Site Title

Tag: kashmir

  • Three historical mistakes by India from Military perspective

    The fate of any nation depends more than the grave mistakes that it makes rather than the correct decisions that it takes. While I am a proponent of peace, I do think that sometimes it is the military might that is required to establish stability and peace in the region. We have fought four wars with our neighboring Pakistan, three out of which have been over Kashmir. India, in my opinion, has made three historical miscalculations of great proportions that still continues to haunt it to this day.

    The first was the return of 93,000 prisoners of war (POW’s) back to Pakistan after the 1971 War and liberation of Bangladesh. This was one of the largest surrender by any army after the surrender of Nazi forces in Stalingrad in 1943. Undoubtedly, a decisive victory for the Indian Armed forces, the war brought back the lost pride from the 1962 Indo-China War. Playing the same flute of peace to the world, India, under the Shimla agreement, agreed to return back the captured Pakistani soldiers. Disregarding the reality that these “battle hardened” soldiers could be thrown back into the circulation and could be integrated back into the “Pakistani War machine” operating in Kashmir, India made a fatal misjudgment. What we could have done at this pivotal moment was to negotiate with the Pakistani administration over the Pakistani Occupied Kashmir or POK. We should have returned these prisoners but in exchange of Pakistan agreeing to give away at least some of the critical positions that it holds in the POK region to us, if not the entire occupied territory.

    The second is the return of Haji Pir to Pakistan after the 1965 conflict. Albeit not a conclusive victory like the 1971 war, the battle of Haji Pir was a major win for our Armed forces. The re-capture of Haji Pir gave India a strategic and a military advantage to the armed forces since it has been a main point for the insurgents to infiltrate into the Kashmir Valley. The occupation of Haji Pir gave the Indian armed forces control of the Uri-Pooch highway, thereby cutting off the a major supply line for the terrorists to get into the Indian territory and operate from there. I have a deep reverence for Lal Bahadur Shastri, who was the Prime minister during this war and when the Tashkent agreement was signed, but I think Shastri made a ghastly mistake by reaching a status quo with Pakistan.

    The third mistake made by the Indian polity was our “inertia” in acting swiftly during the 1947 Indo-Pakistan conflict. Recapitulating what I mentioned in my previous article, had we sent in our army quickly or had Nehru not gone to knock the doors of United Nations, we might have resolved the Kashmir problem once and for all. The Pakistani army was already on the run, and we could have pushed them further consequently capturing a large area of what we call as POK today. Given the reality that none of the countries were nuclear equipped at that time, there was no threat of the conflict going beyond the confines of a conventional war. I also believe that had Sardar Patel tackled this conflict, we would have the entire Kashmir as an integral part of India today.

    While I do salute the Indian armed forces for their valor in each of these three wars, I believe these terrible blunders committed by the feeble Indian administration continue to echo to this day.

  • Response to the Dawn News Article

    I detest Jingoism in all its forms, irrespective of any country that engages in it. I recently read an article by Mr. Shahzeb Ahmed in Pakistan’s most trusted English language newspaper, The DAWN. The article discusses the nonsensical role that the Indian media is playing in creating a false narrative against Pakistan and its armed forces.

    Wars and conflicts are not only about two countries exchanging artillery shells and bullets. It also entails information warfare, a potent weapon to crush the moral of enemy and boosting the moral of its own people. History has illustrated how evil a propaganda warfare can be. What the Nazi propaganda machinery under Joseph Goebbels did to the Jewish community is horrendous and abominable. Therefore, I do agree with the author but I do have my reservations, especially when it is argued in the context of the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan.

    While I agree that some of the Indian media houses are disseminating incorrect information thereby violating ethics of responsible Journalism but the author fails to mention what the media houses in his country have been doing. Leave aside the media houses, does the author has nerves to contemplate and share with his audience what the Army chief of his country says about Hindus? Does he reasons with what an idiotic analyst, Zaid Hamid says about Hindus and how he pompously claims that he will carry “Ghazwa-eHind” on India? Does he penalizes his Journalists and panelists from spewing venom against Hindus and threating India by creating “Khalistan”? Is the Pakistani media not giving this conflict a religious color? Can he talk rationality with the Indian women who were inconsolable after they lost their husbands at the hands of terrorists? These can be uncomfortable questions for the author to answer in a country where every aspect of its existence is dominated by its army.

    It is not hidden to the world that Pakistan is a terror factory. Mr. Khawaja Muhammad, the defense minister of that country has already admitted that it has been doing this “dirty work” for United States more than thirty years. According to the American analyst Bruce Riedel, the top three most wanted terrorist in its list are based out of Pakistan.

    And I do not blame it on the ordinary citizens of Pakistan. In my own professional and personal experience, I have met amazing people who hailed from Pakistan. It is the administration and more importantly the armed forces who have an extremist bent of mind. They are solely responsible for orchestrating nefarious plots to create instability in Kashmir and India. Their role in disintegrating India by instigating the Khalistan movement in late 1970’s and early 1980’s is evident and well documented.

    I reiterate and second that there are Indian journalists and media houses which indulge in creating war hysteria and the author did critiqued them in his piece. Now it is the turn of Asif Munir and its radical goons to get roasted by the same author in the most “rational” newspaper of Pakistan, The DAWN.

  • How successful has the Operation Sindoor been so far?

    The foreign policy of all the successive Indian government has been that of tolerance and peace. Even the Indian military’s posture has been that of defensive – offense. Never in the history has India invaded any other country or taken an aggressive stance. While some may argue that India fired the first shot in 1971 war with Pakistan that liberated Bangladesh, I would counter argue that the Indian government took action against the aggressor, which was the Pakistani armed forces, trampling the Bangladeshi people. Allied intervention and invasion of Europe against the Nazis was tantamount to what India did in the Bangladesh War of Independence.

    Indian defense strategy and foreign policy started to take a turn after 2014 when Mr. Narendra Modi got elected as prime minister. With Ajit Doval as the National security advisor, the country drastically changed its strategy to Defensive-Offence. Although, India did not launched any offence against any of its neighbor, especially Pakistan, it made it loud and clear that no terror activity on its soil would go unpunished. Albeit I am of an opinion that both the Uri attack and Balakot air strike were vague when it comes to providing concrete evidence of those assaults on the Pakistani occupied Kashmir, Indian retaliation after the recent Pahalgam attack, named as “Operation Sindoor”, surpassed my wildest imagination. Is this the same India that preached peace to the world and once gullibly signed Panchsheel with China in 1954.

    Since the 1971 Indo-Pak war, this was the first time that the Indian army struck deep inside the Pakistani territory. Nine locations were targeted in Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Pakistan by the Indian missiles and the Indian Air force under the able leadership of Air Chief Marshal Mr. AP Singh. Irrespective of how many terrorists died and how many building these retaliatory strikes brought down, it gave a strong message to the Pakistani administration and the Pakistani army and “enough is enough”. If innocent Indians, irrespective of their religion, bleed, there will be blood on Pakistani side as well. This message to Pakistan and the a larger global community was imperative.

    So, has the “Operation Sindoor” been a success? In my opinion, yes. Has it achieved its ultimate goal of dismantling the Pakistani “terror ecosystem”? I think no, at least not yet. We have to take into account that dealing with terrorism is not only dealing with the people and the buildings that constitute the infrastructure used to launch terror attacks on the Indian soil. We are dealing with an ideology with sinister designs. It is easy to bring down infrastructure and kill some people, but it is an extremely intricate mission to kill an ideology, especially when it is state sponsored.

    Just after the Operation Sindoor, I heard what the mastermind behind the Mumbai terror attacks, Masoor Azhar stated. “No regret, No Despair” were his words. He went further and stated that all his family members who died in the Indian attacks will become the “Guests of Allah”. Now how do we deal with that kind of a mindset. Killing one Masood is certainly not the solution since he (and the apparatus supporting him)can spawn ten more Masood’s.

    Even though Indian state of Punjab is largely peaceful now, have we been able to stem out the Khalistan separatism completely? Absolutely not. Has United States and the western world succeeded in subduing the “Islamic terrorism” to the full extent? Absolutely not. Even in my country of origin, have we achieved victory in curbing the nefarious plots of organizations like “Bajrang Dal” targeted against the minorities? The answer in my opinion is again no.

    I strongly think that terrorism cannot be completely erased only by the use of muscle power. It is a long term struggle requiring diplomatic, political and military measures. It also requires empowering and enlightening the youth, providing them with opportunities, and brining these disgruntled minds back into the mainstream.

    Operation Sindoor was an absolute military necessity but it is still incomplete and not yet reached its fruition. We are in a long term game here.

  • Is Pakistan’s nuclear threat a bluff?

    The horrors of the atomic bombs dropped by United States on Japan in 1945 shook the soul of humanity. Never had the world seen devastation of this magnitude before. Thousands perished within a few hours of the explosion and many thousands died in the following months. Those who survived suffered malnutrition and developed fatal skin diseases due to the radioactive smoke. Infrastructure of the two Japanese was severally damaged and it took years and years of rehabilitation efforts to pump in life back to these cities.

    The ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan has brought the two arch rivals close to a nuclear conflict again. Pakistani administration has reiterated as always that in case matters escalate and in case if it faces existential threat, it will strike India with its nuclear arsenal. India, on the other hand, is calling it a bluff.

    Dealing with a rogue state like Pakistan, which has a dwindling economy and internal instability is not easy. Pakistani army is loosing ground to Baluchistan Liberation Army and is facing causalities on that front every day. To add to its predicament, the country is encountering violent unrest from Afghan Taliban and TTP in its Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. There are reports that the people of Pakistan are already losing faith in their armed forces. Given the historical track record of Pakistan being a safe heaven for terrorism, there is always a risk of some one pressing the nuclear button.

    It is evident that the incumbent chief of army staff of Pakistan has a Jihadi mindset. His hatred for Hindus is not hidden from the world, especially after his press conference in which he stated that Hindus and Muslims are different in all aspects and cannot live together. The most dangerous mindset in the world is the one which is driven by religious extremism. Those who think that they are fighting a “holy war” and will go to heaven after killing people of a particular community are the most difficult to subdue. It is almost impossible to subdue an ideology, especially if it is centered around dying for one’s religion or a believe system. Although, I strongly believe that the people of Pakistan are generally kind and generous, the Pakistani administration and its Army reflects this “Jihadi” ideology.

    There is an argument from the Indian defense experts that Pakistan did not conducted nuclear strike during Kargil War and therefore, will not do it in future conflicts as well. I think there is a gap in this line of thought. Kargil war was limited to a certain geographical area and did not escalated. The Indian army was strictly ordered to not to cross the line of control at any cost. To add to it, it had been proven to the world that Pakistani army personal and the insurgents had captured the Indian peaks, therefore exposing the country in front of the international community. The scope of a nuclear exchange between the two countries was further diminished with the intervention of Mr. Bill Clinton and the U.S administration.

    Things have a taken a different turn after Kargil war. The unsuccessful “Operation Parakaram” launched by the Indian army in wake of the Parliament attack in 2001 led India to adopt “Cold Start Doctrine” which states that smaller integrated units of armed forces would quickly mobilize and launch strikes into the POK or Pakistani territory thereby rendering it unnecessary for an escalation. Pakistan in turn changed its nuclear doctrine to include the use of “tactical Nuclear weapons” with less impact and lower yield aiming at the advancing Indian armed forces. Indian position on this that that any attack on Indian military with these TNW would be met with a crushing response of a full fledge nuclear strike.

    Now what does Pakistan considers as an existential threat? There is no lucid answer to this but as per the defense minister of Pakistan, if the country looses vast territory or if India carries out a blockade of Pakistan either through the sea route or aerial route, it would be considered as an existential threat. He also implied that if India stops the water entering into Pakistan by abolishing the Indus Water Treaty completely, that would also be considered as an existential threat.

    Given all these factors, I am of an opinion that Pakistan’s nuclear threat to India is not a bluff, especially in case of an all out war.

  • How successful has India been in isolating Pakistan globally?

    Propaganda plays an important role during national conflicts and wars. It has a unifying effect on the country and gives its people a common voice. May it be the “Tokyo Rose” in the Pacific theater between United States and Japan or the evil rhetoric propagated by the Nazis against Jews, propaganda is a potent weapon in building a narrative against the enemy state or against a particular community.

    But the coin has other side as well. Propaganda can be extremely vicious and can fill the minds of people with venom. It can sway the thinking away from the reality and create a fallacy.

    Amid the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan in wake of the Pahalgam attack, this propaganda emanating from the media houses has taken a front seat on both sides of the border. The press industry is beating the war drums and each side is boasting its military might to crush each other and its diplomatic prowess to garner the support of the international community.

    In a recent interview of an Indian politician, it was mentioned that Indian government has successfully isolated Pakistan on the global stage. It was further communicated that the entire world is firmly standing with India. Nothing is far from the truth. Although the entire world has condemned the cowardly attack that claimed 28 innocent lives, all countries have asked for restrain and de-escalation of the situation.

    Have we really isolated Pakistan? The answer is no. Even if the west has chosen to take a neutral stand, Pakistan has three staunch allies, Turkey, China and Bangladesh. China recently stated that Pakistan is its “Ironclad” friend. With investments running into billions, it is highly unlikely that it will abandon Pakistan for its wrongdoings. Pakistan accounts for eighty percent of arms exports from China. There are even speculations that Pakistan surreptitiously informed China about the Pahalgam attack. Whether China will provide direct assistance to Pakistan in case of an all out war is something that is contentious, but one thing is for certain. It will aid Pakistan, both financially and militarily.

    Turkey is another country on which Pakistan is relying. The two countries have very strong ties that go back historically. Both being Sunni majority countries share a lot in common, especially culturally. It has been reported that Turkey is already assisting Pakistan to build its Cyber warfare capabilities. The country’s unwavering support to Pakistan on Kashmir issue is known to the Indian administration and the world at large.

    Recent anti-India sentiments in Bangladesh has changed the geopolitical landscape in the South Asian region. The country owes its independence to India but since the last few years, has found an ally in Pakistan. Trade, especially the one centered around defense is increasing every year with Pakistan supplying fighter squadrons to the Bangladesh Air force. The peril for India here is that in case of an armed conflict with Pakistan, Bangladesh might open its front giving a strategic and military advantage to Pakistan.

    When it comes to western countries, their stand on the crises is neutral. Even though they have condemned the Pahalgam attack, they have asked both sides to de-escalate the matter. European Union has even taken a step further and recognized Pakistan’s efforts in combating terrorism. This is a shocking statement for a country with a track record of supporting terror activities, not only in India but in Afghanistan and Iran as well. Dr. S Jaishankar has already lashed out at EU for its “double standards”.

    So, should Pakistan be isolated? I believe yes. But is it a reality? The answer is no. Can it happen at least in the near future? Unfortunately, the answer again is no.