NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday had a word of caution for the government that any deviation from its stand that the issue of Indian prisoners of war (PoWs) languishing in Pakistani prisons can’t be taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), will have its own ramifications.
“The Centre’s stand has been that the issue cannot go to the ICJ. Can it change the stand now? It will have its own ramifications,” a bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and R Bhanumathi observed.
The remarks came after the bench wanted to know from government’s counsel R Balasubramanian whether the ICJ has any jurisdiction to go into the issue.
He said the Centre has taken a stand that ICJ has no jurisdiction on the issue. The bench was told that in the past Pakistan had taken some of the issues to the ICJ.
The bench was hearing a batch of petitions raising the issues of POWs, the brutality meted out to Saurav Kalia during Kargil War and the beheading and mutilation of bodies of two Indian soldiers in 2013 by Pakistani army, for a direction to the Union government to move the ICJ.
It was also hearing an appeal filed by the Centre challenging the Gujarat high court order directing the Union government to move the ICJ on Pakistan illegally detaining 54 Indian armymen in breach of an agreement between the two countries after the 1971 war to exchange all POWs.
A generation of officers has grown and won awards, laurels and promotions doing counter-insurgency operations. With all present generals having donned the uniform after the last full-scale war of 1971, war-preparedness has become an elusive concept
Speaking recently at the Counter-Terrorism Conference in Jaipur, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, alluding to Pakistan, said, “Some countries have used non-state actors (terrorists) for 15 years to achieve political and strategic objectives, with counter-productive results.” The truth is, far from being counter-productive, the Pakistan army has achieved substantive results against India through this strategy.On the one hand, it has increased India’s policing commitments on the land and coastal borders. The 1999 Kargil conflict forced the Indian Army to deploy a division (12,000 troops) round the year at 15,000 to 18,000 feet to ensure no reccurrence of mischief. After the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, the Indian Navy, made responsible for coastal security, has been flogging its expensive warships, at the cost of war preparedness. On the other hand, Pakistan’s strategy has, to its own amazement, rendered the Indian Army unfit for conventional war. After Operation Parakram (the 10-month military stand-off from December 2001 to October 2002), where India failed to militarily coerce Pakistan, the Indian Army was expected to learn the right lessons. Since no insurgency which enjoys an inviolate sanctuary has ever been defeated, it was, since 1990, argued that the Indian Army should build capability to hit terrorists’ bases in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir rather than fight the elusive terrorists on its soil. Instead, it did the opposite. Once the November 26, 2003, ceasefire, at Pakistan’s initiative, was accepted, the artillery guns on both sides fell silent. With long-range firepower to hit Pakistani bunkers no longer an option, raids by Special Forces to thwart the proxy war was the natural choice to keep the Pakistan army on tenterhooks. Calling it a war-avoidance measure, this option was closed by the Army Chief, Gen. NC Vij by fencing the Line of Control in July, 2004.The argument that the fence is cost-effective and prevents infiltration continues to be made by senior officers who are unwilling to concede its biggest drawback: It has instilled the Maginot mentality, (a line of defensive fortifications built before World War II to protect the eastern border of France but easily outflanked by German invaders.). Any worthwhile military commander the world over will attest that a fortification induces a false sense of security and stifles the offensive spirit and action. Today, the fence denotes the Indian Army’s physical, mental and psychological limit of war-fighting. It gives respite to the Pakistan army and encourages it to continue with the proxy war, without fearing Indian retaliation. The initiative has passed completely into the hands of the terrorists and their Pakistani handlers. The latter dictate the rates of engagement, infiltration, areas to be activated and to what purpose, including methods of initiation. This is the reason that even with the strength of over 12 lakh, the Indian Army fails to deter the six lakh Pakistani army from cross-border terrorism. The Pakistan army refuses to hand over Hafiz Saeed, Dawood Ibrahim, Masood Azhar and others to us. Each time our political and military leaders warn Pakistan, it challenges us to a war.The Indian Army Chief, Gen. VK Singh wrote a letter (leaked to the media) to the Prime Minister in March, 2012, saying the Army was unfit for war. Media reports routinely decry the unpreparedness of the Army. What little the Army has as war reserves, for example, equipment, vehicles, spares and ammunition, is merrily being using to raise more units — two divisions (each with 12,000 troops) between 2009 and 2011, and a Mountain Corps (90,000 troops). Since 2012, the Army’s annual defence spending ratio of capital (for acquisitions) and revenue (pay and allowances) has been 40:60, instead of the other way round. This means more manpower costs and less war preparedness.Unfortunately, the present state suits both the political and the Army leadership; the former does not want to understand military power and is petrified by nuclear weapons, the latter is comfortable with counter-insurgency operations (CI ops). The Army has honed its skills in it for 25 years. About 40 per cent of the Army is in the Jammu and Kashmir theatre doing CI ops, while an equal number prepares itself to replace those. A generation of officers has grown and won awards, laurels, promotions and status doing CI ops. With all present generals having donned uniform after the last full-scale war of 1971, war-preparedness has become an elusive concept. The irony is that the people of India do not know what the Army is supposed to do. The nation regularly pays homage to soldiers who die fighting terrorists inside the Indian territory rather than fighting Pakistani soldiers on the border. Few bother to think that if the Army does CI ops (which should be the paramilitary’s job), who would do its job of fighting the war? Should the nation be spending huge amount of money building a military force when what the Army wishes to be is to become a glorified paramilitary force?The idea of a fence on the LoC came from the BSF, which had erected one on the India-Pakistan border from Gujarat to Rajasthan and another on the India-Bangladesh border. But the Army was never receptive to the idea of erecting a fence as it was found effective only against illegal immigrants and was considered a police tactic. The Army chief, General S. Padmanabhan (General Vij’s predecessor) told me: “When Vij asked my opinion on the fence, I told him that this idea had been there since 1993. The reason why it had not been implemented so far was that it was unsuited for the terrain along the LoC. Moreover, a fence would instil a defensive mindset in our troops.” What should the Army do? The Army Chief, Gen. Bikram Singh invited me to his office in January, 2013, and asked my opinion. I suggested four-pronged action: The fence on the LoC should be dismantled; troops should be reoriented to the conventional war role from the present anti-infiltration role; CI ops should be handed over to the paramilitary and the police in Jammu and Kashmir in a phased manner; and the Army should go back to its core competency — preparing to fight a war.These are the actions that the Army would take during war; taking them in peacetime would help deter Pakistan from continuous trouble across the LoC. Adopting an offensive-defence posture does not imply war; it means peace and stability on the LoC as it would spur the Army to equip and train itself for war. These actions will also help the Army to reduce its strength by nearly 2,00,000 troops in five years; a must for a professional Army desiring to prepare itself for present-day warfare. The Modi Government, which projects itself as more muscular than the previous regimes, has not helped matters. Speaking in the Rajya Sabha on July 22, 2014, the then Defence Minister, Arun Jaitley praised the Army for CI ops by concluding that, “innovative troops deployment, efficient use of surveillance and monitoring devices and fencing along the LoC have enhanced (the Army’s) ability to detect and intercept infiltration.” Encouraged, the Army decided to upgrade the fence. The northern Army Commander, Lt Gen. D.S. Hooda told the media in August, 2015 that, “The new fence will be twice as effective as the existing one. It will be hard to breach.” The Pakistan army will continue to allow the Indian side to repair the fence damaged by vagaries of nature each year, without resorting to small-arms firings. The writer is Editor, FORCE, a newsmagazine on security & defence.
Lt Gen J.F.R. Jacob waves goodbye at Punjab Raj Bhavan as he leaves the office of Punjab Governor and UT Administrator in Chandigarh in May 2003. Tribune photo by Manoj Mahajan
New Delhi, January 13Lt Gen JFR Jacob (retd) died in the National Capital on Wednesday. He was 93. Jacob was the Chief of Staff of the Eastern Army Command during the 1971 war with Pakistan.Lt Gen JS Aurora was heading the command at Kolkata when the Indian Army and Air Force liberated Bangladesh, which was then known as East Pakistan.Jacob was the Governor of Punjab and administrator of Chandigarh between November 1999 and November 2003. Jacob, a bachelor, was living in Delhi’s RK Puram. He died after a brief illness at the Army’s Research and Referral Hospital.
Lt Gen JFR Jacob & I interacted often. Had a memorable interaction when he presented his autobiography to me. pic.twitter.com/h32apAvBrm
He authored the book ‘Surrender at Dacca’ in which he explianed the surrender of 90,000 Pakistani troops.Jacob as the Administrator of Chandigarh brought in people-oriented changes. He was famous for dropping in unannounced at public offices to check their functioning.
Israel Ambassador in India Daniel Carmon also paid homage to General Jacob as a proud “Indian and a proud Jew”.
He said he was a living bridge between the people of India and Israel, adding that he was sorry for the loss.
P.K.Vasudeva No politics please, the Army is secular & apolitical
As a policy, no new regiment is to be raised on the basis of a class, creed, community or religion. The Indian Army has a pan-India representation.
Ishfaq Ahmad, holds his six-month-old son after the Passing out Parade of new recruits in Srinagar, at the headquarters of Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry. PTI
This is as a counter to the article, “The country needs more Muslims in armed forces,” by Col Ramesh Davesar (retd.) published in The Tribune. Davesar has touched a very sensitive issue, which has been discussed threadbare a number of times earlier and has been settled with the present arrangement. The Indian Army is the only organisation in the world in which soldiers from all castes, creeds and communities are recruited. There are no reservations for any category. Why should the issue of “more Muslims in the Army” be kindled? The Indian Army is the best example of national integration where all festivals and religious functions are organised, based on the ethnicity of the soldiers. All officers, irrespective of their religion, participate wholeheartedly in all the religious functions organised by the jawans. Raising the issue of recruitment of more Muslims in the Army at this juncture is uncalled for as they are recruited according to merit and there is no bar on their recruitment in the armed forces. Muslim officers can join any service of the armed forces they desire, depending on their qualifications and merit. But the eligible and fit Muslims are not coming forward to join this service. It is a tough life, one that entails separation from families and a highly disciplined lifestyle that which only highly motivated people can survive. However, a number of Muslim soldiers have done extremely well during the Indo-Pak wars. The reason for the Muslim under-representation in the Indian Army, or the over-representation of Sikhs is something that lies partly in history. Sikhs form 1.86 per cent of India’s population and have a representation of around 8 per cent in the Indian Army. Muslims form 13 per cent of India’s population and about 2 per cent of the population is in the Army. Just as Muslims are under-represented in the Army, so are the Bengalis, Biharis, Oriyas, South Indians or Gujaratis. And just as Sikhs are over-represented, so are the Jats, Dogras, Garhwalis, Kumaonis, Gurkhas, Marathas, and Punjabis. The Indian Army’s recruitment pattern was set 150 years ago by India’s 1857 uprising. Traumatised by the rebellion, the British army adopted a recruitment policy that punished the groups which rebelled and rewarded the ones that stayed loyal. Because the Muslims of Awadh, Bihar and West Bengal led the uprising, the British army stopped hiring soldiers from these areas.Also blacklisted from these places were high-caste Hindus, whose regiments in Bengal had also mutinied. In contrast, the British raised the recruitment of castes that had stood by the British to put down the uprising. These castes were Sikhs, Jats, Dogras, Garhwalis, Kumaonis, Gorkhas, Marathas and Punjabis, both Hindus and Muslims. Honoured as martial races, they received preferential treatment in army recruitment for the next 90 years. Like any institution, the Indian Army is a prisoner of the past. Even today, it favours enlisting men from the martial races. According to the figures of last three years, large numbers came from four “martial” states, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. So these states, which account for 5 per cent of India’s population, provided 15 per cent of soldiers in the Indian Army.In contrast, the fewest recruits came from “non-martial” West Bengal, Bihar and Gujarat. These three states account for 30 per cent of India’s population, but they provided only 14 per cent of the Army’s soldiers in this three-year period. About the Muslim under-representation in the Indian Army, there are three reasons. Firstly, Partition caused this. Before Independence, Muslims were around 25 per cent of the Indian Army and 25 per cent of undivided India. When India broke up and Muslim soldiers were asked to choose between India and Pakistan, they joined Pakistan en masse. So Muslim numbers in the Indian Army dropped so drastically that they were only 2 per cent in 1953. Jawaharlal Nehru himself expressed concern that “hardly any Muslims” were left in the Army. And Muslim numbers never really picked up in the last 67 years for obvious reasons. This discrimination is a natural phenomenon of India and Pakistan’s bitter hostility over 67 years. In similar situations, the same thing happens all over the world. The Israeli army doesn’t trust its Arab soldiers in jobs related to defence security. The Buddhist-Sinhalese army under-recruits it’s Hindu Tamils lest their sympathies lie with the Tamil Tigers. After 9/11, US army recruiters would probably screen a Muslim American volunteer more thoroughly than a Christian American one. Despite these reasons, India still has two to three Company’s strength of Muslims in Grenadiers, Mahar Regiments and Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry battalions that too are not getting their full quota of Muslims. In all other arms and services, Muslims are not deprived of the recruitment if they are qualified and are fit to serve in the Army. Secondly, the cause of Muslim under-recruitment is their relatively poor education. When they try to enlist as soldiers, they lose out in the competition to better-educated Sikh, Hindu, and Christian youths. Efforts should, therefore, be made by the Muslim leaders to impart proper education to them in schools other than madrassas. Thirdly, in life, however, one man’s meat is another man’s poison. The under-representation of Muslims and other caste or regional groups benefits the over-represented ones. The composition of the Indian Army is totally askew numbers’ wise. West Bengal’s population is eight times that of Uttarakhand. But Uttarakhand provides almost the same number of Army recruits as West Bengal. Compare a “martial” Punjab with a non-martial Gujarat. Punjab’s population is half that of Gujarat. But it provides four times as many people to the Indian Army as Gujarat. The Indian Army hired far more recruits in Rajasthan than in Tamil Nadu, even though Tamil Nadu’s population is higher. Essentially, the Indian Army is dominated numbers’wise by Sikhs and Hindi-speaking Hindus of North India, since they are highly motivated, ready to take challenges, and prepared to sacrifice for the nation. The current status quo suits them perfectly.The Army has strongly rejected calls for raising new “single-class” units like the Gujarat, Kalinga, Dalit, Ahir, Paswan or Tribal regiments as well as attempts to tinker with its “time-tested” regimental system. The policy since Independence is not to raise any new regiment on the basis of a particular class, creed, community, religion or region but to have a force in which all Indians have representation. This is the well-defined position of both the Defence Ministry and the Army. Politics should not be played with the apolitical armed forces. The Army is an inclusive and secular force open to all. The Sachar Committee for that reason even opposed the religious headcount in the armed forces in 2005-06. The writer is a former Professor, International Trade, ICFAI University, Hyderabad.
A quota for women in the paramilitary forces must be followed up with real feminisation of security doctrines, writes ANURADHA M CHENOY
Anuradha M Chenoy is professor, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi The views expressed are personal
There has been a long-standing demand that women be part of security, peacemaking, peacekeeping, get protection during armed conflicts and be politically empowered. The Union home minister has said that there will be 33% reservation for women in constable-level posts in the Central Reserve Police Force and Central Industrial Security Force, which are paramilitary forces. Will this empower women or securitise and militarise society? Further, what about other reservations for women, like in Parliament?
SAMEER SEHGAL/HTThe belief that women are essentially peaceful and should remain this way is a binary stereotyping rejected by all genuine social research, which shows that men and women can be trained to be militarist and aggressiveThe argument for affirmative action for women in security is, first, women should have more roles in security and peacekeeping. Second, women should have equal opportunities in all public institutions. Third, since more women are engaged in all types of armed conflicts, insurgencies and even terror attacks, state security needs more women security personnel. Fourth, the nature of military methodology has dramatically changed from pure physical combat to more push button and smart technologies. Fifth, the UN Security Council has passed many resolutions like 1325 and others that ask countries to involve women in peacekeeping and protect women in conflict situations.
There are several aspects to the debate of women’s role in war, security and peace. The traditional point of view is that security is a male affair. And indeed, wars have been dominated by men who planned, fought, became heroes and martyrs and then wrote war histories and made war films. War, security and even strategic thinking are largely masculinist discourse that intersects comfortably with patriarchal and militarised frameworks.
It was generally believed that women have been absent from wars. But this has never been the case. Women played secondary roles in wars, as wives and mothers of soldiers, as care givers, maintaining logistics involved. Women’s bodies have always been seen and equated as territory during war, where women are symbols of honour who can be either violated or safeguarded.
The belief that women are essentially peaceful and should remain this way is a binary stereotyping rejected by all genuine social research, which shows that men and women can be trained to be militarist and aggressive, with the caveat that since women do have motherhood functions and roles, they are just less inclined to use force. Further, women are more inclined to oppose wars because through history they have been at the receiving end of violence during war, post-war reconstruction and during peace. In addition, they are left out of peacemaking, power-sharing and state political activities that remain the domain of men.
Many argue that it is best to keep women out of security forces because this will militarise women and increase the use of force in civil relations, making society even more violent. Why should women be excluded from the huge security complex? Women, like men, have the right to make the choice of joining security forces. Moreover, if security forces follow international laws, especially the Geneva Conventions and its additional protocols, they would be better places to work in.
In Israel, every adult has to do military service. However, women are not sent into major battles, but do participate in security activities. There is currently a debate in Israel if women should be involved in major combat roles and hostilities. The situation in the United States and the European Union is similar. The experience of US women security posted in Afghanistan is known to have been very controversial, where many women were raped and sexually harassed by their own colleagues.
So what does 33% reservation for women in select security services, and that to at the lowest level, mean? One small step forward, which needs to be assiduously followed up by meaningful changes for women’s effective participation in State institutions. This can come if there is affirmative action for women at all levels and all institutions, beginning with Parliament. Women constables will clearly not be in any position to take decisions — their importance lies in their presence and training.
The intention of bringing in women should be to make a more gender-sympathetic and pro-people security force. The key would be to train the security forces, both men and women, to be gender-sensitive, work in accordance with the Constitution and be trained in human rights. Further service conditions for women need to be improved. This means adequate facilities, including for child care and medicare.
Ultimately, women cannot be deployed merely as constables. A move such as this will have real meaning if women have avenues to be promoted, join the security at different levels and, most important, are also decisionmakers and participants in peace processes. Currently there are several peace talks between the Indian State and insurgent groups. One that was recently concluded was the talks with the NSCN (IM). None of these talks have any presence of women. For serious security sector reforms, there is a need to have women, civil society and people’s representatives participating in these talks.
There is a need for India to adopt the UNSC resolution 1325 and other following resolutions in a much more serious way. It is clear that while women are needed for security, they are much more needed for peace. To make peace sustainable and think of security as one that combines national with human security is the only way that security itself can be truly achieved. Getting 33% reservation for women in one section of the paramilitary will only have meaning if it is urgently followed up with real feminisation of security doctrines.
Most of us have seen elderly people in the family or neighbourhood suffering from debilitating bone fractures of the arm, leg or hip due to osteoporosis. However, in what is an alarming new trend, cases of such osteoporotic fractures are now being observed in relatively younger people.Complete lack of physical activity and sedentary lifestyle is the reason behind the reduction in average age of osteoporosis. Shilpa, 37, bent her ankle while walking to her car from office. What she initially considered a mild sprain turned out to be a hairline fracture of the ankle bone. A bone density test revealed her bones were as brittle as that of a 69-year-old woman. Living a largely sedentary life for many years, the only walking she did everyday was the walk from home to the elevator and then to the car in the morning, and the same from her office cabin to the car parking in the evening.As a part of the normal ageing process, both men and women lose their bone density by 0.3 per cent to 0.5 per cent after the age of 35 years. Known as osteoporosis, the condition of extremely weak or ‘porous’ bones results from decrease in bone mass due to loss of bone mineral density. While due to anatomy and other physiological factors, the condition is more prevalent in women than in men, due to the change in lifestyle, there is an increase in incidence of osteoporosis in young urban.
Causes of early osteoporosis
Primarily, deficiency of calcium and vitamin D is the root cause of osteoporosis. Therefore, low intake of calcium, low sun exposure and a resultant deficiency of vitamin D, lack of physical exercise and poor habits such as smoking increase the risk of osteoporosis in young urban.With technology making life easy, habits like walking to the neighbourhood store everyday or cycling to work are no longer practiced. Elevators have ubiquitously replaced stairs, common instruments like hand-pumps that required hard work are no longer needed with easy availability of water, and the facility of home deliveries has done away with the need to carry groceries home every day. All these conditions have drastically reduced human physical activity levels. Besides consumption of a bone-friendly diet, exercising is crucial to maintain bone health in the long run. Since bone is a living tissue, it becomes stronger when subjected to exercise. Loss of bone mineral density that begins during the 30s can be prevented by exercising regularly. People who exercise have greater peak bone mass as compared to people who do not. Weight-bearing exercises are ideal for the bones.
Weighty issue
Weight-bearing exercises are ideal for the bones. These put extra stress on the bones, making them to respond by building their strength. Any activity that forces your body to work against gravity can be called weight-bearing. These exercises help build bone strength and achieve a higher peak bone density. However, the intensity of weight bearing exercises should be decided according to the body’s strength and capability. Weight training: This involves lifting heavy weight and should be done by healthy people. It not only builds muscle but also increases bone health and density. Hiking: If you are an adventure lover, go ahead and indulge in hiking, trekking and mountaineering. This will not only fulfill your penchant for fun, but also help build your bones. Dancing & aerobics: For those who love to dance, there is nothing better than practicing every day. It will also be extremely good for your bones and muscles.Running: Running is a good exercise for several reasons. It helps manage weight and keep the heart in good condition, and it also strengthens bones and muscles. Climbing stairs: This is another healthy way to strengthen bones and muscles and build stamina. Shunning elevators and climbing stairs every day is a life-long healthy exercise.Brisk walking: For those who are not fit enough to perform any of the above due to health or other reasons must certainly do brisk walking for 30 minutes every day. This is a low impact weight-bearing exercise but has good effect on bones and muscles.The writer is a senior consultant, orthopaedics & joint replacement surgeon, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi
How Niranjan died :- The soldiers have killed two terrorists in same spot and as a standard procedure the body has to be inspected thoroughly ( even inserting probes in to their chest cavity and stomach) by the NSG explosive disposal squad, which is headed by Niranjan. Normally terrorists hides explosives in their body which is meant for inflicting further damage.
Nirajan approached the first body and cleared that of for handling as it did not have any hidden explosives.
The solders dragged the second body a little towards Niranjan for him to inspect and clear. But the second body has a chest belt based explosives hidden, which gets triggered once the belf is disturbed. Niranjan quikly realized that it got activated and screamed the solders to take cover.
He then rolled over to the dead body, lifted the body in air and was trying to through it away. By then explosion got triggered and ruptured our national hero’s both hands, chest cavity, one side of face and eye.
The reason why he was not wearing protective gear was that,it was a major combing operation by walk in a wast 1500 acres forest type land. The bomb disposal gears are so heavy with all that protective gears and non flexible. It is impossible for an NSG commando to have that put on in a live operation underway in a terrain like that.
I saltute the fallen spirit and we all indian say, you will live through us…. your every drop of blood will continue to flow through us… You, our immortal hero… we salute you !!!
Deploying NSG instead of Army was a mistake: experts
Thousands of troops were stationed near the airbase, but precious time was lost by sending National Security Guard commandos all the way from Delhi
Army and security circles are bewildered and angry over the way the government kept the Army from the Pathankot terror hunt, especially in the early phase, when Army troops were available in thousands close by. Instead of pressing Army units into immediate action, precious time was lost in sending a few dozen NSG commandos from New Delhi.
“None of us can believe what they did. We have two infantry divisions and two armoured brigades in the vicinity. We have at least three corps headquarters in a couple of hours’ drive, and the Northern Army headquarters too. All of those troops are seasoned in carrying out counter-terror operations,” said a serving Brigadier posted close to Pathankot. “Instead, they wasted time to send a few dozen NSG commandos to the base?”
Lieutenant-General Prakash Katoch, a veteran para-commando and leading authority on special forces operations in India, said: “NSG is required for a specific target, it cannot tackle an area target.” He said that in a place such as the Pathankot airbase, the perimeter had to be secured first and combing operations to hunt down terrorists should have been initiated. “The Army is the best for that,” he said.
MULTIPLE LAPSES
The terrorist attack on the Pathankot airbase was a result of a series of systemic security failures at various levels.
1
Despite a huge concentration of Army units in andaround Pthankot, why were they not tasked with securing the airbase?
2
Despite statements by SP Salwinder Singh and his cook that they were intercepted by terrorists, why did the Punjab police not act?
3
Why was the Army not deployed for combing operations?
4
Why were Garud personnel and Defence Security Corps, who are not trained for anti-terror operations, the primary responders?
5
With so many security agencies involved, who was in charge of the operation against the terrorists?
“There is no harm in sending the NSG, but then you should have a clear command and control. You cannot shove in the BSF, NSG, Army, etc, just like that. Was there a command and control there?” Gen. Katoch said.
General V.P. Malik, former Army chief, told The Hindu: “I don’t know if the NSG was the right one. They came from Delhi. It should be given to a local agency which knows the place.”
Former IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Fali H.Major said: “Garuds were raised for a different mandate for special Air Force tasks and not anti-terror operations. The DSC personnel are basically re-employed people.”
A serving Army officer said that the Army with its 10 Special Forces units, and at least the one based in Udhampur, would have been in Pathankot in a couple of hours. “We practise all the time for such operations,” he said. “Instead, you send NSG commandos in the night. Who told them that they could defend the 24 sqkm of the base with 160 commandos?”
A senior serving officer said if the government had followed the management principle of “functional foremanship” which advocates the right man for the right job, it would have saved precious lives and ensured quick elimination of terrorists.
“It was not the job of the NSG or the Garuds. It is the job of the infantry,” he told The Hindu. The local Army unit conducts a recce of the entire airbase every six months, but they were not allowed to get in when the situation came, he said.
Lt.Gen. Vinod Bhatia, former Director-General of Military Operations, told The Hindu: “The operation was not handled the way it should have been. The fact is, it has gone on for too long. If the Army was called in, they could have a better cordon as they have more strength. There was no unity of command. There has to be a single commander given the wherewithal and authority.”
“The complete infantry of the Indian Army has been fighting counter insurgency for decades,” another officer noted, adding, “This could have been handled much better with fewer casualties.” “How many times has the government airlifted the NSG for operations in the Valley? The infantry has been fighting for a long time and has been doing a good job,” he said.
Pathankot attack: Army defends NSG deployment at airbase
Lt Gen Singh defended the NSG deployment and sought to convey that the decision was not a solo flight by National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval. –
short by Nihal Thondepu / 12:47 pm on 07 Jan 2016,Thursday
The Western Command’s Lt General KJ Singh on Wednesday said the Pathankot operation shows “excellent synergy” among armed forces following criticism over the deployment of the National Security Guard (NSG). “I say that because all our strategic air assets are safe, not harmed, not touched,” he added. The NSG was reportedly called in to prevent and deal with hostage situations.
Pathankot attack: Lt Gen Singh defended the NSG deployment and sought to convey that the decision was not a solo flight by National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval.
SEEKING to counter the criticism of the NSG-led operation against the terrorist infiltration and attack at Pathankot airbase, the GOC-in-C, Western Command, Lt Gen K J Singh Wednesday called the operation a “complete success” and said it was an example of the “excellent synergy” among the forces. A day after the operation ended with questions about the necessity of deploying the NSG, and confusion in the command structure during the operation due to presence of multiple agencies, Singh said “Operation Dhangu Suraksha” (Dhangu is the name of the village where the airbase and other defence facilities are located) had been a “complete success. I say that because all our strategic air assets are safe, not harmed, not touched. The airbase remained operational throughout this operation. That means sorties that were meant to be launched for surveillance, communication, evacuation — all could be launched”. –
Lt Gen Singh defended the NSG deployment and sought to convey that the decision was not a solo flight by National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval. “Deployment of NSG was a joint decision taken at an appropriate level, which included the service chiefs. Because there were strategic assets located here, and there could have been a hostage situation, NSG is specially trained for that. It is a success of this operation that airbase was operational. God forbid, if the airbase had not been operational, how would have we brought the NSG there? That was the main reason that the NSG was inducted prior to the operation to prevent and tackle the hostage situation”. Lt Gen K J Singh admitted that the first alert about possible terrorist infiltration had come during a joint meeting of law and security enforcement agencies on December 30 from the Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau. Replying to the queries pertaining to over-90 hours taken to kill the terrorists, Lt Gen Singh said, “You need to use the stop-watch method here. The total point of contact with the terrorists was about 10-11 hours. Rest of the time was utilised by us for the combing and sanitisation of the area”
People walk on a snow-covered road in Shimla on Sunday. Photos: Amit Kanwar
Bhanu P Lohumi,Tribune News Service,Shimla, February 7
Shimla and its surrounding areas experienced the season’s first heavy snowfall today. It has been snowing in the tribal areas and other hills since morning.The state capital received 18 cm of snow. Showers accompanied by strong winds lashed the city in the morning while it started snowing towards the evening.Vehicular movement towards upper Shimla remained affected as the snow blocked the Hindustan-Tibet National Highway, state highways and link roads in the interiors.Rampur-bound buses were diverted through Basantpur and Kingal as the national highway was blocked at Fagu, Kufri and Narkanda. The Shimla-Rohroo and Shimla Chopal roads were also blocked.Shimla, donning a white mantle, looked fascinating. The area between Kufri and Fagu experienced 35 cm of snow.The Dhauladhar Range in Kangra district received less than 45 to 50 cm of snow while Rohtang, Kunzam, Saach and Chansel Passes have been receiving continuous snowfall since morning.Mercury dropped from 16 degree Celsius to 5.2 degree Celsius in Shimla, which experienced the warmest day on February 5, with the maximum temperature soaring to 21.8 degree Celsius. Keylong and Kalpa received 35 cm and 30 cm of snow.Power connections have been snapped in Lahaul due to heavy snowfall.Dharamsala received 50 mm rain, Manali 30 mm, Chamba, Sundernagar and Kalatop 23 mm each, Bhuntar and Bajaura 20 mm, Gaggal 19 mm, Jogindernagar 17 mm, Sarkaghat 15 mm and Baijnath 13 mm.The Met Department has predicted rain and snow in the higher hills on February 8, 9 and rain and snow in low, mid and high hills from February 10 to 13. Director of the department Manmohan Singh said the rain deficit of the season was now 70 per cent.Snow brings cheers to residents, tourists
The season’s heavy snowfall brought cheers to residents and tourists. A couple from Delhi, Avinash and Stuti, said: “We have never seen such a sight. The place looks like a dreamland.”
Traffic halted
Commuters had a harrowing time as vehicles remained stranded for hours. Long queues were witnesses between the Lift and Bemloe.
100 panchayats in Trans-Giri sans power
Churdhar received 100 cm of snow while Haripurdhar and Nauradhar witnessed 35 cm of snow. The areas have been cut off. Residents of 100 panchayats are without electricity.
Roads being cleared
Roads leading to hospitals are on our priority list and will be cleared soon. Three JCB machines have been pressed into service. The water supply to Sanjauli has been restored. — Tikender Panwar, Deputy Mayor
शिमला में मौसम की सबसे ज्यादा बर्फबारी
Posted On February – 7 – 2016
ज्ञान ठाकुर/ निस शिमला, 7 फरवरी
मैदानों पर बादल, बारिश और पहाड़ों पर बर्फबारी। शनिवार देर रात मौसम ने ऐसे तेवर बदले कि रविवार को शिमला में इस मौसम की सबसे ज्यादा बर्फबारी हुई। पूरा शहर सफेद हो गया और एक ही दिन में तापमान 11 डिग्री गिर गया। हिमाचल के मनाली, कुफरी, नारकंडा, चायल, नालदेहरा और अन्य पर्यटन स्थलों ने भी मानो बर्फ की चादर ओढ़ ली, जबकि निचले इलाकों में बारिश का सिलसिला चलता रहा। उधर चंडीगढ़, हरियाणा व पंजाब के कई हिस्सों में बादल छाये रहे, कहीं-कहीं हल्की बारिश भी हुई।
मौसम में आये इस बदलाव ने हिमाचल में पिछले कई हफ्तों से चल रहे सूखे मौसम का दौर खत्म कर दिया। कुफरी में एक फुट, नारकंडा, खड़ा पत्थर में 2 फुट और शिमला में आधा फुट से अधिक बर्फबारी हुई। धर्मशाला में सर्वाधिक 47 मिमी बारिश हुई।
9 को पश्चिमी विक्षोभ के कारण फिर बारिश
मौसम विभाग के स्थानीय निदेशक मनमोहन सिंह के मुताबिक हिमालय क्षेत्र में सक्रिय पश्चिमी विक्षोभ के कारण मौसम में यह बदलाव आया है। इस क्षेत्र में 9 फरवरी से फिर पश्चिमी विक्षोभ सक्रिय हो रहा है। इसके प्रभाव से फरवरी के दूसरे हफ्ते में भी हिमाचल प्रदेश में व्यापक हिमपात और बारिश होने का अनुमान है।
शादी का हसीन तोहफा
शिमला में रविवार को हाॅलीडे होम के पास बेमलोई में निरंकारी भवन में शादी करके यह नवविवाहित जोड़ा बाहर निकला तो अचानक हुई बर्फबारी को देखकर खिल उठा। वहीं, पयर्टकों, कारोबारियों और बागवानों के चेहरों पर भी रौनक आ गयी। दरअसल दिसंबर में थोड़ी-सी बर्फबारी के बाद पहाड़ों की इस रानी से बर्फ और बारिश जैसे रूठ सी गयी थी। इसका असर पर्यटन और बागवानी पर पड़ रहा था।
रविवार को इतनी बर्फ गिरी कि यातायात ठप हो गया। शिमला के पुराने बस अड्डे तक ही गाड़ियां बमुश्किल चल पा रहीं थी। ऊपरी शिमला और हिंदुस्तान-तिब्बत सड़क पर शिमला से आगे यातायात रुक गया। शहर का अधिकतम तापमान गिरकर 5 डिग्री सेल्सियस पर आ गया, जबकि शनिवार को 19 डिग्री दर्ज किया गया था। फोटो अमित कंवर
C.R. Gharekhan Do we have a choice to talk or not to talk?
After every forward movement in India-Pakistan relations, terrorist acts sabotage the process. The logical reason for not cancelling the talks is that we do not have any feasible alternative. There is a strong sentiment in our country that Pakistan must pay a price for such attacks.
Security forces at the Pathankot Air Force base after the operation to flush out militants ended. The theory that the Pathankot attack was carried out to sabotage the January 15 talks is not very convincing.
The carefully prepared “surprise visit” of Prime Minister Modi on Christmas day 2015 to Lahore created a media-managed near sense of euphoria in the strategic community in Delhi, and also perhaps in Islamabad. The PM was given high marks, and deservedly so, for his out-of-the-box thinking and courage in undertaking the visit since he knew that not all even in his own party would have welcomed it. He did what Dr Manmohan Singh would have wished to do. He gave to Pakistan even more than what they desired — comprehensive dialogue which suggests a wider scope than composite dialogue.
Foreign Secretary-level talks were announced for January 15, to be held in Islamabad and not in Delhi, thus cleverly avoiding the delicate and difficult question of meeting Hurriyat members. In the wake of the attack on the Pathankot air base, the question is whether to talk or not to talk with Pakistan. The answer is simple. We have no option but to talk for the following reasons.
It has become a part of the accepted and unquestioned narrative at least in India that after every forward movement in India-Pakistan relations, those opposed to such improvement will invariably indulge in a terrorist act to sabotage it. As has been said, this attack was written into the script after Lahore. A little reflection would suggest that the two events are not necessarily linked. An operation like the one in Pathankot could not have been staged at three to four days notice. All experts are agreed that it would have entailed detailed preparations, requiring a much longer time. It would have been impossible for any group to mount such a complex operation in such a quick time after December 25.
The accepted narrative also suggests that if PM had not gone to Lahore, the attack would not have taken place. This is very difficult to swallow. The thorough planning that obviously went into preparing the attack would not have been allowed to go waste simply because the Prime Minister had gone to Lahore.
Furthermore, why would the jihadis worry about a resumption of dialogue? Hundreds of rounds of dialogue have taken place over the decades and the problems have remained. Even the CBMs have not been implemented in full or with sincerity on both sides. And if the intention of those who planned the attack had only one motivation, namely to sabotage the Foreign Secretary-level talks, they would have carried it out just a day or two before January 15. It would have been impossible for Mr Jaishankar to proceed to Islamabad in the middle of the carnage. By staging the attack nearly two weeks before the scheduled talks, the planners in fact have given ample time to the wise men in India to counsel the PM not to cancel the talks, thus frustrating the very purpose for which the attack is supposed to have been carried out.
Thus, the theory that the Pathankot attack was carried out to sabotage the 15 January talks is not very convincing. Various experts have given various reasons why the Foreign Secretary-level talks should go ahead as agreed. The most widely accepted reason is that cancellation of the talks would give the terrorists the satisfaction of having achieved their objective. Another explanation is that the talks will give an opportunity to us to present the evidence that we would have collected to indicate Pakistan’s involvement in the attack. The government has wisely refrained from naming Pakistan in this context though the media have already identified the group responsible and the official Pakistan agency behind it. We have in the past handed over many dossiers to Pakistan about the 26/11 attack and they have not produced the desired response so far. Nevertheless, there is merit in this argument. After all, we would certainly like to share such evidence with important members of the international community; we cannot do that if we do not share it with Pakistan. The most logical reason for not cancelling the talks is that we do not have any feasible alternative. There is a strong sentiment in our country that Pakistan must pay a price for such attacks, that we must inflict “retribution” on them. A cool-headed reflection suggests that we do not have any practical option. We obviously cannot go to war.
Pathankot is not an across-LoC infiltration such that we can consider attacking the “camps”. In any case, we have not been able to “take out” the camps in all these years. Is there some measure that will cause economic discomfort to them? The river waters is one possibility but only theoretically. We cannot afford to stop the flow of waters to Pakistan, even if we may be legally entitled to do so. It will create a storm internationally. Pakistan is not dependent on India for anything that we may deny to them and which will cause hardship to them.
Cancelling the next round of talks will give some psychological satisfaction of having done something, but only of a temporary nature. Pakistan will not have to pay a price. It is true that talking with Pakistan gives the civilian regime there something to show to their people, gives them some legitimacy if you like, though they will vigorously deny, and rightly so, the need for any legitimacy from India. It is also true that Pakistan wants to have talks with us, but they do not pay any price by our refusing to talk to them. On the contrary, it is India that will pay a price on the diplomatic front. It will give a propaganda advantage to them, domestically as well as internationally. The pressure will be on us to resume talks. On balance, the better and in fact the only option for us is to proceed with the talks. The date could be postponed by a few days, if it is essential to do so to gather more evidence to present a credible case to them. Modi is not the one to get taken in by professions of sincerity. Illusions have no place in diplomacy.
The writer is India’s former Permanent Representative to the UN.
America’s master plan to turn India into an Aircraft Carrier Superpower
Anyone who has been watching the United States try to pull off its much discussed “pivot” or “rebalance” to Asia knows one thing: The challenges of the day, from Russian moves in Eastern Europe and Syria to the threat of ISIS—or even just the steady stream of non-Asia-Pacific problems—always seem to get in the way. However, we must give President Obama credit where credit is due. U.S. relations with India, which shares a common challenge with America in a rising China, have warmed considerably. While certainly not a full-blown alliance, relations have grown to such an extent that U.S. defense officials seem willing to share some of their most prized military technologies with the rising South Asian powerhouse. Indeed, the United States seems ready to share the very symbol of American power projection: the mighty aircraft carrier.
A report from Reuters notes that Washington and New Delhi are discussing options for the joint development of an aircraft carrier for India. In a recent visit to India, Chief of U.S. Naval Operations, John Richardson, remarked that “we are making very good progress, I am very pleased with the progress to date and optimistic we can do more in the future. That’s on a very solid track.”
Richardson, according to the Reuters report, revealed that one of the crown jewels of American carrier technology—highly coveted electromagnetic launch technology that allows heavier planes to take off from the carrier flight deck—was part of the talks. Richardson offered that “all of those things are on the table, there are possibilities, it’s a matter of pacing, it’s very new technology for us.”
Considering how difficult it is to build an aircraft carrier—for example, China began in-depth, first-hand analysis of scraped aircraft carriers it purchased back in 1985, taking until 2012 to commission a small rebuilt ex-Soviet carrier—this is nothing short of a coup for India. Up until this point, New Delhi’s best options were, shall we say, less than desirable Russian technology. As frequent National Interest contributor Kyle Mizokami points out:
“In the early 2000s, India faced a dilemma. The Indian navy’s only carrier INS Viraat was set to retire in 2007. . . India’s options were limited. The only countries building carriers at the time—the United States, France and Italy—were building ships too big for India’s checkbook. In 2004, India and Russia struck a deal in which India would receive Admiral Gorshkov. The ship herself would be free, but India would pay $974 million dollars to Russia to upgrade her.
“It was an ambitious project. At 44,500 tons, Admiral Gorshkov was a huge ship. Already more than a decade old, she had spent eight years languishing in mothballs. Indifference and Russia’s harsh winters are unkind to idle ships.”
From here, well, things took an interesting turn:
“In 2007, just a year before delivery, it became clear that Russia’s Sevmash shipyard couldn’t meet the ambitious deadline. Even worse, the yard demanded more than twice as much money—$2.9 billion in total—to complete the job.
“The cost of sea trials alone, originally $27 million, ballooned to a fantastic $550 million.
“A year later, with the project still in disarray, Sevmash estimated the carrier to be only 49-percent complete. Even more galling, one Sevmash executive suggested that India should pay an additional $2 billion, citing a “market price” of a brand-new carrier at “between $3 billion and $4 billion.”
And, perhaps, worse still:
“The ship’s boilers, which provide Vikramaditya [the Indian rechristened for Admiral Gorshkov] with power and propulsion, are a long-term concern. All eight boilers are new. But yard workers discovered defects in them. During her trip from Russia to India, the flattop suffered a boiler breakdown, which Sevmash chalked up to poor-quality Chinese firebricks.”
Clearly India, now able to ‘pivot’ away from Russia’s carrier problems, stands to benefit dramatically in this new partnership with America.
Reuters also noted that a joint working group is set to meet in New Delhi in the coming weeks as part of a sustained effort to establish strong cooperation on the design, development and production of a proposed Indian carrier. My question is this: Would America also be willing to sell to its new South Asian partner the carrier-based version of the F-35? Considering rumors a few years back concerning a possible F-35 purchase by New Delhi, you have to wonder. If China keeps pushing its weight around in the wider Indo-Pacific region, one can’t dismiss how far this partnership could really go.
Harry Kazianis (@grecianformula) is the former Executive Editor of The National Interest. Kazianis presently serves as Senior Fellow (non-resident) for Defense Policy at the Center for the National Interest as well as a Fellow for National Security Affairs at The Potomac Foundation. All opinions are his own.
State Stalwarts
ALL HUMANS ARE ONE CREATED BY GOD
HINDUS,MUSLIMS,SIKHS.ISAI SAB HAI BHAI BHAI
CHIEF PATRON ALL INDIA SANJHA MORCHA
LT GEN JASBIR SINGH DHALIWAL, DOGRA
PATRON ALL INDIA SANJHA MORCHA
MAJOR GEN HARVIJAY SINGH, SENA MEDAL ,corps of signals
.
.
PRESIDENT DISTT LUDHIANA : ALL INDIA EXSERVICEMEN SANJHA MORCHA
BRIG SS GILL ARTY
PRESIDENT PANCHKULA HARYANA UNIT SANJHA MORCHA
BRIG DALJIT THUKRAL (Retd) BENGAL SAPPERS
PRESIDENT DISTT MOHALI :ALL INDIA SANJHA MORCHA
COL BALBIR SINGH , ARTY
SECY (HONY) NRI’s ESMs , ALL INDIA SANJHA MORCHA
SUB AVTAR SINGH
+1(647)501-8112
INDIAN DEFENCE FORCES
DEFENCE FORCES INTEGRATED LOGO
FORCES FLAGS
15 Th PRESIDENT OF INDIA SUPREME COMMANDER ARMED FORCES
Droupadi Murmu
DEFENCE MINISTER
Minister Rajnath Singh
CHIEF OF DEFENCE STAFF (2nd)
General Anil Chauhan PVSM UYSM AVSM SM VSM
INDIAN FORCES CHIEFS
CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF(29th)
General Upendra Dwivedi, PVSM, AVSM (30 Jun 2024 to Till Date)
