Army soldiers near the site of suicide bomb attack in Pulwama district of south Kashmir on Thursday, February 14, 2019. PTI

New Delhi, February 14

The Government of India has condemned the cowardly terrorist attack on security forces in Pulwama.

“This heinous and despicable act has been perpetrated by Jaish-e-Mohammed, a Pakistan-based and supported terrorist organisation proscribed by the United Nations and other countries. This terror group is led by the international terrorist Masood Azhar, who has been given full freedom by Government of Pakistan to operate and expand his terror infrastructure in territories under the control of Pakistan and to carry out attacks in India and elsewhere with impunity,” Ministry of External Affairs said in a release.

The Government of India is firmly and resolutely committed to take all necessary measures to safeguard national security. “We are equally resolved to fight against the menace of terrorism. We demand that Pakistan stop supporting terrorists and terror groups operating from their territory and dismantle the infrastructure operated by terrorist outfits to launch attacks in other countries,” it added.

The MEA said, “We strongly reiterate our appeal to all members of the international community to support the proposal to list terrorists, including JeM chief Masood Azhar, as a designated terrorist under the 1267 Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council and to ban terrorist organisations operating from territories controlled by Pakistan.”

“We express our sincere condolences to the family members of our fearless security personnel who have made the supreme sacrifice.” — Agencies

Washington, February 15

The White House asked Pakistan to immediately end “support” and “safe haven” to all terror groups as it strongly condemned the Pulwama terrorist attack.

Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) has claimed responsibility for the attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pulwama district on Thursday that left at least 37 personnel dead and many critically wounded.

“The United States calls on Pakistan to end immediately the support and safe haven provided to all terrorist groups operating on its soil, whose only goal is to sow chaos, violence, and terror in the region,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a late night statement on Thursday.

“This attack only strengthens our resolve to bolster counterterrorism cooperation and coordination between the United States and India,” she said in a strongly-worded statement issued by the White House. PTI

The MiG-27 upgrade is a very potent air to ground strike aircraft, which is capable of carrying a variety of armament loads comprising of bombs, rockets & front guns.

NEW DELHI: The Indian Air Force’s (IAF) MiG-27 will showcase its ground attack capabilities at the Vayushakti 2019 exercise on February 16.

The MiG-27 upgrade is a very potent air to ground strike aircraft, which is capable of carrying a variety of armament loads comprising of bombs, rockets & front guns. This aircraft can operate over a wide range of speeds due to its swing-wing design.

View image on Twitter

The MiG-27 was originally built by the Mikoyan-Gurevich design bureau in the Soviet Union but is now produced in India by Hindustan Aeronautics as the Bahadur (“Valiant”).

Though this aircraft is based on the MiG-23 fighter aircraft, it is optimized for air-to-ground attack. The MiG-27 is currently used by Indian, Kazakh and Sri Lankan Air Forces in the ground attack role.

IAF’s Vayushakti 2019 is scheduled to be held on February 16 at Pokhran Air to Ground Armament range near Jaisalmer in Rajasthan. The exercise will be used by the IAF for the demonstration of its firepower and showcase the ever-increasing potential of IAF’s combat platforms.

”Many Air Forces around the world display their might and aerial firepower through such demonstrations. Indian Air Force also conducts the demonstration to showcase the ever-increasing potential of its combat platforms over the years and to assure the citizens, its ability to safeguard India’s national interests,” the IAF said in the Facebook post.

The IAF post further stated, ”These exercises are also vital for operators, planners, and the leadership. It provides an opportunity for forces to operate in near realistic scenarios.”

Varinder Singh

Tribune News Service

Jalandhar, February 10

While the ‘Birdh’ and dried-up ‘Sarovar’ is crying for attention of the Pakistan government and authorities, the main building of Gurdwara Bal Leela Sahib in Nankana Sahib in Pakistan has been thrown open for pilgrims and visitors following completion of a 10-year-long renovation and reconstruction process.

Gurdwara Bala Leela Sahib holds great importance. It was the place where Guru Nanak Dev used to play during his childhood in an open field along with his childhood friends. It was where the Guru — who was born in Nankana Sahib (now in Pakistan) on April 15 in 1469 — used to bestow his friends with enlightenment about the Almighty in his infancy.

Gurdwara Bal Leela was situated about 300 meters south-east of world-famed Gurdwara Janam Asthan. The Nanaksar sarovar (holy pond) on the gurdwara premises was originally built by Rai Bular — the ruler of Rai-Bhoe-Ki-Talwandi (presently known as Nankana Sahib after being named after Guru Nanak. The gurdwara management was with the ‘Nirmala Sikhs’ prior to the ‘Saka of 1921’.

Between 1921 and 1947, Panthic forces or Sikhs managed its affairs. After the Partition, the management of this holy shrine had got transferred to the Evacuee Trust Property Board of Pakistan (ETPB).

The dilapidated and unsafe main building of the gurdwara was virtually closed down for visitors about 15 years ago.

“Now, the Gurdwara has once again been opened for pilgrims after the completion of the ‘Kar Sewa’ of the holy place with the joint efforts of the the UK-based ‘Jatha Guru Ka Bagh’, Baba Jagtar Singh ‘Kar Sewa Wale’ of Tarn Taran, the ETPB and the Pakistan Sikh Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (PSGPC),” said Bhai Sukhbir Singh Maan, head granthi-cum-caretaker of the gurdwara while talking to The Tribune from Nankana Sahib over the phone.

The langar hall, the ‘Parkash Asthan’ and ‘Sukhaasan Sthan’ have been renovated, he said.

The ‘Birdh’ (Old) ‘Sarovar’ situated adjacent to the Gurdwara is still lying dried up and is badly in need of renovation. “The gurdwara is open all times for pilgrims and visitors now,” said Sukhbir Singh Maan.

Guru Hargobind, it was said, had also visited the town and had got the shrine premises enlarged. Similarly, Dewan Kaura Mal—A Hindu noble—had got the holy pond renovated and brick-lined after his victory over Multan in 1748. Maharaja Ranjit Singh was behind renovation of the holy shrine building and enlargement of the ‘Sarovar’ in early 1800.

The last renovation of the gurdwara was said have been held under the supervision of Sant Gurmukh Singh ‘Sewa Wale’ between 1930 and 1940.

Ajay Banerjee

Tribune News Service

Bengaluru, February 24

Russian aerospace major RAC MiG, which is offering the new MiG-35 fighter jet to India, has said that it is ready to localise production of the jet.

At Aero India, MiG Director General Tarasenko Ilya said, “At present, we are the number one plane in the world and offer to localise the MiG-35 production in India.”

Tarasenko said, “We have been here for more than 50 years (MiG-21 arrived in India in 1963). We have had excellent cooperation with India in the past and will continue it.”

MiG is one of the seven companies in the race for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) tender seeking 110 fighter jets. Tarasenko said, “We will meet all requirements of the MoD.” One of the requirements is the maximum ‘make in India’. The company has already made a presentation on new technologies, showcasing technological advantages of the MiG-35.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) operates 110 MiG-21 and MiG-27 jets which are on the verge of being phased out. It also operates MiG-29 jets while the Navy operates the MiG-29K — the sea variant.

The company has claimed that the MiG-35 will be 20 per cent cheaper than the similar offers from direct competitors.

Tarasenko said, “There is no need to disassemble the aircraft or even a part of it for maintenance and upgrade —just replacing the module is sufficient. Besides, the replacement of the propulsion unit (the engine) takes only 58 minutes in field conditions.”

The MiG-35 is armed with new types of guided and unguided air-attack systems which provide maximum effectiveness in combat against air and ground targets. It also carries a new optronic sighting, navigation system with a weapon control, a new communications system complex and AESA radar.

The Russian company has also set up a new public joint stock company United Aircraft Corporation as a part of  an after-sales service concept. It is expected to reduce time and costs at all stages of the after-sales service — from the creation of technical centres to performing maintenance and repair works.

Advanced & Lethal 

• The MiG-35 is armed with new types of guided and unguided air-attack systems which provide maximum effectiveness in combat against air and ground targets
• It also carries a new optronic sighting, navigation system with a weapon control, a new communications system complex and AESA radar

Manoj Joshi
Distinguished fellow, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi

The dilemma over military responses to the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) attack in Pulwama that took the lives of 40 CRPF jawans is not new. India has been there and done that. Following the attack on Parliament House on December 13, 2001, India mobilised its entire army and threatened war for an entire year, but finally called it off.

After the Mumbai strike of November 26, 2008, PM Manmohan Singh sought military options, but was told that they were not quite prepared for the possibility of a larger war that may be triggered by a retaliatory strike.

And now, PM Modi has declared that the security forces have been given a free hand to decide the time, place and the mode of the future course of action, adding that this was an India with a new policy and practice.

What is new, in many ways, is the extent of public anger and the somewhat blatant efforts to make political use of the event.  Modi’s statements indicate that a strike is a question of when, not if.

An important factor that restrained India in 1992 (following the Bombay blasts) or in 2001 and 2008 is absent. The US played a major role in preventing an Indian retaliation, in the main out of concerns over Pakistan. Now, to go by the message being conveyed by the incendiary US national security adviser John Bolton is ‘go ahead’.

So, what will the new policy and action be?

First, the Prime Minister needs to understand that such things cannot be left to the security forces. Military action is, as Clausewitz put it, a continuation of politics by other means. In today’s post-nuclear era, when all-out war is not desirable, it is important to use the military instrument with great care, along with ‘a mix of diplomatic, economic and informational implements’.

More than ever, the present situation demands a careful mix of various means and strong political guidance and control. Just how this works was evident in the Indian response to the Kargil incursions. PM Vajpayee ordered the Army and later the Air Force in, but kept a tight control on them, ensuring a major Indian military and diplomatic victory. Not only were the Pakistani intruders pushed back, but also the international community internalised the notion of the sanctity of the Line of Control that divides the Indian and Pakistani forces in J&K.

A lesser-known fact is that the Indian Navy took up aggressive positions in the Arabian Sea and threatened to blockade Karachi in the event of a larger war.

In the long term, many options are there, including a stepped-up covert war and even an economic one. India could up the ante in Afghanistan, or for that matter in the UN Security Council. But Modi also has electoral compulsions for quick and kinetic action.

Air strikes are the easiest. An IAF aircraft can launch a Popeye air-to-surface missile with a 340-kg warhead from Indian airspace and it can travel 70 km or so to a target across the LoC. India has longer range options with the air-launched version of the Brahmos missile that can travel 400 km with a 200-kg warhead.

The second option is an overland ‘surgical strike’. Again, to be effective, it must be sufficiently violent. The so-called surgical strikes of September 26, 2016, were not, because Pakistan was able to pretend they never occurred. More important, Rawalpindi was clearly not deterred because its cross-border attacks on India did not stop. Indeed, one took place two months later on Nagrota, the HQ of 16 Corps.

The problem is targets. In the surgical strikes, India took out a couple of huts being used as launchpads and killed their occupants. But using a 200-300 kg warhead for that would be overkill. It is not clear whether we have exact coordinates of larger facilities used by the Jaish. If we do target them, we would have to be sure that they are, indeed, Jaish targets, and then the IAF would have to ensure accuracy, because in the crowded South Asian terrain, a small error could lead to hundreds of non-combatants being killed.

Since the terrorists operate in small groups and stay in scattered facilities, identifying and targeting larger facilities inland and retrieving a commando group without getting entangled with the dense Pakistan army positions would be a daunting task.

Both these options are made with the presumption that India would seek to differentiate between the Pakistan army and the terrorists. Were India be willing to strike at Pakistani military facilities, we would be into an entirely different ball game. Make no mistake, the Pakistan army will retaliate against any deliberate targeting of its facilities.

If New Delhi decides to play that game it could well also order a blockade of Pakistani air and maritime space. India does not have to be able to enforce this directly, but the threat of being sunk or shot down would be sufficient for air and maritime traffic to be severely disrupted. But this would unleash a different dynamic and affect third countries, thus complicating the outcome.

Whatever the choices are, it is imperative that the Modi government ensure that they are tightly controlled and managed by the political authorities. The Army may have the freedom to decide the nature, time and place of the action, but the responsibility for the outcome will rest on the shoulders of those who wield the instrumentality.

The bigger question recent exposes by The Wire and The Hindu raise with regard to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) conducting parallel negotiations in the Rafale deal is what did India gain by generously granting so many concessions to the French government?

Sudhanshu Mohanty, former secretary, defence finance, who had suggested the ‘escrow account’ option after the French refused to offer a sovereign guarantee to India, argues that the Centre was in a great position to bargain because it was a near monopoly buyer  of the Rafale fighter jets. Even more so because it came at a time when the company, Dassault Aviation, was struggling financially due to its falling order book.

Mohanty suggests that the India’s near “monopsony status” should have made Dassault vulnerable. However, the opposite seems to have happened as the PMO conducted parallel parleys with the French government and ceded considerable ground on several counts.

India’s demand for sovereign or bank guarantees from France for Dassault’s performance over a longer period with spares, maintenance etc was refused and we now learn that the head of the Indian negotiating team, Air Marshal S.B.P. Sinha, received a direct communication from a joint secretary in PMO indicating that the French had refused to give a sovereign guarantee. Even a bank guarantee was refused by the French.

Similarly, when Mohanty formally suggested an ‘Escrow Account’ to be strictly operated by the French government in lieu of sovereign or bank guarantee, it was accepted initially and even cleared by the Cabinet Committee on Security in August 2016. However, even this clause was taken out at the eleventh hour under pressure from the PMO.

The Defence Acquisition Council was asked to sit afresh to remove this and also the anti- corruption clause after the Cabinet had cleared it the previous month. This was indeed unprecedented. What were the pressures working on the PMO during this period can only be speculated.

“All the post-facto amendments appear to be aimed at benefiting private companies on both sides [offset partners] under the garb of an intergovernmental agreement,” Mohanty told The Wire.

Nevertheless, it is clear that after a point, the PMO virtually started dictating to the Indian negotiating team set up by the Defence Ministry under the Defence Procurement Procedure policy of 2013. This sacrosanct system of procedures was violated time and again as observed by some senior defence ministry officials, including the-then defence secretary G. Mohan Kumar.

Last week, Kumar publicly said that his observation on the files – that the PMO was undermining the negotiating position of the defence ministry – was only in the context of diluting the sovereign guarantee clause and had nothing to do with pricing of the Rafale jets.

Mohanty, however, argues that issues like sovereign guarantee or bank guarantee are inextricably linked to pricing because these decisions, including the one to remove the anti-corruption clause, create big changes in the risk profile of the contract. It is a settled commercial and market principle that a higher or lower risk is accompanied by corresponding change in pricing of the product. For instance, the removal of a sovereign guarantee must be accompanied by reduction in cost of the Rafale jet as the future risk for India increases. On the other hand, having a bank guarantee adds to the cost.

The question therefore to ask is what has India really gained by removing all these critical provisions in the DPP document, in a deal where it had monopsony status? As near monopoly buyer it could have forced the French to accept all these conditions with little increase in cost.

This is the real puzzle which must be unraveled.

Another concession India made to the French against the advice of the law ministry is that it agreed to allow arbitration proceedings happen in Geneva under UNCITRAL rules. In May 2017, as The Wire first reported, finance minister Arun Jaitley sent an urgent note to the PMO arguing that India was losing too many arbitration cases against global companies because of arbitration under the international framework.

The finance ministry suggested that India needed to be more proactive and devise a mechanism to ensure that Indian judges are also part of the arbitration bench.

In the context of the Rafale deal too, the law ministry’s inputs were also that arbitration proceedings should take place in India and not Switzerland. These concerns are not merely theoretical: it was only in late 2017 that Dassault and Taiwan settled a 20-year-old dispute over an arms sale through arbitration, with the French company being fined nearly 135 million euros.

It would seem the arbitration clause in the Rafale deal violates the spirit of the note sent by the finance ministry to the PMO and the law ministry’s beliefs. Why would India concede to arbitration in Geneva that too in the absence of other safeguards such as sovereign guarantee, bank guarantee etc. A mere letter of comfort assuring future performance by Dassault  is legally a very weak substitute, most experts have opined.

Therefore the fundamental  question remains as to why India agreed to so many concessions, in violation of DPP 2013, when it was clearly in a strong position as a near monopsony vis a vis a company starved of orders globally.