Site Title

Tag: war

  • 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 General G.D Bakshi: Why Russia did not launched nuclear strike on Ukraine?

    Historically ,the foremost reason for most of the invasions across the world has been expansionism. May it be the annexation of Europe and Northern Africa by the Nazis, the rise of imperial forces across Asia and Africa, or the spread of Christianity and Islam across the world, the goal has been to increase the sphere of influence over the conquered lands. Russian invasion on Ukraine is no different.

    Ukraine and Russia have had cordial relations up until 2013 when the pro Russian government was overthrown and the demand of the people to join NATO grew. Did the Russian invasion of Ukraine stems out only because of the reason that if Ukraine joins NATO, it would pose an “existential threat” to Russia? I do not think so. There are already reports that imply that the purpose of invasion was to capture the resources (like Lithium) on the Ukrainian soil. To add to that, Poland and Finland, are other two countries which share their borders with Russia, and are members of NATO. Did Russia invaded these aforementioned countries too? No, it did not. The three year conflict have left thousands killed, thousands displaced, and have caused one of the largest humanitarian crises the world has seen after the World War – II

    To elaborate on why I think Russia is on the wrong footing here is a discussion for another time. To stay within the confines of the article, I would like to express my thoughts on as to why the bloody battle did not resulted in Russia striking Ukraine with its vast stockpile of nuclear weapons and opening the gates of hell on the entire European continent.

    What prompted me to manifest my two cents as to why the war did not resulted in a nuclear conflict was a video of Major General G.D Bakshi. In the video he was drawing parallels between Indo-Pakistan conflict and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict stating that if Russia did not fired nukes on Ukraine even after three years of prolonged and costly battle, Pakistan would also not do the same. “How may nuclear bombs have Russia dropped on Ukraine since the war started?” were his words that I vividly remember. I base my arguments on the following four points:

    First, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is not a conflict between two equal opponents. Even if NATO is behind Ukraine, it is a reality that Russia possesses the largest stock of nuclear weapons and Ukraine, even though has nuclear plants, does not have any weapons of mass destruction. In contrast, both India and Pakistan are nuclear states.

    Secondly, in my opinion, Russia never had and never will face any threat to its existence even if the war prolongs for another decade. Russia is a vast country and history has proven that from the Napoleon aggression to the Nazi’s invasion, the country has never ever been under occupation by a foreign ruler. The depth, length and breadth of the country is so vast that it is almost impossible for any country to occupy it. Now, on the other hand, it is very much possible for India to capture a sizeable part of Pakistan or to enforce a complete blockade of the Karachi port thereby strangling that country to a definitive collapse. This dire situation, according to many Pakistani analysts including their revered Najam Sethi, will be considered as an existential threat. As per the Nuclear doctrine of Pakistan, if it faces this kind of a threat, it will use its tactical nuclear weapons on the Indian armed forces.

    My third argument has its basis on what a responsible state and a responsible leadership is. Russia, even after the break up of Soviet Union, is a technologically advanced country. It has a robust space program and still is amongst the largest exporters of weapons in the world. According to a report, Moscow has the second largest number of billionaires in the world after New York City. Russia has seen immense progress in its past and is still recognized as a global power to reckon with. Viz-a-Viz, Pakistan is mostly a failed state with a plummeting economy and far from making any technological footprint on the world map.

    My fourth and last argument revolves around the Jihadi mindset. As I have also iterated in my other articles that the intoxication of dying for one’s religion is the most destructive and the most lethal intoxications of all. Pakistani Army is headed by such an extremist mindset. Even though the country is on a verge of an economical collapse, its head, Asif Munir continues to arm his forces to its teeth. He also continues to spit venom against other religions as is evident by his recent speech against the Hindus. In the event of a conventional defeat, I am highly skeptical that this idiosyncratic Munir will not press the the “doomsday button”. Russia on the other hand, though fueled by its greed and ambition to exert and reestablish its sphere of influence in the Eastern European and the Baltic region, does not suffers from this “do or die” mindset of achieving martyrdom in the name of God.

  • Is opposition right in demanding quick action from Indian armed forces?

    In 1939, the Nazi Germany launched “Blitzkrieg” on Poland which caused the entire defense machinery of Poland to collapse within less than a month. Element of surprise plays a vital role in any conflict. However, it requires years of preparation to launch a surprise assault on the enemy. It took around seven years of rigorous preparations for the Nazi Germany to plan and implement its aggressive policy on Poland and the eastern Europe.

    In context of the ongoing friction between India and Pakistan following the Pahalgam attack, some opposition parties are questioning the delay in giving a befitting reply to Pakistan. I disagree with opposition’s stand on this and think that it is making these statements to gain political milage. While the leader of the opposition, Mr. Rahul Gandhi has stated that he firmly stands with whatever action Indian government takes, some of the leaders in his party have expressed their concern over delay in kinetic action by the Indian armed forces.

    These leaders have to go back into history and contemplate what Chief Marshal Sam Manekshaw said to Mrs. Indira Gandhi when she asked him to cross the Bangladesh border. Chief Marshal Sam clearly conveyed to the then Prime minister that in order to guarantee a hundred percent victory, he needs a few months to prepare. In another statement by Major General (Retired) G.D Bakshi, Indian army (or as a matter of fact, any army) works best when it prepares methodically.

    It is always better for an army to prepare itself for a conflict instead of diving in with blind eyes and losing a war. There is no bigger embarrassment for an armed force of any country to face a loss in the battlefield. It puts a blemish on the face of a country and makes people loose faith in its armed forces. Consider what happened to IPKF in Sri Lanka in 1989. Indian army went in there and had to face causalities. We should never lose sight of the reality that these are two nuclear armed countries locked in horns. Even a strong country like Israel took around twenty days to launch its attack on Hamas, and they were dealing with an organization, not a nuclear armed country like Pakistan.

    I do have a strong stand that the terrorist ecosystem of Pakistan cannot be completely dismantled though military might alone, but if the war is imposed on India and if it is absolutely unavoidable, then it is better to prepare for it meticulously.

    It is the time that the opposition leaders taking a dig at the Indian armed forces take a step back and unite with the country in these trying times. It is a time when people, especially at the helm, take a rational approach and take into account repercussions of every action without just beating the war drums.