Product code: 455601, ISBN13: 9781849040495, 288 pages, paperback
Published by C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd in 2011

SARMILA BOSE is Senior Research Fellow in the Politics of South Asia at the University of Oxford. She was a political journalist in India and combines academic and media work. She was educated at Bryn Mawr College and Harvard University.

Ms. Sharmila Bose in her paper entitled “Losing the Victims: Problems of Using Women as Weapons in Recounting the Bangladesh War”  paints a picture of the Pakistani military as a disciplined force that spared women and children. She writes:

During my field research on several incidents in East Pakistan during 1971, Bangladeshi participants and eyewitnesses described battles, raids, massacres and executions, but told me that women were not harmed by the army in these events except by chance such as in crossfire. The pattern that emerged from these incidents was that the Pakistan army targeted adult males while sparing women and children.

She also quotes the passage from the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report that I cited above to support her assertion that so many rapes could not have occurred. 20,000-34,000 could not have raped 200,000 to 400,000 women in the space of nine months.

She states in the introduction:

That rape occurred in East Pakistan in 1971 has never been in any doubt. The question is what was the true extent of rape, who were the victims and who the perpetrators and was there any systematic policy of rape by any party, as opposed to opportunistic sexual crimes in times of war.

To try to bolster her argument that the Pakistani forces in Bangladesh could not have raped so many women, she claims:

The number of West Pakistani armed forces personnel in East Pakistan was about 20,000 at the beginning of the conflict, rising to 34,000 by December. Another 11,000 men — civil police and non-combat personnel — also held arms.

For an army of 34,000 to rape on this scale in eight or nine months (while fighting insurgency, guerrilla war and an invasion by India), each would-be perpetrator would have had to commit rape at an incredible rate.

There are numerous reports out there now which negates the well established beliefs. The declassified US reports, Indian military officers account, Pakistan military officers account, General Niazi’s memoirs, Sharmila Bose, Hamoodurahman commission report.

Pakistan Military officers fought hard. Many foreign correspondents speak well of their bravery. It is the bravery of a Muslim soldier that Indian Military got tough fight. These Pakistani Mard-e-Momin fought so hard that they had almost regained the control of East Pakistan from the dirty hands of Mukt-Bahini. When India saw this, She then started the military action which resulted in the fall of Dhaka.

Then  Mujib showed his true colors after the formation of Bangladesh with his BAKSAL party. How he became authoritative and usurped democracy is not a secret anymore. He was going to make Bangladesh part of India that he was killed timely by the Pakistani military officers (yes those Bengalis who never gave up allegiance to Pakistan. I stand in honor for them).

References:
1) Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULpCroezFrY
2) Read “RAW in Bangladesh by ZainulAbidin (an ex-Mukti Bahini member) on 1971 war.
3) Read Blood and tears by a Pakistani writer about 1971 war.
4) Check the website of Federation of American Scientist on 1971 war
5) Read “East Pakistan Tragedy” by L.F. Rushbrook Williams.

Posted in UncategorizedComments (2)

Close to President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakista...

260 member Chinese trade delegation coming to Pakistan

Close to President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakista...
Massive 230 member Chinese business team coming to Pakistan

While the worlds last superpower took 200 US businessmen to Delhi, and did not sign any significant deals to invest in Bharat–the world’s next Superpower is coming to Islamabad. Chinese Prime Minister is bringing 260 businessmen with him–and several deals including the deal for the 1G Civilian Nuclear deal is about ready to be signed.

  • Procurement of 300 railway wagons is also expected to come under discussion as the President had already ordered an inquiry against officials creating hurdles in this deal.
  • Unconfirmed reports suggest that China will announce facilitation of export of about 90 more items from Pakistan, which are not included in the Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

ISLAMABAD (December 07, 2010) : A 260-member business delegation, including private entrepreneurs, is scheduled to visit Pakistan later this month, along the Chinese Premier, Wen Jia Bao.

Official sources told Business Recorder that a number of agreements, worth billions of dollars, in different sectors including energy, agriculture, water, trade, industry and defence are expected to be signed during Bao’s visit. Nuclear energy deals will be a top agenda item despite US pressure on Pakistan.

The Economic Affairs Division (EAD) is active in finalisation of new pacts, besides progress on agreements and MoUs inked in the recent past. The leaders of the two countries may also discuss progress on a possible deal between Pakistan and China on purchase of a Pakistani bank. A couple of months ago, President Asif Ali Zardari had directed the concerned officials, including State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) Governor to remain in touch with the Chinese central bank to finalise a feasible proposal.

Procurement of 300 railway wagons is also expected to come under discussion as the President had already ordered an inquiry against officials creating hurdles in this deal. Unconfirmed reports suggest that China will announce facilitation of export of about 90 more items from Pakistan, which are not included in the Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Commerce Secretary Zafar Mahmood visited China twice for discussion on this proposal floated by the Chinese Vice Premier to Pakistan.

Ambassador Masood Khan said that Pakistan and China enjoy close brotherly ties spread over last six decades. He said that the trade volume between Pakistan and China was increasing at a rate of 30 percent per year and was likely to increase to $18 billion in less than five years, from the current $7 billion.

  • ISLAMABAD – Pakistan is expecting breakthrough regarding establishment of 1 gigawatt (GW) nuclear power plant during the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s three-day visit to Pakistan starting from December 17, official sources said on Monday.
  • According to the highly placed governmental and diplomatic sources, officials of Pakistan and China have been engaged in extensive talks on setting up a nuclear power plant in Pakistan having a capacity of producing 1 GW electricity.
  • It is important to mention here that China has already completed construction of one nuclear power plant of 300MW in Pakistan while another plant of the same capacity is likely to be completed next year. Meanwhile, the project of constructing 1 GW nuclear power plant is likely to be finalised during Wen Jiabao’s visit to Islamabad.
  • During Jiabao’s visit, both the sides are expected to final ‘Currency swap agreement’ while Pakistan will stress for making full use of the Pak-China free trade agreement for increasing bilateral trade to $15 billion per year. The Nation.

The Ambassador said a China-Pakistan business summit in Islamabad would look at the ways to reduce trade deficit between the two countries while taking steps for increasing the total trade volume. In view of the importance of Pakistan-China relations, the number of business delegates has been increased from 150 to 260. He said China’s advanced economic team, which is already in Pakistan, held 14 useful and fruitful meetings in Islamabad during the past few days.

Last week, a Chinese delegation was in the federal capital, whose members went through different possible new pacts in addition to progress on the agreements in place. The delegation members also met President Asif Ali Zardari and other top officials. 260-member Chinese trade team to accompany Premier Wen: visit later this month by MUSHTAQ GHUMMAN. Business Recorder.

  • Islamabad-based diplomatic sources confirmed to TheNation that a breakthrough is expected during Wen Jiabao’s visit over the issue power generation. However, the Foreign Office did not confirm this.
  • Meanwhile, a Chinese official based in Islamabad also confirmed that there have been discussions between the two countries about building a 1-gigawatt (GW) plant in Pakistan, in addition to the two 300-megawatt (MW) plants that Chinese companies are expected to build in Chashma.
  • Although China has been talking publicly for the past two months about its intention to build at least two more reactors in Pakistan, Chinese officials have not yet specified how they intend to get around the rules that bar the sale of nuclear technology to countries such as Pakistan that have not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The Nation.

Posted in China CA, Current Affairs, Pak CAComments (0)

Pakistan Army troops wearing the standard sand...

1971: Debunking Distortions of Delhi

Pakistan Army troops wearing the standard sand...
Image via Wikipedia

‘Dead Reckoning’ redefines history of 1971

Dead Reckoning by Sarmila Bose: This ground-breaking book chronicles the 1971 war in South Asia by reconstituting the memories of those on opposing sides of the conflict. 1971 was marked by a bitter civil war within Pakistan and war between India and Pakistan, backed respectively by the Soviet Union and the United States. It was fought over the territory of East Pakistan, which seceded to become Bangladesh. Through a detailed investigation of events on the ground, Sarmila Bose contextualises and humanises the war while analysing what the events reveal about the nature of the conflict itself. The story of 1971 has so far been dominated by the narrative of the victorious side. All parties to the war are still largely imprisoned by wartime partisan mythologies. Bose reconstructs events via interviews conducted in Bangladesh and Pakistan, published and unpublished reminiscences in Bengali and English of participants on all sides, official documents, foreign media reports and other sources. Her book challenges assumptions about the nature of the conflict, and exposes the ways in which the 1971 war is still playing out in the region.

Product code: 455601, ISBN13: 9781849040495, 288 pages, paperback
Published by C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd in 2011

SARMILA BOSE is Senior Research Fellow in the Politics of South Asia at the University of Oxford. She was a political journalist in India and combines academic and media work. She was educated at Bryn Mawr College and Harvard University.

Ms. Sharmila Bose in her paper entitled “Losing the Victims: Problems of Using Women as Weapons in Recounting the Bangladesh War”  paints a picture of the Pakistani military as a disciplined force that spared women and children. She writes:

During my field research on several incidents in East Pakistan during 1971, Bangladeshi participants and eyewitnesses described battles, raids, massacres and executions, but told me that women were not harmed by the army in these events except by chance such as in crossfire. The pattern that emerged from these incidents was that the Pakistan army targeted adult males while sparing women and children.

She also quotes the passage from the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report that I cited above to support her assertion that so many rapes could not have occurred. 20,000-34,000 could not have raped 200,000 to 400,000 women in the space of nine months.

She states in the introduction:

That rape occurred in East Pakistan in 1971 has never been in any doubt. The question is what was the true extent of rape, who were the victims and who the perpetrators and was there any systematic policy of rape by any party, as opposed to opportunistic sexual crimes in times of war.

To try to bolster her argument that the Pakistani forces in Bangladesh could not have raped so many women, she claims:

The number of West Pakistani armed forces personnel in East Pakistan was about 20,000 at the beginning of the conflict, rising to 34,000 by December. Another 11,000 men — civil police and non-combat personnel — also held arms.

For an army of 34,000 to rape on this scale in eight or nine months (while fighting insurgency, guerrilla war and an invasion by India), each would-be perpetrator would have had to commit rape at an incredible rate.

There are numerous reports out there now which negates the well established beliefs. The declassified US reports, Indian military officers account, Pakistan military officers account, General Niazi’s memoirs, Sharmila Bose, Hamoodurahman commission report.

Pakistan Military officers fought hard. Many foreign correspondents speak well of their bravery. It is the bravery of a Muslim soldier that Indian Military got tough fight. These Pakistani Mard-e-Momin fought so hard that they had almost regained the control of East Pakistan from the dirty hands of Mukt-Bahini. When India saw this, She then started the military action which resulted in the fall of Dhaka.

Then  Mujib showed his true colors after the formation of Bangladesh with his BAKSAL party. How he became authoritative and usurped democracy is not a secret anymore. He was going to make Bangladesh part of India that he was killed timely by the Pakistani military officers (yes those Bengalis who never gave up allegiance to Pakistan. I stand in honor for them).

References:
1) Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULpCroezFrY
2) Read “RAW in Bangladesh by ZainulAbidin (an ex-Mukti Bahini member) on 1971 war.
3) Read Blood and tears by a Pakistani writer about 1971 war.
4) Check the website of Federation of American Scientist on 1971 war
5) Read “East Pakistan Tragedy” by L.F. Rushbrook Williams.

Posted in Current AffairsComments (2)

Sukhoi PAK FA Prototype Anaglyph

IAF to buy PAKFA's when Russia builds them in 2020

Sukhoi PAK FA Prototype Anaglyph

Bharat will be purchasing the PAKFA T-50s, billed as FGFA in Bharat–in the next decade sometime when the plane is ready for production. Realistically speaking the actual delivery of the planes may begin after 2010. The T-50s are in the testing phase with at least a few proto-types already developed.

The Russian Ambassador laughed when asked about Bharati input to the design. He said “what has Bharat to offer Russia in terms of design or manufacture”. He was alluding to the fact that Russia has been producing world class fighters for the past century, whereas Bharat has yet to produce a boat, plan or vehicle which is totally manufactured in Bharat. The plane is not likely to commence production-let alone induction, before 2020.

There is a sharp difference between the information given in the two capitals. There is sharp contrast in the news conferences held in Russia and India. According to the Russian experts, Moscow is selling a stripped down version of the PAKFA as the FGFA. Bharati media exaggerates not only the number of planes that it will be purchasing (which is about three times the number of planes that Russia wants to produce), but it also comes out with wild claims to the extent of the Bharati participation in the venture. Obviously if the proto-type has already been designed and is flying–what design remains to be consecrated?

According to experts the Russians did not pay as much attention on stealth as Americans did with F-35 and F-22. IR and stealth design is not prominent in PAK-FA as in American stealth fighters, the intakes frame and flanker style engine layout are the prime examples.
PAK-FA is stealthy but cannot be compared with  F-35 or F-22 stealth technology. The PAKFA is “Stealth Light”–like being a little bit pregnant. China may produce well over 1000 5th generation fighters.

Pravda and Rio Vosti claim that Russia will build 100 of these planes.

The plane is billed as better than anything that flies, better than the F-22 and better than the F-35. The same claims were made about the Mig 21 Flying Coffins and the LCA.

The BBC reports that the Fifth-generation aircraft are invisible to radar, have advanced flight and weapons control systems and can cruise at supersonic speeds, officials say.

Mr Antony told a news conference in the Indian capital, Delhi, that Russia would also supply 45 transport planes.

India is a top buyer of Russian weapons and the two countries have strong ties.

“We have a 10-year programme and it is quite challenging (but) we have very good experience in military co-operation,” news agency AFP quoted Russian Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov as saying at the conference. The BBC

Rio Vosti discusses the criticism of the PAKFA. “As for its drawbacks, experts point out the improper use of the stealth technology in the production of PAK FA. Choosing between maneuverability and stealth, Sukhoi chose the first quality.

Experts also say that the electronic equipment of the T-50 does not meet the requirements of a fifth-generation jet.”

The BBC further adds:

The agreement is expected to be signed when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visits India in December, officials say.

This is potentially a huge deal, which could dramatically increase India’s military capabilities, the BBC’s defence and security correspondent Nick Childs says.

The two sides have been in talks for some time.

The fifth-generation stealth fighter is currently being developed in Russia and the prototype flew for the first time earlier this year. BBC.

At the moment the United States is the only country that has a fifth-generation stealth fighter actually in service.

“If all procedures are completed by the time of our president’s visit in December, the contract will be ready for signing,” Russian deputy prime minister Sergei Ivanov has said. He indicated that delegations from state arms export monopoly, Rosoboronexport, and Sukhoi design bureau were currently visiting India to finalise the contract.

The first prototype is already undergoing test flights having completed atleast 36 by now. The second prototype would join testing soon. Media reports seem to suggest that the engine is inadequate, not providing thrust levels that are required.

Vice Admiral Puri has lectured the Bharati establishment on the danges of relying on the US and foreign arms. Admiral Puri says that Bharat has abandoned its goals on self-reliance. Bitten hard by its inability to develop the Kevari and manufacture the LCA, Bharat had no choice but to purchase planes from the US and America. Long term Indophile Stephen Cohen has severely criticized the Bharati acquisitions in a new book titled “Arming Without Aiming” in which he describes the inability of the Bharati establishment to pririoritise its purchases.

Rio Vosti reports the sale of the Russian Aircraft in a totally different light. Russia is expected to finish the talks regarding India’s participation in the project until the end of the current year. The fifth-generation fighter jet is to be put into service in Russia and India in 2020.

In the future, the two countries intend to sell T-50 planes to other countries. Russia and India are working on an export modification of the plane. The export version of the plane is called FGFA – Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft. Sukhoi plans to produce 100 fifth-generation aircraft a year. Pravda. Rio Vosti . Article on the PAKFA(http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/22-11-2010/115873-russia_sukhoi_t_50-0/)

Related Articles

Posted in Current Affairs, Pak CAComments (0)

Sukhoi PAK FA Prototype Anaglyph

India to buy PAKFA T-50s after test flights

Sukhoi PAK FA Prototype Anaglyph

Bharat will be purchasing the PAKFA T-50s, billed as FGFA in Bharat. The “T-50s are already in the testing phase with at least a few proto-types already developed. The Russian Ambassador laughed when asked about Bharati input to the design. He said “what has Bharat to offer Russia in terms of design or manufacture”. He was alluding to the fact that Russia has been producing world class fighters for the past century, whereas Bharat has yet to produce a boat, plan or vehicle which is totally manufactured in Bharat. The plane is not likely to commence production-let alone induction, before 2020.

There is a sharp difference between the information given in the two capitals. There is sharp contrast in the news conferences held in Russia and India. According to the Russian experts, Moscow is selling a stripped down version of the PAKFA as the FGFA. Bharati media exaggerates not only the number of planes that it will be purchasing (which is about three times the number of planes that Russia wants to produce), but it also comes out with wild claims to the extent of the Bharati participation in the venture. Obviously if the proto-type has already been designed and is flying–what design remains to be consecrated?

According to experts the Russians did not pay as much attention on stealth as Americans did with F-35 and F-22. IR and stealth design is not prominent in PAK-FA as in American stealth fighters, the intakes frame and flanker style engine layout are the prime examples.
PAK-FA is stealthy but cannot be compared with  F-35 or F-22 stealth technology. The PAKFA is “Stealth Light”–like being a little bit pregnant. China may produce well over 1000 5th generation fighters.

Pravda and Rio Vosti claim that Russia will build 100 of these planes.

The plane is billed as better than anything that flies, better than the F-22 and better than the F-35. The same claims were made about the Mig 21 Flying Coffins and the LCA.

The BBC reports that the Fifth-generation aircraft are invisible to radar, have advanced flight and weapons control systems and can cruise at supersonic speeds, officials say.

Mr Antony told a news conference in the Indian capital, Delhi, that Russia would also supply 45 transport planes.

India is a top buyer of Russian weapons and the two countries have strong ties.

“We have a 10-year programme and it is quite challenging (but) we have very good experience in military co-operation,” news agency AFP quoted Russian Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov as saying at the conference. The BBC

Rio Vosti discusses the criticism of the PAKFA. “As for its drawbacks, experts point out the improper use of the stealth technology in the production of PAK FA. Choosing between maneuverability and stealth, Sukhoi chose the first quality.

Experts also say that the electronic equipment of the T-50 does not meet the requirements of a fifth-generation jet.”

The BBC further adds:

The agreement is expected to be signed when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visits India in December, officials say.

This is potentially a huge deal, which could dramatically increase India’s military capabilities, the BBC’s defence and security correspondent Nick Childs says.

The two sides have been in talks for some time.

The fifth-generation stealth fighter is currently being developed in Russia and the prototype flew for the first time earlier this year. BBC.

At the moment the United States is the only country that has a fifth-generation stealth fighter actually in service.

“If all procedures are completed by the time of our president’s visit in December, the contract will be ready for signing,” Russian deputy prime minister Sergei Ivanov has said. He indicated that delegations from state arms export monopoly, Rosoboronexport, and Sukhoi design bureau were currently visiting India to finalise the contract.

The first prototype is already undergoing test flights having completed atleast 36 by now. The second prototype would join testing soon. Media reports seem to suggest that the engine is inadequate, not providing thrust levels that are required.

Vice Admiral Puri has lectured the Bharati establishment on the danges of relying on the US and foreign arms. Admiral Puri says that Bharat has abandoned its goals on self-reliance. Bitten hard by its inability to develop the Kevari and manufacture the LCA, Bharat had no choice but to purchase planes from the US and America. Long term Indophile Stephen Cohen has severely criticized the Bharati acquisitions in a new book titled “Arming Without Aiming” in which he describes the inability of the Bharati establishment to pririoritise its purchases.

Rio Vosti reports the sale of the Russian Aircraft in a totally different light. Russia is expected to finish the talks regarding India’s participation in the project until the end of the current year. The fifth-generation fighter jet is to be put into service in Russia and India in 2020.

In the future, the two countries intend to sell T-50 planes to other countries. Russia and India are working on an export modification of the plane. The export version of the plane is called FGFA – Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft. Sukhoi plans to produce 100 fifth-generation aircraft a year. Pravda. Rio Vosti . Article on the PAKFA(http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/22-11-2010/115873-russia_sukhoi_t_50-0/)

Related Articles

Posted in India, RussiaComments (1)

The carrier when it was Admiral Gorshkov

Admiral Gorshkov in 2012: No planes

The carrier when it was Admiral Gorshkov

Image via Wikipedia

Indian Defence Minister Outlines Significance of Work on Gorshkov Carrier

10:51 GMT, November 26, 2010 defpro.com | The Indian Navy is still waiting for the delivery of the Russian-built aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya (ex-Admiral Gorshkov), which has been scheduled for December 2012. As Indian Defence Minister Shri A.K. Antony recently informed the government, the delay of the delivery is, in particular, due to the “requirement of additional works and change in the scope of trials.” According to the Indian Press Information Bureau, the Minister explained that these additional refurbishments of the giant vessel will significantly increase service life. The carrier is currently docked at the Russian Sevmash shipyard.

The Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier was launched in 1982 and entered service with the Russian Navy in 1987. In 2004 Russia agreed to sell the aircraft carrier, which required serious refurbishment and modernisation, to India. However, payment issues and unexpectedly intensive work requirements repeatedly forced Russia to delay the ship’s delivery. Should the carrier finally join the Indian Navy in 2012, it will see active service after sixteen years of being moored in Russian ports and shipyards since it was offered for sale in 1996.

The procurement of the Admiral Gorshkov has certainly caused stomach aches to the one or the other member of the Indian government, as the costs have steadily increased throughout recent years. Originally, India agreed to purchase the ship at a price of $974 million. Subsequently, this amount has been increased by an additional $1.5 billion. However, the aged Admiral Gorshkov required more than a new layer of paint and a little smooth and polish. The money was quickly spent by the Russian shipyard, which underestimated the required amount of work. Further, according to Antony, the original contract was supplemented by “an exhaustive list of equipment to be fitted on the ship.”

In March, on the occasion of an official visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to India, the two countries announced the signature of an agreement for an additional $2.35 billion in support of the carrier’s refurbishment and training of Indian naval crews; these additional funds had already been approved by the Indian government months before the bilateral meeting. This sums up to a proud price tag for a vessel which has been criticised by some defence experts for being too expensive while not providing the state-of-the-art capabilities required by the Indian Navy in the current security-political environment (see also http://goo.gl/vbRwz or http://goo.gl/bQQt5).

As the Minister explained this summer, a team of Indian specialists, comprising officers, sailors and civilian personnel, have been sent to Russia to monitor the progress of work onboard the ship. In June, the Indian Navy expressed delight at the Sevmash shipyard’s progress. “The pace of work has picked up significantly in the last six months. This can be attributed to the additional deployment of manpower for the refurbishment of the aircraft carrier,” Indian Navy spokesperson Commander Satish told an Indian news service.

The Admiral Gorshkov, which has been rechristened as INS Vikramaditya by India, is a modified Kiev-class carrier. It reportedly has a displacement capacity of 45,000 tons, a maximum speed of 32 knots and a range of 13,500 nautical miles (25,000 kilometres) at a cruising speed of 18 knots. The ship will accommodate Russian-built MiG-29K fighter aircraft, which have already been purchased for some $526 million along with the aircraft carrier in 2004. The aircraft are configured for Short Take Off But Arrested Landing (STOBAR), take-offs being supported by the ship’s prominent ski-jump ramp. The first batch of MiG-29Ks has been inducted into the Indian Navy earlier this year and will operate from the shore-based facility at INS Hansa in Goa until the aircraft carrier will be delivered.

This week, the UK’s last Harrier STOVL aircraft was launched from HMS Ark Royal and the country will not receive its new aircraft carrier, planned to accommodate F-35C joint strike fighters, in the near future. Furthermore, France repeatedly experiences technical difficulties with its Charles de Gaulle. In addition to the operator of the world’s largest fleet of aircraft carriers for conventional fighter aircraft, the United States, there only remain Brazil (NAe São Paulo) and Thailand (HTMS Chakri Naruebet).

—-
By Nicolas von Kospoth, Managing Editor

Posted in IndiaComments (3)

‘Why should we go for American aircraft’: Vice Admiral Raman Puri

Vice Admiral Raman Puri points out some hard facts while talking to Sheela Bhatt of Rediff News on issues of Indian military’s equipment procurement from the US and joint operation of the armed forces.

The Indian experience of buying weapons from America is not smooth. We have recently found problems in weapons-locating radars of the United States. The American transfer of technology means that they will build, they will sell the item and keep you on a short leash as far as spare parts and support system are concerned.

My contention is that as long as we don’t have a deep political understanding with the US, it is not advisable to get into a deep defence relationship. The Asia Pacific is America’s concern, but India’s concern is Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. Why do we need certain defence agreements with US that give us inter-operability in far away shores?

Vice Admiral Raman Puri

Further, growing Indo-US defense ties suggest that the Indian government has given up on the goal of self-reliance. It is now merely a political slogan. Their excuse is lame.

They say the Defense Research and Development Organisation has not delivered. I don’t think critics of the DRDO have analysed what is not delivered. There is no synergy in the ministry of defence. There is no synergy between the decision-making structures of the government. Army headquarter is one silo, the naval and air force headquarters are separate silos. The ministry of defence works on its own. There is a very loose coordination attempted at the individual level without a formal structure. There is a firewall between the production and the research side of the weapons making systems. There is hardly any mission statement from the armed forces. That doesn’t come because you don’t have a national security strategy and its stated goals.

‘Army’s shopping from the US doesn’t make sense’

The Indian army’s shopping from the US or Israel doesn’t make sense because our army has not issued a mission statement yet. I think our so-called shopping of state-of-the-art weapons don’t make sense till the National Security Council and the office of Chairman, Chief of Defense Staff function in coordination. Both these institutions are resisted or just ignored.

The Indian armed forces are apolitical; why there should not be a chief of defence staff? How will he become more powerful than politicians?

Today in cyber warfare, we don’t have joint strategies of the three wings. I have seen meetings between the chiefs of the three defence wings. They don’t produce any doctrines. They function on a limited agenda.

When the issue of buying of defense equipment from America comes, they talk about ‘latest’ and ‘high technology.’ These are just subjective words. What India needs is to fight efficiently with its competitors. We are not in competition with the US or Europe. We are and we should compare ourselves with our neighbours.

I have not read a professional joint mission need of Indian forces in 40 years. So, who is pushing the forces to buy such costly arms?

‘Why should we go for American aircraft’

In absence of solid internal defence coordination of the three wings of the air force, army and navy, how can India sign the Communication Interoperability & Security Memorandum of Agreement, Logistics Support agreement, End Users Agreement kind of pacts with America? Some of these agreements will allow the inter-operability of Indian forces with the US, but what about inter-operability within our own forces?

If we sign such agreements with the US then we will need double set of equipments: One to read American algorithms and one to read ours. Why do we need inter-operability that the Americans want so much? Are we going to fight with Pakistan or any other country along with the US? Surely, we don’t want to join American forces doing the dirty work of intervention operations? The Indian armed forces should remain independent of such tie-ups, which are not backed by political understanding of the highest order.

In my assessment all that the Indian defence forces need is updated Sukhoi- 30s and Light Combat Aircraft. We should keep modernising the LCAs; they are as good as the Mirage 2000.

Why should we go for American- made 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft? Each US-made MMRCA will cost us over $ 70 million while the LCA cost us only $ 26 million. Why should we spend so much money? Of course, we have problems with our LCA but we should be working to solve that. Why should we be so keen to become dependent? And, remember, when you build the LCA indigenously, you are building an institution.

I can say only that I disagree with my own community when they want to go for US- or Israel-made weapons and completely bind themselves with them. I know for sure that in 2003 the Air Force only wanted the Mirage 2000. Why don’t you upgrade it? I think that is what the Indian Air Force needs to fight China, Pakistan or any other neighbour if need be. The Indian government doesn’t have second professional advice. It is totally in the hands of service chiefs who many times don’t agree with each other. That disturbs the country’s research and development and upsets production infrastructure.

‘India and US’ political goals do not match’

In India, there is no systematic method to produce joint mission requirements. We don’t draw joint technological plans with long-term perspectives. India doesn’t have a technological commission to cater to needs of the defence services.

At this rate, in the long term, our dependence on the US will increase. Indian taxpayers will pay much more than what you should be paying for the capabilities being created. I think we will feel sorry when we have to use those capabilities.

Importantly, if the US and India’s political goals do not match, then US made equipment capabilities will be much reduced, with problems of spare parts, upgradation and other legal restrictions on technologies.

There are many lobbies working around in New Delhi representing the British, French, Americans, Russians, etc. I believe they should not influence us. Even foreign aircraft come only after 10 or so years don’t blame indigenous efforts to develop them that take that kind of time.

Second, we must see what we can afford.

Three, we should not have a fetish for state-of-the-art equipment if we can mange with what we have or what we can get with help of the DRDO. Also, is what you are buying really state of the art? I don’t think so. I have seen negotiations for a few things going on for decades, still you say you are buying the latest! We have made ballistic missiles to ballistic missiles systems. I don’t think there is any technology left that doesn’t go into that system.”

-via Rediff News

Posted in Current AffairsComments (2)

Arming Without Aiming: Inadequate Indian response to Strategic reality

Three data points about Bharati Defense procurement. Apart from the overpayment for the Admiral Gorshkov, the inability to build the kevari, and construct the LCA, there are hundreds of glaring examples of Ready Fire and Aim the Bharati strategies.  Stephen Cohen, the author of Bharat‘s “Cold Start Strategy” is at it again. It got Bharat into a pickle in 2001 with his hair brained Operation Parakaram which was robustly rebutted by Pakistan‘s Azm e Nau exercises. The entire philosophy did not cater to a Post-Pokhran world. Now, Stephen Cohen turns this around and has begun to blame the Bharati establishment. The obsession with Pakistan is apparent in Vice Admiral Raman Puri’s recent interview with Rediff News.

Vice Admiral Raman Puri points out some hard facts while talking to Sheela Bhatt of Rediff News on issues of Indian military’s equipment procurement from the US and joint operation of the armed forces.

The Indian experience of buying weapons from America is not smooth. We have recently found problems in weapons-locating radars of the United States. The American transfer of technology means that they will build, they will sell the item and keep you on a short leash as far as spare parts and support system are concerned.

My contention is that as long as we don’t have a deep political understanding with the US, it is not advisable to get into a deep defence relationship. The Asia Pacific is America’s concern, but India’s concern is Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. Why do we need certain defence agreements with US that give us inter-operability in far away shores?

Further, growing Indo-US defense ties suggest that the Indian government has given up on the goal of self-reliance. It is now merely a political slogan. Their excuse is lame. Vice Admiral Raman Puri

  • Cicero, the Greek philosopher, wrote almost two millennia ago, “Armies can signify but little abroad unless there be counsel and wise management at home.”
  • Are these defence acquisitions part of a carefully structured strategy for military modernisation or are these piecemeal purchases that will only replace obsolescent weapons and equipment with more modern ones but will not add substantially to India’s comprehensive military power
  • India lacks not only a coherent national security strategy, but also the tools and processes necessary to formulate such a strategy
  • India’s military strategy has not evolved in concert with its nuclear power status
  • The defence-acquisition process is plagued by tardy decision-making, and large amounts of budgetary allocations on the capital account are surrendered every year, leading to completely haphazard military modernisation.
  • In FY 2009-10, the Ministry of Defence surrendered Rs 5,439 crore over the budgetary estimates for the year.
  • “We believe that this state of arming without aiming will continue into the future.”

Stephen Cohen will sell a lot of books but will it be worth it? Here is an analysis by Gurmeet Kanwal.

According to a recent KPMG report, India is likely to spend up to $100 billion on the purchase of military equipment over the next 10 years. During the last decade, India acquired T-90S main battle tanks, the USS Trenton, an amphibious warfare ship that can lift an infantry battalion, and weapon-locating radars, and signed deals for six Scorpene attack submarines and for the upgrade of Mirage 2000 fighter-bomber aircraft. Admiral Gorshkov, a Russian aircraft carrier, will soon be on its way after a prolonged refit and INS Arihant, an indigenously designed, nuclear-powered submarine, is undergoing sea trials. India also acquired a host of low-end equipment for counter-insurgency operations and for upgrading the infantry’s combat efficiency. Besides these purchases, the acquisition or manufacture of 126 MMRCA fighter aircraft, almost 1,500 155mm howitzers, about 250 light helicopters, P8I Poseidon maritime reconnaissance aircraft, C-130J Super Hercules aircraft for Special Forces, C-17 Globemaster heavy lift aircraft and many other items of defence equipment are in the pipeline.

Are these defence acquisitions part of a carefully structured strategy for military modernisation or are these piecemeal purchases that will only replace obsolescent weapons and equipment with more modern ones but will not add substantially to India’s comprehensive military power? In Arming Without Aiming: India’s Military Modernisation, Stephen P. Cohen and Sunil Dasgupta carefully analyse the plans for and the thought process behind India’s ongoing military modernisation and aver that the process lacks political support and guidance, is haphazard and bereft of strategic direction and is not in consonance with evolving doctrinal and organisational changes. They conclude rather pessimistically: “We believe that this state of arming without aiming will continue into the future.”

Given the absence of a resolute strategic culture and keeping in view of India’s gross neglect of long-term national security planning, it is difficult to dispute Cohen and Dasgupta’s finding that India is arming without aiming. India lacks not only a coherent national security strategy, but also the tools and processes necessary to formulate such a strategy. As the authors argue, civilian distrust of the military has been deep-rooted since the Nehru era and the armed forces have little say in national security decision-making. While there is the National Security Council for long-term defence planning, its apex body — which essentially comprises the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) plus the National Security Advisor (NSA) — seldom meets to deliberate on long-term threats and emerging challenges and on the adversaries’ military capabilities that should together drive military strategy, force structures and the modernisation plans necessary to meet and defeat future threats.

The armed forces have drawn up a long-term integrated perspective plan (LTIPP), but it is yet to be approved by the government. The 11th Defence Plan (2007-12) is now in its fourth year and has not been accorded formal approval. The armed forces are left with no choice but to stumble along from one financial year to the next. The defence-acquisition process is plagued by tardy decision-making, and large amounts of budgetary allocations on the capital account are surrendered every year, leading to completely haphazard military modernisation. In FY 2009-10, the Ministry of Defence surrendered Rs 5,439 crore over the budgetary estimates for the year. Cicero, the Greek philosopher, wrote almost two millennia ago, “Armies can signify but little abroad unless there be counsel and wise management at home.”

However, not all is lost. The two new mountain divisions by the army clearly indicate that the emphasis has shifted from Pakistan, whose military power is rapidly declining, towards a rising and increasingly assertive China, which shall indisputably remain a long-term military threat as long as the territorial dispute is not satisfactorily resolved. The acquisition of strategic sealift and airlift capabilities and air-to-air refuelling for fighter aircraft signals India’s attempts to build intervention and rapid reaction capabilities in keeping with its regional power status. The importance being given to upgrading command and control systems shows the aspirations of the armed forces to acquire the tools necessary to benefit from the combat synergies provided by network-centric and effects-based operations.

Yet, as Cohen and Dasgupta, who have competently covered a fairly wide canvas in a short book, point out, India’s military strategy has not evolved in concert with its nuclear power status. While analysing the complexities of the modernisation of the military (army, navy, air force and paramilitary), they examine the contours of India’s emergence as a “reluctant” nuclear power and discuss the fragility and ambiguity of strategic stability in south Asia. They also delve into the factors behind India’s famed strategic restraint and abnormally high threshold of tolerance and conclude that India is unlikely to dramatically change its policies with increasing affluence and growing military power. Finally, the authors highlight the common concerns and the congruence of interests between India and the US and recommend that the US must support India’s military modernisation plans.

As with previous books on south Asia by Cohen, which were very well received, Arming Without Aiming presents a masterful analysis of the complex strategic realities that confront India and the inadequacy of India’s response. The authors have identified the fault lines very well and while they have refrained from being too prescriptive, they have offered many positive suggestions for Indian policymakers to consider. This book must be read by all those who are involved in national security decision-making and policy-analysis. (Gurmeet Kanwal is director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi)

Posted in Current Affairs, Pak CAComments (2)

Arming Without Aiming: Inadequacy of India’s response to Strategic realities

Three data points about Bharati Defense procurement. Apart from the overpayment for the Admiral Gorshkov, the inability to build the kevari, and construct the LCA, there are hundreds of glaring examples of Ready Fire and Aim the Bharati strategies.  Stephen Cohen, the author of Bharat‘s “Cold Start Strategy” is at it again. It got Bharat into a pickle in 2001 with his hair brained Operation Parakaram which was robustly rebutted by Pakistan‘s Azm e Nau exercises. The entire philosophy did not cater to a Post-Pokhran world. Now, Stephen Cohen turns this around and has begun to blame the Bharati establishment. The obsession with Pakistan is apparent in Vice Admiral Raman Puri’s recent interview with Rediff News.

Vice Admiral Raman Puri points out some hard facts while talking to Sheela Bhatt of Rediff News on issues of Indian military’s equipment procurement from the US and joint operation of the armed forces.

The Indian experience of buying weapons from America is not smooth. We have recently found problems in weapons-locating radars of the United States. The American transfer of technology means that they will build, they will sell the item and keep you on a short leash as far as spare parts and support system are concerned.

My contention is that as long as we don’t have a deep political understanding with the US, it is not advisable to get into a deep defence relationship. The Asia Pacific is America’s concern, but India’s concern is Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. Why do we need certain defence agreements with US that give us inter-operability in far away shores?

Further, growing Indo-US defense ties suggest that the Indian government has given up on the goal of self-reliance. It is now merely a political slogan. Their excuse is lame. Vice Admiral Raman Puri

  • Cicero, the Greek philosopher, wrote almost two millennia ago, “Armies can signify but little abroad unless there be counsel and wise management at home.”
  • Are these defence acquisitions part of a carefully structured strategy for military modernisation or are these piecemeal purchases that will only replace obsolescent weapons and equipment with more modern ones but will not add substantially to India’s comprehensive military power
  • India lacks not only a coherent national security strategy, but also the tools and processes necessary to formulate such a strategy
  • India’s military strategy has not evolved in concert with its nuclear power status
  • The defence-acquisition process is plagued by tardy decision-making, and large amounts of budgetary allocations on the capital account are surrendered every year, leading to completely haphazard military modernisation.
  • In FY 2009-10, the Ministry of Defence surrendered Rs 5,439 crore over the budgetary estimates for the year.
  • “We believe that this state of arming without aiming will continue into the future.”

Stephen Cohen will sell a lot of books but will it be worth it? Here is an analysis by Gurmeet Kanwal.

According to a recent KPMG report, India is likely to spend up to $100 billion on the purchase of military equipment over the next 10 years. During the last decade, India acquired T-90S main battle tanks, the USS Trenton, an amphibious warfare ship that can lift an infantry battalion, and weapon-locating radars, and signed deals for six Scorpene attack submarines and for the upgrade of Mirage 2000 fighter-bomber aircraft. Admiral Gorshkov, a Russian aircraft carrier, will soon be on its way after a prolonged refit and INS Arihant, an indigenously designed, nuclear-powered submarine, is undergoing sea trials. India also acquired a host of low-end equipment for counter-insurgency operations and for upgrading the infantry’s combat efficiency. Besides these purchases, the acquisition or manufacture of 126 MMRCA fighter aircraft, almost 1,500 155mm howitzers, about 250 light helicopters, P8I Poseidon maritime reconnaissance aircraft, C-130J Super Hercules aircraft for Special Forces, C-17 Globemaster heavy lift aircraft and many other items of defence equipment are in the pipeline.

Are these defence acquisitions part of a carefully structured strategy for military modernisation or are these piecemeal purchases that will only replace obsolescent weapons and equipment with more modern ones but will not add substantially to India’s comprehensive military power? In Arming Without Aiming: India’s Military Modernisation, Stephen P. Cohen and Sunil Dasgupta carefully analyse the plans for and the thought process behind India’s ongoing military modernisation and aver that the process lacks political support and guidance, is haphazard and bereft of strategic direction and is not in consonance with evolving doctrinal and organisational changes. They conclude rather pessimistically: “We believe that this state of arming without aiming will continue into the future.”

Given the absence of a resolute strategic culture and keeping in view of India’s gross neglect of long-term national security planning, it is difficult to dispute Cohen and Dasgupta’s finding that India is arming without aiming. India lacks not only a coherent national security strategy, but also the tools and processes necessary to formulate such a strategy. As the authors argue, civilian distrust of the military has been deep-rooted since the Nehru era and the armed forces have little say in national security decision-making. While there is the National Security Council for long-term defence planning, its apex body — which essentially comprises the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) plus the National Security Advisor (NSA) — seldom meets to deliberate on long-term threats and emerging challenges and on the adversaries’ military capabilities that should together drive military strategy, force structures and the modernisation plans necessary to meet and defeat future threats.

The armed forces have drawn up a long-term integrated perspective plan (LTIPP), but it is yet to be approved by the government. The 11th Defence Plan (2007-12) is now in its fourth year and has not been accorded formal approval. The armed forces are left with no choice but to stumble along from one financial year to the next. The defence-acquisition process is plagued by tardy decision-making, and large amounts of budgetary allocations on the capital account are surrendered every year, leading to completely haphazard military modernisation. In FY 2009-10, the Ministry of Defence surrendered Rs 5,439 crore over the budgetary estimates for the year. Cicero, the Greek philosopher, wrote almost two millennia ago, “Armies can signify but little abroad unless there be counsel and wise management at home.”

However, not all is lost. The two new mountain divisions by the army clearly indicate that the emphasis has shifted from Pakistan, whose military power is rapidly declining, towards a rising and increasingly assertive China, which shall indisputably remain a long-term military threat as long as the territorial dispute is not satisfactorily resolved. The acquisition of strategic sealift and airlift capabilities and air-to-air refuelling for fighter aircraft signals India’s attempts to build intervention and rapid reaction capabilities in keeping with its regional power status. The importance being given to upgrading command and control systems shows the aspirations of the armed forces to acquire the tools necessary to benefit from the combat synergies provided by network-centric and effects-based operations.

Yet, as Cohen and Dasgupta, who have competently covered a fairly wide canvas in a short book, point out, India’s military strategy has not evolved in concert with its nuclear power status. While analysing the complexities of the modernisation of the military (army, navy, air force and paramilitary), they examine the contours of India’s emergence as a “reluctant” nuclear power and discuss the fragility and ambiguity of strategic stability in south Asia. They also delve into the factors behind India’s famed strategic restraint and abnormally high threshold of tolerance and conclude that India is unlikely to dramatically change its policies with increasing affluence and growing military power. Finally, the authors highlight the common concerns and the congruence of interests between India and the US and recommend that the US must support India’s military modernisation plans.

As with previous books on south Asia by Cohen, which were very well received, Arming Without Aiming presents a masterful analysis of the complex strategic realities that confront India and the inadequacy of India’s response. The authors have identified the fault lines very well and while they have refrained from being too prescriptive, they have offered many positive suggestions for Indian policymakers to consider. This book must be read by all those who are involved in national security decision-making and policy-analysis. (Gurmeet Kanwal is director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi)

Posted in IndiaComments (0)

A representation of the Lion Capital of Ashoka...

India's alliances based on delusions

A representation of the Lion Capital of Ashoka...

Delusions of grandeur based on an ephemeral empire of a fictitious composite figure called Ashoka who was conjured up in the 17th century by Sir James Princep

India‘s delusional alliances by Ansar Ul Haq

Is the antagonist of Asia – India deluding herself she will be an equal to USA in the new cold war against China ?

India is no ones equal but is on collision course with an assertive Central Asia & South Asia as a USA proxy, a tool.

In response to a blogger who went by the name of Kumar who was of the assertion that India is somehow a major player in global geopolitics and is an equal partner to the USA in the new cold war in Asia. The same blogger is of the thinking that India will still be seen favourable by RUSSIA even as a key ally for USA designs for Asia.

The gentleman is either aware of information that most are unaware off or just plain naïve, assuming India is capable of defeating Pakistan let alone China.

http://rupeenews.com/2010/11/26/how-pakistan-defeated-indias-operation-parakram-in-2001/

http://rupeenews.com/2010/11/26/why-bharat-couldnt-cross-into-pakistan-in-2009-and-can-never-attack-pakistan-ever/

In any war involving India and Pakistan or India and China there will be no USA direct involvement because India will be the well oiled machination of war in such an event. In any conflict with China or Pakistan for that matter, there will be no Russian intervention and neither from the USA. India is akin to a pawn in a game of chess, and each pawn aspires to be queen so she can out manoeuvre her opposition in that game and have the power and will and play a bigger role. Ultimately the queen defends her King; her role is offensive and defensive to protect her King. The queen on that chessboard has no will of her own but plays out her role to defend the King. The King in such a game would be USA geostrategic interests.

Russia and China are a greater alliance than Russia and India. India is a consumer for Russia and no longer a credible geostrategic partner… because there is no longer a Soviet Union. The focus and paradigms of the game have shift and players are switching sides. Just as India sees an alignment with the USA, Pakistan naturally must stand firm with China and warm to Russia. Russia is not a bystander in this game to contain China because the USA also seeks isolation and containment of Russia alongside China. Thus India moves away from any solidarity it has with Russia if it begins to play a USA game.

The blogger than went onto in his naivety explain that Pakistan is an exporter of terror?

How so, we would love to hear his argument for this? – Pakistan is in the forefront of an all be it manufactured war but never the less a war on terror. Pakistan as a non aligned NATO nation has suffered more from terror attacks than any other. Pakistan is a victim of terror, manufactured terror from outside. Pakistan has time and time again provided documentation to prove Indian involvement in terror inside Pakistan. This falls on deaf ears – why? Why because Pakistan today is on the wrong side of the fence. Pakistan has a natural alliance with China – a deep bond and so from once an American asset is suddenly on the wrong side. China represents stability and growth for Pakistan and Central Asia and the USA has supported Pakistan as an asset in the cold war but as a subservient asset. India today is fast becoming what Pakistan was to USA several decades ago. The American media has completely demonised Pakistan and the legitimate struggle for Kashmir as it seeks to compromise Pakistan and Pakistani strategic region to one hegemonies a future major trade route and two cut off Chinese access to Central Asia and Middle East through the Arabian Sea and Straits of Hormuz. The Indian blogger is completely oblivious to Indian terror in the region not concentrated on Pakistan alone but the entire region. To understand this one must understand what India represents. India represents what was The British Empire in the sub continent fondly referred to as British India. Thus India inherited nations that were independent and the size of nations in Europe that had been forcibly absorbed into the British Empire. Nehru and his ilk felt they could continue their reign over these nations that formed the British Empire in the Sub Continent and so have kept many people of a non Brahmin Hindu disposition under close scrutiny, lock and key for the last 63 years. The Indian blogger fails to appreciate Indian terror inside India and how India has entertained terror cells in neighbouring countries.

Indian Terror:

1. Occupies Kashmir in 1948 and since then over a million Muslims massacred and over a million displaced into Pakistan by force. Over 20,00 Kashmiri Muslim women dishonoured alone since 1998.

2. Occupies Hyderabad and massacres many Muslims.

3. India occupies many nations that were absorbed into the British Empire known in this region as British India and even today out of 28 states 21 are seeking Independence. We all know what ideology prevails by and large in the remaining states – Brahmanism Imperialism. Indian occupation of Chinese territory Arunchal Pardesh (South Tibet) is the catalyst tot he 1962 war with China.

4. India against to attack and occupy Pakistan in 1965

5. India is on record for funding and supporting Mujibur Rehman and infiltrated East Pakistan with Hindu Bengali Militia trained guised as Muslims to incite rebellion as early as late 1960′s. According to Raman a former head of RAW he is on record in his book The Kaoboys of R&AW: Down Memory Lane’ documents the major part played by India-Israel intelligence agencies in the dismemberment of Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh in the Eastern part of Pakistan in 1971 a carefully orchestrated and planned terrorist campaign. This involved India arming and funding bengali militia goading West Pakistan into a conflict. In his book it is on record that Indian IB met Mujibur Rehman as early as 1963 and after the creation of RA&W again the Indians met him in 1968. Sheikh Hasina Wajid is also on record confirming her father did in fact meet Indina Intelligence from RAW before 1971 on more than one occasion.

http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/how-india-israel-created-bangladesh/

6. it was India who once again encroached Pakistani sovereignty in 1971 and divided a sovereign Pakistan into 2 – “pre-planned” for the purpose of destabilising and dividing a sovereign nation – Pakistan.

7. India invites The SOVIETS into Afghanistan and then supports The SOVIETS morally and through intelligence sharing and creating instability inside Pakistan. I refer to the bombings inside Karachi, Quetta and Peshawar.

8. In 1984 India crosses the LoC and occupies Pakistani territory, Siachen and Kargil.

9. India arms the LTTE and LTTE suicide bombers against Sri Lanka.

10. India attempts to absorb Bhutan, and Myanmar and all the way to Malacca Straits in its failed Imperial Ideology of Akhand Bharat.

11. Indian massacres of Sikhs in Punjab from 1984 and earlier right the way into the 1990s. Indian army desecration and massacres are on record and Indian government turns a blind eye along with Indian Police force tot he vile inhumane treatment of Sikhs in Delhi. Hindu saffron brigade and extremists massacre Sikhs and rape Sikh women in a ghastly primitive way.

12. Hindu desecration of Babri Masjid sparks riots between Muslims and Hindus and once again Indian Government and Police turn a blind eye to Hindu Militias (tools of the pro Hindu government) massacring Muslims and raping Muslim women in Gujarat and is again repeating years later and continuously happens in Hyderabad.

13. Indian treatment of Dalits the large indigenous Hindu people of South Asia, killed, marginalised, raped on a daily basis across the seven sister states – from Naga Land, Assam, Bengal all the way to Bihar and Andhra Pardesh the Dalits are massacred and this continues.

14. Indian Army major bombs the Samjhotha Express a peace train initiative set up by Musharraf to bring Pakistan closer to India. Muslims massacred on the train blamed on the Pakistanis when in reality it was organised by Indian Military, intelligence linked to fascist Hindu extremists. Hermant Karkare was investigating this and was very close to breaking a ring of espionage and treachery involving the pervasive Hindu right Wings extremists linked to Indian Intelligence, Indian Military/Army and Israel to defame Pakistan. You will remember this brave secularist Indian was murdered close range point blank in the Mumbai Attacks. This has never been investigated or looked into as a separate independent investigation. He was about to oust a shadowy group inside India of Hindu extremists found in every corner of India society linked to Israel seeking to destabilise the region and defame Pakistan taking the 2 nuclear rivals to the brink of war.

15. Indian funding and support of Tereek-e-Taliban a non Pashtun Taliban organisation and the BLA used to destabilise and bomb Pakistan. Remnants of these embedded terror cells continue to bomb Pakistan.

16. India funds, supports Jundullah to destabilise Iran.

………………the list is endless.

The Indian blogger in complete denial of the instability and fragmentation of Indian society is quick to point fingers at Pakistan. Those of sincere inquisition who will look at instability in Pakistan – they will realise it stems directly from the war in Afghanistan. There is ample evidence that Pakistani instability is manufactured, created by antagonist from “outside” Pakistan seeking to destabilise through communal and ethnic disharmony. Essentially what was sought to recreate was a 1971 scenario to dismember and divide Pakistan once more in NWF and Baloch regions both very strategic gateways into Central Asia.

Pakistan’s instability is manufactured by India and since 9/11 heavily supported and enhanced tenfold thanks to Neocon, Israeli and Indian alliance. Indian instability and secession movements are natural, organic and real and will never die out.

India and Indians try their best to associate the Kashmir legitimate struggle for self determination and the war on terror. Kashmir is an occupation everyone accepts this as it is disputed territory – everyone but India. Naturally the occupier will seek to legitimise her occupation. Kashmir is separated from India and Pakistan by a Line of Control which is not an International border. Pakistan respects the LoC but India continues to occupy Kashmir the largest military occupation and oldest in the world.

Pakistan liberated Kashmir from where my origin hails from – we call it Azad (FREE).

India is neither conventionally superior to Pakistan let alone China today nor is India strategically well placed to gain vital concessions and territory in a small conflict or skirmish. Indo – US alliance in ASIA to contain China will or should I say already sparked off a new cold war that has alienated India from RUSSIA. U.S also has designs to contain RUSSIA.

Russia, Turkey, Iran, China and Pakistan are forging closer ties to counter the coming cold war between that sees U.S hegemony in ASIA West, Central, South and South East Asia. India’s role is of a proxy and it will be a tool for American hegemony in Asia and specifically Asia pacific as India and USA have lost feverishly their monopoly over Central and West Asia.

The recent escalation between South and N. Korea is just a reminder how explosive this new cold war will be. ASIA is assertive with independent nations polarised many and the vast majority support China and many are forging a new alliance with the USA. The difference being the U.S Asia Pacific alliance is allot more passive and largely seeking economic containment and will not seek to be engaged in a major war with China and especially not at the behest of USA.

The world has changed and with it focal points too have changed, India is a tool a gateway to incite and destabilise both West and South Asia. Beyond this India will be tossed aside like another favourable tool of the USA – Iraq. India is on a crash course as it is a pivotal building block of American hegemony in ASIA. Removing India or containing India or limiting Indian encroachment will create a better and peaceful Asia. When the next major war comes it will be against India. While Uncle SAM will watch from afar and see how the game is played out as it pawn (India) will suffer a mighty blow. In those moments you will see America do what it does best, ditch and run on India and focus on a new player. This is a great game, a chessboard and at the moment U.S.A is calling the shots but major alliances are forming to either check U.S.A imperial encroachments or at least create a stalemate. This new cold war comes with a price for USA – how long can USA sustain itself in this global financial crisis. USA will crumble financially before China and with it India. India is but a marketing gimmick a promotional stunt to promote U.S interests in Asia. India referred to as the third world from 1999 – 2003 suddenly had the full backing and endorsement of the USA – why?. Not because of a groundbreaking change in India but because the game had changed, U.S geostrategic long term aims distants it from Pakistan as it gets closer to China.

Most Indians have a very simple idea of India’s conventional and economic standing in the world beyond the artificial glamour and promotional work that has gone on to elevate its standing and position in the world – not by India but by The Neocons. Most Indians are lost in the colourful world of bollywood where reality is lost to the ordinary hard working Indian oblivious to the real world outside. Where the hardworking Indian struggles to earn a living and struggles to feed and ouse his family is lost in the dreams of bollywood that paint a rosey and misinformed image of India. The USA too used media to bewilder and beguile the masses to demonise others to legitimise her strategic interests.

When Uncle SAM snaps his fingers you will come out that trance but it will be too late for India because there are many infuriated neighbours fed up of Indian Imperialism and antagonism and I do not refer to Pakistan alone.

Posted in Current Affairs, India CA, Pak CA, Politics, US CA, US Int Rel., US PoliComments (12)

Categories

Archives