18 jawans were missing after five security personnel were killed on Saturday in a fierce gunbattle with Naxals

On March 23, five personnel of the District Reserve Guard were killed and several were injured in an IED blast in Chhattisgarh. PTI file

Raipur, April 4

Police recovered bullet-riddled bodies of 17 jawans in the jungles of Chattisgarh on Monday, raising to 22 the number of security personnel killed in a fierce gunbattle with Naxals the previous day—the biggest massacre in more than a year that also left 30 injured.

Police also recovered the bodies of three jawans killed in the encounter, an official said, adding that a search operation is on in the forest.

The dead include personnel from the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), its elite unit CoBRA (Commando Battalion for Resolute Action) and the District Reserve Guard (DRG), the official said. It was not clear how many were from which unit.

Eighteen jawans were missing after five security personnel were killed on Saturday in the fierce gun battle with Naxals in a forest along the border between Bijapur and Sukma districts in Chhattisgarh, police had said.

“On Sunday, bodies of 17 missing personnel were recovered during a search operation,” the official said. Some weapons of the security forces were missing, he added.

In a major joint offensive, separate joint teams of security forces, comprising over 2,000 personnel, launched an anti-Naxal operation from Bijapur and Sukma districts in the South Bastar forests, considered as a Maoist stronghold, on Friday night.

The operation was launched from five places – Tarrem, Usoor and Pamed (in Bijapur), and Minpa and Narsapuram (in Sukma), the official said.

When the patrolling team dispatched from Tarrem was advancing through the forest near Jonaguda, around 500 km from the state capital Raipur, it was ambushed by cadres of PLGA (Peoples’ Liberation Guerilla Army) battalion of Maoists and a gun-battle ensued, he said.

Chhattisgarh’s Deputy Inspector General (anti-Naxal operation) O P Pal on Saturday said some jawans, both from the police and paramilitary, were reported missing after the encounter, adding efforts were on to trace them.

Pal had claimed that the Maoists suffered a huge loss in the gunfight. Only the body of a woman Naxal could be recovered from the spot amid heavy exchange of fire.

The attack comes close on the heels of the March 23 incident when five DRG personnel were killed as the Maoists blew up a bus carrying the security personnel with an IED in Narayanpur district of the state.

On March 21 last year, 17 security personnel were killed in a Naxal ambush in Minpa area of Sukma district.

On April 9, 2019, BJP MLA Bhima Mandavi and four security personnel were killed after Naxals blew up their vehicle with an IED in Dantewada district.

On April 24, 2017, 25 CRPF personnel were killed in a Naxal ambush in Burkapal area of Sukma district.

In March 2017, 12 CRPF jawans were killed in a Maoist attack in Sukma district.

In November 2016, two CRPF jawans were injured in a pressure bomb blast triggered by Naxals in the dense forest of Sukma district.

In March 2016, a powerful landmine blast struck a truck filled with para-military soldiers in Raipur district, killing seven policemen.

As many as 14 of the 27 districts in Chhattisgarh are affected by Left Wing Extremism violence.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Sunday spoke to Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel and took stock of the situation following the incident, officials said.

Shah also directed CRPF’s Director General Kuldiep Singh to visit Chhattisgarh to assess the situation.

The Union home minister condoled the death of the security personnel in the encounter and said their valour will never be forgotten. The government will continue its fight against the enemies of peace and progress, he added.

President Ram Nath Kovind expressed deep anguish over the death of the security personnel.

“The killing of the security personnel while battling Maoist insurgency in Chhattisgarh is a matter of deep anguish.

My condolences to the bereaved families. The nation shares their pain and will never forget this sacrifice,” he tweeted.

Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra also expressed grief over the death of the security personnel.

“Sadly, Prime Minister and Home Minister Amit Shah are too busy electioneering to take on the menace of Naxalism. TV proclamations ain’t enough. We need to put a decisive strategy and blueprint,” Congress chief spokesperson Randeep Surjewala tweeted. PTI

These precision strike combat drones can be used to strike terror targets deep inside Pakistan
by Ahyousha Khan
Quite recently, on March 12, 2021, the first-ever leaders’ summit of the Quadrilateral Framework was virtually held. During this high-level summit, the leaders from the US, India, Japan, and Australia discussed the policy regarding Indo-Pacific; a region where all these four nations consider China as their common adversary.
Discussion on emerging technologies, technological exchange, maritime security, and resilient supply chains also took place. This summit has set the template for the Biden Administration regarding China and its Indo-Pacific strategy as well. In particular, it seems that in the future US-India cooperation under the Indo-Pacific strategy would grow significantly. Moreover, with growing political commitments in the US and India, the security and strategic relationship between the two countries would likely grow further.
Recently, both states have concluded the “foundational defence agreements”, which solved the legal issues in the operationalization of defence cooperation. These agreements and subsequent technological transfer from the US to India would create an adverse impact on the strategic stability of South Asia. Specifically, this becomes even more relevant when the regional security environment of South Asia is very much affected by the Pulwama-Balakot crisis and the revocation of articles 370 and 35A by India in 2019. Even though both states have recently agreed to adhere to the ceasefire on LOC, the core issue of Kashmir is still unresolved.
After the Quadrilateral Summit, US Defence Secretary, Lloyd Austin visited India and both countries agreed to further increase their military cooperation. It is quite noteworthy that both the countries have already signed military cooperation agreements such as LEMOA, COMCASA, and most recently BECA to eliminate the legal and operability challenges in the military, defence, and security cooperation.
Furthermore, India has been granted STA-1 status by the US so that it could access dual-use technology from the US. India is the first South Asian and third Asian nation to ever have that status. Under these agreements, India would be able to procure military dual-use technologies from the US. This in turn would give it a significant technological edge over its regional counterparts. In this regard, India’s acquisition of drone technology from the US is quite significant. Very recently, the Indian government has decided to buy 30 predator drones from the US amid growing tensions with China and Pakistan. With China, India was involved in serious border clashes last year; India is also competing with China in the Indian Ocean.
The $3 billion worth drone procurement would be approved next month; as per the deal, India would acquire 30 armed MQ-9B Predator drones, built by General Atomics of the US. These predator drones have the endurance to fly for about 48 hours and can carry a payload of about 1700 kilograms. Furthermore, they can be equipped with laser-guided ammunition in addition to air-to-surface missiles and can carry sensors. According to the Indian media reports, the drones once acquired would be used by both the Indian Navy and Indian Army. The navy would use it to monitor the movement of Chinese vessels in the South Indian Ocean, while the Indian Army would use it to engage the targets along the disputed border between Pakistan and India. Previously, the US offered India sea guardian drones, which were not armed and to be used for intelligence and surveillance. However, during the recent border crises with China and Pakistan which proved to be an embarrassment for India at the military level, all three tri-services of India agreed to procure armed drones, where 10 of these would be distributed among them.
Furthermore, with China; it seems that India’s only aim is surveillance due to fear of reprisal. However, vis-à-vis Pakistan ceasefire at the LOC does not reflect any serious commitment; rather India is interested in engaging with Pakistan along the LOC. This Indian quest is seemingly in-line with its much-hyped military doctrine of “Cold Start” and ideas of “surgical strikes”. Such technological advancements also imply that India is continuously and deliberately moving towards acquiring more options for so-called “pre-emption”.
India is adamant on these views that it can exploit the levels below the nuclear threshold, whenever it wants. In this regard, Pakistan has always voiced its apprehensions over the transfer of armed drones to India, with concern that India is only playing ‘China Card’ and ultimately it would use this technology against Pakistan.
Hence, to ensure its security and maintain strategic stability in the region, Pakistan would be compelled to acquire or build different emerging technologies such as hypersonic weapons, armed drones, submarines, and 5th generation air crafts. Procurement of armed drones and ISR assistance under the agreements like BECA would further enhance India’s ability to go for a pre-emptive strike under the sense of overconfidence. This would further impact the already fragile strategic stability in the region. Moreover, Pakistan’s goal is not to acquire strategic parity with India but just to maintain strategic balance in the region, which is tilting in India’s favour due to constant support from the US. Last but not the least, in the case of future technologies, like drones it appears more of a compulsion for Pakistan to invest in them after a clear analysis of its resources and objectives.
Ahyousha Khan, Research Associate, Strategic Vision Institute, Islamabad

The leaders of the Kashmir-centric political parties have gone overboard with the prospect of peace with our immediate neighbour and the global hub of jihadi terror Pakistan. Backing Pakistan Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa’s call for ‘Indo-Pak talks’, PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti has said that the Indian government should initiate talks with Pakistan. “The government should understand the way of peace talks goes through the Kashmir issue. We cannot reach peace without resolving the Kashmir issue”, she said. Speaking in the similar vein National Conference leader Omar Abdullah said, “We have always said that good relations between these two countries is not good for Jammu and Kashmir but for whole south Asia. It’s good that both countries instead of threatening each other are talking. We have heard that there are secret talks going only we wish that the day come they talk openly there are lot of issues including Jammu and Kashmir. We want they all are solved by talks.” The reasons for their optimism are well understood because their political survival for the decades in past had depended on the Pakistan bogey. There is a convergence in the views of Pakistan and Kashmiri leadership because soft-separatism and sub-nationalism has always been the ideological hall-mark of these political parties. But the moot point is can Pakistan be trusted?
It all began in the last week of February when the DGMOs of the two Armies agreed to observe ceasefire on the Line of Control (LoC) in tune with the 2003 ceasefire agreement. Then the two statements one after the other made during the first edition of the Islamabad Security Dialogue organised by Pakistan Security Division in collaboration with the country’s leading think-tankson 17-18 March expressing explicit desire for peace with India took many by surprise since the statements came from none other than the Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff of Pakistan. Since then, endless debate has begun in the media in both the countries with each claiming peace to be compulsion of the other country. While the entire world knows the truth it has become necessary for Pakistan to beat the drum to satisfy the hardliners. Pakistan for long has pushed aside geo-economics in favour of exploiting its geo-strategic location. Its dwindling economy and near bankruptcy has forced its leadership including military albeit temporarily to resume trade with India which requires normalcy of relations which had been brought to its nadir by Pakistan post abrogation of 370 by unilaterally withdrawing its High Commissioner and suspension of trade with India.
There was inherent contradiction between the statements of the two Pakistanis. While Imran Khan made a little variation to his earlier stated position on 05 March while addressing the Solidarity Day function at Muzaffarabad wherein he said that Pakistan would not talk to India till the restoration of Article 370 in Kashmir, he still stuck to resolution of Kashmir issue as a prerequisite for peace talks. “There is one issue that is stopping us [from improving relations] at this time. We will make our efforts but India must take the first step because after August 5, till they take the first step, then unfortunately we cannot move forward,” Imran Khan said. The next day his Chief of Army Staff said, it was time for India and Pakistan to “bury the past and move forward” as he asserted that the peace between the two neighbours would help to “unlock” the potential of South and Central Asia. He further added that the initiative has to come from India. Though he also referred to Kashmir, he did not mention it as a core issue and said that the peaceful resolution of the issue can lead to lasting peace in the region. Immediately, after the 25 February ceasefire offer, India had made it very clear that onus lies with Pakistan to create a conducive atmosphere for any peace talks by reiterating its well –known stand of “terror and talks” can’t go together. Qamar Bajwa did make a reference to Pakistan changing its strategy from ‘geopolitics’ to ‘geo-economics’. But Pakistan yet has to walk the talk. From all available inputs there might have been a change in thinking of the Pakistani brass and leadership but there are no visible indicators of any change in its “anti-India strategy.”
PM Modi in his customary congratulatory letter to his Pakistani counterpart on the occasion of 70th National Day did acknowledge the need of peace between the two neighbours, India’s consistent and established stand. But he also minced no words in conveying India’s concern for continued support by Pakistan to cross-border terror, the root cause of the hostile relations between the two countries. He wrote “India wants “cordial” relations with the neighbouring country but for that, it’s important to develop an “environment of trust” which is “devoid” of terror.” Post 05 August 2019, India has made its stand clear on the so-called “Kashmir Issue” by making it clear to the global community that dispute regarding to Kashmir is restricted to the illegal occupation of the 2/3rd territory of the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir referred to as Azad Kashmir and POJK by India.
But from the response of PM Imran Khan, it has become obvious that the offer of peace by Pakistan is a sheer façade and Pakistan is just buying time to have a breather necessitated due to compelling military and economic reasons at home. He has tried to put the ball back in India’s court. Imran Khan has written to our PM Narendra Modi for creating an ‘enabling environment’ suited for a constructive and result-oriented dialogue to resolve outstanding issues between the two neighbours, including Jammu and Kashmir issue. For a change he has used the phrase “including Jammu & Kashmir” instead of it being the core issue and no headway can be made without its resolution first. May be Qamar Bajwa, for whom the breather is mandatory, has been able to prevail upon the Khan so that he can continue unabatedly to refurbish and rebuild his army and its assets on the LoC where it has received a thorough battering from the Indian Army.
Another thing to remember is that Pakistan has yet not given up terrorism as an instrument of state policy. Through its proxies it continues to support terror in Kashmir and is reported to be spreading the network of sleeper cells in our hinterland and the North East. Pakistan Army is feverishly using the ceasefire period to upgrade its infrastructure on the LoC including establishing new forward posts as well as preparing gun areas and ammunition points/dumps in the villages in depth in the close vicinity of the LoC. It is also learnt that Pakistani Army with the help of PLA is constructing tunnels in the posts for living shelters and ammunition storage. It would also provide them added protection during a nuclear attack. In addition it is also procuring from China modern military hardware as well as force multipliers like drones and surveillance systems.
Even going by the past, there appears to be many similarities. Pakistan Army continues to treat India as an existential threat. In the past similar ceasefire offers and need for peace overtures had been made by the Pakistani Chiefs but they lasted as long as Pakistan needed the peace. Unilateral abrogation and violation of the ceasefire agreements have been the hall-mark of unstable Indo-Pak relations. There is nothing different so far to trust Pakistan.

India’s border area with China is of little geopolitical significance to the main actors
Since President Joe Biden assumed office in the US, there has been a flurry of activity around China. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Defence Secretary Austin recently concluded their tours of Asia holding talks with allies on issues ranging from the Indo-Pacific and Taiwan to a re-oriented Quad. It would seem that vital Asian countries are being wooed to shape the US’ ‘strategic competition’ with China.
In meetings with Indian counterparts, while the US officials have designated India as a close partner, there has rarely been a public acknowledgement of India’s main stress points with China. These include recent border skirmishes, weaponization of water resources, the Sino-Pakistan ‘unholy alliance’ on India’s borders and the massive trade, dumping and economic issues. In fact, US-India divergences on key issues (Russia, Af-Pak region) are also quite pronounced and China knows this.
Thus, while globally Taiwan, maritime disputes, Japan and Korea are the West’s red lines for China — India is the line that China will try to keep crossing. The main reasons for this are:
The global commitment of the Western bloc to India’s actual issues concerning China has traditionally been weak though efforts are being made to address India’s concerns. India’s border area with China is of little geopolitical significance to the main actors. Pakistan, which is as of now China’s closest ally, is vital to the US’s Af-Pak strategy, too.
Foreign Policy Ethos
Despite attempts to take tough stands, dependence on Pakistan will continue, complicating India’s western border position. Indian foreign policy ethos governed by its unique geopolitical realities and years of non-partisanship remains largely led by independent decisions that resist coalescence to any ‘camp’.
The second aspect relates to the compulsions of the Indian political system that the Chinese seem to have understood. Democratic power in India is based mainly on winning elections requiring big, symbolic gestures/announcements not conducive to ‘clandestine’ foreign policy manoeuvres. Every policy is sold as a ‘vote getter’ with immediate tangible results, whether it is border conflicts, surgical strikes, or ban on countries. The result has been an ethos skewing long-term strategy in favour of short-term gains and moving on to the next big thing.
China holds India’s key pulse points and though there is recognition and work towards freeing some of these chains, India is a long way away in terms of a coherent strategy. From crucial raw materials (active pharmaceutical ingredients, solar panels, rare earth metals), capital for entrepreneurs, to hold over water resources, the Chinese are ahead of us at the moment. While Indian defence forces can hold their own against most adversaries in a conventional battle, today’s wars are about technology, 5G, cyber warfare and, of course, trade and economics battles — all spheres in which China has an edge.
So, what does India need to do to equip itself for these Chinese disruptions? Here, the immediate goals need to be upped:
Re-align our economics and politics: India’s economic sector is currently poised at a critical juncture. For example, with the Covid recovery in sight, India remains a market that offers strengths — an entrepreneurial spirit unleashed further by Covid disruptions in traditional job sectors and a considerable investor interest (international and local) in key value propositions.
Combine this with a sense of ‘Atmanirbharta’, where people show a willingness to make, buy and use Indian goods. Now is the time to exploit the opportunities to realign key areas of supply chains rather than impose short-term sanctions or embargoes on imports from China.
The political class needs to realise that it cannot sacrifice India’s perceived strengths — the democratic system, an open questioning of government policies and consensus-based decision making — at the altar of politics. Whether it is the farm laws steamrollered through Parliament, unfair rules on IT, efforts to crush dissent — these need to be calibrated.
The most important is that the government needs to strategize China’s weak points to make them bargaining chips. A fresh perspective on Pakistan is not a bad idea as a major disquiet develops in the rungs of its leadership at being reduced to China’s vassal state. India needs to re-align its foreign policy toward the Indian ocean neighbours which have faced the brunt of Chinese diplomacy — a two-way strategy of infrastructure development, defence ties, resource coordination and trade and investment needs to be fostered.
This requires an overarching institution that coordinates action with ministries, the PMO, the private sector and, most importantly, with critical technology experts. In the meantime, India needs to spell out clear leverage points with Western allies. India’s participation in the Quad or access to our defence market must come with concrete guarantees — for example, CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) exemptions for India’s purchase of weapons from Russia.

From the Chinese point of view, the Indian Army, police and businessmen were part of an oppressive gang that kept China down through much of the 19th and 20th centuries. The military humiliation heaped upon India in 1962 had as much to do with China claiming the Tibetan highlands as its territory as it was to communicate to the Chinese people that they need not fear the aggressive Indians any more.

Border fracas: Only the demonstration of a confident ability to protect the nation has restricted the Chinese desire to teach India another lesson. Reuters

M Rajivlochan

HistorianAdvertisementhttps://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.448.1_en.html#goog_1446472385Powered By The Tribune x eReleGo

India’s confrontation with China is not yet over. China is brimming with nationalist energy. Its booming economy, the pride that the people have in their ability to fight off the Covid pandemic, has only increased the assertiveness of the nationalist Chinese. Unaware of the transformations taking place in China, Indian thought leaders are still busy with meaningless identity politics, when they are making efforts to seek approval of the developed western nations and thinkers.

From the Chinese point of view, the Indian Army, policemen and businessmen, were part of an oppressive colonial gang that kept China down through much of the 19th and early 20th centuries. A few gestures of kindness such as that by Dr Kotnis during the 1930s continue to be appreciated in China, but China also remembers the use of Indian forces in the Opium Wars and the domineering Sikh policemen in Canton, Hong Kong, Macao and Nanking. The military humiliation heaped upon India in 1962 had as much to do with China claiming the Tibetan highlands as its territory as it was to communicate to the Chinese people that they need not fear the tall and aggressive Indians any more. Since then, China has built up its nationalist narrative much more firmly.

Few Indians, whether nationalist, anti-nationalist or extra-nationalists, realise that all nations are artificial constructs. At what point the people who constitute a nation would decide that they wish to live together, as happened for instance in the UK in the 18th century, and in France, Italy and Germany in the 19th century, is a matter of historical contingencies that forge such a will. At what point people decide they no longer wish to live together, as in the case of the USSR and Yugoslavia in the 20th century, is also a matter of popular will. It is the will to live together that is important.

The noteworthy thing is that China is even more culturally, linguistically and religiously diverse than is India. What we know as the ‘Han’ that is supposed to be the majority in China, was before the 20th century merely a term used to denote a civilised person as opposed to the barbarians; much like the word ‘Arya’ is said to have been used in India before the Indians succumbed to the idea that ‘Arya’ stands for race. ‘Han — did not refer to an ethnic group. Modern Chinese scholars Zhang Lei and Kong Qingrongin, in their 1999 book Coherence of the Chinese Nation (Zhonghua Minzu Ningjulixue), write, “According to Confucianism, the distinction between ‘hua (xia)’ (civilised Han) and ‘yi’ (minority barbarians) was a cultural boundary rather than a racial and national boundary… The barbarian-civilised distinction did not indicate racial or national exclusiveness. Instead, it was a distinction involving differentiated levels of cultural achievement.”

Actually, the Han Chinese profess different religions (Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism etc) and speak different languages. For China, creating the idea of a nation was more important than affirming divisive personal identities. Sun Yat-sen talked as early as 1912 of the need to weld together different groups of people who lived in China even while China was splitting up into numerous independent units headed by warlords. The student rebellion of 1919, which goes by the name of the May Fourth Movement, was a nationalist upsurge against the Chinese elite siding with the Japanese. The Chinese Communist Party, once it came to power in 1948, took forward the nationalist line of thinking.

In the very first decade of communist rule in China, while on the one hand, the Chinese were paying homage to the Soviet idea of internationalism, they were also building up a strong sense of nationhood. The occupation of Tibet in 1951, just two years after China got rid of colonial domination, was but an assertion of an old historical presumption that the proper national territory of China extended from the Tibetan highlands in the west to the seas in the east. While Jawaharlal Nehru and his team of historians tried to find historical evidence to dismiss China’s claims, China had no hesitation in using military force to make its point.

Also, few in India realise that China is essentially made up of six major nationalities whose languages and cultural practices are mutually as different (and unintelligible) as the languages and cultural practices of different regions in India. What holds them all together is the historic belief that they all belong to one single civilisational entity.

India, on the other hand, found it difficult to assert that there could be an Indic reality. Indians have, since the so-called Bengal renaissance, tried hard to conform to European idea of a good society. Their popular notions of self-determination by ethnic and religious minorities are largely a product of trying to live up to the European ideals of 19th-century vintage.

For centuries before British occupation, the idea of different languages did not trouble India. Civilised people routinely spoke four to five languages. And yet, the first few days of the Constituent Assembly were spent in heated debates on deciding the appropriate language in which that august gathering could conduct its deliberations. The impasse was resolved only after it was agreed to conduct most of the discussions in English while promising not to force any one Indian language on everyone.

The import of a coeval fact was lost on most: that 566 Indian princes, with a combined military strength of over 200,000 well-equipped, battle-hardened soldiers, had little hesitation in accepting the sovereignty of the impoverished and helpless, independent Government of India, burdened by over 10 million displaced persons. These princes were essentially subcontractors for the colonial government. They had inherited their titles from a warlord who had been subjugated by the British a few decades ago. For reasons that are unclear, the departing British bequeathed to these sub-contractors the grand privilege of becoming ‘sovereign’ rulers of their lands. Many of the princes played for a few months with the idea of declaring themselves as independent nation-states. Yet, all but one of them quickly fell in line despite having a distinct administration, legal system, culture, language, and a battle-hardened army.

Since the crisis at Pangong Tso in 2020, we know that only the demonstration of a confident ability to protect the nation has restricted the Chinese desire to teach India another lesson. To underpin that ability, though, we need to work towards strengthening the bonds which hold Indians together rather than trying to strengthen the differences that exist in any normal society.

The Mahindra light specialist vehicle that the Army has placed orders for | Photo by special arrangementText Size: A- A+

New Delhi: After Bharat Forge and Mahindra, the TATA Group is set to bag a contract from the Indian Army for heavy armoured protection vehicles for its soldiers deployed in key sectors, ThePrint has learnt.

Sources in the defence and security establishment said the while the programmes to ensure better mobility and protection to infantry soldiers started years ago, the recent standoff with China has shown the need for the critical capability in inhospitable terrains.https://b265daf65b3ad2bdf02527cc6f797e81.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

The Indian capability was seen wanting in Ladakh where the Chinese displayed greater mobility, inducting and de-inducting troops from frontline areas faster as they used different kinds of vehicles for the infantry.

“The vehicles not only provide protection to the soldiers but also help in faster induction and de-induction,” a source said.

The Indian Army has now sped up the process for its own acquisition process.

The first to hit off the ground were M4 armoured vehicles, of South African origin, which were tested in Ladakh during the standoff with China.

Last month, the Ministry of Defence also signed a contract with Mahindra Defence Systems Ltd (MDSL) for a supply of 1,300 light specialist vehicles to the Indian Army, at a cost of Rs 1,056 crore.

Sources said there are two more programmes for procurement of special wheeled vehicles, one of which has TATA as the frontrunner.

However, in terms of units, the numbers are less than 100 vehicles when combined together, the sources said.

M4 and light specialist vehicles 

With the Army upgrading its mobility power, orders for 27 M4 armoured vehicles were placed in February with the Pune-based Bharat Forge of the Kalyani group, which has a tie-up with the South African firm Paramount Group.

The vehicles, a multi-role platform, designed to meet the requirements of the armed forces for quick mobility in rough terrain and in areas affected by mine and IED threats, are expensive as 27 of them cost Rs 177.95 crore.https://b265daf65b3ad2bdf02527cc6f797e81.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

Meanwhile, the 1,300 light specialist vehicles that Mahindra is to deliver in the next four years are authorised to various fighting units for carriage of medium machine guns, automatic grenade launchers as well as anti-tank guided missiles.

The Mahindra vehicles, in fact, beat a TATA platform to be selected.

“These vehicles are different from the M4 and are meant for specific operations. The Army is looking at different types of troop carrying wheeled vehicles which offer various grades of armoured protection,” another source in the defence establishment said.

Incidentally, certain specialised units of the Army have gone in for light strike vehicles (LSVs) from Force Motors that offer a lot of room for special operations as they can be air-dropped for operations deep inside enemy territory.

Also read: Standoff with China highlighted India’s technological asymmetry. Time to update

‘A welcome modernisation’

While contracts are being signed now, the fact is that they are long pending programmes, a source explained.

He added that the LSV for the Special Forces, which was inked in 2018, was actually envisioned in 2002 as part of a study conducted by the Army for modernisation of Special Forces.

Similarly, armoured protection for infantry soldiers was a proposal that was first moved in 2011 by the department concerned in the Army, only to be set aside by the force’s top hierarchy for certain reasons.

“The contracts inked are actually a very welcome modernisation process. Infantry soldiers need to have mobility and protection. In many countries, infantry is complete mechanised infantry,” former Western Army Commander Lt Gen K.J. Singh told ThePrint.

The Mechanized Infantry Regiment of the Army is the youngest and was the brainchild of former Army chief K. Sundarji, who is also fondly called the ‘Father of the Mechanised Infantry Regiment’.

Gen Sundarji had during his tenure from 1986 to 1988, introduced a number of technical and operational initiatives for the force and went on to raise the Mechanised Infantry Regiment. With emphasis on speed, technology and mobile weaponry, the youngest arm of the Indian Army is now an integral part of the strike forces.

Given that the Army’s operational areas range from the deserts and plains to high altitudes, Lt Gen. Singh questioned why the force cannot go in for terrain-specific vehicles rather than placing larger order of all-terrain systems.

Mobility by air and water has increased

The recent standoff with China is eastern Ladakh also showcased how the ability to induct men and equipment has changed over the years.

As India raced against China in the initial phases to counter its aggression last year, the Air Force came handy with its latest fleet of transport aircraft and helicopters.

Men and some of the urgent equipment, including tanks and armoured personnel carriers, were inducted into the Ladakh sector by air.

“Army’s mobility also needs to be seen in the context of the air lifting capabilities of the Air Force. Had it not been for the IAF, induction of men and material would have taken a little more time,” a source said.

It is not just in air and land that the Army is undergoing a jump in mobility prowess but also in the waters.

Army has gone in for emergency procurement of specialised boats to counter the faster and heavy vessels of the People’s Liberation Army.

(This report has been updated to reflect that certain specialised units of the Army have gone in for light strike vehicles (LSVs) from Force Motors and not Bharat Forge, and that the contract for LSV for the Special Forces was inked in 2018 and not 2019. The error is regretted.)

Also read: From next week, troops at LoC and LAC to get new & more lethal Israeli Light Machine Guns

Jaipur, April 2

Farmer leader Rakesh Tikait’s convoy was allegedly attacked in Alwar on Friday. He alleged that the BJP men were behind the attack.

Tikait, on his Twitter handle, shared the video of his car whose window glass was smashed and accused the BJP of the attack.

राजस्थान के अलवर जिले के ततारपुर चौराहा, बानसूर रोड़ पर भाजपा के गुंडों द्वारा जानलेवा पर हमला किए गए, लोकतंत्र के हत्या की तस्वीरें pic.twitter.com/aBN9ej7AXS— Rakesh Tikait (@RakeshTikaitBKU) April 2, 2021

He said, “Attacked by BJP’s goons in Rajasthan’s Alwar district’s Tataarpur square at Bansur Road. Pics of murder of democracy.”  His supporters called for a jam to protest against the incident and hence a huge police force was deputed in the area. 

As per the officials, Tikait was on his way to Banasur road when his convoy was attacked by a few people who pelted stones on his car. The men used rods too. However, Tikait was safe and did not get any injury.

Eventually, Tikait was shifted in another car and the police arrested two people as suspects. 

Further investigations are on, police officials said. — IANS

Photo for representation.

Karachi, April 2

Pakistan’s struggling textile industry has voiced its disappointment after the Imran Khan government rejected a proposal to import cotton from India, the world’s biggest producer, saying it is the need of the hour to avoid a massive slump in the country’s exports.

The federal Cabinet headed by Prime Minister Khan on Thursday rejected the proposal of a high-powered committee to import cotton from India, with Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi asserting that there can be no normalisation of ties until New Delhi reverses its decision in 2019 to revoke the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Cabinet’s decision has disappointed the textile export industry, the Dawn newspaper quoted Pakistan Apparel Forum chairman Jawed Bilwani as saying.

The textile export sector, which was already under pressure due to the COVID-19 pandemic, has been continuously demanding duty-free import of cotton yarn from all over the world, including India, to avert any big loss to textile exports.

Describing Commerce Adviser Abdul Razak Dawood’s recommendation to allow import of cotton and cotton yarn from India as realistic and the need of the hour, Bilwani said that the Cabinet must give serious consideration to the proposal.

The step would send a negative message to foreign buyers as cotton yarn was not available in the country, he said, adding that prices of cotton yarn have increased after the Cabinet’s decision.

“The government must ensure availability of cotton yarn if it did not want to allow its import from India,” Bilwani said as he feared massive textile export decline if import of cotton yarn from India was not allowed.

In the current year, Pakistan faced a 40 per cent plunge in cotton production and if it was compared with 15 million bales in 2014-2015, then the drop was 50 per cent this year, he said.

“If the government did not want to permit import of cotton yarn from India then it must impose a ban on export of cotton and cotton yarn for at least next six months,” he added.

Pakistan’s U-turn on Thursday came a day after the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC), under newly-appointed Finance Minister Hammad Azhar, recommended importing cotton and sugar from India, lifting a nearly two-year long ban on its import from the neighbouring country amidst tensions over the Kashmir issue.

Speaking to The Express Tribune newspaper, Pakistan Readymade Garments Manufacturers and Exporters Association Patron-in-Chief Ijaz Khokhar said the entire value-added sector was shocked by the way the government reversed its decision

Reacting to the Pakistan Cabinet’s refusal to allow import of cotton yarn from India, he said they are planning a protest in the coming days.

“According to the World Trade Organisation laws, no one can object to trade with another country, the restrictions imposed by Pakistan on trade with India are based on political grounds, but if we allow imports of medicines from India, then why not cotton yarn,” Khokhar said.

“This step shows that mafias are still part of the government and this impression will reach our international buyers,” he said, adding, “We now fear that this step will help a certain part of the textile sector whereas the rest will lose orders as buyers will prefer India and Bangladesh over Pakistan due to such steps.”       

Pakistan Hosiery Manufacturers and Exporters Association Zonal Chairman Faisal Mehboob said his organisation has urged the government to make bold decisions, which were vital for a smooth running of the industry.

Mehboob said that any decision to lift the ban on import of cotton and yarn from India would greatly support country’s value-added knitwear sector, besides contributing to stabilising the national economy through an increase in exports.

But former All Pakistan Textile Mills Association chairman Shahzad Ali Khan said that restricting yarn imports from India was a good decision.

“Yarn imports could have pitted Pakistan’s spinning sector against the Indian counterparts and since the Indian industry is getting subsidised energy, the local industry would have been affected,” he claimed.

India is the world’s largest cotton producer and the second-largest exporter. India’s cotton exports jumped over 40 per cent to 10 million bales (of 170 kg each) in the 2018-19 marketing year on strong overseas demand.

The ECC’s decision had raised hopes of a partial revival of Pakistan-India bilateral trade relations, which were suspended after the August 5, 2019 decision of New Delhi to revoke the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.

In May 2020, Pakistan lifted the ban on import of medicines and raw material of essential drugs from India amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bilateral ties nose-dived after a terror attack on the Pathankot Air Force base in 2016 by terror groups based in Pakistan. Subsequent attacks, including one on an Indian Army camp in Uri, further deteriorated the relations.

The ties strained further after India’s war planes pounded a Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorist training camp in Pakistan in February 2019 in response to the Pulwama attack in 2019 in which 40 CRPF jawans were killed.

India’s move to revoke the special status of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019 angered Pakistan, which downgraded diplomatic ties and expelled the Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad. Pakistan also snapped all air and land links with India and suspended trade and railway services. PTI

Weighing $2 bn worth Chinese FDI proposals

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, April 2

The lack of progress for over a month in disengagement has led India to remind China about the consensus between their foreign ministers on February 25 for quickly resolving the remaining issues along the LAC in eastern Ladakh.

The MEA’s comments on the LAC closely follow India’s critical but guarded observations on a WHO-convened global study about the origin of Covid-19 over which western countries want to corner China.

Arindam Bagchi, MEA spokesperson

‘Build up on Jaishankar-Wang consensus’

As the External Affairs Minister had pointed out to [the] Chinese Foreign Minister, a prolongation of the situation is in neither side’s interest.

China replied to India’s comments on the WHO study today with a reasoned repudiation of points raised by India. South Block is also evaluating Chinese investment proposals worth $2 billion that have been on hold since April last year.

“As the External Affairs Minister had pointed out to [the] Chinese Foreign Minister, a prolongation of the situation is in neither side’s interest,” said MEA spokesperson Arindam Bagchi at the weekly media briefing.

The February 25 talks between the foreign ministers, which took place five days after the Pangong Tso disengagement, had touched upon the setting up of a hotline. There has, however, been no response as yet even to Indian overtures for a meeting of the WMCC to take forward the agreement reflected in the statements after the Jaishankar-Wang talks.Bagchi reiterated Jaishankar’s formulation of further progress in ties being linked to disengagement in the remaining areas at the earliest. “The disengagement in the Pangong lake area was a significant step forward and it has provided a good basis for resolution of other remaining issues along the LAC,” underlined the MEA spokesperson.