Respected Sir/Madam,
The following report -- released by the United News of India news agency on December 16, 2010 -- is for your kind perusal. I request you to further publicise the issue.
With regards,
Abhi
India has no war memorial even 6 decades after freedom: IESM
Bhopal, Dec 16 (UNI) As the nation observes the anniversary of the 1971 Bangladesh War, the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM) today described as "a monumental shame" the fact that -- even six decades after Independence -- the country does not have a war memorial in honour of those who made the supreme sacrifice in bitter conflicts since 1947.
"It is a day of rejoicing and jubilation, as also reflection and remembrance. Yet only 1.3 million souls who don the uniform, nearly three million veterans and their families commemorate this day. The rest, comprising over a billion Indians, are not even aware of it, thanks to the Government that has no time to even commend the soldiers for their sacrifices," IESM Vice-Chairman Major-General (Retd) Satbir Singh, Sena Medal, said in a release.
Most nations have days or weeks earmarked for felicitating their soldiers and veterans.
"What do we do in India? Not only we do nothing but also our governments continue to be oblivious to the need and welfare of soldiers. In the name of civilian control of defence forces, which really means control by elected representatives, the bureaucrats continue to ill-treat the military," the veteran alleged.
"Two years back, political leaders stooped to the lowest level possible when they dubbed two conflicts as the Congress war and the Bharatiya Janata Party war. There is a need for people to join in creating ethos and traditions to give due respect and honour to soldiers," the release said.
On Vijay Diwas, the Defence Minister makes an appearance at the India Gate's Amar Jawan Jyoti to lay a wreath 'oblivious' of the fact that he is laying a wreath at a place constructed by the British when India was a colony. An IESM delegation laid a wreath at Amar Jawan Jyoti at noon today.
On this day in 1971 the Indian military won resounding victories in all theatres of that war with the crowning glory being the capture of East Pakistan; the birth of Bangladesh and taking more than 93,000 Pakistani soldiers as prisoners of war. At 1631 hrs, Lt-Gen Amir Abdullah Khan Naizi signed the surrender document offered by Indian Lt-Gen Jagjit Singh Arora. He also surrendered his pistol in a symbolic gesture.
This great victory was achieved at a price. A total of 68 officers, 60 junior commissioned officers (JCOs) and 1,293 other ranks sacrificed their lives. As many as 211 officers, 160 JCOs and more than 3,500 other ranks were wounded. The Indian Armed Forces took merely 14 days to liberate Bangladesh, in a lighting campaign to the surprise of the entire world.
Showing posts with label McMohan Line. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McMohan Line. Show all posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Strategic alliance to check assertive China
Grave security challenges and the risk of armed confrontation exist in South Asia. India must have potent politico-diplomatic deterrence, strategic alliances and the military wherewithal to ensure peace as well has ability to check adventurism by assertive neighbours or fight a war on two fronts.
India has had defence relations with the US since the Chinese attack in 1962. It was the US that India looked towards when Chinese troops were racing down towards the plains of Assam and Indian political and military leadership was paralysed. Americans airlifted badly needed weapons, equipment and a few fighter aircraft. Later, they equipped three mountain divisions with war equipment and there was a US military mission in New Delhi for a few years for the purpose.
During his November visit, President Barack Obama lifted sanctions against defence research and production establishments, including DRDO, paving the way for greater co-operation.
In the foreseeable future China and Pakistan would be India's main adversaries. There are significant differences in the fundamentals of these three societies, their value systems, religious beliefs and tolerance levels of others. India is a democracy and open society while China and Pakistan are comparatively closed societies, where military plays a dominant role. There is also economic competitiveness between China and India, though the Indian prime minister has repeatedly stated that there is enough room in the world for both China and India. In addition, there is a long-standing border dispute between China and India.
Lt Gen Harbhajan Singh (Retd)
Former Signal Officer-in-Chief of the Indian Army
Click here to read the full analysis in the Professional Matters Blog
India has had defence relations with the US since the Chinese attack in 1962. It was the US that India looked towards when Chinese troops were racing down towards the plains of Assam and Indian political and military leadership was paralysed. Americans airlifted badly needed weapons, equipment and a few fighter aircraft. Later, they equipped three mountain divisions with war equipment and there was a US military mission in New Delhi for a few years for the purpose.
During his November visit, President Barack Obama lifted sanctions against defence research and production establishments, including DRDO, paving the way for greater co-operation.
In the foreseeable future China and Pakistan would be India's main adversaries. There are significant differences in the fundamentals of these three societies, their value systems, religious beliefs and tolerance levels of others. India is a democracy and open society while China and Pakistan are comparatively closed societies, where military plays a dominant role. There is also economic competitiveness between China and India, though the Indian prime minister has repeatedly stated that there is enough room in the world for both China and India. In addition, there is a long-standing border dispute between China and India.
Lt Gen Harbhajan Singh (Retd)
Former Signal Officer-in-Chief of the Indian Army
Click here to read the full analysis in the Professional Matters Blog
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Will the Dragon swallow Arunachal Pradesh?
CHINA HAS A “BIG PROBLEM" WITH INDIA? By Bhaskar Roy
The government of China appears to extremely upset by a news report in the Indian media that two Mountain Divisions of the Indian army will be deployed in Arunachal Pradesh, and become fully operational by next year.
In response, the China Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ma Zhaoxu cautioned India to address Beijing’s “serious concerns” and not trigger a disturbance in the region “so as to facilitate the healthy development of China-India relations.”
China’s official English language daily, The Global Times (Nov 23) almost questioned the intention of the Indian media report since China's Premier Wen Jiabao was to visit India in three weeks time to celebrate the 60th anniversary of establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries.
The Global Times, a subsidiary of the communist party mouth piece, the Peoples daily, the most authentic official view carrier, reported the views of several Chinese experts to decipher India’s intention. Wang Dehua, an expert on India at the Shaughai International Studies Centre (SICC) was of the opinion that the Indian move was strengthen its hands ahead of the India-China talks on the border scheduled for December 29-30, in Beijing. Sun Shihai, an expert on Asia-Pacific studies with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) opined that military strength of Arunachal Pradesh showed India’s unwillingness to make any concession during border demarcation talks.
More interestingly, the Global Times, decided to recall that the Chinese Foreign Ministry had “condemned” Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh in October 2009. The newspaper, known for its hard-line nationalist views did not, however, proceed to recall what happened next. Prime Minister Singh visited Arunachal Pradesh, made it clear that there was no dispute over the state, and was invited for a meeting by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao soon after at a conclave in Thailand when the Chinese side sought to cool down matters.
It is surprising that even after six decades of bilateral relations the Chinese establishment has failed to understand how India works. Or is it a ploy to pick up items from India’s independent media to berate India? The Chinese must understand that the Indian government is answerable to Parliament and the people and, hence, decisions like major deployments by even the armed forces have to be transparently conveyed to the people. In China, the people do not matter and the media is controlled by the state and the party as per the respective constitutions.
While the Indian and Chinese leaders have agreed on more than one occasion to avoid confrontation and provocation, work to further improve bilateral relations, and cooperate on a wide range of issues bilaterally, regionally and globally, it is obvious that a section of the powerful Chinese leadership seem determined to queer the pitch. Why else would the Chinese foreign ministry choose to warn India on a non-consequential issue on the eve of the border talks and ahead of Chinese Premier’s visit to India. Why else would the The Global times repeatedly refer to Arunachal Pradesh as ‘Southern Tibet’ over which “China claims sovereignty”.
Historically, there is nothing called Southern Tibet. It is a new concoction being tried over the last two years or so to claim Arunachal Pradesh as Chinese territory. The fact that the 4th Dalai Lama was born in Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh does not mean anything. The Dalai Lamas or any other Tibetan Living Buddhas can be born anywhere in the world.
Reading recent Chinese official media reports and studies in reputed official journals, there is every reason to believe there is a split in China’s top most hierarchy on foreign policy. Following global reactions to its assertive behaviour with neighbours, the party central committee appears to have laid down a policy of restraint but adhering to the country’s already stated position. Yet, there are strong indications that a section aligned with the army is determined to demonstrate and project power outside the country.
President and Party General Secretary Hu Jintao does not seem to be in a position to fully restrain the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), which holds a major say in the affairs of security, neighbours and the USA. A conservative in many ways, Hu Jiantao had to rely on the PLA to buttress his position and give way to them even if he does not want to do so. Deng Xiaoping was the last Chinese leader to control the PLA .
A brief review of statements from the Chinese foreign ministry on India in the last two years suggest an unfriendly hard-line. This is something different from the decade of the 1990s when, in the aftermath of the Tienanmen Square incident, India was one on the few countries of substance which protected China from the Western onslaught on the human rights issue and outside intervence in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. The Chinese foreign ministry then was more friendly. In contrast, as Chinese grew stronger economically and militarily in the last decade it formulated a new strategy with Pakistan to chip away at India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The latest in these examples are issuing stapled visas to anyone who resided in Kashmir, projecting Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) as Pakistan’s sovereign territory and Indian Kashmir as disputed territory, and trying to raise a new debate that the Kashmir issue is a trilateral question between India, Pakistan and China.
China is trying to convince India that these are small issues not to be bothered about, but cooperate on larger issues including climate change and currency values against the west. While the two largest countries of Asia must cooperate and work together for common cause, the region’s development and making the 21st Century for Asia, China’s behaviour does not inspire confidence. India experimented on joint bidding for oil and gas resources with China, but woke up one morning to see China had sabotaged India literally at midnight.
Geography forces the two countries to work together and raise mutual trust. Till now, however, China has given no evidence to India that it can be trusted. If it thinks India will conspire with the US to counter China, it must see India’s policy on Iran and Myanmar post-Obama visit. People outside the government in India, save for the ardent sinophiles, are beginning to think there is a too much double-speak from China. Beijing must also realise that despite their huge nuclear and asymmetric warfare superiority over India, it is no longer 1962. China will be welcome if it truly demonstrates it is a development cooperative partner. This has not happened yet.
When Premier Wen Jiabao makes his official visit to India in mid-December, he will come as a lame duck premier. He lost a lot of political clout when he called for greater democracy to consolidate China economic gains. But the party plenum in October smothered his voice. He was subsumed by the hardliners, and he will spend his next two years in position as only echoing laid down policies.
Much cannot be expected from Wen Jiabo’s visit. He will read from the Beijing script in both India and Pakistan. But the Indian government must use this opportunity to deliver India’s concerns and position without pulling the punches. It is time India tells China what are the ‘big issues” and “small issues” for India.
Bhaskar Roy is an experienced China analyst.
CHINA HAS A “BIG PROBLEM" WITH INDIA?
The government of China appears to extremely upset by a news report in the Indian media that two Mountain Divisions of the Indian army will be deployed in Arunachal Pradesh, and become fully operational by next year.
In response, the China Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ma Zhaoxu cautioned India to address Beijing’s “serious concerns” and not trigger a disturbance in the region “so as to facilitate the healthy development of China-India relations.”
China’s official English language daily, The Global Times (Nov 23) almost questioned the intention of the Indian media report since China's Premier Wen Jiabao was to visit India in three weeks time to celebrate the 60th anniversary of establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries.
The Global Times, a subsidiary of the communist party mouth piece, the Peoples daily, the most authentic official view carrier, reported the views of several Chinese experts to decipher India’s intention. Wang Dehua, an expert on India at the Shaughai International Studies Centre (SICC) was of the opinion that the Indian move was strengthen its hands ahead of the India-China talks on the border scheduled for December 29-30, in Beijing. Sun Shihai, an expert on Asia-Pacific studies with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) opined that military strength of Arunachal Pradesh showed India’s unwillingness to make any concession during border demarcation talks.
More interestingly, the Global Times, decided to recall that the Chinese Foreign Ministry had “condemned” Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh in October 2009. The newspaper, known for its hard-line nationalist views did not, however, proceed to recall what happened next. Prime Minister Singh visited Arunachal Pradesh, made it clear that there was no dispute over the state, and was invited for a meeting by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao soon after at a conclave in Thailand when the Chinese side sought to cool down matters.
It is surprising that even after six decades of bilateral relations the Chinese establishment has failed to understand how India works. Or is it a ploy to pick up items from India’s independent media to berate India? The Chinese must understand that the Indian government is answerable to Parliament and the people and, hence, decisions like major deployments by even the armed forces have to be transparently conveyed to the people. In China, the people do not matter and the media is controlled by the state and the party as per the respective constitutions.
While the Indian and Chinese leaders have agreed on more than one occasion to avoid confrontation and provocation, work to further improve bilateral relations, and cooperate on a wide range of issues bilaterally, regionally and globally, it is obvious that a section of the powerful Chinese leadership seem determined to queer the pitch. Why else would the Chinese foreign ministry choose to warn India on a non-consequential issue on the eve of the border talks and ahead of Chinese Premier’s visit to India. Why else would the The Global times repeatedly refer to Arunachal Pradesh as ‘Southern Tibet’ over which “China claims sovereignty”.
Historically, there is nothing called Southern Tibet. It is a new concoction being tried over the last two years or so to claim Arunachal Pradesh as Chinese territory. The fact that the 4th Dalai Lama was born in Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh does not mean anything. The Dalai Lamas or any other Tibetan Living Buddhas can be born anywhere in the world.
Reading recent Chinese official media reports and studies in reputed official journals, there is every reason to believe there is a split in China’s top most hierarchy on foreign policy. Following global reactions to its assertive behaviour with neighbours, the party central committee appears to have laid down a policy of restraint but adhering to the country’s already stated position. Yet, there are strong indications that a section aligned with the army is determined to demonstrate and project power outside the country.
President and Party General Secretary Hu Jintao does not seem to be in a position to fully restrain the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), which holds a major say in the affairs of security, neighbours and the USA. A conservative in many ways, Hu Jiantao had to rely on the PLA to buttress his position and give way to them even if he does not want to do so. Deng Xiaoping was the last Chinese leader to control the PLA .
A brief review of statements from the Chinese foreign ministry on India in the last two years suggest an unfriendly hard-line. This is something different from the decade of the 1990s when, in the aftermath of the Tienanmen Square incident, India was one on the few countries of substance which protected China from the Western onslaught on the human rights issue and outside intervence in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. The Chinese foreign ministry then was more friendly. In contrast, as Chinese grew stronger economically and militarily in the last decade it formulated a new strategy with Pakistan to chip away at India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The latest in these examples are issuing stapled visas to anyone who resided in Kashmir, projecting Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) as Pakistan’s sovereign territory and Indian Kashmir as disputed territory, and trying to raise a new debate that the Kashmir issue is a trilateral question between India, Pakistan and China.
China is trying to convince India that these are small issues not to be bothered about, but cooperate on larger issues including climate change and currency values against the west. While the two largest countries of Asia must cooperate and work together for common cause, the region’s development and making the 21st Century for Asia, China’s behaviour does not inspire confidence. India experimented on joint bidding for oil and gas resources with China, but woke up one morning to see China had sabotaged India literally at midnight.
Geography forces the two countries to work together and raise mutual trust. Till now, however, China has given no evidence to India that it can be trusted. If it thinks India will conspire with the US to counter China, it must see India’s policy on Iran and Myanmar post-Obama visit. People outside the government in India, save for the ardent sinophiles, are beginning to think there is a too much double-speak from China. Beijing must also realise that despite their huge nuclear and asymmetric warfare superiority over India, it is no longer 1962. China will be welcome if it truly demonstrates it is a development cooperative partner. This has not happened yet.
When Premier Wen Jiabao makes his official visit to India in mid-December, he will come as a lame duck premier. He lost a lot of political clout when he called for greater democracy to consolidate China economic gains. But the party plenum in October smothered his voice. He was subsumed by the hardliners, and he will spend his next two years in position as only echoing laid down policies.
Much cannot be expected from Wen Jiabo’s visit. He will read from the Beijing script in both India and Pakistan. But the Indian government must use this opportunity to deliver India’s concerns and position without pulling the punches. It is time India tells China what are the ‘big issues” and “small issues” for India.
Bhaskar Roy is an experienced China analyst.
CHINA HAS A “BIG PROBLEM" WITH INDIA?
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Will the ghost of 1962 dragon continue to haunt the South Block?
Ref: The amateurs in charge
In 1962, Intelligence Chief B.N. Mullick ruled the roost. These days it is the mandarins of External Affairs Ministry and Babus in the MOD. There is no single point military advice.
Things are not good at all.
Lt Gen Harbhajan Singh (Retd)
Extract
indian express oped
Posted: Sat Nov 20 2010, 03:34 hrs
Blaming Pandit Nehru for everything wrong with India has grown from a fashion to a rage, so the letters he addressed to American President John F. Kennedy on November 19, 1962, will be used as another stick with which to beat him. Destructive denigration serves him as ill as the idolatry in which he could do no wrong. Of course he made mistakes, who doesn’t, and to pretend they really were not mistakes worse, to conceal facts only feeds his detractors. What our country owes him becomes ever more apparent, time and our travails keep confirming its value. Viewing so great a man whole, faults and all, cannot diminish his stature, or our debt. What we need is to learn from the mistakes, his and ours which we stubbornly refuse to do.
In 1962, Intelligence Chief B.N. Mullick ruled the roost. These days it is the mandarins of External Affairs Ministry and Babus in the MOD. There is no single point military advice.
Things are not good at all.
Lt Gen Harbhajan Singh (Retd)
Extract
indian express oped
Posted: Sat Nov 20 2010, 03:34 hrs
Blaming Pandit Nehru for everything wrong with India has grown from a fashion to a rage, so the letters he addressed to American President John F. Kennedy on November 19, 1962, will be used as another stick with which to beat him. Destructive denigration serves him as ill as the idolatry in which he could do no wrong. Of course he made mistakes, who doesn’t, and to pretend they really were not mistakes worse, to conceal facts only feeds his detractors. What our country owes him becomes ever more apparent, time and our travails keep confirming its value. Viewing so great a man whole, faults and all, cannot diminish his stature, or our debt. What we need is to learn from the mistakes, his and ours which we stubbornly refuse to do.
November 1962 was a national disaster, all the more painful for being so self-inflicted: blinding ourselves to it is to invite repeats. Panditji must bear his share of responsibility, but the totality of our failure extends far beyond individuals. India failed to function as an organised state, alive to its challenges and opportunities, appropriately prepared to deal with them. Have we used our experience to become such a state now?
People today cannot realise the horrific pressures of those weeks. Despite our foolishness in imagining that suppressing facts can change them, plentiful evidence has been published by important actors of the time, inter alia recording the frightening situation Delhi saw itself facing that November 19 morning. Key positions had been left to the enemy, Sela and Bomdila augured horrendous dangers, civil officers had started being withdrawn and a complete evacuation from Assam was being considered, the DIB even starting to plan a resistance movement. An outstanding soldier, Major-General Monty Palit wrote 20 years ago that he was shown the draft letter seeking 12 fighter and two bomber squadrons; as DMO, at a desperate stage of a war that seemed to be moving along a course of escalating disasters, [he] could only welcome the proposal of obtaining military help, whatever its source, though confessing he had not for a moment imagined that... the architect of India's non-alignment policy, would ask for actual intervention by US forces. (War in the High Himalayas pp 342-343)
Read more click here
Monday, November 8, 2010
Devil's Advocate: Army-Chief General V.K.Singh
Part 1- : Adarsh Housing Scam
Part 2: National Security
Part 2: National Security
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Can we safeguard our Territorial Integrity?
1962 redux?The Asian Age Oct 19th, 2010
All wars commence in the mind, and escalate with words. “Zhang Nan” or “Southern Tibet”, the designation bestowed by the People’s Republic of China on India’s state of Arunachal Pradesh bordering Tibet, is one such example. China now claims Arunachal Pradesh as its historic territory comprising the three southern districts of the Tawang Tract unilaterally acquired by the then British Empire after the Treaty of Simla in 1913. New demands, which were first articulated around 2005, initially concerned Tawang as a traditional tributary region of Lhasa, being the birthplace of the Sixth Dalai Lama (Tsangyang Gyatso, enthroned 1697, probably murdered 1706 by Mongol guards who were escorting him to Beijing under arrest). Subsequently, a day prior to the visit of China’s President Hu Jintao to India in 2006, Sun Yuxi, the then Chinese ambassador to India, stridently reiterated in public China’s claims to the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh in a deliberately provocative gesture designed to put New Delhi on notice of Beijing’s intention to dominate the agenda of interaction according to its own priorities. In a longer-term perspective, these needlessly provocative claims could escalate to a flash point with the potential to provoke a major confrontation between the two countries, and create an existential crisis for the entire region, a contingency for which India has to prepare itself adequately.
Indian reaction has been characteristically muted, constantly choosing to soft pedal and play down the issue — a unilateral gesture of restraint regardless of the degree of blatant provocation, which exasperated many in this country. It is seen as making a virtue out of necessity, because India has neglected to build up the requisite capabilities to adopt stronger alternatives. This is surely an unenviable position for a country seeking to promote itself as a major power for a permanent seat on the Security Council.
The present Sino-Indian equation is almost irresistibly reminiscent of the run-up to the Sino-Indian border war of 1962, and provides a fascinating playback of China’s postures at that time with its disconcertingly similar sequence of claims along the McMahon Line in North East Frontier Agency (Nefa), as well as along the Uttar Pradesh-Tibet border and in Ladakh, as relics of historic injustices perpetrated in earlier days by British imperialists. A naive and militarily ill-prepared India, with an exaggerated self image of its own international relevance as a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, had sought to dissuade a determined China with platitudinous Nehruvian philosophies of anti-colonial solidarity, all of which were contemptuously disposed of by “a whiff of grapeshot” on the desolate slopes of the Namkha Chu and Rezang La. India’s collapse and comprehensive downsizing in short order in 1962 was primarily because it lacked military capability vis-a-vis China, a fatal flaw which has a disconcerting tendency of repeating itself when lessons of earlier debacles wear off from the country, as they seem to be doing now. “1962 redux” is slowly grinding into gear again, with end results unforeseeable, except that an enhanced replay at some stage (2020?) can never be totally discounted. India must not repeat its follies of the past because this time around it has been adequately forewarned.
Gen. Shankar Roychowdhury is a former Chief of Army Staff and a former Member of Parliament.
click here to read more
Thought provoking articles
Sunday, October 31, 2010
China's engineering might
27/10/2010
Beijing’s list of triumphs is getting endless - fastest train, biggest dam, sustaining an average economic growth rate of more than 9% over the past two decades, three manned space flights, building a railway across the Tibetan plateau, the 2008 Beijing Olympics and this year's mammoth Shanghai World Expo. The world is watching as China plans more marvels in the near future.
China rolled out its fastest train yet on Tuesday and announced that the Three Gorges Dam, the world's biggest hydroelectric project, is now generating electricity at maximum capacity -- engineering triumphs that signal the nation's growing ambitions as its economy booms. The successes demonstrate how, after decades of acquiring technology from the west, Beijing has begun to push the limits of its new capabilities, setting the bar higher on mega-projects as it seeks to promote the image of a powerful, modern China.
China's engineering might
The Hindu: China's supercomputer world's fastest
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Can we Confront China?
Ref: Indo China war- The shock and awe of '62
China is an established and growing world power, economically and militarily with nuclear and space capability. All the western powers including USA are in awe and are scared to confront the Dragon!!
As far as India is concerned, China has always tried to do down India. It has heaped insults after insults on our country (emphatic claims on Arunachal, warning to Manmohan Singh about his visit to this State, stapled visas for people living in J&K, refusal to give Visa to Lt Gen Jamwal to visit China, military aid to Pakistan, supplying nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan etc etc, the list is endless).
The construction of railway line to Lhasa and its planned extension to Nepal Border, construction of airfields and roads along Southern border areas of Tibet has enhanced Chinese military capability against India manifold. The strategic nuances of the Pearl of strings around India are well known. Chinese military is just too strong for India and added to this are the Chinese close strategic ties with Pakistan!!!
USA is a declining power and after its long military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will not enter into any military conflict with China to bail out India. In any case why should it?? What has India done for USA??? Russia similarly has no stomach to threaten China in case of any hostilities between India and China.
This means, India will have to rely on its own military prowess in case there is a conflict between India and China. Lately some measures have been taken to strengthen our military posture in the East, but these are slow and insufficient. Indian Government (its political leaders and bureaucrats) have not changed their ways of functioning. The Congress Party (its President, budding scion of Nehru Pariwar and their hangers on) have little interest and knowledge of national security. They remain busy politicking with the prime aim of how to remain in power. National security also does not seem to interest the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh much. He is an economist and a peace loving man where as India is facing leaders in China and Pakistan who are hell bent on destabilising India. Those on Opposition benches are no better!!!
The Veterans need to awaken the nation on matters of National security and looming threat from China and Pakistan. We owe it to the nation to take a lead in bringing to focus the poor state of equipment (ships, fighter aircraft, guns, tanks etc) of the Army, Navy and the Air Force and the very very slow pace of new critical acquisitions. Also non implementation of Kargil Committee Report- click here.
India has to be fully prepared to fight on two fronts. The conflict will be swift and at a place and time of Chinese choosing and they will come in with overwhelming superiority. It is a sound interim policy to try and keep a low key and not overly react to pin pricks by China. But this cannot be ever lasting scenario. India has to have the required force levels and weaponry to deter China. Though this should have happened 'yesterday', and hence there is no time to lose!! The World must be made to realise that India is not a soft state.
VETERANS ARE REQUESTED TO SEND IN THEIR COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ON HOW INDIA NEEDS TO GEAR UP TO FACE THE DUAL CHALLENGE FROM CHINA AND PAKISTAN AND ALSO INTERNAL INSURGENCY.
Harbhajan Singh
Lt Gen
(Former Signal Officer in Chief)
Status of Classified Report of 1962 Indo China Debacle
The Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report, also referred to as the Henderson Brooks report, is the report of an analysis (Operations Review) of the Sino-Indian War of 1962. Its authors are officers of the Indian armed forces. They are Lt Gen Henderson Brooks and Brig P S Bhagat, commandant of the Indian Military Academy at the time.
The report continues to be classified by the Indian Government. In April 2010, India's Defence Minister A.K. Antony told Parliament that the report could not be declassified because its contents “are not only extremely sensitive but are of current operational value."
The report is said to be openly critical of the Indian political and military structure of that time, as well as of the execution of military operations.
Author Neville Maxwell has published what he claims are summaries of the report. While this has not been verified by comparisons with the (still classified) text, it has been accepted as a reasonable summary by the Indian media. This report of Indo-China war makes interesting reading.
As of Feb 2008, MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar has requested the report to be declassified in the National Security interest. This has been declined by the defense Minster A K Antony. He has quoted that the same would not be released "considering the sensitivity of information contained in the report and its security implications"
Henderson Brooks- Bhagat Report
Kargil Review Committee Report: click here
China is an established and growing world power, economically and militarily with nuclear and space capability. All the western powers including USA are in awe and are scared to confront the Dragon!!
As far as India is concerned, China has always tried to do down India. It has heaped insults after insults on our country (emphatic claims on Arunachal, warning to Manmohan Singh about his visit to this State, stapled visas for people living in J&K, refusal to give Visa to Lt Gen Jamwal to visit China, military aid to Pakistan, supplying nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan etc etc, the list is endless).
The construction of railway line to Lhasa and its planned extension to Nepal Border, construction of airfields and roads along Southern border areas of Tibet has enhanced Chinese military capability against India manifold. The strategic nuances of the Pearl of strings around India are well known. Chinese military is just too strong for India and added to this are the Chinese close strategic ties with Pakistan!!!
USA is a declining power and after its long military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will not enter into any military conflict with China to bail out India. In any case why should it?? What has India done for USA??? Russia similarly has no stomach to threaten China in case of any hostilities between India and China.
This means, India will have to rely on its own military prowess in case there is a conflict between India and China. Lately some measures have been taken to strengthen our military posture in the East, but these are slow and insufficient. Indian Government (its political leaders and bureaucrats) have not changed their ways of functioning. The Congress Party (its President, budding scion of Nehru Pariwar and their hangers on) have little interest and knowledge of national security. They remain busy politicking with the prime aim of how to remain in power. National security also does not seem to interest the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh much. He is an economist and a peace loving man where as India is facing leaders in China and Pakistan who are hell bent on destabilising India. Those on Opposition benches are no better!!!
The Veterans need to awaken the nation on matters of National security and looming threat from China and Pakistan. We owe it to the nation to take a lead in bringing to focus the poor state of equipment (ships, fighter aircraft, guns, tanks etc) of the Army, Navy and the Air Force and the very very slow pace of new critical acquisitions. Also non implementation of Kargil Committee Report- click here.
India has to be fully prepared to fight on two fronts. The conflict will be swift and at a place and time of Chinese choosing and they will come in with overwhelming superiority. It is a sound interim policy to try and keep a low key and not overly react to pin pricks by China. But this cannot be ever lasting scenario. India has to have the required force levels and weaponry to deter China. Though this should have happened 'yesterday', and hence there is no time to lose!! The World must be made to realise that India is not a soft state.
VETERANS ARE REQUESTED TO SEND IN THEIR COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ON HOW INDIA NEEDS TO GEAR UP TO FACE THE DUAL CHALLENGE FROM CHINA AND PAKISTAN AND ALSO INTERNAL INSURGENCY.
Harbhajan Singh
Lt Gen
(Former Signal Officer in Chief)
Status of Classified Report of 1962 Indo China Debacle
The Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report, also referred to as the Henderson Brooks report, is the report of an analysis (Operations Review) of the Sino-Indian War of 1962. Its authors are officers of the Indian armed forces. They are Lt Gen Henderson Brooks and Brig P S Bhagat, commandant of the Indian Military Academy at the time.
The report continues to be classified by the Indian Government. In April 2010, India's Defence Minister A.K. Antony told Parliament that the report could not be declassified because its contents “are not only extremely sensitive but are of current operational value."
The report is said to be openly critical of the Indian political and military structure of that time, as well as of the execution of military operations.
Author Neville Maxwell has published what he claims are summaries of the report. While this has not been verified by comparisons with the (still classified) text, it has been accepted as a reasonable summary by the Indian media. This report of Indo-China war makes interesting reading.
As of Feb 2008, MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar has requested the report to be declassified in the National Security interest. This has been declined by the defense Minster A K Antony. He has quoted that the same would not be released "considering the sensitivity of information contained in the report and its security implications"
Henderson Brooks- Bhagat Report
Kargil Review Committee Report: click here
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Decoding Dragon for Dummies
Decoding the Dragon
India can’t be complacent on national security
by Lt-Gen Harwant Singh (retd)
THERE can be no greater proof of failure of India’s foreign policy than the reality of our unsatisfactory relations with all our immediate neighbours. From Pakistan in the West to Nepal and China in the North, Burma and Bangladesh in the East and Sri Lanka in the South, our relations with these countries vary from hostility to indifference.
China’s influence in countries on our periphery has been on the increase. In addition, China has this ‘String of pearls policy’. Though it is a nightmarish situation, India’s security establishment seems to sleep well. The Maoists’ problem and the one in Kashmir are security challenges being addressed in a cavalier fashion. Even if one is to discount the problems in the North-East, the overall security scene is disquieting.
We have been decidedly and overwhelmingly complacent on the issue of national security. Not only has our foreign policy failed to create friendly environment on our periphery but grossly neglected the emerging threats.
This policy suffered further setback when distant Japan, Australia and some South East Asian countries acquiesced to China’s claim that Arunachal Pradesh is a disputed territory. China has been calling it South Tibet and not a part of India.
Moreover, China has declared Jammu and Kashmir a disputed territory and started stapling visas of visitors from that state. More recently, it has reaffirmed its stand on this issue by denying visa to a senior army officer posted in Jammu and Kashmir and who was leader of a military delegation to China.
This stance of China and reportedly inducting large body of troops into Gilgit region of the Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) is to give a fillip to the ongoing turmoil in the Kashmir valley, besides controlling any unrest in this part of POK. While China occupied large tracts of territory in Ladakh, Pakistan illegally acceded the Shaksam valley in PoK to it. China is also reported to be improving the Karakoram highway and setting out to build a high-speed railway line to Gwadar port on the Gulf of Oman, for transporting oil to Tibet and Xinjiang province from where it can be ferried to mainland China.
There are suggestions flying thick and fast in the media that India must strongly protest against this Chinese move into PoK. But, protest to whom? China will summarily dismiss such protests and going to the United Nations will merely resurrect the old ghosts of Jammu and Kashmir. At best India can deny visa facility to Chinese, but what of the massive trade we have with that country?
China’s policy keeps time on its side while complacency is our forte. Even keeping time on its side, China has been assiduously and with single-mindedness creating overall military capabilities and military infrastructure in Tibet and spreading its influence in countries on our periphery. It has with equal zeal and purpose followed the policy of using Pakistan as a proxy and a cheap option to tie down India locally.
Then, there is the ‘String of pearls policy’ to squeeze India from all sides. China is building its naval strength at a furious pace and making forays into the Indian Ocean. We have slept through more than half a century, ignoring the emerging security scene and the gathering storms all around and within India.
Not only have we been complacent but decidedly negligent of the emerging security threats, both internal and external. At 2 per cent of GDP for defence as against 7 per cent of China out of GDP, twice the size of ours, India’s lack of concern for its security ought to appear alarming, even to one with impaired vision and the dimwitted.
In the real world, economic strength in the absence of military power is unsustainable. The gunboat diplomacy and wars of nineteen century were to capture markets and enhance influence and commerce for economic gains. The power play of the 21st century is going to be no different except that the form, formulations and contours of policy and coercive techniques will undergo a change.
For long we have been indulging in a puerile debate on the issue of ‘development versus defence,’ as if the two are mutually exclusive and in no way reinforce each other. The mandarins in Delhi have been smug in a world of make believe. To quote Arun Shourie, “Corresponding factors that keep us from growing as fast as our potential are precisely the ones that weaken our defence. The same holds for constituents of defence: the choice is not, ‘valour or high technology,’ cyber warfare or conventional warfare or nuclear capability but capabilities across the broad spectrum.”
China has developed the Gwadar port and it will have a strong naval presence there. This port is at the mouth of straight of Hurmoz through which oil supplies from the Middle East flow to India. The strategic importance of this move by China does not seem to have fully dawned on the Indian security establishment.
The Chinese Navy will also have berthing facilities at the Sri Lankan and Burmese ports. Radars at Coco Island keep watch over the naval ship movement from mainland to Andaman and Nicobar Islands and India’s missile launches from the Balasore missile range in Orissa.
India has helplessly watched developments in Nepal. It is with China’s help that the Sri Lankan government was able to decimate the Tamil Tigers. China, even with a late start, has galloped ahead, leaving us far behind in the fields of economy, science and technology and military capabilities.
It is not our case that the developments on the Tibet border and in POK are the harbinger of an early conflict, but these do not bode well for India. These developments need to be taken as a wake-up call and shake ourselves out of our complacency and stupor. Activating a few airfields and adding some roads or two mountain divisions and deploying two squadrons of fighter aircraft or lodging a protest will not do. These are knee-jerk reactions and reminiscent of our actions leading to the 1962 war with China.
India as a nuclear and emerging economic power, in the midst of potentially unstable regimes and with ambitions to exercise influence for the stability and security of the region and to safeguard vital national interests, cannot have military capabilities which in no way match those of the potential adversaries. Equally, an antiquated and potentially dysfunctional decision-making and operational system in the defence apparatus is anathema to the successful conduct of defence and foreign policy. India’s ability to meet future security challenges is highly suspect and this state of affairs cannot prevail any longer without seriously jeopardising national security.
There is, therefore, the requirement of evolving a comprehensive and long term national security policy taking into account the current and future security concerns and synergising these with foreign policy. Thereafter, we must work assiduously to develop military capabilities backed by diplomatic thrusts to meet the security challenges of the future and be in a position to exercise influence in our immediate neighbourhood. We need to double our efforts to enhance our economic strength and create compatible defence capabilities.
The writer is a former Deputy Chief of Army Staff
The Tribune- Decoding the Dragon
India can’t be complacent on national security
by Lt-Gen Harwant Singh (retd)
THERE can be no greater proof of failure of India’s foreign policy than the reality of our unsatisfactory relations with all our immediate neighbours. From Pakistan in the West to Nepal and China in the North, Burma and Bangladesh in the East and Sri Lanka in the South, our relations with these countries vary from hostility to indifference.
China’s influence in countries on our periphery has been on the increase. In addition, China has this ‘String of pearls policy’. Though it is a nightmarish situation, India’s security establishment seems to sleep well. The Maoists’ problem and the one in Kashmir are security challenges being addressed in a cavalier fashion. Even if one is to discount the problems in the North-East, the overall security scene is disquieting.
We have been decidedly and overwhelmingly complacent on the issue of national security. Not only has our foreign policy failed to create friendly environment on our periphery but grossly neglected the emerging threats.
This policy suffered further setback when distant Japan, Australia and some South East Asian countries acquiesced to China’s claim that Arunachal Pradesh is a disputed territory. China has been calling it South Tibet and not a part of India.
Moreover, China has declared Jammu and Kashmir a disputed territory and started stapling visas of visitors from that state. More recently, it has reaffirmed its stand on this issue by denying visa to a senior army officer posted in Jammu and Kashmir and who was leader of a military delegation to China.
This stance of China and reportedly inducting large body of troops into Gilgit region of the Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) is to give a fillip to the ongoing turmoil in the Kashmir valley, besides controlling any unrest in this part of POK. While China occupied large tracts of territory in Ladakh, Pakistan illegally acceded the Shaksam valley in PoK to it. China is also reported to be improving the Karakoram highway and setting out to build a high-speed railway line to Gwadar port on the Gulf of Oman, for transporting oil to Tibet and Xinjiang province from where it can be ferried to mainland China.
There are suggestions flying thick and fast in the media that India must strongly protest against this Chinese move into PoK. But, protest to whom? China will summarily dismiss such protests and going to the United Nations will merely resurrect the old ghosts of Jammu and Kashmir. At best India can deny visa facility to Chinese, but what of the massive trade we have with that country?
China’s policy keeps time on its side while complacency is our forte. Even keeping time on its side, China has been assiduously and with single-mindedness creating overall military capabilities and military infrastructure in Tibet and spreading its influence in countries on our periphery. It has with equal zeal and purpose followed the policy of using Pakistan as a proxy and a cheap option to tie down India locally.
Then, there is the ‘String of pearls policy’ to squeeze India from all sides. China is building its naval strength at a furious pace and making forays into the Indian Ocean. We have slept through more than half a century, ignoring the emerging security scene and the gathering storms all around and within India.
Not only have we been complacent but decidedly negligent of the emerging security threats, both internal and external. At 2 per cent of GDP for defence as against 7 per cent of China out of GDP, twice the size of ours, India’s lack of concern for its security ought to appear alarming, even to one with impaired vision and the dimwitted.
In the real world, economic strength in the absence of military power is unsustainable. The gunboat diplomacy and wars of nineteen century were to capture markets and enhance influence and commerce for economic gains. The power play of the 21st century is going to be no different except that the form, formulations and contours of policy and coercive techniques will undergo a change.
For long we have been indulging in a puerile debate on the issue of ‘development versus defence,’ as if the two are mutually exclusive and in no way reinforce each other. The mandarins in Delhi have been smug in a world of make believe. To quote Arun Shourie, “Corresponding factors that keep us from growing as fast as our potential are precisely the ones that weaken our defence. The same holds for constituents of defence: the choice is not, ‘valour or high technology,’ cyber warfare or conventional warfare or nuclear capability but capabilities across the broad spectrum.”
China has developed the Gwadar port and it will have a strong naval presence there. This port is at the mouth of straight of Hurmoz through which oil supplies from the Middle East flow to India. The strategic importance of this move by China does not seem to have fully dawned on the Indian security establishment.
The Chinese Navy will also have berthing facilities at the Sri Lankan and Burmese ports. Radars at Coco Island keep watch over the naval ship movement from mainland to Andaman and Nicobar Islands and India’s missile launches from the Balasore missile range in Orissa.
India has helplessly watched developments in Nepal. It is with China’s help that the Sri Lankan government was able to decimate the Tamil Tigers. China, even with a late start, has galloped ahead, leaving us far behind in the fields of economy, science and technology and military capabilities.
It is not our case that the developments on the Tibet border and in POK are the harbinger of an early conflict, but these do not bode well for India. These developments need to be taken as a wake-up call and shake ourselves out of our complacency and stupor. Activating a few airfields and adding some roads or two mountain divisions and deploying two squadrons of fighter aircraft or lodging a protest will not do. These are knee-jerk reactions and reminiscent of our actions leading to the 1962 war with China.
India as a nuclear and emerging economic power, in the midst of potentially unstable regimes and with ambitions to exercise influence for the stability and security of the region and to safeguard vital national interests, cannot have military capabilities which in no way match those of the potential adversaries. Equally, an antiquated and potentially dysfunctional decision-making and operational system in the defence apparatus is anathema to the successful conduct of defence and foreign policy. India’s ability to meet future security challenges is highly suspect and this state of affairs cannot prevail any longer without seriously jeopardising national security.
There is, therefore, the requirement of evolving a comprehensive and long term national security policy taking into account the current and future security concerns and synergising these with foreign policy. Thereafter, we must work assiduously to develop military capabilities backed by diplomatic thrusts to meet the security challenges of the future and be in a position to exercise influence in our immediate neighbourhood. We need to double our efforts to enhance our economic strength and create compatible defence capabilities.
The writer is a former Deputy Chief of Army Staff
The Tribune- Decoding the Dragon
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Chinese smart diplomatic tantrums raises India's emotional decibel level
By TJS George, 05/09/2010
Options we have; have we the will?
Another war with India is unlikely to be on China's agenda. But menacing military build-up and other needling tactics to divert India's energies and attention is central to its agenda. It’s an old ploy. But the level of aggressiveness is new.
India's politicians, the TV channels in particular, have a way of reacting to such unfriendly actions in an emotional, high-decibel style. Which is reminiscent of the Nehru-era cries like "we won't let them get one inch of Indian territory". If anything, such declamatory posturings only reduce our own ability to work out counter-strategies in a cool and calculating manner.
Actually, we should learn from the Chinese how to be calculating. With a hundred-year perspective, they planned the strategic encirclement of India, with bases in Burma, Sri Lanka and Pakistan - even as we steadily lost our influence in neighbouring countries.
With the same long-term view of history, they built up their road and rail networks in the Tibetan territory previously considered inhospitable to such transportation facilities. Recently they successfully tested their strategic airlift capability, an area where they have advanced very far with 450 high-capacity military cargo planes.
India is famous for dithering when it comes to military acquisition. Unseen middlemen still controlling the bulk of the transactions is only half the problem. The other half is our insistence of all kinds of special provisions, from incorporating systems still on the drawing board to establishing joint venture facilities. The result is that in all three wings of the defence forces, our strike capacity is well below the required level.
Options we have; have we the will? click here to read more
Related Reading
The writer is a former Director General, Defence Planning Staff
South Asian security: India faces a major challenge by Air Marshal R.S.Bedi (retd)
Options we have; have we the will?
Another war with India is unlikely to be on China's agenda. But menacing military build-up and other needling tactics to divert India's energies and attention is central to its agenda. It’s an old ploy. But the level of aggressiveness is new.
India's politicians, the TV channels in particular, have a way of reacting to such unfriendly actions in an emotional, high-decibel style. Which is reminiscent of the Nehru-era cries like "we won't let them get one inch of Indian territory". If anything, such declamatory posturings only reduce our own ability to work out counter-strategies in a cool and calculating manner.
Actually, we should learn from the Chinese how to be calculating. With a hundred-year perspective, they planned the strategic encirclement of India, with bases in Burma, Sri Lanka and Pakistan - even as we steadily lost our influence in neighbouring countries.
With the same long-term view of history, they built up their road and rail networks in the Tibetan territory previously considered inhospitable to such transportation facilities. Recently they successfully tested their strategic airlift capability, an area where they have advanced very far with 450 high-capacity military cargo planes.
India is famous for dithering when it comes to military acquisition. Unseen middlemen still controlling the bulk of the transactions is only half the problem. The other half is our insistence of all kinds of special provisions, from incorporating systems still on the drawing board to establishing joint venture facilities. The result is that in all three wings of the defence forces, our strike capacity is well below the required level.
Options we have; have we the will? click here to read more
Related Reading
The writer is a former Director General, Defence Planning Staff
South Asian security: India faces a major challenge by Air Marshal R.S.Bedi (retd)
Thursday, September 9, 2010
South Asia's Geography of Conflict
Center for a New American Security
Washington, D.C., September 8, 2010 – Ahead of the Southeast Asian Summit later this month in New York and President Obama’s trip to Asia in November, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) released a report today by acclaimed author and CNAS Senior Fellow Robert D. Kaplan. In South Asia’s Geography of Conflict, Kaplan provides a detailed analysis of South Asia's history and geography including the broad arc of territory from Afghanistan southeastward into northern India and highlights India’s pivotal role in the region. Kaplan writes, “As the U.S. and China become great power rivals, the direction in which India tilts could determine the course of geopolitics in Eurasia in the 21st century."
South Asia’s Geography of Conflict is a must-read for American policy makers. Kaplan writes, "If Americans do not come to grasp with India’s age-old, highly unstable geopolitics, especially as it concerns Pakistan, Afghanistan and China, they will badly mishandle the relationship." Kaplan writes, "If Americans do not come to grasp with India’s age-old, highly unstable geopolitics, especially as it concerns Pakistan, Afghanistan and China, they will badly mishandle the relationship."
In South Asia’s Geography of Conflict, CNAS Senior Fellow and acclaimed author Robert D. Kaplan provides a detailed analysis of South Asia's history and geography including the broad arc of territory from Afghanistan southeastward into northern India and highlights India’s pivotal role in the region. Kaplan writes, “As the U.S. and China become great power rivals, the direction in which India tilts could determine the course of geopolitics in Eurasia in the 21st century." South Asia’s Geography of Conflict is a must-read for American policy makers. Kaplan writes, "If Americans do not come to grasp with India’s age-old, highly unstable geopolitics, especially as it concerns Pakistan, Afghanistan and China, they will badly mishandle the relationship."
South Asias Geography of Conflict by Robert D Kaplan
Watch a CNAS exclusive interview with Kaplan on South Asia’s Geography of Conflict here.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's appreciation of dangers from China
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's letter to Jawaharlal Nehru on 7 November 1950 not only deploring Indian Ambassador KM Panikkar's action but also warning about dangers from China.
My dear Jawaharlal,
....
It is of course, impossible to be exhaustive in setting out all these problems. I am, however, giving below some of the problems which, in my opinion, require early solution and round which we have to build our administrative or military policies and measures to implement them.
A military and intelligence appreciation of the Chinese threat to India both on the frontier and to internal security.
An examination of military position and such redisposition of our forces as might be necessary, particularly with the idea of guarding important routes or areas which are likely to be the subject of dispute.
An appraisement of the strength of our forces and, if necessary, reconsideration of our retrenchment plans for the Army in the light of the new threat.
A long-term consideration of our defence needs. My own feeling is that, unless we assure our supplies of arms, ammunition and armour, we would be making our defence perpetually weak and we would not be able to stand up to the double threat of difficulties both from the west and north-west and north and north-east.
The question of China's entry into the UN. In view of the rebuff which China has given us and the method which it has followed in dealing with Tibet, I am doubtful whether we can advocate its claim any longer. There would probably be a threat in the UN virtually to outlaw China, in view of its active participation in the Korean war. We must determine our attitude on this question also.
The political and administrative steps which we should take to strengthen our northern and north-eastern frontier. This would include the whole of the border, ie. Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling and the tribal territory in Assam.
Measures of internal security in the border areas as well as the states flanking those areas such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bengal and Assam.
Improvement of our communication, road, rail, air and wireless, in these areas and with the frontier outposts.
The future of our mission at Lhasa and the trade posts at Gyangtse and Yatung and the forces which we have in operation in Tibet to guard the trade routes.
The policy in regard to the McMahon Line.
These are some of the questions which occur to my mind. It is possible that a consideration of these matters may lead us into wider question of our relationship with China, Russia, America, Britain and Burma. This, however, would be of a general nature, though some might be basically very important, e.g., we might have to consider whether we should not enter into closer association with Burma in order to strengthen the latter in its dealings with China. I do not rule out the possibility that, before applying pressure on us, China might apply pressure on Burma. With Burma, the frontier is entirely undefined and the Chinese territorial claims are more substantial. In its present position, Burma might offer an easier problem to China, and therefore, might claim its first attention.
I suggest that we meet early to have a general discussion on these problems and decide on such steps as we might think to be immediately necessary and direct, quick examination of other problems with a view to taking early measures to deal with them.
Vallabhbhai Patel,
7th November 1950
To read the full appreciation contained in the letter click link in red:
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's letter to Jawaharlal Nehru wriiten 60 years ago is more relevant today
Henderson Brooks–Bhagat Report of 1962 Indo China debacle
The Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report, also referred to as the Henderson Brooks report, is the report of an analysis (Operations Review) of the Sino-Indian War of 1962. Its authors are officers of the Indian armed forces. They are Lieutenant-General Henderson Brooks and Brigadier P S Bhagat, commandant of the Indian Military Academy at the time.
The report continues to be classified by the Indian Government, as of October 2006. In April 2010, India's Defence Minister A.K. Antony told Parliament that the report could not be declassified because its contents “are not only extremely sensitive but are of current operational value."
The report is said to be openly critical of the Indian political and military structure of the time, as well as of the execution of operations.
Author Neville Maxwell has published what he claims are summaries of the report. While this has not been verified by comparisons with the (still classified) text, it has been accepted as a reasonable summary by the Indian media. Another extract of Indo-China war makes interesting reading.
As of Feb 2008, MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar has requested the report to be declassified in the National Security interest, This has been declined by the defense Minster A K Antony. He has quoted that the same would not be released "considering the sensitivity of information contained in the report and its security implications"
My dear Jawaharlal,
....
It is of course, impossible to be exhaustive in setting out all these problems. I am, however, giving below some of the problems which, in my opinion, require early solution and round which we have to build our administrative or military policies and measures to implement them.
These are some of the questions which occur to my mind. It is possible that a consideration of these matters may lead us into wider question of our relationship with China, Russia, America, Britain and Burma. This, however, would be of a general nature, though some might be basically very important, e.g., we might have to consider whether we should not enter into closer association with Burma in order to strengthen the latter in its dealings with China. I do not rule out the possibility that, before applying pressure on us, China might apply pressure on Burma. With Burma, the frontier is entirely undefined and the Chinese territorial claims are more substantial. In its present position, Burma might offer an easier problem to China, and therefore, might claim its first attention.
I suggest that we meet early to have a general discussion on these problems and decide on such steps as we might think to be immediately necessary and direct, quick examination of other problems with a view to taking early measures to deal with them.
Vallabhbhai Patel,
7th November 1950
To read the full appreciation contained in the letter click link in red:
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's letter to Jawaharlal Nehru wriiten 60 years ago is more relevant today
Henderson Brooks–Bhagat Report of 1962 Indo China debacle
The Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report, also referred to as the Henderson Brooks report, is the report of an analysis (Operations Review) of the Sino-Indian War of 1962. Its authors are officers of the Indian armed forces. They are Lieutenant-General Henderson Brooks and Brigadier P S Bhagat, commandant of the Indian Military Academy at the time.
The report continues to be classified by the Indian Government, as of October 2006. In April 2010, India's Defence Minister A.K. Antony told Parliament that the report could not be declassified because its contents “are not only extremely sensitive but are of current operational value."
The report is said to be openly critical of the Indian political and military structure of the time, as well as of the execution of operations.
Author Neville Maxwell has published what he claims are summaries of the report. While this has not been verified by comparisons with the (still classified) text, it has been accepted as a reasonable summary by the Indian media. Another extract of Indo-China war makes interesting reading.
As of Feb 2008, MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar has requested the report to be declassified in the National Security interest, This has been declined by the defense Minster A K Antony. He has quoted that the same would not be released "considering the sensitivity of information contained in the report and its security implications"
Thursday, September 2, 2010
President's Tribute to the Armed Forces who are admired by all citizens
Speech by her Excellency the President of India, Shrimati Pratibha Devisingh Patil Addressing the Defence Personnel- Leh, 01 Sep 2010 PIB
My dear soldiers,
I have just visited a site affected by the cloudburst and the resultant flash floods in Ladakh, in which many lives were lost, many suffered injuries and a number of people went missing. There has been extensive damage to property. In this difficult hour all of us are with the people of Ladakh. My deepest sympathies go out to those who have lost their loved ones and to those including the uniformed personnel who have suffered during this calamity. The Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh was here a few days earlier. I join him in assuring that no effort will be spared in relief and rehabilitation work.
Natural calamities and disasters are a reminder of the forces of nature. I am proud that during these difficult times the Armed Forces acquitted themselves commendably and gave an account of unprecedented courage, selfless devotion and unparalleled dedication involving themselves in relief, rescue and re-construction efforts. My appreciation goes out to the doctors from the Army who responded whole heartedly, and treated casualties much beyond the normal handling capacity in the Army Hospital. I also commend the special efforts made to locate missing personnel and rescue of the stranded, including foreign tourists. Your hardwork and sustained efforts, undertaken in co-ordination with local authorities, have helped in the restoration of road and signal communications, electricity, water supply and other essential services. Every call for help by the locals was answered positively and admirably by our brave soldiers. You must continue with this work, as the damage has been widespread and, moreover before the onset of winter, much work needs to be done to help rebuild the homes and lives of the people of Ladakh.
It gives me great satisfaction to see the confidence exuding in your faces, despite braving the fury of nature. Seeing your spirit, I am impressed with your determination and courage. It is commendable that under such trying circumstances, you have been able to maintain a high degree of morale and unblemished professionalism. All of you braving the extreme odds of nature, facing the vagaries of hostile weather and terrain conditions, are the sentinels of our country. The climatic and topographic conditions in this region are the most demanding in the world. However, you all brave soldiers have never dithered. The lofty heights in some places of 21,000 feet may appear daunting to the most daring mountaineers, but you are deployed in these high altitudes for prolonged periods without any fear, braving the hypoxic conditions and bearing physical, mental and psychological hardships.
I feel proud to say that you have faced all wars in a commendable manner. Your acts of gallantry, courage and fortitude in Chushul, Rezangia, Siachen, Kargil and other areas are a testimony to the indomitable spirit of the brave Indian solider. I have no doubt that the security of the nation is safe in your capable hands, and you will guard the nation's frontiers under the most daunting conditions.
The Armed Forces have always assured the citizens of their safety and security against internal as well as external threats. I wish to compliment each one of you and all of you for your sincerity, dedication, selflessness and enthusiasm shown each time you are called upon to do so by the nation. I exhort each one of you to always remain ready to deal with any challenge. Your work, your discipline and your high level of commitment are admired by all citizens of this country. I bring to you their good wishes as well as my own. I wish all of you and your families - happiness, well-being and the very best in life. *** AD/SKS
Speech by her Excellency the President of India, Shrimati Pratibha Devisingh Patil Addressing the Defence Personnel
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Dragon spews fire and India feels the heat
China's threat: India gets serious
Nidhi Razdan,
August 31, 2010 22:07 IST
New Delhi: The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) met in New Delhi on Tuesday where top ministers and the PM discussed about the recent tension with China. India's envoy to Beijing S Jaishankar has also been called to give his inputs.
There was consensus to act tough with the Chinese and show a firmness in approach while dealing with them.
Earlier, a top Indian Army General was denied permission to visit China because he serves in what they call a "sensitive" state like Jammu and Kashmir.
India and China certainly have their differences but this time Indian officials say Beijing has gone too far.
Government sources have told NDTV they are mulling their options and much will depend on what Beijing now signals through a senior defence officer who is expected to come here soon.
The latest worry for New Delhi are reports that 7,000 to 11,000 Chinese troops are here in Gilgit in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK), which the government is trying to verify. Some experts say that a more aggressive China needs a stronger response from India.
"This is very serious, for the first time they have belatedly questioned the status of Jammu and Kashmir. We need to take strong political steps like stapling the visas of Tibetans and stressing on Tibet as an autonomous part of China not a militarised one as it is now," said Kanwal Sibal, former Foreign Secretary.
India's China challenge
China refuses to stamp the passports of Indians from Jammu and Kashmir instead giving them stapled visas on separate sheets of paper. Despite repeated protests by New Delhi for two years now the practice still goes on.
Since they see Arunachal as a part of China, Beijing often denies visas to those from Arunachal saying they are from the same country!
In 2007, a study tour to Beijing of over 100 IAS officers was cancelled after China refused to give a visa to an officer from Arunachal Pradesh even former Chief Minister Gegong Apang was not given a visa for the same reason.
The Chinese have also angrily protested a meeting between the Dalai Lama and the PM earlier this month and even criticised the PM's visit to Arunachal evoking an angry reaction from Delhi.
For now New Delhi is waiting and watching to see what Beijing signals but the shift in the public Chinese stance on Jammu and Kashmir has South Block officials very worried and they know they need to find a new way to deal with the problem.
China's threat: India gets serious by Nidhi Razdan
Nidhi Razdan,
August 31, 2010 22:07 IST
New Delhi: The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) met in New Delhi on Tuesday where top ministers and the PM discussed about the recent tension with China. India's envoy to Beijing S Jaishankar has also been called to give his inputs.
There was consensus to act tough with the Chinese and show a firmness in approach while dealing with them.
Earlier, a top Indian Army General was denied permission to visit China because he serves in what they call a "sensitive" state like Jammu and Kashmir.
India and China certainly have their differences but this time Indian officials say Beijing has gone too far.
Government sources have told NDTV they are mulling their options and much will depend on what Beijing now signals through a senior defence officer who is expected to come here soon.
The latest worry for New Delhi are reports that 7,000 to 11,000 Chinese troops are here in Gilgit in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK), which the government is trying to verify. Some experts say that a more aggressive China needs a stronger response from India.
"This is very serious, for the first time they have belatedly questioned the status of Jammu and Kashmir. We need to take strong political steps like stapling the visas of Tibetans and stressing on Tibet as an autonomous part of China not a militarised one as it is now," said Kanwal Sibal, former Foreign Secretary.
India's China challenge
China refuses to stamp the passports of Indians from Jammu and Kashmir instead giving them stapled visas on separate sheets of paper. Despite repeated protests by New Delhi for two years now the practice still goes on.
Since they see Arunachal as a part of China, Beijing often denies visas to those from Arunachal saying they are from the same country!
In 2007, a study tour to Beijing of over 100 IAS officers was cancelled after China refused to give a visa to an officer from Arunachal Pradesh even former Chief Minister Gegong Apang was not given a visa for the same reason.
The Chinese have also angrily protested a meeting between the Dalai Lama and the PM earlier this month and even criticised the PM's visit to Arunachal evoking an angry reaction from Delhi.
For now New Delhi is waiting and watching to see what Beijing signals but the shift in the public Chinese stance on Jammu and Kashmir has South Block officials very worried and they know they need to find a new way to deal with the problem.
China's threat: India gets serious by Nidhi Razdan
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Pakistan bleeding India and the Dragon spewing fire
Fighting a ‘limited war’: It is a flawed concept? by Lt-Gen Harwant Singh (retd)
IT is not clear as to when the idea or the concept of a “limited war” was first evolved and articulated. Maybe it was the fallout from the procrastination, dithering and timidity in our response and an alibi for the missed opportunity of a suitable riposte to a major mischief by Pakistan at Kargil. Such response would have put an end to the slow-bleeding of India by Pakistan. Or was it the result of the fiasco of “Operation Parakaram” (mobilisation of Indian defence forces consequent to the attack on Indian Parliament) where we thought we could go in for a limited war and then backtracked on conjuring up the prospects of a larger conflagration? It takes a minimum of two contestants to make war. Therefore, both must subscribe to the idea of a limited war. It cannot work when one of the contestants does and the other does not fall for it.
... Read More
Another three years: Army Chief More Powerful Than The President
by Abhijit Bhattacharyya 02 Aug 2010
ISI head as chief
NO Pakistani army officer can match Kayani’s professional experience and exposure. He has held all the important and sensitive “India-centric” commands. As a Major- General, he commanded the 12th Infantry Division, Murree, deployed to all over the Line of Control. This was followed by a three-year stint as Director-General, Military Operations from December 2000 to September 2003. On promotion as Lt.-General in September 2003 Kayani became commander of Rawalpindi’s X Corps for a year and then Director-General, ISI, for three years (October 2004 to October 2007). On his elevation in 2007, Kayani became the first ISI chief, in the history of Pakistan, to become the army chief.
One of the most crucial aspects of Kayani’s career is his connection with the US armed forces. He has done the Infantry Officer Advanced Course in United States Army Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia; the US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and Asia-Pacific Centre for Security Studies, Honolulu, Hawaii. The US administration welcomed his appointment as army chief, notably the then CIA chief Michael Hayden, the National Intelligence Director, Mike McConnell, and the Central Command Chief, Admiral William Fallon. The US military high command even predicted that being a “soldier’s soldier”, the Pakistani army under Kayani would perform much better than his predecessor Pervez Musharraf.
Thus, Kayani’s apparently “apolitical” and professional image gave him a distinct advantage. It enhanced his acceptability to the quarrelling politicians of Pakistan. “Civilians” may constitute the “boss-in-front”, but Kayani remains the fulcrum and the invisible centre-of-gravity. Kayani asserted himself when he removed Musharraf’s men from sensitive positions in September 2008. He changed four of the nine Corps Commanders and appointed a new head of the ISI. He always consults civilian leaders, and Zardari and Gilani have no reason to complain. When Zardari offered to send the ISI chief to New Delhi for discussions in the immediate aftermath of 26/11, Kayani turned down the proposal. The President’s failure made Kayani politically more powerful than his own Head of State.
... Read more
East of Singapore August 03, 2010
Nitin Pai demystifies the anarchy of international relations
Global Times, an English language daily newspaper owned by the People's Daily, Communist Party of China's mouthpiece, devoted an astonishing 11 of its 22 editorials last month to threatening the United States, South Korea, Vietnam and Southeast Asian countries for challenging China in the western Pacific. The strident criticism rose into a crescendo last week, with the newspaper delivering a thinly-veiled military threat. "China's long-term strategic plan should never be taken as a weak stand, " it warned, and while "[it] is clear that military clashes would bring bad results to all countries in the region involved, but China will never waive its right to protect its core interest with military means."Using state-controlled media to send signals to other countries is an old trick. In this case it allows the Chinese government to make the threat, yet claim that it is honouring its commitments under its 2002 agreement with ASEAN, where the parties pledged to "undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, without resorting to the threat or use of force, through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned."
... Read more
IT is not clear as to when the idea or the concept of a “limited war” was first evolved and articulated. Maybe it was the fallout from the procrastination, dithering and timidity in our response and an alibi for the missed opportunity of a suitable riposte to a major mischief by Pakistan at Kargil. Such response would have put an end to the slow-bleeding of India by Pakistan. Or was it the result of the fiasco of “Operation Parakaram” (mobilisation of Indian defence forces consequent to the attack on Indian Parliament) where we thought we could go in for a limited war and then backtracked on conjuring up the prospects of a larger conflagration? It takes a minimum of two contestants to make war. Therefore, both must subscribe to the idea of a limited war. It cannot work when one of the contestants does and the other does not fall for it.
... Read More
Another three years: Army Chief More Powerful Than The President
by Abhijit Bhattacharyya 02 Aug 2010
ISI head as chief
NO Pakistani army officer can match Kayani’s professional experience and exposure. He has held all the important and sensitive “India-centric” commands. As a Major- General, he commanded the 12th Infantry Division, Murree, deployed to all over the Line of Control. This was followed by a three-year stint as Director-General, Military Operations from December 2000 to September 2003. On promotion as Lt.-General in September 2003 Kayani became commander of Rawalpindi’s X Corps for a year and then Director-General, ISI, for three years (October 2004 to October 2007). On his elevation in 2007, Kayani became the first ISI chief, in the history of Pakistan, to become the army chief.
One of the most crucial aspects of Kayani’s career is his connection with the US armed forces. He has done the Infantry Officer Advanced Course in United States Army Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia; the US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and Asia-Pacific Centre for Security Studies, Honolulu, Hawaii. The US administration welcomed his appointment as army chief, notably the then CIA chief Michael Hayden, the National Intelligence Director, Mike McConnell, and the Central Command Chief, Admiral William Fallon. The US military high command even predicted that being a “soldier’s soldier”, the Pakistani army under Kayani would perform much better than his predecessor Pervez Musharraf.
Thus, Kayani’s apparently “apolitical” and professional image gave him a distinct advantage. It enhanced his acceptability to the quarrelling politicians of Pakistan. “Civilians” may constitute the “boss-in-front”, but Kayani remains the fulcrum and the invisible centre-of-gravity. Kayani asserted himself when he removed Musharraf’s men from sensitive positions in September 2008. He changed four of the nine Corps Commanders and appointed a new head of the ISI. He always consults civilian leaders, and Zardari and Gilani have no reason to complain. When Zardari offered to send the ISI chief to New Delhi for discussions in the immediate aftermath of 26/11, Kayani turned down the proposal. The President’s failure made Kayani politically more powerful than his own Head of State.
... Read more
East of Singapore August 03, 2010
Nitin Pai demystifies the anarchy of international relations
Global Times, an English language daily newspaper owned by the People's Daily, Communist Party of China's mouthpiece, devoted an astonishing 11 of its 22 editorials last month to threatening the United States, South Korea, Vietnam and Southeast Asian countries for challenging China in the western Pacific. The strident criticism rose into a crescendo last week, with the newspaper delivering a thinly-veiled military threat. "China's long-term strategic plan should never be taken as a weak stand, " it warned, and while "[it] is clear that military clashes would bring bad results to all countries in the region involved, but China will never waive its right to protect its core interest with military means."Using state-controlled media to send signals to other countries is an old trick. In this case it allows the Chinese government to make the threat, yet claim that it is honouring its commitments under its 2002 agreement with ASEAN, where the parties pledged to "undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, without resorting to the threat or use of force, through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned."
... Read more
Thursday, January 14, 2010
National Security: Chinese hackers target PMO computers
Ashish Khetan, New Delhi, January 14, 2010
Hackers from China have targeted computers in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). Headlines Today has learnt that the sinister attempt was made around December 15 last year. Investigators are still coming to terms with the depth of the damage. The hackers had aimed high - their targets were the cream of India's national security set-up: National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan, Cabinet Secretary K.M. Chandrashekhar, PM's Special Envoy Shyam Saran and Deputy National Security Advisor Shekhar Dutt. The four and up to 26 others were squarely in the crosshairs of the hacking attempt.
Top sources told Headlines Today that investigators are trying hard to find out who these hackers were and whether this was a devious espionage attempt by the Chinese government itself. When Headlines Today contacted the PMO regarding the espionage attempt, a spokesperson said no classified information had been breached, but added: "There are routine attempts to hack into various systems. The PMO has its own system in place to protect against such attempts." A top PMO official, whose e-mail account was cracked by the Chinese hackers, confirmed the espionage bid, saying: "These kind of hacking attempts are made. To think they are not made is wrong. The internet or intranet is not used for official purposes."
According to Bharat Karnad, a strategic affairs analyst, "China wants war by all means. It doesn't believe in peacetime. For China, it's always rivals, always competition." Pavan Duggal, chairman of Cyber Law and IT Act Committee, says: "China is very active in cyberspace. It has raised a cyber army of about 3,00,000 people and their only job is to intrude upon secured networks of other countries. All this is all aimed at supremacy. Every country must set up cyber armies to counter China."
R.S.N. Singh, a former RAW officer, says: "China wants to dominate and control this space. This cyber army has soldiers not in uniform but anybody and everybody, maybe college students. It's very serious as cyber warfare can bring a country to a crippling halt." The timing of the espionage attempt has investigators suspecting that the Chinese hackers were desperately trying to access any data on India's position at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. Until Prime Minister Manmohan Singh arrived in Copenhagen on December 17, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh and PM's Special Envoy Shyam Saran were singing different tunes. While Ramesh was in favour of scrapping the Kyoto Protocol, Saran was against the move.
On December 15 when India's final stand was still shrouded in mystery, the Chinese hackers targeted the PMO computers. But what has disturbed investigators the most is that the Chinese hackers quite likely had inside help. The possibility of a mole within the Indian establishment helping a foreign adversary is staring investigators in the face. And the technology being used is preoccupying the Indian sleuths no end.
The espionage attempt was highly evolved and well-researched. The mail was routed through several multi-proxy servers thus obliterating the trail. The hacking spyware itself was embedded in a PDF document. And the trojan was programmed to carry out an array of functions, including downloading files, accessing emails and passwords and also accessing the desktop from a remote location.
Chinese hackers target PMO computers
Hackers from China have targeted computers in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). Headlines Today has learnt that the sinister attempt was made around December 15 last year. Investigators are still coming to terms with the depth of the damage. The hackers had aimed high - their targets were the cream of India's national security set-up: National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan, Cabinet Secretary K.M. Chandrashekhar, PM's Special Envoy Shyam Saran and Deputy National Security Advisor Shekhar Dutt. The four and up to 26 others were squarely in the crosshairs of the hacking attempt.
Top sources told Headlines Today that investigators are trying hard to find out who these hackers were and whether this was a devious espionage attempt by the Chinese government itself. When Headlines Today contacted the PMO regarding the espionage attempt, a spokesperson said no classified information had been breached, but added: "There are routine attempts to hack into various systems. The PMO has its own system in place to protect against such attempts." A top PMO official, whose e-mail account was cracked by the Chinese hackers, confirmed the espionage bid, saying: "These kind of hacking attempts are made. To think they are not made is wrong. The internet or intranet is not used for official purposes."
According to Bharat Karnad, a strategic affairs analyst, "China wants war by all means. It doesn't believe in peacetime. For China, it's always rivals, always competition." Pavan Duggal, chairman of Cyber Law and IT Act Committee, says: "China is very active in cyberspace. It has raised a cyber army of about 3,00,000 people and their only job is to intrude upon secured networks of other countries. All this is all aimed at supremacy. Every country must set up cyber armies to counter China."
R.S.N. Singh, a former RAW officer, says: "China wants to dominate and control this space. This cyber army has soldiers not in uniform but anybody and everybody, maybe college students. It's very serious as cyber warfare can bring a country to a crippling halt." The timing of the espionage attempt has investigators suspecting that the Chinese hackers were desperately trying to access any data on India's position at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. Until Prime Minister Manmohan Singh arrived in Copenhagen on December 17, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh and PM's Special Envoy Shyam Saran were singing different tunes. While Ramesh was in favour of scrapping the Kyoto Protocol, Saran was against the move.
On December 15 when India's final stand was still shrouded in mystery, the Chinese hackers targeted the PMO computers. But what has disturbed investigators the most is that the Chinese hackers quite likely had inside help. The possibility of a mole within the Indian establishment helping a foreign adversary is staring investigators in the face. And the technology being used is preoccupying the Indian sleuths no end.
The espionage attempt was highly evolved and well-researched. The mail was routed through several multi-proxy servers thus obliterating the trail. The hacking spyware itself was embedded in a PDF document. And the trojan was programmed to carry out an array of functions, including downloading files, accessing emails and passwords and also accessing the desktop from a remote location.
Chinese hackers target PMO computers
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Magnetic Hill, Ladakh- India
Location of Magnetic Hill
To reach the Magnetic Hill, Ladakh, you need to take the Leh-Kargil-Baltic National Highway. The hill lies at a distance of 30 km from the town of Leh, at an elevation of around 14,000 feet above sea level. To the eastern side of the hill flows the Sindhu river, originating in Tibet. The local administration has also put up a bill board to help tourists recognize the Magnetic Hill. The board clearly states the whole phenomenon. So you can also enjoy a first hand experience as you reach the hill. Place your vehicle on a specific spot on the road with its engines off and you will soon notice the vehicle moving up at a speed of 20 km/hour. You will have the same results over and again as you redo the exercise.
Impact on Helicopters and Aircrafts
Not only vehicle, even helicopters and aircrafts feel the same magnetic impact. Locals and the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) personnel claim that the helicopters and aircrafts that pass through the area have to fly at a greater speed to avoid the magnetic impact of the hill. And if the aircraft comes within the radius of Magnetic Hill, it starts to jerk.
Other Attractions Around Magnetic Hill
Apart from the Magnetic Hill, you can also enjoy seeing a few other places that lie at a close distance from the hill. The Himalayan region here is truly worth exploring. Given below are a few attractions that you can see in this region.
Gurudwara Patthar Sahib
It is the auspicious place where Guru Gobind Singh, the 10th guru of the Sikhs, had spent time meditating in the 17th century. Locals, army personnel and tourists can be seen here often. Though not many Sikhs arrive here from different parts of the country, the reason perhaps being its remote location.
Colourful Hills & Mountains
While you are in this Himalayan region, you will also like seeing the hills and mountains. Here, the hills bear different colours. Some are white and snow-laden. Some are black or gray in colours while there are some that are green, red or orange in colour.
The drivers will inform you that Indian Air Force pilots always steer clear of the Magnetic Hill.
Magnetic Hill Ladakh
Saturday, December 19, 2009
National Security: Steering India’s Military Capabilities
By Lt Gen Vinay Shankar Indian Defence Review Issue: Vol. 23.3
If we were to comment on the attitude of our leadership to our country’s defence preparedness the conclusion would be of unwitting indifference. There is no other plausible explanation to the manner in which we have been mishandling the defence of our nation.
A quick scan of our security barometer from the time we became a sovereign nation to date would enable us draw up a report card on how we have fared on the security management front.
Within months of our Independence we were subjected to an invasion from Pakistan. Barely managing to save Srinagar, we accepted the loss of a fairly large swathe of territory which we have since called POK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir).
But the narrative has only just begun. Call it neglect or a lack of understanding of defence preparedness because it appears that the gravity of the loss did not really ever sink in. What were the consequences?
Through the fifties, because of the total disconnect between defence and diplomacy we kept botching up matters with China. The price was the ‘62 disaster. We ended up suffering a humiliating defeat. We have, I believe, yet to recover from that trauma.
The Chinese came right up to the foot hills in the North-east. In the Ladakh region they captured large areas of Aksai Chin. After the cease fire, in the East the Chinese unilaterally withdrew to the McMahon Line. However, in the more strategically important Ladakh sector they retained most of what they had taken; approximately 38,000 sq km. Pakistan illegally ceded another 5,180 sq km. And that is how matters stand today.
Surprisingly something that should be causing grave concern appears to be for the moment met with stoic silence. China in the recent past has upped the ante on its claims over Arunachal Pradesh. The denial a visa to a government official of Arunachal Pradesh and the more recent reaction to the PMs’ visit to the State, together with frequent statements that the Province is Chinese territory reflect its new position. There is a view that the recent shift in stance could be due to the assessments the Chinese may have made during the ongoing border negotiations. They may have got the impression that we are not averse to ceding ground in order to settle.
Read the complete article by clicking link below:
Steering India’s Military Capabilities
Thursday, December 17, 2009
38 years and still waiting for a war memorial
NDTV Correspondent, Thursday December 17, 2009, New Delhi
Today is the 38th anniversary of India's greatest military victory in 1971, but nearly four decades after India won the war against Pakistan, the country is still debating whether there should be a central war memorial.
Defence minister AK Antony with the three service chiefs on Wednesday commemored India's greatest military triumph but 38 years after the 1971 victory, the military top brass still pays homage at India Gate, built as a tribute to soldiers killed defending the British Raj.
India has fought five major wars since 1947 and yet there's no national war memorial for thousands of martyrs, thanks to squabbling between different ministries.
The Defence ministry mooted the latest proposal for a memorial at India Gate, the Urban Development ministry disagreed, now a group of ministers is supposed to take a final decision.
"I hope this time we will be able to find an ultimate solution and we will be able to finally fulfill the long cherished wishes of our country and our armed forces," said Defence Minister AK Antony.
Army chief, General Deepak Kapoor has personally taken up the matter with ministers and even the PMO during the past two years without any result. "It is a must. The earlier it is done, the better it is for the army and for the country," he said.
Distant places like Jammu and Tawang have built local memorials for fallen soldiers but a central memorial continues to elude the Indian armed forces.
38 years and still waiting for a war memorial
Today is the 38th anniversary of India's greatest military victory in 1971, but nearly four decades after India won the war against Pakistan, the country is still debating whether there should be a central war memorial.
Defence minister AK Antony with the three service chiefs on Wednesday commemored India's greatest military triumph but 38 years after the 1971 victory, the military top brass still pays homage at India Gate, built as a tribute to soldiers killed defending the British Raj.
India has fought five major wars since 1947 and yet there's no national war memorial for thousands of martyrs, thanks to squabbling between different ministries.
The Defence ministry mooted the latest proposal for a memorial at India Gate, the Urban Development ministry disagreed, now a group of ministers is supposed to take a final decision.
"I hope this time we will be able to find an ultimate solution and we will be able to finally fulfill the long cherished wishes of our country and our armed forces," said Defence Minister AK Antony.
Army chief, General Deepak Kapoor has personally taken up the matter with ministers and even the PMO during the past two years without any result. "It is a must. The earlier it is done, the better it is for the army and for the country," he said.
Distant places like Jammu and Tawang have built local memorials for fallen soldiers but a central memorial continues to elude the Indian armed forces.
38 years and still waiting for a war memorial
Why do we lag behind China?
Recently, the London-based Legatum Institute’s Prosperity Index placed India well ahead of China. In domestic institutional maturity, India was ranked 36th to China’s 100th. And then in the social capital sub-index India was ranked 5th and China, 70th.
Thus, India was supposed to have beaten China. But could it be true? I had doubts. Today’s report – US cos prefer China for investment (click me) seems to give the correct picture. (quote- The survey states as much as 74 per cent of the American companies surveyed ranked China as a top-three investment priority with nearly 20 per cent of them naming it as the number one investment spot for them.- unquote)
The 2009 China Business Report released by the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai shows that ‘a large majority of American firms operating in China the continue to see revenue and profit growth even as elsewhere they face downturn.’ China is the world’s ‘fastest growing economy.’ Not surprising. May I share a personal experience?
Last summer, I had taken the Alaskan cruise. On board the ‘Radiance of the Seas.’ It is a big ship with excellent facilities. In the midst of an unfamiliar luxury, what struck the patriotic cord was the fact that almost everything one saw on board the American ship was ‘made in China’.
In the cabin, the toiletries, towels, linen and water flasks were from China. In the dining hall, the crockery and cutlery carried the Chinese label. The position persisted in the shopping area. Even a small battery ‘charger’ needed to energise the camera, though labelled ‘Kodak,’ had actually come from China. It seemed that the ship was flooded with Chinese goods.
After about 36 hours of leaving Vancouver, we had anchored at Ketchikan. It is a small but beautiful town in the state of Alaska. It is popularly known as the ‘salmon’ city. Has a total population of about 13,000. There are shops within almost a hundred yards of the port. One may walk into any shop. Each one is stuffed with all kinds of winter wear and small souvenirs. The caps, shirts, sweaters, chinaware and knives. Everything except the knives, which are a purely local product, was from China.
Click here to read the full article by JL Gupta from Tribune India
Tailpiece
by SaneIndian on Dec 12, 2009 01:22 AM
Infrastructure in India is beyond horrible. Why would anybody want to invest in India when there is no proper transportation or storage available? Govt should invest heavily in developing infrastructure first. Then India can dream about competing with China. The horrible conditions of the roads and indiscriminate use of Auto-Rickshaws and 2 wheelers ruin what ever little good is there on Indian roads- Chennai City says it all loudly! India has become a joke among the west. All we are doing is living in a false paradise. Democracy is a farce in India: It is more of Criminalisation of the Citizens by the State- The Indian Constitution favours Criminals and Political Criminals to breed at faster pace than the growth of population (as is evident for the last 60 years)!
Thus, India was supposed to have beaten China. But could it be true? I had doubts. Today’s report – US cos prefer China for investment (click me) seems to give the correct picture. (quote- The survey states as much as 74 per cent of the American companies surveyed ranked China as a top-three investment priority with nearly 20 per cent of them naming it as the number one investment spot for them.- unquote)
The 2009 China Business Report released by the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai shows that ‘a large majority of American firms operating in China the continue to see revenue and profit growth even as elsewhere they face downturn.’ China is the world’s ‘fastest growing economy.’ Not surprising. May I share a personal experience?
Last summer, I had taken the Alaskan cruise. On board the ‘Radiance of the Seas.’ It is a big ship with excellent facilities. In the midst of an unfamiliar luxury, what struck the patriotic cord was the fact that almost everything one saw on board the American ship was ‘made in China’.
In the cabin, the toiletries, towels, linen and water flasks were from China. In the dining hall, the crockery and cutlery carried the Chinese label. The position persisted in the shopping area. Even a small battery ‘charger’ needed to energise the camera, though labelled ‘Kodak,’ had actually come from China. It seemed that the ship was flooded with Chinese goods.
After about 36 hours of leaving Vancouver, we had anchored at Ketchikan. It is a small but beautiful town in the state of Alaska. It is popularly known as the ‘salmon’ city. Has a total population of about 13,000. There are shops within almost a hundred yards of the port. One may walk into any shop. Each one is stuffed with all kinds of winter wear and small souvenirs. The caps, shirts, sweaters, chinaware and knives. Everything except the knives, which are a purely local product, was from China.
Click here to read the full article by JL Gupta from Tribune India
Tailpiece
by SaneIndian on Dec 12, 2009 01:22 AM
Infrastructure in India is beyond horrible. Why would anybody want to invest in India when there is no proper transportation or storage available? Govt should invest heavily in developing infrastructure first. Then India can dream about competing with China. The horrible conditions of the roads and indiscriminate use of Auto-Rickshaws and 2 wheelers ruin what ever little good is there on Indian roads- Chennai City says it all loudly! India has become a joke among the west. All we are doing is living in a false paradise. Democracy is a farce in India: It is more of Criminalisation of the Citizens by the State- The Indian Constitution favours Criminals and Political Criminals to breed at faster pace than the growth of population (as is evident for the last 60 years)!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
