India elected to UNSC as non-permanent member

[blr_p]

If India gets into the UNSC with the P5 will we have Veto?

Defnitely, otherwise there is no point to it. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen tho. How we handle the next two years will be crucial. Now that i think of it this is prolly why Obama made those statements about Iran & Burma. He expects us to say something against them in the UN. This is going to be a tricky affair, lets see how our diplomatic corps handle it.

A superior-subordinate relationship?

Or leader-follower. The US has no partners of equal standing because of the power differential.

But this characterisation is a little limiting as it implies that the follower will always toe the line and has no room to refuse. This is not always true and has happened several times with US allies whenever questions of national interest intervene. It's not always a zero sum game.

 

[de.das.dude]

all india needs to do is make around 2K nuclear heads secretly.... then show UN all of then at once and Lo and Behold we will be the most respected at UN LOL
no im not evil. its justthe way the world works.

 

[Yrus]

I feel when our GDP touches around $5 Trillion Nominal (maybe around 2025) and poverty is brought to within 10-15% we would have enough clout for a UNSC P.Seat, we should pursue an independent foreign policy and not become America's stooge.

 

[broadway]

Yes and in doing so shapes the perception of many that they really are an aggressor. It keeps getting repeated on talk shows as well by senior diplomats (retired ones thought not active ones). But just try making those statements in other fora and see what the ppl that really know China think

That is a unique way of interpreting a countrys intentions. Basing conclusions on whether it is an aggressor or not. The chinese gave nukes to pakistan to keep india distracted. And they are very VERY sure that the chances of a nuclear conflict between india-pakistan are remote. It is an extreme way to counter your opponents. Now what would happen if india-pakistan settled their differences. Say something happened and the pakistan army exiled into the mountains of afghanistan. Then you would have a china focused totally on india. Im saying the intentions are already there. The brilliant minds on other fora do not seem to read too much into chinese proliferation. And that is why they are wrong. If china could proliferate a WMD to a nutjob like pakistan then what else is it capable of doing? What will do to an india which is free from pakistan?

If you want to end the border problem ensure the next Dalai Lama comes from an area controlled by the Chinese. Deal ?

What are you talking about? The damage has already been done. We already clashed heads in 62 and pakistan is already nuclear. Will your proposal undo what has already been done?

Also AC is only 10% of the territory they claim, they withdrew from the remaining 90%.

Why do you interpret things like that? Now it sounds as if we compromised to a tune of 10% while they compromised a grand 90%. They are the victim? Its a ridiculous compromise.

But the point is they are still trying to be an irritation. I think its mainly because of the Dalai Lama & Tibet. They are insecure over their control of it and consider even the slightest thing an obstacle to their efforts there. Take note of their stance on Kashmir & visas. Now is it more clear.

You do not see their dilemma.
Imagine that you were china. That you attacked india without warning in 62. That you passed nukes to pakistan which prevented india from reacting to the violent proxy attacks that killed thousands of indians. In a way, china made all those killings possible. Would china think that india would let bygones be bygones as if it never happened? The thing is that china realizes that it has gone so far that it cannot undo it now. So it pushes india more and more. Even if we let them have the lama of their choosing, that won't get them off our backs. They will be forever restless about india. Such a move will convince china that india is weak.

It won't go nuclear because that would mean the end of the Pak regime

Their aim is to maintain control for as long as possible even at the expense of their own people. They are not going to do a single thing that has a good chance of threatening their hold of power in Pakistan. Their actions over the last two decades has convinced me of this.

Notice how they talk about "strategic depth" wrt afghanistan. I guess you can imagine what they have in mind. They are already wondering if india is spoiling those chances in afg.

Doubt this will happen either as there is no tanglible win for either side. What is my proof ?

A nuclear warhead is a nuclear warhead regardless of whether it is on a tactical missile or a ballistic missile. Before considering about post-deterrence, you do wonder whether your civilization will survive. China doesn't have enough weapons to annihilate indian civilization and vice versa. Hence, not possible.

With the PA, you have already realised that they park in pakistan with an objective and a purpose. They think it is not possible for the time being. But they think it could become possible in the future. If we try to pre-empt them(their ambitions), they will realise that the 60+ years of exile they had to go through were useless and will resort to extreme measures. Just try to imagine their guilt. The things they did before leaving india - direct action day. The things they did to minorities in bangladesh in 71. They have all the reasons to consider a drastic step.

Notice how China is looking to expand their navy, we are doing the same. Now the only way both countries will even consider expanding Navy is because land borders are secure. This decade will be about how both our countries beef up their navies, they on their side and we in the indian ocean.

China is sincere about the trade routes. But like i said above, they are restless because of what they have done in the past and those trade routes will serve multiple purpose.

Not any one just the first thing you said. MAD is when countries stockpile enough to destroy everything in the other. Neither of the countries is doing this because the number of warheads is very low because they cannot make more at the rapid rates that the US & USSR could.

The only states which were serious about annihilating each other were US and Russia. Minimum deterrence(an unacceptable lethality) didn't seem to work in their case. Those two were so into it that they ended up making more than that was required.

No, there is no such thing as post-deterrence. Because if one attacks the other then the latter did not have a credible deterrent to begin with.

Hold up. You are saying that A attacked B because B didn't have enough(credible) deterrence. I do not know what "credible" amounts to. Let's say B had a stockpile, only enough to kill 10,000. So you meant to say that A attacked B and neutralized it completely. In the process B had retaliated which killed 10,000 of A's citizens. AND since you have said that A has taken this risky step, i assume that 10,000 was an acceptable figure for A. It means that A had agreed on that 10,000 cost if it meant that B would be neutralized.

Now here's the though part: If 10,000 was an acceptable cost for A then what would be an unacceptable cost? Can you read A's mind? Especially with nations like china which have no problem killing millions of their own citizens. What would china's "unacceptable" cost be?

Yes. A change in scenario. Let's say B's lethality amounted to 10 million or 100 million. Now in this scenario, would we still have "A" dreaming about neutralizing B? The process has a cost of 10-100 million. Is that figure acceptable for A?

You need to look up the founders of this doctrine, in our case it is General Sundarji, in the case of the Chinese it is Nie Rongzhen. These two ppl have shaped the nuclear doctrines of their respective countries.

Okay. So my line of thinking(the scenarios) do not match those of sunderji or rongzhen?

So, during the discussion shows, tell me why they have a BJP spokesperson also present anytime a congress of left wing representative is there ?

Usually i go with the flow regardless of the topic of the thread. Not this time though. Don't want you to have the last word

I was watching an analyst speak yesterday and he said the US does not have a offical policy for containment of China. There seems to be more of an engagement policy in place, with other things on the side.

Probably because china has been along with them in the drawing board for a long time. Now since it has gone rogue, the US comes looking for a market in india and china goes looking for a replacement market in the middle-east.

They want us to support sanctions against Iran and we are not ready to do so.

Im not really a fan of iran. After all, it a country that has supported the pakistanis in each and every indo-pak wars. Our foreign policy has been independent since independence. We have started compromising for "money" and other benefits. They bought our will wrt iran with the nuke deal. They are about to do the same wrt myanmar. Nobody wants to accept the fact that we sold out.

 

[blr_p]

That is a unique way of interpreting a countrys intentions. Basing conclusions on whether it is an aggressor or not.

But a crucial one as it dictates our response. Can't misdiagnose the problem. An aggressor requires immediate retaliatory action. We've not done so have we. This is why to term their behaviour as aggression is a misnomer. It makes us out to look weak and that is not true.

The chinese gave nukes to pakistan to keep india distracted.

Initially it was to counter the Soviets, i did mention this earlier. It works against India as well as the US. So do not view this move as against us only. Think broader.

Now what would happen if india-pakistan settled their differences.

Frictions between Pakistan & China will rise.

Say something happened and the pakistan army exiled into the mountains of afghanistan. Then you would have a china focused totally on india. Im saying the intentions are already there.

Nope, it will be focused as always on Taiwan, India, Japan, Vietnam, US, Phillipines and even possibly Russia. Pakistan would be a new addition to that list.

The brilliant minds on other fora do not seem to read too much into chinese proliferation. And that is why they are wrong. If china could proliferate a WMD to a nutjob like pakistan then what else is it capable of doing? What will do to an india which is free from pakistan?

Don't forget North Korea. China will be no more capable of doing anything more because we both have credible deterrents against each other. They've signed treaties and they do not want to screw up their economic growth because if that happens then the CCP will be at risk from their own people.

Oh there is Burma, you think the Chinese will give them any ?

What are you talking about? The damage has already been done. We already clashed heads in 62 and pakistan is already nuclear.

Do you forget our role with Tibet prior to '62, all of these actions built up to it. Those irritants are still there from China's perspective, nothing has changed and unsurprisingly neither has their attude towards us.

Will your proposal undo what has already been done?

I don't know, all i can see is how they behave and react. Just look at the way China freaks out if other foreign leaders (western incld) so much as grant the Dalai Lama a meeting.

Why do you interpret things like that? Now it sounds as if we compromised to a tune of 10% while they compromised a grand 90%. They are the victim? Its a ridiculous compromise.

You misunderstand. If they wanted it all they should have taken it but they were not able to and cannot do so. In the end, we control 90% and they control 10% and nothing more can be done about this.

Imagine that you were china. That you attacked india without warning in 62. That you passed nukes to pakistan which prevented india from reacting to the violent proxy attacks that killed thousands of indians. In a way, china made all those killings possible.

Thousands ? show me where it amounted to thousands. Hundreds and low hundreds it was. Pakistan was involved in two attacks, 26/11 and the parliament attack in 2001. The rest in this decade were all domestic.

I did not hear our leaders accuse China of those attacks ? did you and tell me why not.

Would china think that india would let bygones be bygones as if it never happened? The thing is that china realizes that it has gone so far that it cannot undo it now. So it pushes india more and more. Even if we let them have the lama of their choosing, that won't get them off our backs. They will be forever restless about india. Such a move will convince china that india is weak.

Other than Tibet what other outstanding issues do they have with us ?

Why do they refuse to sort out their border problems with us like they have with others. The only disputes they have with other countries today are maritime ones over islands, nothing on land at all.

No, its not because they are locked into some course of action they cannot stop , its because we still have something they want and are unwilling to give it up

 

[agupta02]

Thousands ? show me where it amounted to thousands. Hundreds and low hundreds it was. Pakistan was involved in two attacks, 26/11 and the parliament attack in 2001. The rest in this decade were all domestic.

Well Pakistan has been involved in promoting insurgency in Kashmir quite actively. Plus the now subdued insurgency in Punjab, the various bomb blasts carried out by the various terrorist organizations based in and trained and supported by Pakistan and the Pakistani support for organizations within India like SIMI & IM, I would hardly call the deaths caused by the attacks carried out by these organizations "Domestic." So yes, the deaths caused by these attacks have crossed into thousands. And please don't forget Kargil. Or was that domestic as well?

Other than Tibet what other outstanding issues do they have with us ?

Why do they refuse to sort out their border problems with us like they have with others. The only disputes they have with other countries today are maritime ones over islands, nothing on land at all.

Well Islands or no Islands, a dispute is a dispute. So we are not the only ones with whom China has outstanding border disputes. But we are given special attention probably because economically and militarily, we are the only ones in the region who can give China a run for its money and it wishes to counter it in anyway it can.

its because we still have something they want and are unwilling to give it up

Don't take this the wrong way but I find your baseless innuendos quite irritating. It doesn't serve any purpose and does not add any weight to your arguments except show that even you're unsure. If you have something to say, please do enlighten all of us lesser mortals with your piece of privileged knowledge and allow us to counter unless its one of those "I can tell you but then I'll have to kill you" kind of pieces that you got from your buddies at RAW.

 

[blr_p]

Well Pakistan has been involved in promoting insurgency in Kashmir quite actively.

That's fair game, they will do anything there, our job is to stop them. This particular point we cannot whine about. You can say we've tried many times to resolve it and gotten stabbed in the back and you'd be right but it does not change the ground realities one bit.

Now if they do anything elsewhere in the country besides Kashmir, that's a different matter entirely.

Plus the now subdued insurgency in Punjab, the various bomb blasts carried out by the various terrorist organizations based in and trained and supported by Pakistan and the Pakistani support for organizations within India like SIMI & IM, I would hardly call the deaths caused by the attacks carried out by these organizations "Domestic." So yes, the deaths caused by these attacks have crossed into thousands.

They may be foreign inspired & supported but the ppl who carried them out are Indians, agree ?

If you do, then the problem lies more with us than them and I do not buy this 'foreign hand' reason of the govt because its just ducking responsibility. It might appear that i'm contradicting myself with my earlier statement but its not. The question isn't who is supporting it but why it succeeded

And please don't forget Kargil.

You want to add in the other three wars as well ? No, because that is war and a different issue.

Well Islands or no Islands, a dispute is a dispute. So we are not the only ones with whom China has outstanding border disputes. But we are given special attention probably because economically and militarily, we are the only ones in the region who can give China a run for its money and it wishes to counter it in anyway it can.

Then the problem is deeper, and Tibet is a mere symptom of it. What is their problem then ?

They want us to bow down and accept them as the undisputed leader of Asia. That's never going to happen and we can expect this border issue to simmer for a few more decades, agree ?

Don't take this the wrong way but I find your baseless innuendos quite irritating. It doesn't serve any purpose and does not add any weight to your arguments except show that even you're unsure.

This is very broad, be more specific, pick out the points you disagree with. This is what is supposed to happen in a debate isn't it. I've already conceded your china-Pak reactor point, that one is still up in the air.

Oh and the agreesive vs belligerent thing, i heard a diplomat use the latter word when referring to China on Karan's India tonight show, so i'm happy

If you have something to say, please do enlighten all of us lesser mortals with your piece of privileged knowledge and allow us to counter unless its one of those "I can tell you but then I'll have to kill you" kind of pieces that you got from your buddies at RAW.

Do you see some of the points being brought up here and realising how broad they are. That is the problem. Invariably, they cover several decades involving history, politics, military, economics, law, intl relations etc. That's quite a spread to unravel to understand why complex actions take place or not.

In addition to this there are theories or schools of thought. Which one do you subscribe to, which one is better, only way is discussion and see how well it holds up to criticism. This is how i find the more robust theories. Case in point is the reason(s) for the Iraq war which i challenged you to answer and have yet to get a response.

Where i've found weak arguments, i've replied. Am i going to miss a few points, sure. RAW, hehe, no, i have no access to classified info and have never made any pretensions to it, everything is open source. You'd be amazed what you could learn if you have an interest.

I recognise some of the issues because they crop up frequently on fora elsewhere. Some times they are going to be counter to what you hear or read in the media. There is a distinction between what you read on indian fora alone vs the more intl ones. I find the latter to be better as they tend to look at things in a more broader perspective given their intl nature than the narrow focus you find in the indian fora.

How the world sees us vs how we see them.

I fully expect points brought up here would be counter to what ppl have heard, read or believe, in which case feel free to counter. This is the point of having a discussions is it not so i'm unsure why you do not feel comfortable doing so. I don't have some huge ego and going to fight with you if i disagree.

No need to feel irritated, if you can counter it then we'll both learn from it

 

[broadway]

But a crucial one as it dictates our response. Can't misdiagnose the problem. An aggressor requires immediate retaliatory action. We've not done so have we. This is why to term their behaviour as aggression is a misnomer. It makes us out to look weak and that is not true.

What about pakistan? Did we do something about it? Are we going to do something about it? No. Because, as the general said, our posture is still "defensive" in nature. Even wrt china. The top army of india sure is "uncertain" about china. They have expressed such thoughts openly in the public domain. That tells you that they do not trust china's intentions. The "unpredictable" and "unconventional" way in which china does things is not a surprise. It's all there in sun tzu's writings. Im not saying the chinese doctrine is a dildo copy of sun but i do see the basic fundamentals of his teaching in china's actions.

Of course, that does not mean that china is going to attack us very soon. As general singh has said, " a repeat of 62 is not possible". Simply because china will not go head to head with an equal. It will find other ways. As pakistans hold over india is being diminished, they feel worried that india might focus on tibet. It is not possible to build an enemy like pakistan with other nations in india's periphery. But it will find a way to surprise us.

Initially it was to counter the Soviets, i did mention this earlier. It works against India as well as the US. So do not view this move as against us only. Think broader.

The Smiling Buddha, formally designated as Pokhran-I, was the codename given to India's first nuclear test explosion that took place at Pokhran on 18 May 1974

Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program was established in 1974

Nice timing don't you think?

Don't forget North Korea. China will be no more capable of doing anything more because we both have credible deterrents against each other. They've signed treaties and they do not want to screw up their economic growth because if that happens then the CCP will be at risk from their own people.

Really? Tell me this... What happens if the chinese instruct the pakistani's to cultivate iran? Or has that already happened?

And it's not just iran or NK. The chinese are very sure that first strike is not possible.

Do you forget our role with Tibet prior to '62, all of these actions built up to it. Those irritants are still there from China's perspective, nothing has changed and unsurprisingly neither has their attude towards us.

Nobody in the public domain knows for sure about the events that led to 62. The chinese do not do something if it doesn't serve a purpose, especially with notions like "teaching india a lesson". So that is not why 62 happened. Their actions only ended up making an enemy. If the reasons are as simple as you say they are then why are the files of 62 classified to this date?

I don't know, all i can see is how they behave and react. Just look at the way China freaks out if other foreign leaders (western incld) so much as grant the Dalai Lama a meeting.

So? Have you not come across people who scream threats at the top of their lungs over minor things? The tender will be over-whelmed but sooner or later, someone will call the mans bluff.

Thousands ? show me where it amounted to thousands. Hundreds and low hundreds it was.

The insurgency in kashmir

Pakistan was involved in two attacks, 26/11 and the parliament attack in 2001.

Your interpretations are compromising. The bush administration didn't indulge itself in such complexity. It removed the distinction between those who terrorise and those who provide safe havens to the people who terrorise.

Agreed that it was domestic but who radicalised the domestic? Who instructed them to prepare crude bombs? Who wrote a prescription for them to override the narco tests? Does the domestic crowd have such a capability?

Other than Tibet what other outstanding issues do they have with us ?

Aksai chin, Nuclear pakistan, Financial and military aid and trade with pakistan. Ensuring that we always have a pakistan to worry about. I don't know. You still don't see the wizard of oz in this picture?

Why do they refuse to sort out their border problems with us like they have with others. The only disputes they have with other countries today are maritime ones over islands, nothing on land at all.

Cause they gave crossed the line of no return. Why else do they look the other way when pakistan builds up the uighur agitation? Are the tibetan buddhists really a bigger threat compared to the uighurs?

You need to look at chinas dilemma through chinese eyes to understand why they prefer to continue.

No, its not because they are locked into some course of action they cannot stop , its because we still have something they want and are unwilling to give it up

I appreciate that you try to put things through everyone's PoV but i do not agree with this notion.

 

[blr_p]

What about pakistan? Did we do something about it? Are we going to do something about it? No. Because, as the general said, our posture is still "defensive" in nature.

Which general ? Do you have some link here.

Even wrt china. The top army of india sure is "uncertain" about china. They have expressed such thoughts openly in the public domain. That tells you that they do not trust china's intentions. The "unpredictable" and "unconventional" way in which china does things is not a surprise.

No disagreement here but what is your point ?

The Smiling Buddha, formally designated as Pokhran-I, was the codename given to India's first nuclear test explosion that took place at Pokhran on 18 May 1974

Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program was established in 1974

Nice timing don't you think?

Look up
Sino-Soviet_split
Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

Chinese disagreement with the Soviets had its roots a good fifteen years before pokhran plus the fact that the Paks were warming up to the US too

Really? Tell me this... What happens if the chinese instruct the pakistani's to cultivate iran? Or has that already happened?

I think they already have but AQ sold them a non-working design. This is why Iran haven't been able to succeed yet.

Nobody in the public domain knows for sure about the events that led to 62.

CIA de-classified their files about this period recently. It wasn't too much of a surprise, so ppl may not know 100% what happened but neither are they too far.

The chinese do not do something if it doesn't serve a purpose, especially with notions like "teaching india a lesson".

It stopped our practice of moving posts forward.

So that is not why 62 happened. Their actions only ended up making an enemy. If the reasons are as simple as you say they are then why are the files of 62 classified to this date?

Didn't i answer this already ?

The insurgency in kashmir

See my previous post. Now that I think about it, its the same thing with China as well. Both are messing around in disputed territories. Fair game

Your interpretations are compromising. The bush administration didn't indulge itself in such complexity. It removed the distinction between those who terrorise and those who provide safe havens to the people who terrorise.

If anything like 26/11 happens again when the US are out of country, then thats pretty much what we will do. But i'm betting it won't happen, as in the Paks will not do it. If they lose face with their public they will be severely weakened.

Agreed that it was domestic but who radicalised the domestic? Who instructed them to prepare crude bombs? Who wrote a prescription for them to override the narco tests? Does the domestic crowd have such a capability?

You can go on round and round with this but it will not stick. Everytime our media paints this picture to satisfy emotional reactions.

Aksai chin, Nuclear pakistan, Financial and military aid and trade with pakistan. Ensuring that we always have a pakistan to worry about. I don't know. You still don't see the wizard of oz in this picture?

Sure they did all of those things. Are you saying there is no chance for us to ever reconcile ? That's not good

Cause they gave crossed the line of no return.

Hmm, I don't know.

Why else do they look the other way when pakistan builds up the uighur agitation?

They are not looking the other way, China is well aware of it. I agree there are Uighur camps in Pakistan.

I appreciate that you try to put things through everyone's PoV but i do not agree with this notion.

Let me guess, making a deal when you have a weak position is a bad idea. i agree.

Any peace movements will have to be concluded with Pakistan first before China.

 

[agupta02]

That's fair game, they will do anything there, our job is to stop them. This particular point we cannot whine about. You can say we've tried many times to resolve it and gotten stabbed in the back and you'd be right but it does not change the ground realities one bit.

Now if they do anything elsewhere in the country besides Kashmir, that's a different matter entirely.

Again, this thing is so complex that we really can't or rather shouldn't differentiate between insurgency and terrorism as both are two sides of the same coin. The depth of support from Pakistan to various organizations in India whether armed or otherwise is an unknown. My point was that the deaths caused in India due to the attacks or the insurgency which can be directly connected to the Pakistan run into thousands as mentioned by broadway and not into 100s as mentioned by you. I would not call these deaths domestic because they are caused due to influence from a foreign entity and hence not a result of domestic situations such as riots, epidemics or uprisings.

They may be foreign inspired & supported but the ppl who carried them out are Indians, agree ?

Not entirely true. No one knows the demographics of the people involved in the insurgency/terrorism? How many of them are Indians and how may of them are Pakistanis or Afghani mercenaries? Also, would the Kashmiris who go for training into Pakistan to carry out the attacks on Indian soil and who have fundamentally denounced Indian citizenship anyway and consider themselves "free" Kashmiris qualify as Indian citizens then?

If you do, then the problem lies more with us than them and I do not buy this 'foreign hand' reason of the govt because its just ducking responsibility. It might appear that i'm contradicting myself with my earlier statement but its not. The question isn't who is supporting it but why it succeeded

And as I said above, IMO, any activity carried out under the influence of a foreign power cannot be, or rather, should not be termed as domestic. Its not ducking the issue, its admitting that its more than just a law & order problem.

You want to add in the other three wars as well ? No, because that is war and a different issue.

Can Kargil be termed as a war? Pakistan never declared an all out war on us during Kargil. According to them, it was a uprising of Kashmiris conveniently aided by Afghani Mercenaries and Pakistani Army Regulars who were not in uniform mind you. And there was no cease fire declared nor a peace treaty signed. Plus the conflict itself was limited to Kargil with specific instructions to the military not to cross the LOC. No other fronts were opened. Would it still be classified as a war?

Then the problem is deeper, and Tibet is a mere symptom of it. What is their problem then ?

They want us to bow down and accept them as the undisputed leader of Asia. That's never going to happen and we can expect this border issue to simmer for a few more decades, agree ?

Thats the point. For a lack of a better word, its more of an ego issue than anything else. India has offered to discuss the border dispute with China numerous times but the Chinese seem just not interested in solving it. From their actions it seems that they'll settle for nothing less than annexation. Whether its because of the Pakistanis or China's fear of appearing weak if it were to accept so easily what has been contested so strongly I don't know. But I guess realization is seeping in that this can't carry on forever. With the Chinese military becoming more assertive by the day, how it ends remains to be seen.

Oh and the agreesive vs belligerent thing, i heard a diplomat use the latter word when referring to China on Karan's India tonight show, so i'm happy

HAHA Very funny but as I said both the words are synonyms for each other so it really doesn't matter which word he uses.

Case in point is the reason(s) for the Iraq war which i challenged you to answer and have yet to get a response.

Exactly my point. It was not about a challenge. I stated the reason I though the US went to war. You disagreed with an attitude to boot. When asked about what you thought the reason was..............I don't think I have your reason yet. And the same thing with this discussion with regards to China and its reasons for not solving the border disputes. You're talking a lot of sense on a lot of things but the things we disagree on, I don't get any concrete response from you.

I recognise some of the issues because they crop up frequently on fora elsewhere. Some times they are going to be counter to what you hear or read in the media. There is a distinction between what you read on indian fora alone vs the more intl ones. I find the latter to be better as they tend to look at things in a more broader perspective given their intl nature than the narrow focus you find in the indian fora.

Depends on what you read and where. Some of the Indian forums are quite stimulating and I personally find most of the International forums crap. People do not fully understand the complexity of the situations and I feel the westerners are more prone to believing whts on the news than anyone else. The reason I am carrying on in this discussion is simply because everyone who's participating is making sense to a great degree rather than just rambling Zindabad or Murdabad or cooking unrealistic conspiracy theories .

I fully expect points brought up here would be counter to what ppl have heard, read or believe, in which case feel free to counter. This is the point of having a discussions is it not so i'm unsure why you do not feel comfortable doing so. I don't have some huge ego and going to fight with you if i disagree.

No need to feel irritated, if you can counter it then we'll both learn from it

And thts what I am liking about this discussion that its not becoming personal as most discussions of this nature tend to become. I am not trying to get personal. My only issue is that if we're discussing something and you have a different point of view one should just come out and say it rather than coaxing the other person to think about it like an old college professor. We all read from different sources and have our own way of seeing things hence the different points of view.

 

[broadway]

Which general ? Do you have some link here.

The army chief...
No ‘Cold Start’ doctrine, India tells US

“There is nothing called ‘Cold Start’. As part of our overall strategy we have a number of contingencies and options, depending on what the aggressor does. In the recent years, we have been improving our systems with respect to mobilisation, but our basic military posture is defensive,†the Army Chief told The Indian Express.

No disagreement here but what is your point ?

The logical reasoning of china is to cut india at present before it gets bigger. That is already on a "to do" list. Will it insist that the proxy can handle it or will it step up and do it personally. The indian army generals are making no bones about putting china and pakistan together in one sentence.

I think they already have but AQ sold them a non-working design. This is why Iran haven't been able to succeed yet.

Many think the iranians will achieve the capability eventually so aq khan must have given them enough.

CIA de-classified their files about this period recently. It wasn't too much of a surprise, so ppl may not know 100% what happened but neither are they too far.

Then what stops india from doing it? It has been almost 50 years.

It stopped our practice of moving posts forward.

That is what the chinese claim is the reason for the war. But for us, it depends on how well you support that case. When it happened, nehru refused to believe it. He refused to send troops when the army chief asked him to. We were caught off guard. How is that possible? What makes you believe that story?

Didn't i answer this already ?

Where?
The CIA files? Do they themselves believe their assessment?

See my previous post. Now that I think about it, its the same thing with China as well. Both are messing around in disputed territories. Fair game

Disputed territory is just a claim. There is no substance to it. We can cite "akhand bharat" and make the entire subcontinent "disputed". Does that make it fair game? No.

You have a pragmatic outlook. You cut it straight in the middle. While it becomes well receivable for all parties, it is not the case. Hence, i think we cannot settle on most of the things.

If anything like 26/11 happens again when the US are out of country, then thats pretty much what we will do. But i'm betting it won't happen, as in the Paks will not do it. If they lose face with their public they will be severely weakened.

Where the americans inside pakistan during kargil?

You can go on round and round with this but it will not stick. Everytime our media paints this picture to satisfy emotional reactions.

You need to stop cutting things in the middle. No it is not a fair game. And the trail does lead to pakistan.

They are not looking the other way, China is well aware of it. I agree there are Uighur camps in Pakistan.

China needs pakistan more than pakistan needs china. Nobody can fully contain insurgency, not even china. By keeping pakistan on it's side, it allows them some control. And they will keep them around for a long time to keep xinjiang calm.

Let me guess, making a deal when you have a weak position is a bad idea. i agree.

I do not think much about this "disputed territory" business. It is be whatever the powerful will say it will.

 

[blr_p]

Again, this thing is so complex that we really can't or rather shouldn't differentiate between insurgency and terrorism as both are two sides of the same coin. The depth of support from Pakistan to various organizations in India whether armed or otherwise is an unknown. My point was that the deaths caused in India due to the attacks or the insurgency which can be directly connected to the Pakistan run into thousands as mentioned by broadway and not into 100s as mentioned by you. I would not call these deaths domestic because they are caused due to influence from a foreign entity and hence not a result of domestic situations such as riots, epidemics or uprisings.

It's very important to distinguish between terrorism & insurgency, because it dictates the solution which is different in both cases. If you cannot accurately define what the problem is then how much confidence can there be in the proposed solution. So I don't trust reports that conflate the two. Naxals are insurgents primarily. LeT are insurgents in Kashmir but terrorists beyond. How you deal with them in Kashmir is different to elsewhere

The main difference between the two is to do with popular support. Terrorists have neglible support, insurgents have more but not enough to win an election so they prefer the bullet to the ballot. Caught in between are the public in that area, how you deal with them will either win or lose the situation. Insurgency is very grey, terrorism is more black and white.

I don't know if Kashmir is that complex, its got its ppl that want 'azaadi', this i take to mean a removal of the ASPSA which can make life very tedious. You, me & everybody else except those in Kashmir & the NE have more 'azaadi' than they do. But if we remove ASPSA in Kashmir it will become much harder to control insurgency & infiltration. How to find the middle ground, if at all possible is the complex bit.

And then there are the seperatists that want to exploit this ill will for their own gains. Just like how naxals hijacked the tribals movement. But with Kashmir new infiltrators keep pouring in, protests this June went up when there was a big push on the other end to send more. If you include Kashmir in here over the last two decades the death toll must be in the thousands and no they are not always domestic caused but its happening in a disputed area therefore its to be expected.

The other point is was there ever an official ceasefire declared in Kashmir or are both our countries still unofficially at war there ? Given this circus has been going on for decades I would believe its the latter and then the picture is different. We do not complain about casualties during a war, whilst there is no 'war' in Kashmir neither is it peaceful. There's going to be collateral damage

This is in no way an attempt to say that it is acceptable, its just not a reason to whine about. We decide to draw our borders in a certain manner and are fully willing to bear the consequences. Right ?

Not entirely true. No one knows the demographics of the people involved in the insurgency/terrorism? How many of them are Indians and how may of them are Pakistanis or Afghani mercenaries? Also, would the Kashmiris who go for training into Pakistan to carry out the attacks on Indian soil and who have fundamentally denounced Indian citizenship anyway and consider themselves "free" Kashmiris qualify as Indian citizens then?

And as I said above, IMO, any activity carried out under the influence of a foreign power cannot be, or rather, should not be termed as domestic. Its not ducking the issue, its admitting that its more than just a law & order problem.

I agree in the case of Kashmir but you cannot ignore the fact that its a hot area or do we pretend that this not so

I meant that remark more in the context of the rest of the country, which is why i used the hundreds figure.

Can Kargil be termed as a war? Pakistan never declared an all out war on us during Kargil. According to them, it was a uprising of Kashmiris conveniently aided by Afghani Mercenaries and Pakistani Army Regulars who were not in uniform mind you. And there was no cease fire declared nor a peace treaty signed. Plus the conflict itself was limited to Kargil with specific instructions to the military not to cross the LOC. No other fronts were opened. Would it still be classified as a war?

Sure it can, the moment their captured 'mercenaries' revealed they came from a light infantry regiment that decided to abandon them because they could not be rescued. The use of uniformed personnel whether Pakistan cares to admit or not makes it a war.

Thats the point. For a lack of a better word, its more of an ego issue than anything else. India has offered to discuss the border dispute with China numerous times but the Chinese seem just not interested in solving it. From their actions it seems that they'll settle for nothing less than annexation. Whether its because of the Pakistanis or China's fear of appearing weak if it were to accept so easily what has been contested so strongly I don't know. But I guess realization is seeping in that this can't carry on forever. With the Chinese military becoming more assertive by the day, how it ends remains to be seen.

Annexation, hmm ? That window closed in the 70s, yet 40 years on they are still at it. It's just their way of irritating us. I'm not sure to what extent they can back down given their country sees a different map than we do. I don't know whether it will come to a head, but it will endure so long as maps in both countries continue to differ. They can live with it, can we ? Yes, so its business as usual then

HAHA Very funny but as I said both the words are synonyms for each other so it really doesn't matter which word he uses.

Synonyms they are in the english language but in the language of diplomacy & intl relations there is a huge difference. Just listen to Obama's recent parliament speech and see the creative use of language there..

In the years ahead, I look forward to....and already ppl are saying he supports us. huh, no, he personally might support us but who knows whether in the years ahead he will be in charge or if he is when will 'looking forward' turn into 'direct support' or an endorsement which is the green light for us.

Exactly my point. It was not about a challenge. I stated the reason I though the US went to war. You disagreed with an attitude to boot. When asked about what you thought the reason was..............I don't think I have your reason yet. And the same thing with this discussion with regards to China and its reasons for not solving the border disputes. You're talking a lot of sense on a lot of things but the things we disagree on, I don't get any concrete response from you.

Ah, you thought i was playing games, nah, you made a statement and i asked you to clarfy it. You will get a reason from me, when you explain what 'for the oil' means

China i think i've said what i've thought as i learn and read up on them and their history.

Depends on what you read and where. Some of the Indian forums are quite stimulating and I personally find most of the International forums crap. People do not fully understand the complexity of the situations and I feel the westerners are more prone to believing whts on the news than anyone else. The reason I am carrying on in this discussion is simply because everyone who's participating is making sense to a great degree rather than just rambling Zindabad or Murdabad or cooking unrealistic conspiracy theories

We seem to have a strong penchant for theories that are not always founded. Half the time i think its the cottage think tank industry trying out different ideas and seeing what makes sense to plug the media or the armed forces. These discussions endure on endlessly almost becoming academic. Also it isn't very clear whether ppl are from an armed forces background or not, so it can make navigating who is credible from some one with a vivid imagination difficult. I can say whenever i talk to ppl in the armed forces i never get an answer, just a blank stare or they talk in very general terms, they're not at liberty to speak freely. Have to connect the dots yourself.

Intl fora have a different culture more cut & dry and less touchy & feely, they get impatient when points aren't clearly presented.

And thts what I am liking about this discussion that its not becoming personal as most discussions of this nature tend to become. I am not trying to get personal. My only issue is that if we're discussing something and you have a different point of view one should just come out and say it rather than coaxing the other person to think about it like an old college professor. We all read from different sources and have our own way of seeing things hence the different points of view.

It's funny you mentioned that prof thing because i was thinking it would be a better way to get ppl around to a consensus, set out the outlines and let ppl fill in the gaps rather than preaching from some high altar and telling ppl to accept it or go to hell one attractive benefit is you very quickly get to know who has an understanding of the topic or not. Differnt views or reads are fine, but those 180 degrees to general perception require more support.

Which approach do you think is gonna piss ppl off more ?

--- Updated Post - Automerged ---

The army chief...
No ‘Cold Start’ doctrine, India tells US

Ok, so your assertion is whether we would do anything about it....26/11.

Can i assume you think we did not do 'something about it' because he said our posture was defensive.

The reason that statement was made is because the Paks are dragging their feet again trying to find any excuse not to keep their end of the deal. Those floods have been hard and yet they still will not help their own people by taking troops away from our border.

And the Americans need us to help them make the point.

The logical reasoning of china is to cut india at present before it gets bigger. That is already on a "to do" list. Will it insist that the proxy can handle it or will it step up and do it personally.

You can show there is an official policy by China to do this ? What source are you using.

Why is present relevant ? Why not earlier.

The indian army generals are making no bones about putting china and pakistan together in one sentence.

That is because they cannot discount the other will remain still if one gets into a fight. The only reason the Chinese did nothing in Kargil is because we never invaded the Paks, we just tossed them off our turf.

Many think the iranians will achieve the capability eventually so aq khan must have given them enough.

Sorta..

Then what stops india from doing it? It has been almost 50 years.

The only answer i can come up with is that it is worth more not to do so. That it would put our current position now & in the future in danger. Now, started when the report was made, shortly after the war and is ongoing until the border dispute is settled if ever.

Because It would be an official endorsement on our forward policy (at the time) in Tibet. If we say nothing, there is just the Chinese word. Chinese are pretty much matter of fact about it, they don't have any gripes, cannot say the same about us tho. I sense its still a burning issue with us, there is no closure

That is what the chinese claim is the reason for the war. But for us, it depends on how well you support that case. When it happened, nehru refused to believe it. He refused to send troops when the army chief asked him to. We were caught off guard. How is that possible? What makes you believe that story?

What other reason would the Chinese have to attack. Yeah there was that highway going through AC to connect tibet & Xianjiang. So long as we did not do anything things would have ended there. But once that happened we started to do the same. They put an end to it. In the end they prevailed and thats how history records it.

The CIA files? Do they themselves believe their assessment?

They describe the relations between the countries at the time which is in general consensus. Both of us playing games till it came to a head. The mistake we did was not adequately matching our rhetoric with actions. They called our bluff and were rather surprised at the result. They expected us to be stronger.

Disputed territory is just a claim. There is no substance to it. We can cite "akhand bharat" and make the entire subcontinent "disputed". Does that make it fair game? No.

There is no question of fair or not. The only point that counts is there are two parties that make a claim over a common territory and are ready to expend blood & treasure for it. It does not matter what we say to them and them to us neither will accept the other's position. Takes two hands to clap. Hence disputed. Same with the Paks.

All that matters is whether either can do anything about it, and that answer till now is no.

You have a pragmatic outlook. You cut it straight in the middle. While it becomes well receivable for all parties, it is not the case. Hence, i think we cannot settle on most of the things.

This is the position of both parties concerned, so there is no movement. There are two sides to the story.

Where the americans inside pakistan during kargil?

Our order was to vacate the trespassers, not to go further. They claimed their army wasn't involved and saved face.

You need to stop cutting things in the middle. No it is not a fair game. And the trail does lead to pakistan.

It's not a fair game of course, this is the way it goes. You can add it to the ever growing list of grievances. I'm only interested in what our reaction is, as that tells me what our thresholds are, we chose not to pursue it further because it did not cross over. See what we did in 2001, 500k troops mobilised and then a standown. Scared the shit out of them and then laughed at it. We did react proportionately, it wasn't worth going to war over.

Now any number of ppl will start baying for blood but the pros call the shots and ultimately the PMO & President. You can call them weak or whatever i prefer to think in terms of thresholds. Once thats passed even a weak leader has to act.

China needs pakistan more than pakistan needs china. Nobody can fully contain insurgency, not even china. By keeping pakistan on it's side, it allows them some control. And they will keep them around for a long time to keep xinjiang calm.

Agree

 

[agupta02]

It's very important to distinguish between terrorism & insurgency, because it dictates the solution which is different in both cases. If you cannot accurately define what the problem is then how much confidence can there be in the proposed solution. So I don't trust reports that conflate the two. Naxals are insurgents primarily. LeT are insurgents in Kashmir but terrorists beyond. How you deal with them in Kashmir is different to elsewhere

Naxalism is an uprising and not an insurgency. There are no foreign fighters coming into India to fight with the Naxals. As far as Kashmir is concerned, as I said, its very difficult to distinguish between insurgency and terrorism because both are two sides of the same coin. The same groups which call themselves insurgents also carry out terrorist attacks, bombings, take over churches and mosques and kill civilians. IMO proponents of distinguishing between the two are the biggest hindrance to the Kashmir situation as this would never lead to a solution as the violence has to be stopped, whichever quarter its coming from, for dialogue to begin. Article 357 has been the biggest roadblock otherwise, like in Punjab, this problem could have been solved eons ago.

The main difference between the two is to do with popular support. Terrorists have neglible support, insurgents have more but not enough to win an election so they prefer the bullet to the ballot. Caught in between are the public in that area, how you deal with them will either win or lose the situation. Insurgency is very grey, terrorism is more black and white.

IMO, none of the two have popular support otherwise they would have had their way by now. But our government dragging its feet and with all the infighting really does not paint a rosy picture on our end as well. The people want peace and prosperity of which they got a little taste of when tourism returned. Had that been sustained and more economic development pursued in Kashmir, things could have been significantly different. The solution is not armed conflict, the solution is economic development and prosperity of the region while providing enough security to deter any effort to derail the development. And for this, it is not possible to go door to door and ask people whether they are insurgents or terrorists. As long as they hold guns, they are the enemy, period.

I don't know if Kashmir is that complex, its got its ppl that want 'azaadi', this i take to mean a removal of the ASPSA which can make life very tedious. You, me & everybody else except those in Kashmir & the NE have more 'azaadi' than they do. But if we remove ASPSA in Kashmir it will become much harder to control insurgency & infiltration. How to find the middle ground, if at all possible is the complex bit.

You make it seem as if ASPSA is the root of the problem. I would agree its part of the problem, mainly due to its perception rather than its actions. Your explanation over simplifies the situation.

And then there are the seperatists that want to exploit this ill will for their own gains. Just like how naxals hijacked the tribals movement. But with Kashmir new infiltrators keep pouring in, protests this June went up when there was a big push on the other end to send more. If you include Kashmir in here over the last two decades the death toll must be in the thousands and no they are not always domestic caused but its happening in a disputed area therefore its to be expected.

Separatists, Insurgents, terrorists, azaadi movement......just how many parties do you think are involved in the Kashmir issue??? And Jammu & Kashmir is an integral part of India. PoK is the disputed territory. Hence the term insurgency is used in context of the conflict in Kashmir.

The other point is was there ever an official ceasefire declared in Kashmir or are both our countries still unofficially at war there ? Given this circus has been going on for decades I would believe its the latter and then the picture is different. We do not complain about casualties during a war, whilst there is no 'war' in Kashmir neither is it peaceful. There's going to be collateral damage

You are not making an iota of sense. war noun, often attributive \ˈwȯr\ Definition of WAR: a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations. Now how can the insurgency in Kashmir be termed as war? Have the LeT or Hizbul Mujahideen or the other terrorist & insurgency networks been recognized as legitimate states or countries that I didn't know about?

I agree in the case of Kashmir but you cannot ignore the fact that its a hot area or do we pretend that this not so

I meant that remark more in the context of the rest of the country, which is why i used the hundreds figure.

If you were to collate the data of casualties of terrorists attacks in the last 2 decades or so, you would find the figures to be much higher than in the low hundreds. Chk this out Chronology of terrorist incidents in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . And this is by no means is an exhaustive list. Also, you can inflate these numbers by atleast 25% as the actual number of casualties is never reported accurately. This list puts the number of dead on 26/11 as 171 whereas I have info from very reliable sources that the number was much more than 600 people dead and atleast 1500 injured.

Sure it can, the moment their captured 'mercenaries' revealed they came from a light infantry regiment that decided to abandon them because they could not be rescued. The use of uniformed personnel whether Pakistan cares to admit or not makes it a war.

Please refer to definition of war given above. If its not declared, its not war. The fact that Pakistan refused to recognize its own soldiers or take their bodies back itself proves that Pakistan was unwilling to accept that its army was a part of the operation thus making it a war and giving India a chance to strike Pakistan.

Annexation, hmm ? That window closed in the 70s, yet 40 years on they are still at it. It's just their way of irritating us. I'm not sure to what extent they can back down given their country sees a different map than we do. I don't know whether it will come to a head, but it will endure so long as maps in both countries continue to differ. They can live with it, can we ? Yes, so its business as usual then

Maybe, maybe not. Everyone see their maps differently hence the conflicts. What map do they agree on remains to be seen.

Synonyms they are in the english language but in the language of diplomacy & intl relations there is a huge difference. Just listen to Obama's recent parliament speech and see the creative use of language there..

In the years ahead, I look forward to....and already ppl are saying he supports us. huh, no, he personally might support us but who knows whether in the years ahead he will be in charge or if he is when will 'looking forward' turn into 'direct support' or an endorsement which is the green light for us.

As far as I knew, any language makes sense only by what its words mean and hence used accordingly. And the reason Obama used such language is because its not in his hands to expand the UNSC single handedly. But his message was crystal clear that the US endorses India's bid for the UNSC permanent seat. Already there are 2 heavyweights, Germany & Japan, who are contesting for a permanent seat and who have openly expressed their displeasure at the open endorsement given by the US to India. Furthermore, its not just US's endorsement but there still has to be a majority vote within the UN to approve the expansion of the security council for India to get a seat in it, a feat it is far from achieving currently. So you see, Obama has given us his direct support, but he has also admitted that he does not have the diplomatic energy to go at it alone. The takeaway is that when the time comes, India can count on the US vote and whatever clout it can offer to get India in the UNSC permanent council. But the rest of the groundwork has to be done by India.

Ah, you thought i was playing games, nah, you made a statement and i asked you to clarfy it. You will get a reason from me, when you explain what 'for the oil' means

I though "For the OIL" was pretty self explanatory.

We seem to have a strong penchant for theories that are not always founded. Half the time i think its the cottage think tank industry trying out different ideas and seeing what makes sense to plug the media or the armed forces. These discussions endure on endlessly almost becoming academic. Also it isn't very clear whether ppl are from an armed forces background or not, so it can make navigating who is credible from some one with a vivid imagination difficult. I can say whenever i talk to ppl in the armed forces i never get an answer, just a blank stare or they talk in very general terms, they're not at liberty to speak freely. Have to connect the dots yourself.

Are the armed forces the ultimate authority on these issues? And how do you decide who's credible? Better yet, are you qualified to decide who's credible? The armed forces is a big organization. A colonel might not necessarily have the goods as he might never have seen frontline action or is not even related to a frontline unit but a subedar might. And no one is going to talk about these things in the open and to anyone they meet at a party or on a blog or forum. But if you know someone for some time, they are more than ok to discuss these things at length, when they are in the mood . For the rest of us, its all about discussing what we think and what we interpret from our reading and other discussions.

Intl fora have a different culture more cut & dry and less touchy & feely, they get impatient when points aren't clearly presented.

They are also highly influenced by their own media and do not understand the ground realities or cannot fathom the multi-cultural multi-lingual societies that we have and the issues that stem from them.

It's funny you mentioned that prof thing because i was thinking it would be a better way to get ppl around to a consensus, set out the outlines and let ppl fill in the gaps rather than preaching from some high altar and telling ppl to accept it or go to hell one attractive benefit is you very quickly get to know who has an understanding of the topic or not. Differnt views or reads are fine, but those 180 degrees to general perception require more support.

You argument makes a very big assumption, that you are qualified to steer the discussion and "guide" the people into "filling" in the gaps. You are looking to compare people's knowledge and perceptions to your own and then decide who's credible but who's to judge the credibility of your knowledge?

 

[blr_p]

Naxalism is an uprising and not an insurgency. There are no foreign fighters coming into India to fight with the Naxals. As far as Kashmir is concerned, as I said, its very difficult to distinguish between insurgency and terrorism because both are two sides of the same coin. The same groups which call themselves insurgents also carry out terrorist attacks, bombings, take over churches and mosques and kill civilians. IMO proponents of distinguishing between the two are the biggest hindrance to the Kashmir situation as this would never lead to a solution as the violence has to be stopped, whichever quarter its coming from, for dialogue to begin. Article 357 has been the biggest roadblock otherwise, like in Punjab, this problem could have been solved eons ago.

Naxalism isn't an uprising, the tribal movement was an uprising. Tribals weren't agitating to replace the state just to improve their conditions. The naxals hijacked that uprising and turned it into an insurgency for their own ends. Let's develop this insurgency thing some more. If you got popular support the next thing is to create a parallel government. That's another key aspect of an insurgency that you do not find with terrorists who have just demands and create resentment of the state and encourage support for their cause thereby sowing seeds for a future insurgency.

So in both cases Kashmir in the 90s & naxals, an alternate govt operates in areas where the state has been pushed away. They force ppl to acquiesce to their demands or die, they kill agents of the state and target institutions. The state does the same to the ppl they suspect as sympathisers as well, so the public are caught in between these two opposing forces. If the state comes down too hard they aid the enemy. In reality this delicate balance is difficult to achieve.

In hard hit areas naxals are the law, the state is absent. In the 90s the insurgency in Kashmir was much more serious, that's why the army was involved because there was no way to establish order otherwise. They had to station something like 20 times the personnel as they estimated of the number of insurgents operating there. You do not do this for terorism, you culitvate intelligence networks.

That situation has since eased greatly which is why we've drawn down troops a great deal there nowadays. So if you have those two aspects, public support and a shadow parallel govt then you are dealing with an insurgency. An insurgent outfit can use terrorist tactics but that does not make them terrorists per se if their history to date is insurgency. They want a different govt there. How many bomb blasts have you heard of in Kashmir ? not that many is it, but there are plenty of protests against the state, thats classic insurgency. You're not only fighting insurgents but they've turned some of the public against as well. Very different approach required in that case. Terrorism is a piece of cake in comparison to insurgency, if you treat an insurgency like terrorism it will have zero effect. If you treat terrorism like insurgency, you turn ppl against and sow the seeds for insurgency. Now do you understand why i've been sticking to this line for so long

The only danger of ppl that confuse the two is they have misunderstood the two, which i suspect is quite a few columnists as i've countered this same thing quite a few times here already. I've no worry that the pro's dealing with this have the same confusion.

Removing article 370 isn't as easy as its made out. Have the conditions that existed when this article was drafted gone away ? of course not. We still have an insurgency there but its not as serious as before, remnants still exist but they are not too serious. Oh and the Punjab insurgency was finally solved because Benazir turned in the leaders hiding there in exchange for movement in Kashmir. Course it did not turn out that way so they started the insurgency in Kashmir in full earnest. Note the timings Punjab eased in the early 90s, and Kashmir blew up. This is why they won't turn in the Let leaders responsible for 26/11 as they don't trust us. If they did we'd get a double bonus, justice for 26/11 as well as taking out the head of LeT instigating trouble in Kashmir. Given the latest joint statement, things might change.

IMO, none of the two have popular support otherwise they would have had their way by now. But our government dragging its feet and with all the infighting really does not paint a rosy picture on our end as well. The people want peace and prosperity of which they got a little taste of when tourism returned. Had that been sustained and more economic development pursued in Kashmir, things could have been significantly different. The solution is not armed conflict, the solution is economic development and prosperity of the region while providing enough security to deter any effort to derail the development. And for this, it is not possible to go door to door and ask people whether they are insurgents or terrorists. As long as they hold guns, they are the enemy, period.

To send more capital into Kashmir requires security in the first place. That situation is always volatile. Would you invest there knowing it could come to nothing, blow up at anytime ?

If you remove Article 370, and send more ppl there it will cause a PR stink, you can be sure of it. And it will counter what we've worked very hard over the last ten years to achieve, no mention of the K-word

I think you like a lot of ppl are fed up of Kashmir, its been 20 years and the progress has been slow but progress there has been. It will take its time, i'm in no hurry and do not think we've made any wrong steps there. We've been doing COIN for a long time now, it takes capital, political support & personnel, all of which has been in place.

You make it seem as if ASPSA is the root of the problem. I would agree its part of the problem, mainly due to its perception rather than its actions. Your explanation over simplifies the situation.

yes, but its the biggest obstacle between the ppl there and the state. I'm not for its removal because we cannot ensure security in that area at least to a level that would be compared as normal in the rest of the country.

Separatists, Insurgents, terrorists, azaadi movement......just how many parties do you think are involved in the Kashmir issue??? And Jammu & Kashmir is an integral part of India. PoK is the disputed territory. Hence the term insurgency is used in context of the conflict in Kashmir.

Then why the unrest in the valley ? We might think its an integral part of India, but unless our neighbour agrees to that there won't be an improvement.

You are not making an iota of sense. war noun, often attributive \ˈwȯr\ Definition of WAR: a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations. Now how can the insurgency in Kashmir be termed as war? Have the LeT or Hizbul Mujahideen or the other terrorist & insurgency networks been recognized as legitimate states or countries that I didn't know about?

You misunderstand. If there was an official ceasefire there then there would not be continued unrest for decades. It would be a done deal. as far as i know, the UN required both parties to withdraw from there in '48, but both parties said they would do so provided the other withdrew first. Guess what neither did. They in Pok and us in our area. That is why i said there exists neither a state of peace nor war there and that casulaties could be expected as well as unrest given this state of affairs.

If you were to collate the data of casualties of terrorists attacks in the last 2 decades or so, you would find the figures to be much higher than in the low hundreds. Chk this out Chronology of terrorist incidents in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . And this is by no means is an exhaustive list. Also, you can inflate these numbers by atleast 25% as the actual number of casualties is never reported accurately. This list puts the number of dead on 26/11 as 171 whereas I have info from very reliable sources that the number was much more than 600 people dead and atleast 1500 injured.

Care to share them ?

Please refer to definition of war given above. If its not declared, its not war. The fact that Pakistan refused to recognize its own soldiers or take their bodies back itself proves that Pakistan was unwilling to accept that its army was a part of the operation thus making it a war and giving India a chance to strike Pakistan.

So you're saying because they did not declare, we could not strike Pakistan ? At the time we did not know, it was only after we captured their personnel that it became clear which makes Kargil a war.

As far as I knew, any language makes sense only by what its words mean and hence used accordingly.

Think of it as code, look at any legal contract, you might understand the gist but unless you know the language you will miss the full meaning. Diplomatic speak is the same.

And the reason Obama used such language is because its not in his hands to expand the UNSC single handedly. But his message was crystal clear that the US endorses India's bid for the UNSC permanent seat. Already there are 2 heavyweights, Germany & Japan, who are contesting for a permanent seat and who have openly expressed their displeasure at the open endorsement given by the US to India.

Furthermore, its not just US's endorsement but there still has to be a majority vote within the UN to approve the expansion of the security council for India to get a seat in it, a feat it is far from achieving currently. So you see, Obama has given us his direct support, but he has also admitted that he does not have the diplomatic energy to go at it alone. The takeaway is that when the time comes, India can count on the US vote and whatever clout it can offer to get India in the UNSC permanent council. But the rest of the groundwork has to be done by India.

And when will the UNSC be reformed ? Former foreign secretary, Kanwal Sibal & former ambassador G Parthasaraty disagree with you. They said it was better than before and left it at that. The statement says...

Prime Minister Singh welcomed President Obama’s affirmation that, in the years ahead, the United States looks forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.

Why this 'looking forward' business, why not say support and say endorse that support ?

I would not unquestionably take US support for granted. They want us to do something in the future and their support is contingent on that. Will have to see how we haggle it when the time comes.

I though "For the OIL" was pretty self explanatory.

It's not and here's why. The oil's in the ground and has to be extracted and then sold. So
- Does the US own the oil in the ground of Iraq ? How long for ?
- Does the US get to extract this oil ?
- Does the US get the proceeds of its sale ?
- Does only the US get this oil ?

What ?

Are the armed forces the ultimate authority on these issues?

Let's say they help keep the crap out and fill in on technical details.

And how do you decide who's credible?

Posting history.

Better yet, are you qualified to decide who's credible?

Depends on your knowledge of the subject as does anything said in a public forum.

The armed forces is a big organization. A colonel might not necessarily have the goods as he might never have seen frontline action or is not even related to a frontline unit but a subedar might. And no one is going to talk about these things in the open and to anyone they meet at a party or on a blog or forum. But if you know someone for some time, they are more than ok to discuss these things at length, when they are in the mood . For the rest of us, its all about discussing what we think and what we interpret from our reading and other discussions.

When they're in the mood is also the time for long tales Tell you what, ask them the stuff about terrorism v insurgency. I take it you've understood my position on that.

They are also highly influenced by their own media and do not understand the ground realities or cannot fathom the multi-cultural multi-lingual societies that we have and the issues that stem from them.

I would say they are more sceptical of their media than we of ours. Cultural issues, more importantly the politics underlying an action, sure. But the important bit is you miss what others make of a conflict, I find often the positions we take for granted get challenged a lot on intl boards, this tells me which ones are strong or not. You won't always get that on a domestic board.

You argument makes a very big assumption, that you are qualified to steer the discussion and "guide" the people into "filling" in the gaps. You are looking to compare people's knowledge and perceptions to your own and then decide who's credible but who's to judge the credibility of your knowledge?

You can steer things if you want, I wish more would participate. I rarely start topics of this nature on this board because when these topics come out i find there isn't much interest in it here, thats not the case on a def board, this is why i made that statement.

Judging my credibility isn't in my control, its in what ppl that read what i've said think. If they are clueless then it won't make a difference if i was a pro or not, it would just go over their head. It's the ppl that have more than a passing interest that will quickly pick up on the points and challenge them. These are the ppl my posts are targeted at, as i want them to pick things apart and tell me whether i have to review my position or whether there are any gaps. I'm open to ideas but will challenge them as i expect others to do with my posts, i think i can defend them. Notice there has not been much deviations in my positions since he beginning of the topic. Changing positions is a dead giveaway.

 

[broadway]

Can i assume you think we did not do 'something about it' because he said our posture was defensive.

We were talking about whether china was an aggressive state or not. You were saying about how an aggressor state needed immediate action and that india had not done so. Im saying we already have a defensive approach wrt a known aggressor named pakistan.

You can show there is an official policy by China to do this ? What source are you using.

Why is present relevant ? Why not earlier.

Why would they make such a policy public?
Earlier they had a hedge in pakistan. That kept india's policies largely pakistan-centric. Now with pakistan busy with WoT, the focus has turned back to china which was not so in the past. I think timesnow's china propaganda also had a lot to do with it. There have been a series of events in the past 5-10 years which has made india focus back on china. Even raman expressed the need in this article. The chinese can feel the change in india's outlook. Im wondering if they'll prop up pakistan more than ever before or if they'll personally step up.

What other reason would the Chinese have to attack. Yeah there was that highway going through AC to connect tibet & Xianjiang. So long as we did not do anything things would have ended there. But once that happened we started to do the same. They put an end to it. In the end they prevailed and thats how history records it.

That does not answer any questions. All we have are assessments from third party sources which... well, face it, basically means that nehru was an idiot. Who practised forward policy and for some magical "reason", did not expect a reaction from the chinese. How do the public digest such an assessment? He does not even send the army?

The reason can be one of these two:
1) Nehru indeed was an idiot
2) The forward post policy as claimed by analysts weren't so severe to cross the threshold. That explains why we were caught off guard. That is why nehru did not send the army, possibly in disbelief. That maybe why he lost his head in the aftermath.

They describe the relations between the countries at the time which is in general consensus. Both of us playing games till it came to a head. The mistake we did was not adequately matching our rhetoric with actions. They called our bluff and were rather surprised at the result. They expected us to be stronger.

We sent the armies to goa and hyderabad but refused to send it when a country attacked us? What the hell was that all about?

There is no question of fair or not. The only point that counts is there are two parties that make a claim over a common territory and are ready to expend blood & treasure for it. It does not matter what we say to them and them to us neither will accept the other's position. Takes two hands to clap. Hence disputed. Same with the Paks.

But you said kashmir was fair game

This is the position of both parties concerned, so there is no movement. There are two sides to the story.

Sure but i expect the other party's claim to be genuine.

Our order was to vacate the trespassers, not to go further. They claimed their army wasn't involved and saved face.

Didn't we loose some land? We had to cease in the middle after the american call.

 

[blr_p]

We were talking about whether china was an aggressive state or not. You were saying about how an aggressor state needed immediate action and that india had not done so. Im saying we already have a defensive approach wrt a known aggressor named pakistan.

Do you believe that was the reason we did not react after 26/11 ?

Why would they make such a policy public?

I don't know but otherwise how do you say with any confidence that it is so. I see them as avoiding encriclement and being belligerent and assertive about it. I think China going to attack us is the wrong read as it would be pointless. The current situation where they keep us on edge is far better from their pov, they keep us guessing for very low cost at our expense. They want to apply pressure without direct confrontation, this seems to be their MO with other countries as well

Im wondering if they'll prop up pakistan more than ever before or if they'll personally step up.

They will fight us to the last Pakistani

That does not answer any questions. All we have are assessments from third party sources which... well, face it, basically means that nehru was an idiot. Who practised forward policy and for some magical "reason", did not expect a reaction from the chinese. How do the public digest such an assessment? He does not even send the army?

The reason can be one of these two:
1) Nehru indeed was an idiot
2) The forward post policy as claimed by analysts weren't so severe to cross the threshold. That explains why we were caught off guard. That is why nehru did not send the army, possibly in disbelief. That maybe why he lost his head in the aftermath.

Why else did they attack us ? This is the second time i'm asking this question. Oh, and we defnitely crossed their threshold.

We sent the armies to goa and hyderabad but refused to send it when a country attacked us? What the hell was that all about?

We were not prepared, it was an utter and complete intelligence failure. Did not read the danger signs and then had to rush to make up for the mistake.

But you said kashmir was fair game

yes, for the Paks. We draw our maps in a certain way and they in their way and both live with the consequences. No point whining about them in Kashmir because its to be expected given the dispute. It's our job to prevail in the end.

Sure but i expect the other party's claim to be genuine.

I don't know if Chinese claims are genuine, all i know is they want to keep this dispute alive.

Didn't we loose some land? We had to cease in the middle after the american call.

Not in Kargil AFAIK. We had to cease going further after discovering we weren't fighting irregulars after all.

 

[broadway]

Do you believe that was the reason we did not react after 26/11 ?

A defensive stand is a sort of deterrence. But in case of an attack, deterrence is broken down and offensive stand is taken, at least till the war continues.

Aftermath of 26/11 was a combination of many things. What would amount to a "victory"? 1) Attacks on terror camps? 2) A surrender of a sizeable formation of the pakistani army? 3) Capture of some pakistani territory?

But would it cease the pakistanis from future misadventure? Of course not. The only solution left is to finish the pakistani army. But would the chinese let us do that? Most importantly, would the americans let us do that?

I don't know but otherwise how do you say with any confidence that it is so.

They passed nukes to a country like pakistan. What do you want me to think?

Why else did they attack us ? This is the second time i'm asking this question. Oh, and we defnitely crossed their threshold.

I do not buy it. It is hard for me to believe that nehru provoked china because we were caught off guard. That means we didn't have the necessary troops stationed there waiting for the eventuality. How is this possible?

I don't know why they attacked us. The assessment that it was because of nehru's foolishness could be correct but it is very hard to believe. The BJP could have made this part of the puzzle public during their rule and scored an ultimate brownie but they didn't.

 

[blr_p]

A defensive stand is a sort of deterrence. But in case of an attack, deterrence is broken down and offensive stand is taken, at least till the war continues.

Aftermath of 26/11 was a combination of many things. What would amount to a "victory"? 1) Attacks on terror camps? 2) A surrender of a sizeable formation of the pakistani army? 3) Capture of some pakistani territory?

So we are indecisive then ? This is dangerous because it implies we do not know what to do. I've certainly read ppl saying this but if you look back at history we've always moved when we were threatened. I don't see proof of us being indecisive. The only reason ppl say this is because their initial premise is wrong

But would it cease the pakistanis from future misadventure? Of course not.

What is the degree of that misadventure ? it only matters if they cross our threshold and the Paks won't go that far. Cannot have their long 'illustrious' record without that knowledge.

The only solution left is to finish the pakistani army. But would the chinese let us do that? Most importantly, would the americans let us do that?

Very simply, the Paks will never do anything that forces a stronger country to do this. More ppl need to realise that. There is a method to the madness

They passed nukes to a country like pakistan. What do you want me to think?

At the time the Soviets were a bigger threat to the Chinese. They did not consider us a threat, because they managed to send us packing only a few years earlier. Your link shows the Paks only started their program after 1971. Their first offical test was in '98, tho i've read the Chinese help them test one in '90 at Lop Nor.

Chinese did not pass them nukes, they helped them to build one. Out test in '74 only convinced the Paks that they had no choice or face yet another partition imposed by us. The Soviets moved into Afghanistan in '79. For all intents & purposes Chinese read them as expanding further south. Thx to Nixon they now were in agreement with the US.

I do not buy it. It is hard for me to believe that nehru provoked china because we were caught off guard. That means we didn't have the necessary troops stationed there waiting for the eventuality. How is this possible?

I don't know why they attacked us. The assessment that it was because of nehru's foolishness could be correct but it is very hard to believe.

There is a fine line between deterrence and provocation. We misread the Chinese, their intentions as well as their capabilities. Raman in your linked article already acknowledges it. There was something else he said that was interesting...

The number of young officers who want to specialize on China has been coming down. Practically everybody wants to specialize on Pakistan or internal security related subjects so that their chances of rising to the top will be strengthened.

So not even young ppl in the forces believe China is a signifcant threat as promotion opportunities are less. This means the armed forces does not seem to think there is a problem unlike what the think tanks and the media that feeds off them wants us to believe. Who is right or wrong here :huh:

Either Raman is full of it or the Army does not see an immediate threat.

The BJP could have made this part of the puzzle public during their rule and scored an ultimate brownie but they didn't.

Because witholding that info still holds value today ..and BJP were not on the scene when all this happened. How much do they even know ?

 

[broadway]

So we are indecisive then ? This is dangerous because it implies we do not know what to do.

Pre-determined decisions? No. Things are intertwined. We are certain that we are fighting more than one country.

I've certainly read ppl saying this but if you look back at history we've always moved when we were threatened. I don't see proof of us being indecisive. The only reason ppl say this is because their initial premise is wrong

Traditionally, when deterrence is broken, the state is obliged to strike back. But we do not have the capability to take both china and pakistan together.

What is the degree of that misadventure ? it only matters if they cross our threshold

Our threshold is kept that high only because we have no choice. You seem to think that it is acceptable for manmohan. I think he acted on 26/11 by choosing to not act. He is buying more time and only his team knows why.

Very simply, the Paks will never do anything that forces a stronger country to do this. More ppl need to realise that. There is a method to the madness

Really? What happens when the americans and the chinese withdraw protection to the pakistanis? How would india proceed against the next misadventure?

At the time the Soviets were a bigger threat to the Chinese. They did not consider us a threat, because they managed to send us packing only a few years earlier.

Do not see the chinese through the world prism. Look at the history of various dynasties in imperial china. They slaughtered countless just to get everyone under one leadership. And that central leadership will be protected at any cost.

The pakistani nukes were primarily meant to deter india. The memories of 62 made them suspicious of india. When india tested smiling buddha, the chinese leadership felt threatened. So much so that they didn't hesitate to give the pakistani a few nukes. But there is more...

Your link shows the Paks only started their program after 1971. Their first offical test was in '98, tho i've read the Chinese help them test one in '90 at Lop Nor.

Here is the best part. The pakistanis started work on it's nuclear program in 71. They were enriching and working on a uranium bomb. It is argued that the chagai tests did not yield much and some called it a failure. The pakistani's returned two days later and conducted another test in the desert of kharan. It turned out to be a plutonium bomb. Can you guess what happened?

We misread the Chinese, their intentions as well as their capabilities. Raman in your linked article already acknowledges it.

I will wait for the indian side to declassify the reports.

 

[blr_p]

Pre-determined decisions? No. Things are intertwined. We are certain that we are fighting more than one country.
Traditionally, when deterrence is broken, the state is obliged to strike back. But we do not have the capability to take both china and pakistan together.
Our threshold is kept that high only because we have no choice. You seem to think that it is acceptable for manmohan. I think he acted on 26/11 by choosing to not act. He is buying more time and only his team knows why.

Ok, what you said there was also my take soon after 26/11.

Really? What happens when the americans and the chinese withdraw protection to the pakistanis? How would india proceed against the next misadventure?

The answer to this depends on which of the two reasons you regard as the primary reason WHY we did not act after 26/11

(a) Cannot take on China & Pakistan together or
(b) It would sink the American effort in Afghanistan.

I used to believe in (a) but have since switched to (b) because it has much wider implications than (a) ie basically derailing the improvement in relations we have experienced with the US, thereby addressing both Pak & China concerns about our growing closeness to the US.

We did not act because we would have walked right into a trap, a most cunning one

If you go with (b) a future 26/11 is not possible because we would react regardless, our threshold would be much lower when the US is out of Afganistan.

If you believe in (a) then a future 26/11 is possible and we cannot do a single thing about it. My counter is i'm not sure any political leader will last in such a situation. We would have a limited war before the intl. community intervened and put an end to it. China does not need to do anything in this scenario because we would not be allowed to go all out anyway. The Paks have nukes after all and we would defnitely cross their threshold.

And last but not least, what Pak objectives would such a misadventure on her part have achieved ? NOTHING

So what role does China play here then ? Is this China + Pak simultaneous attack thing even credible because i cannot see under what scenario China would even jump into this. Also it would require very good connections between forces of both countries to execute which i doubt exists. Both countries have different doctrines on nearly every level making coordination very challenging. Who is the leader ? if its China then the Paks have to react to China's command. This is just some think tank fantasy.

Do not see the chinese through the world prism.

Actually I'm looking at this explicitly through a china prism of the 60-70s.

Look at the history of various dynasties in imperial china. They slaughtered countless just to get everyone under one leadership. And that central leadership will be protected at any cost.

And i agree with you here, because Mao & Deng had no qualms destroying the country to get their aims but will repeat that India was not much of a threat to China at all after '62. Whatever gradiose image Nehru crafted in the 50s of India was exposed for what it was.

The pakistani nukes were primarily meant to deter india. The memories of 62 made them suspicious of india. When india tested smiling buddha, the chinese leadership felt threatened. So much so that they didn't hesitate to give the pakistani a few nukes. But there is more...

Did we feel threatened after Pak detonated her nukes after us ? Why would China ?

We detonated them because we knew the Paks were very close or already had them, our test was more to assert our own credible deterrent vis-a-vis every other nuke power.

Here is the best part. The pakistanis started work on it's nuclear program in 71. They were enriching and working on a uranium bomb. It is argued that the chagai tests did not yield much and some called it a failure. The pakistani's returned two days later and conducted another test in the desert of kharan. It turned out to be a plutonium bomb. Can you guess what happened?

I will let you give your answer before i respond.

I will wait for the indian side to declassify the reports.

Should happen soon after the border conflict with China is resolved once and for all. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen tho.