The statement of Indian Army Chief for fighting a ‘two front war’ against Pakistan and China in chorus has been under discussion since the end of December 2009.
It is envisaged that Indo-US connection has propelled India to flex its military muscles and subsequently use the threatening tone for its nuclear-armed neighbours. Indeed, Indian strategic partnership with US and attainment of nuclear technology and latest weaponry has shored up its defence capability during the ongoing decade of 21st century. As per Stephen Cohen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, since there already exists a trust deficit between India and Pakistan after Mumbai attacks, therefore, such provocative statements could have been avoided at this critical juncture in the South Asia. These hind-sighted statements would give way to terrorists and non-state actors to exploit and ignite the situation for a military confrontation in the region. Indeed, Indian Army Chief has taken a lead from the ‘Quadrennial Defence Review’ (QDR), which Pentagon carries out after every four years to assess and select future areas of interest for its influence, keeping in view its power potential, being the sole super power. Having the status of US strategic partner, India might have thought on similar lines in South Asia. Otherwise, it had to justify the enhanced US military aid and nuclear assistance it received through Indo-US Nuclear Deal and other defence pacts. The pronounced strategy of ‘two fronts war’, apparently aims at containment of China. This containment could be visualized in the backdrop of Indian appeasement of US, as justification of the huge sum of US military consignments. Nevertheless, US should not forget that India is not loyal with it and is in the process of acquisition from all sides’ on economical as well as military fronts. While maintaining allegiance with its cold war ally, India is still a partner of Russia and has many economic stakes with China too. If today China stops bilateral trade with India, Indian economy would suffer badly. There are a number of theories about the real motives of the statement of Indian Army Chief. One hypothesis is that; the statement is for the public consumption. As over the years, Indian masses have started questioning the heavy defence spending by Indian military. The statement would satisfy the people that India indeed is in a state of war against two enemies simultaneously, therefore, the ever-increasing defence budget stand justified. In the same context, India is planning to increase the strength of its Army from the current 1.13 million to 2 million in next few years. Another reason could be that there is a ubiquitous inter-services rivalry between Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force. The very basis of the jealousy is that over last few years, India is spending major portion of its defence budget for the modernisation and up gradation of its naval power under the concept of blue water navy. Apart from a number of ships and submarines commissioned in Indian Navy in last two decades, it has added a nuclear submarine to its naval fleet in the mid of 2009. Besides, a parallel modernization of Indian Air Force is also going on through the procurement and adding of latest version aircraft from United States as well as Russian Federation. Indian Air Force has aircraft like; MiG-29, Mirage-2000H and Sukhoi-30 MKI. India is in the process of getting F-16 and F-18 aircraft from United States and Israel. In fact, the procurement of naval ships and aircraft costs huge sums of finances. In the process, the 1.13 million strong Indian Army felt diminished. Through this new concept of the two fronts war, Indian Army Chief wanted to have the Government’s as well as people’s attention for the added share out of defence budget. Indeed the Sino-India border consists of hilly terrain, where the pre-dominant role would be of Indian Army for which it has already placed a mountain division for undertaking a likely offensive. A forward air base has also been prepared in Arunachal Pradesh, eastern Indian state, bordering China on war footings to support the army operation against China. However, Indian Navy would have no direct role to play against China. Through this revised and offensive doctrine, Indian Army would be able to justify the demand of a lion’s share out of defence budget. Another aspect linked with the new military strategy is a diversionary manoeuvre by Indian Army Chief. A military court of inquiry has found some top military brass involved in the Sukna Land Scam of West Bengal. The main character of the swindle is Lt Gen. Avadhesh Prakash, the Military Secretary, and Principal Staff Officer (PSO) of Indian Army Chief. Since the inquiry demanded stern disciplinary action against Lt General Prakash, therefore, Commander of Eastern Command, Lt General V.K. Singh, who indeed ordered the inquiry, recommended to General Kapoor to sack his Military Secretary. General Kapoor, however, decided to rescue his Military Secretary contrary to the recommendations of Lt General V.K. Singh. It is worth mentioning that Lt Gen Singh, being the senior most is a strong candidate for the post of next Indian Army Chief upon retirement of General Kapoor on March 31, 2010. In this connection, General Kapoor had an in-depth meeting with Indian Defence Minister, A.K. Antony on December 24, 2009. He tried to convince the minister that Lt. General Singh is taking unnecessary interest in the scam against Lt General Prakash. The Indian COAS indeed desires that General V.K Singh should not replace him as the new head of Indian Army. Trumpeting of the ‘two fronts war’ is being considered as a strategy to divert the attention from this biggest scam of military land in the history of Indian Army. Through this bogus idea, Indian Army Chief perhaps desired to attain two objectives: one; to cover up the corruption cases of senior Army officers closely associated with him. And two; to be remembered as an idiosyncratic Indian Army Chief, through introduction of a new military strategy, unlikely to achieve its objectives like ‘two fronts war’. Another hidden aspect is that Indian Army may be sweating for a political influence. This is evident from the fact that in 2006/7, the political leadership of India and Pakistan had almost reached to political solution on Siachin Glacier, but Indian Military prevailed and the issue is still un-resolved. Linked with it, Indian nuclear programme is totally under civilian control, whereas armed forces have no say and therefore, less know-how of its use. This move might be a bid from the Indian military hierarchy to have an excess of the strategic assets. The time bracket as spelt out in the new strategy for achieving the target in initial 96 hours on two fronts is only possible once India make a decision for the first use of nuclear weapons or at least by incapacitating the combat soldiers of the adversaries in an NBC environment. Politically, the change in the military strategy might be aiming to gain the status of major power by India. Together with NATO, and US India is whistling to be recognised as such. Already, it is playing the role of a major partner in Afghanistan and having a lot of influence on Iran. Through flexing the military muscles, India is indeed enhancing its strategic reach out of the region. It is planning to combine the littoral states of the region under it for any future action. Defence analysts consider that the new strategy of confronting Pakistan and China simultaneously and achieving the target in 96 hours is indeed a manifestation of an extremely unrealistic assessment by General Kapoor. Being the strategic partner of US, India might have thought to justify the enhanced US military aid and nuclear assistance it received in the last two decades, especially after 9/11. Indeed, India has neither the capability nor the will to fight a war with China mainly owing to two vital aspects; the lack of a compatible militarily power and a strong economy essentially required for the sustenance of war. However, threat to Pakistan has to be visualized in the true perspectives, either directly or indirectly. In all eventualities, it is important that for the peace and stability in South Asia, US should stop its unremitting military cooperation with India. Acumen in US feels that India is an opportunist country and US is increasing its trust deficit with the Government and people of Pakistan by rendering extra concessions to India. This group of US think tanks feel that America should be “aware of the very strong Indian lobby in our Congress but our National security should be our prime concern and not the money that the Indian lobby spend on our congress”.
It is envisaged that Indo-US connection has propelled India to flex its military muscles and subsequently use the threatening tone for its nuclear-armed neighbours. Indeed, Indian strategic partnership with US and attainment of nuclear technology and latest weaponry has shored up its defence capability during the ongoing decade of 21st century. As per Stephen Cohen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, since there already exists a trust deficit between India and Pakistan after Mumbai attacks, therefore, such provocative statements could have been avoided at this critical juncture in the South Asia. These hind-sighted statements would give way to terrorists and non-state actors to exploit and ignite the situation for a military confrontation in the region. Indeed, Indian Army Chief has taken a lead from the ‘Quadrennial Defence Review’ (QDR), which Pentagon carries out after every four years to assess and select future areas of interest for its influence, keeping in view its power potential, being the sole super power. Having the status of US strategic partner, India might have thought on similar lines in South Asia. Otherwise, it had to justify the enhanced US military aid and nuclear assistance it received through Indo-US Nuclear Deal and other defence pacts. The pronounced strategy of ‘two fronts war’, apparently aims at containment of China. This containment could be visualized in the backdrop of Indian appeasement of US, as justification of the huge sum of US military consignments. Nevertheless, US should not forget that India is not loyal with it and is in the process of acquisition from all sides’ on economical as well as military fronts. While maintaining allegiance with its cold war ally, India is still a partner of Russia and has many economic stakes with China too. If today China stops bilateral trade with India, Indian economy would suffer badly. There are a number of theories about the real motives of the statement of Indian Army Chief. One hypothesis is that; the statement is for the public consumption. As over the years, Indian masses have started questioning the heavy defence spending by Indian military. The statement would satisfy the people that India indeed is in a state of war against two enemies simultaneously, therefore, the ever-increasing defence budget stand justified. In the same context, India is planning to increase the strength of its Army from the current 1.13 million to 2 million in next few years. Another reason could be that there is a ubiquitous inter-services rivalry between Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force. The very basis of the jealousy is that over last few years, India is spending major portion of its defence budget for the modernisation and up gradation of its naval power under the concept of blue water navy. Apart from a number of ships and submarines commissioned in Indian Navy in last two decades, it has added a nuclear submarine to its naval fleet in the mid of 2009. Besides, a parallel modernization of Indian Air Force is also going on through the procurement and adding of latest version aircraft from United States as well as Russian Federation. Indian Air Force has aircraft like; MiG-29, Mirage-2000H and Sukhoi-30 MKI. India is in the process of getting F-16 and F-18 aircraft from United States and Israel. In fact, the procurement of naval ships and aircraft costs huge sums of finances. In the process, the 1.13 million strong Indian Army felt diminished. Through this new concept of the two fronts war, Indian Army Chief wanted to have the Government’s as well as people’s attention for the added share out of defence budget. Indeed the Sino-India border consists of hilly terrain, where the pre-dominant role would be of Indian Army for which it has already placed a mountain division for undertaking a likely offensive. A forward air base has also been prepared in Arunachal Pradesh, eastern Indian state, bordering China on war footings to support the army operation against China. However, Indian Navy would have no direct role to play against China. Through this revised and offensive doctrine, Indian Army would be able to justify the demand of a lion’s share out of defence budget. Another aspect linked with the new military strategy is a diversionary manoeuvre by Indian Army Chief. A military court of inquiry has found some top military brass involved in the Sukna Land Scam of West Bengal. The main character of the swindle is Lt Gen. Avadhesh Prakash, the Military Secretary, and Principal Staff Officer (PSO) of Indian Army Chief. Since the inquiry demanded stern disciplinary action against Lt General Prakash, therefore, Commander of Eastern Command, Lt General V.K. Singh, who indeed ordered the inquiry, recommended to General Kapoor to sack his Military Secretary. General Kapoor, however, decided to rescue his Military Secretary contrary to the recommendations of Lt General V.K. Singh. It is worth mentioning that Lt Gen Singh, being the senior most is a strong candidate for the post of next Indian Army Chief upon retirement of General Kapoor on March 31, 2010. In this connection, General Kapoor had an in-depth meeting with Indian Defence Minister, A.K. Antony on December 24, 2009. He tried to convince the minister that Lt. General Singh is taking unnecessary interest in the scam against Lt General Prakash. The Indian COAS indeed desires that General V.K Singh should not replace him as the new head of Indian Army. Trumpeting of the ‘two fronts war’ is being considered as a strategy to divert the attention from this biggest scam of military land in the history of Indian Army. Through this bogus idea, Indian Army Chief perhaps desired to attain two objectives: one; to cover up the corruption cases of senior Army officers closely associated with him. And two; to be remembered as an idiosyncratic Indian Army Chief, through introduction of a new military strategy, unlikely to achieve its objectives like ‘two fronts war’. Another hidden aspect is that Indian Army may be sweating for a political influence. This is evident from the fact that in 2006/7, the political leadership of India and Pakistan had almost reached to political solution on Siachin Glacier, but Indian Military prevailed and the issue is still un-resolved. Linked with it, Indian nuclear programme is totally under civilian control, whereas armed forces have no say and therefore, less know-how of its use. This move might be a bid from the Indian military hierarchy to have an excess of the strategic assets. The time bracket as spelt out in the new strategy for achieving the target in initial 96 hours on two fronts is only possible once India make a decision for the first use of nuclear weapons or at least by incapacitating the combat soldiers of the adversaries in an NBC environment. Politically, the change in the military strategy might be aiming to gain the status of major power by India. Together with NATO, and US India is whistling to be recognised as such. Already, it is playing the role of a major partner in Afghanistan and having a lot of influence on Iran. Through flexing the military muscles, India is indeed enhancing its strategic reach out of the region. It is planning to combine the littoral states of the region under it for any future action. Defence analysts consider that the new strategy of confronting Pakistan and China simultaneously and achieving the target in 96 hours is indeed a manifestation of an extremely unrealistic assessment by General Kapoor. Being the strategic partner of US, India might have thought to justify the enhanced US military aid and nuclear assistance it received in the last two decades, especially after 9/11. Indeed, India has neither the capability nor the will to fight a war with China mainly owing to two vital aspects; the lack of a compatible militarily power and a strong economy essentially required for the sustenance of war. However, threat to Pakistan has to be visualized in the true perspectives, either directly or indirectly. In all eventualities, it is important that for the peace and stability in South Asia, US should stop its unremitting military cooperation with India. Acumen in US feels that India is an opportunist country and US is increasing its trust deficit with the Government and people of Pakistan by rendering extra concessions to India. This group of US think tanks feel that America should be “aware of the very strong Indian lobby in our Congress but our National security should be our prime concern and not the money that the Indian lobby spend on our congress”.
Comments
Post a Comment