In hindsight, could we have fought the war differently?Three major factors influenced fighting the Kargil War. First, Pakistan had surprised us. Initially even the adversary – whether militants or Pakistan Army Regulars – was not clear. Second, for both political and strategic reasons, security of the Srinagar-Kargil-Leh Highway was critical. Third, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) directed us to vacate the intrusions without crossing the LoC or the international border. Even in the third week of June 1999, the CCS ruled out crossing the LoC. Under these circumstances, I do not think the Indian military could have fought the war differently.During the war you had famously remarked ‘If a war is thrust upon us we will fight with whatever we have’. How deficient in war fighting capabilities were we then? Could we have defeated Pakistan had a full-fledged war with Pakistan erupted?During Kargil, our critical deficiencies were worth Rs 14,800 crore. Except for a small number of tanks, infantry combat vehicles, artillery and air defence guns, all other weapons and equipment were of 1960s-70s vintage. We had raised 30 Rashtriya Rifles battalions but without getting sanction for their weapons and equipment which had to be equipped from Army reserves, some even from regular battalions. The situation in other Services was similar. However, the plus point was that the Pakistani armed forces were in a no better state. Our frontline soldiers were led better and displayed unparalleled dedication. If the war had escalated, we would have got the better of them. Would you have recommended opening another front had you been unable to vacate the intrusions? Definitely. I had stated this publically. The CCS was made aware of it. If circumstances demanded, we were prepared for escalation and open another front after the third week of June 1999. Was there a nuclear threat from Pakistan as Bruce Reidel (President Bill Clinton’s advisor) subsequently claimed?There was a lot of nuclear rhetoric by politicians on both sides. However, on the ground, there were no indications of a Pakistani nuclear threat. What are the lessons from the war? Have we learnt them?Many lessons required a holistic national security review as well as re-thinking on the nature of conflict in the new strategic environment. Some were: 

• There may be remote chances of a full-scale conventional war between two nuclear weapon states. But as long as there are territory-related disputes (we have with China and Pakistan), an adversary can indulge in a proxy war, limited border war, or both.
• Political reluctance in India to adopt a pro-active strategy invariably leads us to reactive military situations. This is compounded when no loss of territory is acceptable to the public and political authority. This cannot be achieved unless we have credible deterrence, intelligence assessments and very effective border surveillance.
• Successful outcome of a border war depends upon our ability to react rapidly.
• A war in current strategic environment requires close political oversight and politico-civil-military interaction. It is essential to keep the military leadership within the security and strategic decision-making loop.
• Credible deterrence and escalation dominance require our armed forces to be regularly modernised.
• Kargil highlighted weakness of India’s higher defence control organisation, inadequacies in intelligence acquisition, assessment and surveillance capabilities, and in border surveillance. Post war half-hearted tinkering done in the higher defence organisation has made no impact. In fact, civil-military relations have further deteriorated.

At the tactical and operational levels, some lessons were:

• All units and formations require a certain minimum period of re-orientation when there is a change in their role and operational environment.
• Assaulting troops must have up-to-date information of the terrain.
• When troops are required to scale heights, and still be fit enough for a ‘hand to hand’ fight, physical fitness gains paramount importance. So, a young profile of officers and men in combat units is vital.
• There is much greater need for artillery as the movement in high altitude mountains is very slow.
• Logistics bases have to be located as far forward as possible with multiple means of transportation.

We have since Siachenised the LoC. Can we afford to? Is it good military tactics?Pakistan had not only destroyed the Lahore Agreement signed only two months earlier, but also all trust and confidence-building measures since the Simla Agreement. Under these circumstances, and when no deterrent and pro-active defence policy is followed by India, the military has no option but to increase density of troops along the LoC. It was later revealed that there was a lack of synergy between the three Services. Why was that? How did it impact our war fighting ability?A joint military strategy is extremely important. In terms of attitude and defence organisations, we have not paid adequate attention to this aspect even now. There were initial hiccups during the Kargil War but after 24 May 1999, there was no synergy problem.Did we capture and return any Pakistani soldiers during or after the war?We captured eight Pakistani regular soldiers – four from 5 Northern Light Infantry, two from 33 Frontier Force, and one each from 19 Frontier Force and 24 Sind battalions. After the war, they were returned to Pakistan. Interestingly, our defence attaché in London was approached for the body of a young Pakistani officer, Captain Taimur Malik of the Special Service Group, attached to the 3 Northern Light Infantry, who had been killed at Point 5770. Taimur’s grandfather, who was living in London wanted his request to be conveyed to me. On receipt of this message, we got young Taimur’s and other bodies exhumed. The bodies were then returned. When the war ended, we handed over 10 bodies of Pakistani soldiers to them in the Dras sector. But the Pakistani army refused to accept bodies of around 200 soldiers recovered in the areas re-captured by us as it would have exposed Pakistan’s perfidy.

Havildar Hangpang Dada

Tribune News Service

Srinagar, May 27

Havildar Hangpang Dada, a native of Tirap in Arunachal Pradesh, on Friday succumbed to his injuries sustained in an encounter in Nowgam sector yesterday, but not before etching his name in the Army’s annals of bravery.The 36-year-old led his team in killing three militants in a gunfight close to the Line of Control after the Army foiled an infiltration bid at Tutmar Gali in the Nowgam sector, 120 km north-west of Srinagar, before sustaining fatal injuries.Havildar Dada served in the Army for 19 years and is survived by his wife and two children. Enrolled in the Assam Regiment in 1997, he was posted with 35 Rashtriya Rifles. “He showed courage and bravery. Before succumbing to injuries, he eliminated foreign terrorists,” Maj Gen JS Nain, General Officer Commanding of the Baramulla-based 19 Infantry Division, said, adding that the 20-hour operation had been called off with the killing of another militant today.“The operation was conducted in tough conditions at an altitude of 11,000-12,000 feet. It was raining and snowing,” he said. “We recovered a large quantity of arms, ammunition, radio sets, winter clothing, food items and mountaineering equipment,” he added.The gunfight erupted on Thursday morning when Armymen observed the movement of a group of militants. The identity of the slain ultras and the group they were affiliated to was yet to be ascertained. Over 40 militants have managed to infiltrate into Kashmir this year so far, higher than the figure of 35 for last year.Army officials said Dada was seriously injured as the militants were perched higher up on the mountains.In a separate gunfight, two militants of the Hizbul Mujahideen were killed in north Kashmir’s Kunzer area in Baramulla district today. The gunfight erupted at Kanchipora in Tangmarg, 35 km from Srinagar,.“They were given an offer to surrender, which they refused. They fired at the joint search parties and an encounter ensued in which three militants died,” said a police officer.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaking at a rally to mark the second anniversary of the NDA government at the Centre, in Saharanpur on Thursday. — ANI photo

Saharanpur, May 26

Citing shortage of doctors, Prime Minister Narendra Modi today announced raising the age of retirement of government doctors to 65 years and said the Union Cabinet will give its nod to the decision this week.In a rally to observe the second anniversary of his government, Modi said there is a need for more doctors across the country but it was not possible to fill the gap in two years of his government.The decision will cover all government doctors whether serving under states or the Central dispensation, he said.”There is a shortage of doctors. In government hospitals, their retirement is 60 years in some states, 62 in some others. If adequate number of medical institutes were there, then we would have more doctors and would not feel the shortage. It is difficult to make doctors in two years but poor families cannot be forced to live without doctors.”Therefore from Uttar Pradesh, I want to announce this to my countrymen that this week our government’s Cabinet will take a decision and the retirement age of our doctors, whether in states or government of India, would be made 65 years instead of 60 or 62,” he said.It will allow doctors to serve patients and provide education for a longer period, he said, adding that his government is also working fast to have more medical colleges to have more doctors in the field.Modi’s announcement came after he appealed to doctors to serve poor pregnant women for free on each ninth day of every month, saying it will contribute to his government’s efforts to deal with illness among the poor.If one crore families can give up on LPG subsidy, then Modi said he is sure doctors can serve poor expectant women for 12 days in a year, he said. — PTI 

The Tejas LCA, India’s indigenously developed light combat aircraft, which continues to be under development for the last three decades, is a compromised aircraft and has only 35 per cent indigenous components. The induction schedule has been revised several times from the initial 1995 deadline.

A file photo of the Tejas aircraft performing during the inauguration of the Aero India at Yelhanka air base in Bengaluru. PTI

In Sanskrit, tejas, the name given to India’s indigenously developed light combat aircraft (LCA), means brilliance. On May 17, Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha announced that the Indian Air Force (IAF) would induct its first squadron of Tejas in July, while giving the thumbs up after flying its trainer version. Much as this news may seem to be “brilliant”, the fact is that this hugely delayed aircraft is yet to get its final operational clearance which is currently rescheduled for December this year. Worse, the Tejas Mark-I (Mk-I) is a heavily compromised aircraft with significantly reduced operational capability. Besides, the IAF’s first Tejas squadron will comprise a mere four aircraft, that is one-fourth the normal size of a fighter squadron, which will be only high on symbolism and undoubtedly far from tejas (brilliant).   The LCA’s long journey began over three decades ago in 1983 when the government sanctioned the project followed by the constituting of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) in June 1984. In October 1985, the IAF issued its list of requirements needed in the aircraft with a demand for 240 LCAs, including 20 trainers to be inducted by 1994. The LCA was supposed to replace the ageing Soviet-origin MiG-21s, the mainstay of the IAF, which were then scheduled to be phased out in the 1990s.  Incidentally, the LCA was conceived just as the IAF was retiring India’s first indigenously developed fighter — the Hindustan Fighter (HF)-24, also known as Marut. The government then did not consider it worthy to upgrade and develop further variants of the HF-24 which had been conceived in 1955, designed by a reputed German aeronautical engineer (Kurt Tank), first test flown in 1961 and which later saw action in the 1971 Indo-Pak war. Instead, this aerodynamically well-designed single-seat twin-engine but under-powered ground attack aircraft was retired in 1985. The ADA thus started from scratch.The LCA, as is the case with all major defence research and development projects, is a mind-boggling case study of delays, slippages, compromise and mismanagement (despite some hard work) that continues till date. There are two other disconcerting realities about the Tejas. First, the aircraft is far from indigenous, with only 35 per cent made in India and 65 per cent components sourced from overseas (mostly American and Israeli), making it an import-dependent aircraft. In fact, every major component starting from the engine and flight-control system to armaments is of foreign origin.  Second, the Tejas Mk-I has significant shortfalls, with 53 waivers and concessions. These shortfalls include lower engine thrust, higher weight, limited fuel capacity in the absence of drop tanks, markedly deficient self-protection jammers which limit its electronic warfare capability and the absence of Radar Warning Receivers and Counter Measures Dispensing System to name a few. Neither are there any certified trainer aircraft to train pilots. This has reduced the aircraft’s operational capability and survivability, thereby limiting its operational utilisation. Although these shortcomings are expected to be overcome in the Mk-II version currently scheduled to be completed by December 2018, it could, however, take longer to complete considering the track record. Consider the following: The LCA’s first flight was originally scheduled for 1991, only to be revised to 1996, 1999 and 2000, before being first test flown in January 2001. Similarly, the induction schedule has been revised several times from the initial 1995 to 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2012 and now 2018 (for the Mk-II), by when 35 years would have elapsed. In the meantime, owing to the inordinate delay in the development of the LCA, the government has already spent Rs 20,000 crore for upgrading 125 Soviet-origin MiG-21 Bis and 62 MiG-29 fighters, 61 British-origin Jaguar strike aircraft and the French Mirage-2000 even as the IAF’s squadron strength has fallen from the sanctioned 42 to 33, with all MiG-23, MiG-25 and several MiG-21 squadrons having been retired. There are several reasons behind the delay of the LCA. Apart from a period of post-May 1998 nuclear test sanctions, among the most notable has been India’s inability to develop several key components which has necessitated design changes and purchases from overseas. This includes the failure to develop the Kaveri engine (started in 1989 with unending deadline revision to 1996, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2012 and currently unknown along with a cost escalation from the original Rs 383 crore to Rs 2,839 crore as of December 2009). This has necessitated a design modification each in the Mk-I variant for the American General Electric F-404 engine and in Mk-II for the F-414 engine. The ADA was unable to develop the Multi-Mode Radar for tracking multiple targets (original deadline December 1997, with a deal for co-development with Israel finally signed in June 2009), the Flight Control System Actuators (currently American), Radome (British) and the Multi-Functional Display System (Israeli), among several other critical items. The IAF too ended up causing a delay of over seven years because it wanted changes in the armament: the Israeli R 73E close combat missile instead of the R-60; integration of the Israeli Derby and Python-5 beyond visual range missile; addition of the Russian 500 kg M-62 bombs; and a Counter Measures Dispensing System. Some of these features and armaments are yet to be incorporated in the Mk-I.  One hopes that the Tejas will not meet the same fate as that of the import-dependent “indigenous” Arjun tank which was conceived over four decades ago in 1974. Only 124 of the Arjun Mk-I are in service, while the Army still awaits the Mk-II. Clearly, the ADA with its 152 work centres engaged in developing the LCA needs to put in more tejas (brilliance) in developing the Tejas.

dkumar@tribunemail.com

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, May 20

The Ministry of Defence has set up an 11-member committee headed by a retired Lieutenant General to suggest major structural changes in the Army, IAF and the Navy, like cutting down on “flab” and reducing day-to-day expenses.This will entail doing away with posts that may have become redundant due to technology and ensuring that modernisation or addition of new equipment does not mean a corresponding rise in numbers for the force.Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has ordered the committee to report in three months. It is headed by Lt Gen BD Sheketkar (retd), its nine other members are retired officers and its member-secretary is a Joint Secretary-level officer. The Tribune had first reported on May 2 that the MoD would set up a panel to reduce flab. The three forces have been consulted and asked to project what all can be done away with.

New fighter jet may be Rafale, Boeing or Eurofighter

• The government is yet to decide on which fighter jet will be ‘made in India’. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said it could be the French origin Rafale, the F-18 from Boeing, the Eurofighter from Airbus or the Gripen from Sweden
• In an interview to the state broadcaster, Parrikar said the decision on the type of multi-role fighter jets would be taken during this financial year

Ajay Banerjee

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, May 18

Amid tension between China and the US over the dispute in the South China Sea, a flotilla of Indian Navy warships today set sail on a long deployment and a set of exercises with countries that are in dispute with China.The flotilla will also participate in the India-US-Japan Malabar exercise to be hosted by Japan at Sasebo —a port city on the East China Sea —waters of which are contested between Japan and China.The Navy’s eastern fleet, under the command of Rear Admiral SV Bhokare, Flag Officer Commanding Eastern Fleet, sailed out today on a two-and-a-half month long operational deployment to the South China and North West Pacific.Groups of two warships each shall bifurcate from Port Blair onwards and make port calls at Cam Rahn Bay in Vietnam and Subic Bay in The Philippines. On the return, the warships will visit Port Klang in Malaysia.All three countries, along with Brunei and Taiwan, are in a dispute with China over the demarcation of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the sea. The US Energy Administration estimates that 11 billion barrels (bbl) of oil reserves and 190 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas reserves lie buried under the South China Sea-bed. The US Geological Survey “world petroleum resources assessment” has arrived at as-yet undiscovered estimates of an additional five-to-22 billion barrels of oil and between 70-to-290 Tcf of gas to be under the South China Sea. India has interest in two oil blocks off the Vietnam coast.This is not the first time that the Indian Navy has sent off its flotilla to the South China Sea. The four-ship Indian flotilla will rendezvous somewhere in the South China Sea and set sail for Sasebo—the Japanese port city on the East China Sea. The Malabar exercise will be conducted in the East China Sea. From here, one warship shall be deputed to Hawaii, the headquarters of the all powerful US Pacific Command for a separate set of sea exercises. The remaining three ships will visit Busan in South Korea and Vladivostok in Russia.The warship in Hawaii shall return to India in mid-August while the remaining three will return in July-end after touching base at Malaysia. Indigenously built guided missile stealth frigates, INS Satpura and INS Sahyadri, are part of the fleet.

China for India in SCO

• China on Wednesday said it backed the entry of India and Pakistan into the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
• It was willing to work with other members to complete the procedures for their accession, it said PTI

D. Suba Chandran
There has been a vitriolic public debate in Pakistani media that includes accusing India for attempting to sabotage the sale of F-16s. What are the issues and where lies the problem? Will Pakistan succeed in getting the F-16s from the US?

A file photo of US President Barack Obama with Pakistan”s PM Nawaz Sharif in the White House. REUTERS

F-16 fighter aircraft have become the latest bone of contention in the volatile Pakistan-US relations. During the last month, there have been a series of statements, demands, counter demands, threats and carrots, both from the US and Pakistan. The sale of eight American F-16s to Pakistan has been plaguing the relations between the countries, primarily due to American demands on Pakistan “to do more in Afghanistan”, differences within the US between the State Department, White House and the Congress, and (more importantly) who would foot the bill for the sale. While the first two seem to be getting addressed since February 2016, the sale is stuck with the last question: Should it be paid by the Pakistanis in full ($700 million) or be subsidised by American aid. Pakistan is willing to pay up to $270 million for the eight F-16s, but wants the rest to be covered by the US Foreign Military Funds. The F-16s, now manufactured by Lockheed Martin, is state-of-art, all-weather multi-role fighter aircraft. Pakistan has placed an order for eight such aircraft, primarily to augment its air power, obviously vis-a-vis India. As a country, Pakistan has every right to structure its threat perceptions and pursue strategies to address them. In case of any military confrontation with India, Pakistan would need a quick strategic push in the initial days/hours; air superiority is essential for such an early but decisive strike vis-a-vis India. Else, the sheer size of Indian military machinery would bulldoze Pakistan in any long-drawn confrontation. If Pakistan has to lose any initial advantage, it would then have to fall back on nuclear options, which is a risky proposition. Pakistan’s need for F-16s is obvious. But the cost of eight F-16s ($700 million) is substantial. While the country’s political leaders and others may have looted Pakistan and stocked the funds offshore, as the Panama Papers would reveal. They do not want to pay for the purchase from their national kitty. (According to Panama Papers, not only political leaders such as Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan have offshore investments, even scientists such as AQ Khan possess them). Pakistan would rather want that the entire sale of eight F-16s from the US to be heavily subsidised by Washington, as part of the American aid to Islamabad, with no conditions attached. From the American side, there are serious questions. First, there is a problem between the institutions. While the State Department would want to go ahead with the deal (by subsidising the sale through the American Foreign Military Fund, so that Pakistan ends up paying only $270 million), the Congress has serious objections. With a Republican majority, the debates within the US Congress in recent years have become nuanced and shrill vis-a-vis Pakistan. They demand accountability from Pakistan in terms of its policies and actions vis-a-vis Afghanistan, and the GHQ-ISI role in the War against Terrorism. Since 2001, during the last 15 years, Pakistan has lost many of its friends in the Congress. It is today seen as undependable. Since the US has substantially invested in Pakistan through military aid, both the Congressmen and the Senators have been repeatedly asking for accountability for the American funds provided and end results in fighting all the militant groups in the Af-Pak region, including the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani network. Obama’s descent (and thereby the White House’s) in the American foreign policy and his disillusionment with Pakistan (as could be observed from some of his recent statements) has not helped Pakistan’s case in the US Congress.Despite this, the US Congress could still be persuaded to support the F-16 deal — meaning subsidise the sale through American aid. For that, the US Congress would want solid promises by Pakistan supported by actions in the ground in fighting all militant groups and helping the US achieve peace in Afghanistan. But for Pakistan, such a “precondition” is unacceptable. It wants the F-16s. And it wants them to be subsidised by US aid, with no conditions. As a response, Pakistan is pursuing a strategy that would only further rupture its relations with the US. First, there is an un-informed debate (perhaps purposefully fuelled), based on Pakistan’s national pride and sacrifices in the War on Terrorism. A section tries to project that the US is trying to “get” Pakistan and make it subservient to Washington’s regional strategy. The following is from an editorial in a leading newspaper: “Pakistan is expected to deliver peace in Afghanistan, allow Balochistan to secede and accept Indian hegemony and it is expected to do so meekly and immediately.” There have also been reports linking India to have played a role in scuttling the deal. One of the leading newspapers in its editorial cartoon, projected Modi as a bigger anaconda and Obama as a smaller viper, saying “yes boss”. Such projections and “back- stabbing” narratives will further increase the anti-American sentiments. Perhaps, it is a calculated assault to convince the “naive” Americans that they have to do something to arrest the anti-American sentiments. Else, the jihadis will cash in on these.Second, as Sartaj Aziz proclaimed that Pakistan would look elsewhere, if the US blocks the deal. According to him, “If the US arranges funds, Pakistan will get the F-16s from them, otherwise we will opt for jets from some other place.” True, there are other options for Pakistan — France and Russia — but will they help Pakistan by subsidising? Sukhoi can be a replacement for F-16, but will the Russians be willing to sell at a subsidised cost? Or, will China be able to underwrite?The best option for Pakistan will be to provide few promises silently to the US, and take fewer military actions at the ground level. And to use those friendly elements in the State Department to convince the US Congress that Pakistanis are doing enough, so the sale could be subsidised or perhaps, bargained further. This is the most likely scenario. Unless, the US Congress backed by an increasingly hostile media (vis-a-vis Pakistan), scuttles the deal completely. That means an entire different scenario, with a tougher road ahead for US and Pakistan.The writer is a Professor at National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bangalore.

Beijing, May 16

Asking the US to respect the efforts by China and India to resolve their boundary dispute peacefully, a top Chinese official on Monday said the two nations are wise enough to deal with it after the Pentagon accused Beijing of deploying more troops along the Sino-India borders.

“The Chinese side is committed to safeguarding peace and tranquility of the border areas between China and India and resolving the boundary question through negotiation with India,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a written response to PTI here about a Pentagon report alleging that Beijing has increased defence capabilities and deployed more troops along the borders with India.

The US military report also warned of increasing Chinese military presence in various parts of the world, particularly in Pakistan.

“China and India are wise and capable enough to deal with this issue. It is hoped that other country would respect efforts made by China and India for the peaceful settlement of dispute, rather than the opposite,” the Foreign Ministry said, apparently referring to the US.

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for East Asia Abraham M Denmark had said that “we have noticed an increase in capability and force posture by the Chinese military in areas close to the border with India.” “It is difficult to conclude on the real intention behind this,” Denmark said on Saturday after submitting Pentagon’s annual 2016 report to the US Congress on ‘Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China’.

“It is difficult to say how much of this is driven by internal considerations to maintain internal stability, and how much of it is an external consideration,” he said in response to a question on China upgrading its military command in Tibet.

Yesterday, the Chinese Defence Ministry expressed “strong dissatisfaction” and “firm opposition” to the Pentagon report which also alleged that China is focusing on the militarisation of the artificial islands built by it in the disputed waters of the South China Sea in a bid to assert its control.

Skirting any references to allegations of increasing troops presence along the Sino-India border, the Defence Ministry accused the Pentagon’s annual report as misrepresentation of China’s military development.

The US, which has accused the Chinese military of lacking in transparency, deliberately distorted China’s defence policies and unfairly depicted China’s activities in the East China Sea and South China Sea, a statement issued by Chinese Defence Spokesman Col Yang Yujun said.

“China follows a national defence policy that is defensive in nature. Moves such as deepening military reforms and the military buildup are aimed at maintaining sovereignty, security and territorial integrity, and guaranteeing China’s peaceful development,” Yang said, adding that the US side has always been suspicious.

Yang stressed China’s construction on the Nansha Islands in the South China Sea serves mostly civilian purposes and helps fulfil its international responsibilities and obligations by providing more public goods.

The South China Sea has become a major flash point for military tensions between China and the US in recent years as Beijing which claims sovereignty over all most all of the South China sea sought to assert its claim by building artificial islands with military facilities.

The Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei and Taiwan contested China’s claims.

Backing the small states, the US has so far sent three warships through the waters around the artificial islands to asset the right for freedom navigation.

In his statement, Yang said it is the United States which has been flexing military muscles by frequently sending military aircraft and warships to the region. — PTI