Increasing anti-Pakistan rhetoric: What is making India more adventurous?

[GlobalVillageSpace]

Increasing anti-Pakistan rhetoric: What is making India more adventurous?
Global Village Space |

News Analysis |

On Tuesday in a tweet, Indian Defense Minister Arun Jaitley said that the [Indian] government fully supported alleged attacks of the Indian Army across the LoC, terming them as necessary for peace in Jammu and Kashmir.

“Government supports the actions of #IndianArmy across LoC. Such actions are needed to ensure peace in J&K,” he tweeted.

✔@arunjaitley
Government supports the actions of #IndianArmy across LoC. Such actions are needed to ensure peace in J&K.
4:56 PM - 23 May 2017

This was a reiteration of Delhi’s stance that Pakistan is destabilizing the situation in the Kashmir Valley. Besides, it was in-line with the government’s resolve to teach Pakistan a lesson.

In another tweet, he said that they are taking pre-emptive actions to disengage Pakistani post as they are aiding infiltration.

Read more: Pakistan: No option but to hit back at India

“#IndianArmy is taking preemptive & measured actions to counter terrorism in valley & disengage Pak posts across LoC supporting infiltration,” he tweeted.

✔@arunjaitley
#IndianArmy is taking preemptive & measured actions to counter terrorism in valley & disengage Pak posts across LoC supporting infiltration
5:00 PM - 23 May 2017

“As part of our counter-terrorism operations, punitive fire assaults across the Line of Control are being undertaken by the Indian Army.”
– Lieutenant General Ashok Narula

On Tuesday, the Indian Army released a video of a massive fire assault on Pakistani posts across the LoC who were said to have been aiding infiltration. According to India’s premier channel, NDTV, loud explosions were heard and thick smoke clouds rose as a Pakistani post was hit with heavy firepower from India including bunker-busting guns, rocket launchers, anti-tank guided missiles, automated Grenade Launchers, and recoilless guns.

Lieutenant General Ashok Narula, Indian Army’s spokesperson, said, “The Pakistan Army has been providing support to armed infiltrators by engaging our forward troops from their weapon emplacements and pillboxes closer to the Line of Control. At times they have not even hesitated to target villages in the proximity of Line of Control. As part of our counter-terrorism strategy and to ensure that infiltration is curbed and initiative remains with us, the Indian Army proactively dominates Line of Control.” He said Pak army posts were damaged.

This joint politico-military action comes at a time when the situation at the LoC and the overall ties between the two countries are deteriorating. It must be remembered that last week Arun Jaitley, along with the Army Chief, General Rawat, visited the forward posts on the LoC. After meeting field commanders and troops deployed on the Forward Defended Localities (FDLs), Arun Jaitley expressed his satisfaction over the morale of the troops and called upon them to maintain heightened vigil. Besides, he lauded the aggressive dominance posture and instructed the fighting formations to give a befitting response to Pakistan. One can establish a link between the visit and the attack, given the tone and toner of the Indian defense minister.

Read full article:
Increasing anti-Pakistan rhetoric: What is making India more adventurous?

 

[ito]

There are several reasons

1, The BJP gov is more aggressive than any gov in the past.
2, The indian gov is confident of winning the war.
3, The world supports India,s position with respect to Pakistan.
4, India,s growing economy is giving India more confidence to sustain and absorb losses in case of a war.

 

[SabzShaheen]

There are several reasons

1, The BJP gov is more aggressive than any gov in the past.
2, The indian gov is confident of winning the war.
3, The world supports India,s position with respect to Pakistan.
4, India,s growing economy is giving India more confidence to sustain and absorb losses in case of a war.

What makes you think the world supports you?
Also, your economy won't survive a conventional or nuclear war with Pakistan as the Indian army is no behemoth compared to Pakistan's army. Also, Pakistan is no small pushover country like the ones in your backyard.

 

[ito]

What makes you think the world supports you?
Also, your economy won't survive a conventional or nuclear war with Pakistan as the Indian army is no behemoth compared to Pakistan's army. Also, Pakistan is no small pushover country like the ones in your backyard.

Indian economy is almost 9 times larger than Pakistan's. So yes, Indian economy can survive...

There was a parity between India and Pakistan until 1990's...but now the gap is fast widening...The ratio between India and Pakistan defense budgets was 2 in 1980 to 6 now.

 

[Chhatrapati]

What makes you think the world supports you?
Also, your economy won't survive a conventional or nuclear war with Pakistan as the Indian army is no behemoth compared to Pakistan's army. Also, Pakistan is no small pushover country like the ones in your backyard.

Losses will be on both sides and the economics are a calculated risk. Forget India, you worry about your own economy which is already in a slow pace of growth, with you putting all the balls in CPEC.
You think Pakistan will survive a conventional war, let alone a nuclear?
Both countries are luring investments and war is only good for weapons business. Nothing good for economy.

 

[Tom M]

What makes you think the world supports you?
Also, your economy won't survive a conventional or nuclear war with Pakistan as the Indian army is no behemoth compared to Pakistan's army. Also, Pakistan is no small pushover country like the ones in your backyard.

Neither will your economy. Indian Army may not be behemoth compared to Pak Army, but Indian economy is indeed a big behemoth when compared to Pakistan. Now think who can sustain and survive a war. Though war is always the last option.

 

[SabzShaheen]

Indian economy is almost 9 times larger than Pakistan's. So yes, Indian economy can survive...

There was a parity between India and Pakistan until 1990's...but now the gap is fast widening...The ratio between India and Pakistan defense budgets was 2 in 1980 to 6 now.

Realistically, it wouldn't survive; a real conflict would obviously involve the use of nukes which would destroy any infrastructure that the economy relies on. Also, the defence budget doesn't automatically determine the victor of a conflict or how likely an economy is likely to survive.

Losses will be on both sides and the economics are a calculated risk. Forget India, you worry about your own economy which is already in a slow pace of growth, with you putting all the balls in CPEC.
You think Pakistan will survive a conventional war, let alone a nuclear?
Both countries are luring investments and war is only good for weapons business. Nothing good for economy.

Hey, guess what: Read my posts again. Did I say who would survive or who wouldn't?

Neither will your economy. Indian Army may not be behemoth compared to Pak Army, but Indian economy is indeed a big behemoth when compared to Pakistan. Now think who can sustain and survive a war. Though war is always the last option.

Good point as India probably has the economic capacity to sustain a war with Pakistan although that is not the only factor that should be taken into account; the tactics employed during warfare can tilt the balance to suit a country with a weaker economy.

 

[Tom M]

Good point as India probably has the economic capacity to sustain a war with Pakistan although that is not the only factor that should be taken into account; the tactics employed during warfare can tilt the balance to suit a country with a weaker economy.

Wishful thinking huh ?? Well all the best then , but remember "An army marches on its stomach" not my words but by Great Napoleon. Economy does matter than anything else. Hope you got my point.

 

[SabzShaheen]

Wishful thinking huh ?? Well all the best then , but remember "An army marches on its stomach" not my words but by Great Napoleon. Economy does matter than anything else. Hope you got my point.

What you make mention of:
"Attrition warfare is a military strategy consisting of belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and materiel. The war will usually be won by the side with greater such resources."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare

"Attrition warfare is a mutual casualty
inflicting and absorbing contest where the goal is a favorable
exchange rate. It is characterized by the physical destruction
of the enemy, centralized command and control and low tempo of
operations."
Source:http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1990/HPE.htm

What you should consider:
"Maneuver warfare, or manoeuvre warfare, is a military strategy that advocates attempting to defeat the enemy by incapacitating their decision-making through shock and disruption.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare

"This doesn’t mean that wealth always decides victory. It does mean that in the world we live in today there are really just two ways of winning a war: by surprise attack that stuns and divides the enemy, or by overwhelming force based on superior wealth and technology. If you haven’t got the wealth, you have to go for surprise."
Source: https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/comment/wareconomics.pdf


"Maneuver warfare is an approach to war which emphasizes
disrupting the cohesion of the enemy's tactical units and the mental
process of the enemy commander--his ability to make correct and timely
decisions--rather than simply attempting to inflict casualties at a
greater rate than they are sustained, (Attrition Warfare)."

"This is a mental and physical type of warfare. You are mentally
trying to engage the enemy commander (more on this discussed under
OODA loop). It is a method of fighting outnumbered and winning. It
requires sound tactical judgement and a great deal of subordinate
initiative."
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1990/HPE.htm

Yes, attrition warfare may currently be the dominant conflict strategy but one shouldn't be so ignorant as to disregard the many other factors that play into victory and dismiss the credible and realistic threat posed by their opponents.

 

[CriticalThinker02]

Wishful thinking huh ?? Well all the best then , but remember "An army marches on its stomach" not my words but by Great Napoleon. Economy does matter than anything else. Hope you got my point.

Then feed your stomachs on the front lines, we can hear those stomachs crying all the way here.

 

[Pakistani E]

Because we let a nation like Afghanistan rule our border policy. We are ruled by spineless cowards who hold the people who kill our soldiers and attack our census teams as dear to their hearts as other Pakistanis?

In such a confused and directionless nation, why wouldn't your rivals take advantage?

 

[Max]

Pakistan's silence.. we are smaller state, ideally we should have low tolerance level and act kind of abnormal..

 

[Bhoot Pishach]

Because we let a nation like Afghanistan rule our border policy. We are ruled by spineless cowards who hold the people who kill our soldiers and attack our census teams as dear to their hearts as other Pakistanis?

In such a confused and directionless nation, why wouldn't your rivals take advantage?

Thank you!!

 

[jetray]

What makes you think the world supports you?
Also, your economy won't survive a conventional or nuclear war with Pakistan as the Indian army is no behemoth compared to Pakistan's army. Also, Pakistan is no small pushover country like the ones in your backyard.

Consider this, If there is a war only 5 to 6 states in northern India will be affected while the rest of the country will function as usual that means only 20-30% economic loss at the best. While for pakistan even if war affects 2 states on the border it will end up costing 50% of the economy.

India has a huge hinterland which can support war efforts without much sweat. Even worse is that naval warfare will completely block all the trade routes for pakistan while peninsular India will continue trading without any issue.

Pakistan's idea is to inflict casualties on India , India also thinks in the same manner. We dont need to win the war , we simply need to cause greater damage. At the worst if it becomes a full scale war damage on pakistan will be greater and will take more time to recover. While for India it will take less time to recover.

All in all it is foolhardy to fight a war. Hence the reason why pakistan has resorted to proxies knowing very well it doesnt have resources and power to fight India.

 

[Major Sam]

Consider this, If there is a war only 5 to 6 states in northern India will be affected while the rest of the country will function as usual that means only 20-30% economic loss at the best. While for pakistan even if war affects 2 states on the border it will end up costing 50% of the economy.

India has a huge hinterland which can support war efforts without much sweat. Even worse is that naval warfare will completely block all the trade routes for pakistan while peninsular India will continue trading without any issue.

Pakistan's idea is to inflict casualties on India , India also thinks in the same manner. We dont need to win the war , we simply need to cause greater damage. At the worst if it becomes a full scale war damage on pakistan will be greater and will take more time to recover. While for India it will take less time to recover.

All in all it is foolhardy to fight a war. Hence the reason why pakistan has resorted to proxies knowing very well it doesnt have resources and power to fight India.

How can you be so sure there will be India after this war? no more independent states like they were before creation of India.