The post Legislate that every Undergrad serves in the Indian Military appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
The calls to de-escalate and ease the tension between India and Pakistan are rising from all over the world. Besides, students, concerned citizens, anti-nuclear activists, universities, trade unions and peace workers across the globe, the regional networks and organisations from South Asia also requested India and Pakistan to maintain the status quo recently after the last week’s escalation of tensions led to a dangerous impasse between the two countries. They urged the countries “to adopt maximum restraint and cease all hostilities to ensure peace in South Asia.”
 
“The reasons for the present escalation are well known, and we believe that such instances would recur, without dealing with the underlying causes. Pakistan is unable or unwilling to exercise effective control over armed non-state actors present in its territory that engage in terrorist activities in Afghanistan and India particularly in the Kashmir region. India is unwilling and unable to find a political solution to the conflict in Kashmir and has increased repression and persecution of the Kashmiri civilian population particularly in the last five years,” they said in their statement.
 
“The Indian government’s alleged triumphalism with a view to garner votes in the forthcoming general election has led to serious escalation after the suicide terror attack that killed 49 Indian troops in Kashmir on 14 February. We welcome the Pakistan Government’s release of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, the captured Indian pilot. Resorting to limited or unlimited war between the two countries will not contribute to finding a long-term and sustainable solution for the Jammu and Kashmir issue. We strongly urge the two governments to reach an effective long-term solution to all pending bilateral issues through dialogue and diplomatic means without resorting to any tactical military operations,” they said.
 
The statement was signed by South Asians for Human Rights, Women’s Regional Network, Asian Network for Free Elections, Civil Society and Human Rights Network, Afghanistan, Odhikar, Bangladesh, Ain O Salish Kendra (ASK), Bangladesh, Community Self Reliance Centre ( CSRC), Nepal, Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society ( JKCCS), India, South India Cell for Human Rights Education and Monitoring (SICHREM), Peoples Watch, India, Peoples Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR), Human Rights Alert, Manipur, India, Mahila Savangeen Utkarsha Mandal (MASUM), Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child (SPARK), National Commission for Peace and Justice ( NCJP), Pakistan and Bytes for all, Pakistan.
 
Related Articles:
#SayNoToWar in South Asia, take part in the Global StandOut for peace
UK based south Asians urge India and Pakistan to work on peace
Anti-nuclear activists call upon India and Pakistan to de-escalate
De-escalate Tensions between India and Pakistan: PIPFPD
 

The post South Asian regional networks urge India and Pakistan to maintain status quo appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A villager stands inside his damaged house after heavy shelling from the Pakistani side at Mendhar, in Poonch district ( photo by special arrangement)

“We are living in fear ever since Indian jets crossed the LoC and vice-versa, and only those people who live around the LoC know the true cost of war, as we are the first casualty,” Hussain, a Sarpanch from the Congress party, says while talking to TwoCircles.net via phone.

He says the temperature in Kargil during the day is -10 degrees Celcius. “When you don’t have water to bath, how can you think of surviving a war”? he asks.

Hussain says he along with his family are having sleepless nights these days as they worry where they will go in this “bone-chilling cold” if a war breaks out.

Hussain says the provisions stored for the winter are often not enough during normal times and if war breaks down it will be disastrous for the people of Leh, Kargil, and Ladakh.

Another local, Subhan Jaffari, says Ladakh shares 130 kilometres of the border area with Pakistan and even security forces are under 10ft snow.

“We will suffer heavy damage and we have suffered in past too. It will be impossible for us to shift right now to better places,” Jaffari says.
Jaffari says he has four daughters and is extremely worried for them. “Those who are beating the drums of war while sitting in their cosy rooms should see the conditions of the people living in the border area,” he adds.

Bodraj Suchetgarh of Jammu sectors RS Pura says people in his area are of the opinion that war can break down anytime and they are moving towards safer places along with their family members. Boadraj, a government school teacher by profession, lambasted the Indian media for creating a war-like situation.

“People are panicking because of the India media, the way they have created war hysteria has affected the people here. It is very unfortunate that the government  is not able to handle them,” Bodraj says. He also slammed the government for failing to construct bunkers that were promised to them.

“The tall claims of the government of constructing the bunkers remain only in papers. These bunkers could have been of use this time easily,” he says.

It is pertinent to mention the Central Government approved the construction of 14,460 bunkers along the 740-km long border with Pakistan at a cost of Rs 415.73 crore last year. However, the project is far from complete and hence of little use to the locals.

The dwellers alongside the LoC always face the brunt of cross-border shelling. In the last three years alone, 100 civilians have lost their lives and 300 civilians have been injured in border skirmishes.

The government has ordered all government and private schools within a range five km from the International Border in Samba, Jammu, Rajouri, and Poonch to remain closed since Thursday.

The nervousness is also visible in the town of Uri in Baramulla district after shelling continued late Tuesday night for several hours in the nearby villages of Kalgai and Kamalkote.

“We have not slept since the last three days due to shelling between Indian and Pakistan. We only pray that this tension comes to an end once and for all,” says Nazeer Ahmad Teli of Uri town via Phone. He adds that locals have been advised to stay indoors and switch off the lights during night

Mohammad Dilawar of Gurez sector, North Kashmir, while speaking to TwoCircles.net said the locals constructed the bunkers themselves a few years ago and many families have shifted to their underground bunkers. Although there were no reports of cross-border shelling in that region, there is a lot of fear among the locals.

According to latest reports, at least 60 families comprising around 300 people have fled their homes after firing from the Pakistan side killed 3 civilians in Poonch Village.

The civilians fled for safety as Indian and Pakistani armies continued to pound the Line of Control.

“We are poor people and cannot afford the loss of houses. We are tired of living under the fear of getting killed or our houses getting destroyed in the shelling, ” said an elderly person Ghulam Hussain of Poonch to a Srinagar-based news agency. He urged both India and Pakistan to resolve their issues peacefully.

Tension escalated between India and Pakistan after a Kashmiri suicide bomber belonging to the Jaish-e-Mohammed outfit blew up a bus killing 40 CRPF troopers on February 14 which prompted Tuesday’s air strike by India on a JeM camp across the LoC.

Courtesy: Two Circle

The post ‘Those who beat war drums from their cosy homes should see our life on the border’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Most of the times when peace is spoken about as being a good thing, and when violence and war is spoken of with disapproval, friends, even seemingly peaceable ones, inform the spokesperson for peace, that he is being are naïve and idealistic.
During conversations, peace lovers are invariably told, “You don’t understand, ‘they’ (whoever they are), must be taught a lesson”. Apparently, the lesson should be imparted violently.

Violent reprisal is notjustifiable, yet these often-rational people become warriors from the safety of their homes, far away from the war zone. They believe within their hearts that violent retaliation and revenge is the right way to act, and say, “If ‘they’ kill forty, then ‘we’ should kill more than that”. “We should show them our strength”. The other thing they tell a peacenik is, “we didn’t start it. They started it”. Evidently, violent reprisal and bloodlust is justifiable to the armchair-in-front-of-the-TV warriors.

Supportingthe idea of war is an expression of patriotism. War mongeringpoliticians talk with immaturebelligerence (and this is accepted as the talk of a strong man), andtell citizens of the country that war and reprisal is the right thing to do, and, they tell the people, that war,and killing,is for the good of the country, and, that support for war, expresses patriotism. And,their patriotism is at stake if they don’t agree.

What these out-of-range war lovers, who follow the rhetoric of out-of-range politicians and hysterical, shrieking television anchors, don’t realise, is, that in war, people on both sides are injured, maimed, crippled, and die. And if they survive, they live a life that is damaged, physically and mentally.

Why do wars begin? It is usually because ‘Wars are good business’, according to Milo Minderbinder, Joseph Heller’s fictional character from the novel Catch 22.It is also because of the lust for powerand a show-of-power, by politicians,that could win electionsat the cost of human lives, property, the environment, civil liberties and human rights. In a politician’s lust for power, human lives do not matter. Politicians are masters of making speeches (that’s their job)that raise mass hysteria, and people become the puppets of politicians.
You fasten all the triggers/ For the others to fire/ Then you sit back and watch/ When the death count gets higher/ You hide in your mansion/ While the young people’s blood/
Flows out of their bodies/ And is buried in the mud.  Masters of War:Songwriter ~Bob Dylan

Wars are political tools – Wars are a collaboration between corporations that profit from war, and politicians (for all sorts of contracts, for reconstruction, for exploitation). It’s a collaboration of crony capitalists and politicians for electoral gains so that the collaboration can continue for as long as it can. It’s a collaboration between arms dealers and politicians. Arms dealers love wars because that’s how they sell their arms and ammunition. Wars are boom time for arms manufacturers (pardon the pun).
Come you masters of war/ You that build the big guns/ You that build the death planes/ You that build all the bombs/ You that hide behind walls/ You that hide behind desks/ I just want you to know/ I can see through your masks/ You that never done nothin’/ But build to destroy- Masters of War~songwriter Bob Dylan

Wars are profitable to politicians and business– Of the fourteen wars going on around the world, most of them are for mineral rights and oil, and some for real estate and expansion of property, of course some are also for the lust for power, and some–for sheer human cussedness (inhuman cussedness), such as Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
Some wars begin when a nation does not want to do business with other powerful nations that want to exploit its oil resources, as is happening in Venezuela. Sometimes two nations do not see eye to eye on a piece of real estate, and they fight over it without caring about the people who live in that piece of real estate, in fact the people of these areas are trampled upon and punished for being centuries-old-inhabitants of the place, as is happening in Kashmir and Palestine.

The environment dies. People die- The use of weapons destroy structures and oil fields, fires breakout due to bombing. Military transport movements and the use of chemical weapons destroy the environment. Soil, water and air are polluted deliberately during war,and,as a by-product of war.
Rapid environmental degradation takes place in times of war due to damage to critical ecosystems. People struggle to survive. And, animals, plants and trees and insects that form the biodiversity of not just the area under attack, but of the whole ecosystem, are killed, and the health of inhabitants, human and other living and creatures, are affected. Habitats are destroyed. Cities and villages are destroyed, families are displaced,ecologies and economies are damaged. All living creatures become refugees. Displaced.

The biggest loss to war and violence, is the loss of humanity–The consequence of war is the creation of hatred, and,the loss of values. Human nature is at its worst when humans use all their talent and aptitude to eliminate other human beings. When human life is reduced to being the debris of war – to be incinerated or buried in the ground.If that is not the failure of human values. If that is not loss of humanity. What is?!!
War, huh, good god/ What is it good for/ Absolutely nothing, listen to me/ Oh, war, I despise/ ‘Cause it means destruction of innocent lives/ War means tears to thousands of mothers eyes/ When their sons go to fight/ And lose their lives ~ War: Songwriters – Barret Strong / Norman Whitfield

Make war, not on terrorism, but on ignorance,Mr politician! Create a front that reaches primary education to the most far-flung areas. Make war on sickness, by strengthening primary health care. Challenge growing corporatisation and crony capitalistson a war footing. Confront growing inequality and fight for a more even distribution of wealth.Do battle on behalf of agriculture and the entry of GMO’s that are impoverishing our agriculture. And most importantly, wage war on environmental degradation and, stand up for tribal rights and our forests.

We must be peaceful. We must make peace with ourselves. Be clear headed, and make peacemaking our undertaking. And, instead of supporting war, peacefully and boldly, register our dissent to war instead of listening to and supporting cries for war.
… Peace will come/ And let it begin with me/ … We need peace/ And let it begin with me/ Oh, my own life is all I can hope to control/ Oh, let my life be lived for the good/ Good of my soul/ Let it bring/ Peace/ Sweet peace/ Peace will come/ And let it begin with me ~ Peace will Come: songwriter – Tom Paxton

Pratap Antony is a Passive activist. Active pacifist freelance thinker and writer on ecology and environment, social justice and pluralism, management ideas and issues and jazz and western classical music and Indian classical dance.

Courtesy: https://countercurrents.org/
 

The post War Is The Loss of Humanity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Indians, Pakistanis, Kashmiris and other south Asian citizens of UK urged the warmongers in Indian and Pakistani governments to draw back their forces from the brink and focus on peace.

In a statement released on Facebook by South Asia Solidarity Network on Feb 27, the citizens collective based in the UK said that they wanted peace in South Asia and urged both the governments to work on peace and not war.
 
“The suicide bomb attack on 14th February, in which 40 jawans of the Indian CRPF were killed at Pulwama in Jammu and Kashmir, has been seized on by the BJP government even while the families mourn the deaths of their loved ones, and in many cases against their wishes, to whip up nationalist anger before the general election due to start in April. In doing so, India’s BJP government led by Narendra Modi is recklessly taking the country to the brink of war with Pakistan,” they wrote.
 
They condemned the Indian government’s warmongering response to Pulwama (which reached the level of an air-raid across the line of control in Kashmir) and its “cynical and shameless use of the deaths of the jawans for electioneering.”
 
They also condemned the warmongering and attacks with which the Pakistani military responded and urged them to stop further escalation. “We call upon the Pakistan government to assert civilian control over its armed forces. The failure to do so is a permanent threat to peace in South Asia,” they said.
 
They added that a war between two nuclear-armed countries like India and Pakistan, however limited or short-lived, portends grave danger to the people of the whole South Asian region. “We condemn the wave of attacks on Kashmiris – students, traders and others – across India incited by the BJP and carried out by its affiliates. We call for prompt and severe punishment of the perpetrators, and of colluding officials and police officers,” they added.
 
“We condemn the widespread expulsions and arrests of Kashmiri students on the basis of alleged “anti-national” social media posts. We condemn also the death threats against those who have criticised the BJP government’s Islamophobic and anti-Kashmiri policies,” they said.
 
They also called on the Indian government to not accept Israel’s offer of “unlimited” assistance and not allow Israel to involve itself in the internal affairs of South Asia.

The statement was supported by General and Municipal Boilermakers (GMB) Trade Union Race, one of the UK’s biggest trade unions.
 
The signatories were South Asia Solidarity Group London, Awami Workers Party Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (UK), Pakistan Solidarity Campaign (UK), Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) International Department, General and Municipal Boilermakers (GMB) Trade Union Race, All India Progressive Women’s Association, London, Black women’s Project, National Union of Students (UK) Black Students Campaign, SOAS India Society, concerned students and South Asia Society, Goldsmiths, University of London.
 

The post UK based south Asians urge India and Pakistan to work on peace appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Tensions in the Kashmir region were already building after more than 40 Indian troops were recently killed by a suicide bomber. India’s “pre-emptive strike” over the disputed border on Tuesday – the first of its kind by India since it went to war with Pakistan in 1971 – has escalated the situation further. India said it had targeted a terrorist training camp and accused Pakistan of violating a 2003 ceasefire, while Pakistan now claims to have shot down two Indian fighter jets.

The origins of the Kashmir conflict lie in British imperial disengagement from the subcontinent. At independence in 1947, the unpopular Hindu Maharaja of Kashmir was faced with invasion by Pakistani tribesmen. He turned to India for help, signing the treaty of accession that took Kashmir into the Indian Union. India sent troops to Kashmir and so began the first war between India and Pakistan.

The Pakistanis were held off by Indian troops after they occupied one-third of Kashmir in 1948. Today, Pakistan continues to occupy that third and India holds the remaining two-thirds including the Kashmir Valley. The border between these two areas in Kashmir is demarcated by the Line of Control (LoC), established after fighting in 1947-48. This demarcation has changed little in all the conflicts of the subsequent years.

Disputed territory: green is Kashmiri region under Pakistani control; dark-brown is Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir; striped is Aksai Chin under Chinese control. CIA World Factbook/Wikipedia Commons

Maharaja Hari Singh’s move to join India was supported by the popular secular Kashmiri political movement – the National Conference, led by Sheikh Abdullah. Particularly so, as India agreed a special status for Kashmir within the Indian Union – spelled out in Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. A further article in the constitution prohibits people from outside Kashmir from buying land and property in the state, allowing Kashmir to preserve the balance of its ethnic and religiously mixed population (60% Muslim, 35% Hindu and 5% Buddhist).

Ladakh: a mountainous region in the disputed north-west of Jammu and Kashmir in northern India. Phuong D. Nguyen/Shutterstock

Pakistan has always maintained that, in accordance with the logic of partition, Kashmir should have been integrated with it. It attempted to take Kashmir by force in 1947-48 and again in 1965, with no success. The Kargil conflict in 1999 was the last substantial direct confrontation between the two militaries.

Since then there have been regular terrorist attacks on mostly military, paramilitary or government targets in Kashmir – see the full list here. Successive Indian governments have held the Pakistan military and their Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) responsible for training and aiding the terrorists involved, which Pakistan denies.

After this latest suicide attack, claimed by the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) terror group, the debate now rests on whether the wider apparatus of the Pakistani state was aware of, and can be held responsible for, the actions of a terrorist group based in their country and with supposed links to the ISI.

Modi operandi

The suicide attack that killed Indian paramilitary personnel takes on added significance because it occurred in the context of the looming general election in India in which the BJP, led by Narendra Modi, is trying to retain its grip on power. Modi and his BJP came to power with a thumping majority in May 2014, promising competent, clean government and economic development.

However, things have not gone well for the government in recent months. The Indian economy is suffering from the long-term effects of the decision to demonetise in 2016 and the inability to generate new jobs. The BJP was also defeated in five state elections in 2018, including key states of the Hindi belt such as Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.

India’s Narendra Modi. Escalation of tensions with Pakistan could play into BJP plans ahead of Indian elections. By Madhuram Paliwal/Shutterstock

With Modi’s supposed record of economic competence and good governance under challenge, he has increasingly relied on his party’s version of extreme nationalism to keep people’s support. The BJP’s Hindutva ideology sees India as a Hindu country and believes all Indian Muslims should have been forced to move to Pakistan in 1947, and now constitute a fifth column in the country. So an attack such as the recent suicide bombing – whether or not it was actually instigated by Pakistan – plays into Modi’s narrative.

That the attack was carried out by a young man from Indian Kashmir also serves to illustrate the failure of the Modi government in dealing with the Kashmir problem. For more than three years the BJP was itself part of the government of Kashmir in alliance with the People’s Democratic Party of Mohammed and Mehbooba Mufti. This alliance fell apart in 2018, mostly over disagreements between the two parties about how to handle the increase in violence in Kashmir and the radicalisation of young Kashmiris, who were once again taking up arms against India.

The Jaish-e-Mohammad terror group, unusually, took immediate responsibility for the attack. Equally, the Indian response to the attack was a first, in that India has never before responded to terrorism within its borders by attacking Pakistan. India’s airstrike is considered the first major use of air power against Pakistan since 1971.

At this stage there are claims and counter claims from both sides about what the Indian bombing raids achieved. Pakistan is threatening an appropriate response, so there is potential for an escalation of this volatile situation between two nuclear armed countries.

Amid an intensifying war of words and action between the two, the only beneficiary will be the BJP. As jingoistic fervour rises in India, they hope they will be swept back to office on the crest of that wave.

Courtesy: The Conversation

The post Kashmir: India and Pakistan’s escalating conflict will benefit Narendra Modi ahead of elections appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Mumbai: The MiG-21 Bison that Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman was flying when he was downed by a Pakistan Air Force F-16 was well past its retirement age, and kept alive with repeated upgrades and service life extensions, experts have told IndiaSpend.

Anantnag: Debris of MiG-21 fighter plane which crashed on May 27, 2014.

The accident-prone Russian-made MiGs–482 of which were lost to accidents between 1971 and April 2012, averaging nearly 12 a year–were first inducted into the Indian Air Force in the mid-1960s. These were to retire by the mid-1990s, but were upgraded to Bison standard, even as successive variants were inducted until the 1980s.

“India is the last country in the world with a serious airforce to still fly the MiG 21s,” Pushpinder Singh, founding editor of the Vayu Aerospace and Defence Review, told IndiaSpend. “The poor young man who flew the aircraft against an F-16 didn’t stand a chance… [He] is now a prisoner of war and it is a national shame that in 2019 we are still flying these planes.”

As aircraft age, the number of failures due to the ageing of their functional equipment or system components grows. As system components often hold a longer life potential than the certified life of an aircraft, subsystem or service life extension programmes are carried out to maximise the use of their equipment.

However, every aircraft has its lifespan and the MiG-21s reached the end of theirs two decades ago, Singh said. After numerous upgrades and service life extensions, India will begin phasing out the MiG-21s along with the MiG-23 and MiG-27 from 2022.

But that may not be soon enough.

The MiGs are built on the technology of the 1960s and the 1970s, Air Marshal Padamjit Singh Ahluwalia (retd), former chief of the western air command, told IndiaSpend. “[We] are now nearing 2020… [It] is phenomenal of the IAF to sustain its use till date as these jets are no comparison for the F-16s.”

A history of crashes

Of 28 IAF aircraft crashes recorded between April 2012 and March 2016, more than a fourth (eight) involved the MiG-21, six of which were the upgraded MiG-21 Bison variant, the government told parliament in March 2016.
 

Source: Lok Sabha
*Both killed in MiG BISON aircraft

From 1971 to April 2012, as many as 482 MiG aircraft accidents took place killing 171 pilots, 39 civilians, eight service personnels and one aircrew, the government told Parliament in May 2012.

The MiG-21s generally report the maximum number of crashes, Air Marshal Ahluwalia said, “These planes are difficult to fly–they have the highest accident rate.”

From 1993 to 2013, 198 MiG-21s specifically–often dubbed “flying coffins” by pilots–of different variants have crashed, killing 151 pilots, according to data from Bharat Rakshak, a website run by military aviation enthusiasts, citing government data. IndiaSpend has not been able to independently verify these data.

MiG-21 vs F-16

For over 50 years, the IAF has been using the Russian-made MiG-21s and its variants, which are the oldest fighters in its fleet. “We still have squadrons of the older models,” Air Marshal VK Jimmy Bhatia (retd.), who commanded the Western Air Command, told IndiaSpend. “More than a decade ago, we began upgrading these to Bison standards which include new radars and new navigational capabilities, among other upgrades.”

The MiGs “delivered in terms of quality–as these were supersonic fighter jets, keeping up with the technology of the time–and quantity, as we could have them in large numbers to serve us for over four decades,” Singh told IndiaSpend, adding, however, that every aircraft has its lifespan and the MiG-21s reached the end of theirs two decades ago.

By 2022, these aircraft will have reached the end of their lifetime and the MiG-21s along with the MiG-23 and MiG-27 will be phased out.
The US-made F-16s, which the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) uses, “have pretty advanced radars, navigation systems and other capabilities. In terms of range, the F-16s are better than the MiG-21s,” Air Marshal Bhatia said. The PAF has been using F-16s for less than 40 years now, and received its newest batch of the Block-50 model 10 years ago.

Nevertheless, Air Marshal Bhatia said, the MiG-21s can rival the F-16s: “The MiG-21 Bison is capable of carrying the latest Russian missiles and in that sense you can’t say they are inferior to the F-16. I would still say they are comparable. But the fact is we are nearing the end of the air frame for these–there is very little residual life for them. Even for those aircraft that have received extensions–we are nearing the end of their extended life.”

Way back in 1983, the government had acknowledged the need to design and develop new-technology fighter jets, Singh said. “But since we couldn’t afford to buy them at the time, we created the Light Combat Aircraft  (LCA) programme Tejas,” he said. “Now 35 years later, the programme has yet to really take off.”
To hold up against today’s fighter-jets, an aircraft needs the latest technology such as advanced avionics and radar, greater weapon-load capacity, stealth technology, electronic warfare capability, precision weaponry and other such features, which the MiG-21 does not have, Padamjit Singh Ahluwalia (retd), former chief of western air command, told IndiaSpend. “As a fighter jet, the MiG-21 is a basic plane with regular avionics, it doesn’t have precision-strike weapons, or a reliable engine…”

After Wing Commander Varthaman’s MiG-21 Bison was shot down and he was taken prisoner, IAF sources defended the use of the MiG-21 Bison, saying it was one of the fighters in its inventory and that aircraft are rotated based on operations, time and threat level, The Print reported on February 27, 2019.

The need for newer aircraft

The first Tejas was inducted into the IAF in July 2016. On February 20, 2019, less than a week after the February 14 Pulwama attack, the IAF received final operating clearance or ‘release to service’ documents for the Tejas Mk1.

“In 1999 in the Kargil operations we used the Mirage 2000s which worked beautifully,” Singh said. Three air chiefs pushed very hard to acquire these aircraft with multi-role capabilities to replace the MiGs, but “the system did not allow their procurement”, he said.

Instead, in 2007, the Congress-run government initiated the process to develop Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA). Six vendors were shortlisted–Russian Aircraft Corporation,  the Swedish aerospace company Saab, France’s Dassault Aviation SA, the US’s Lockheed Martin Corporation and Boeing, and a consortium of British, German, Spanish and Italian firms. The first 18 aircraft were to be sold in ‘fly-away’ condition while the remaining 108 were to be manufactured under transfer-of-technology agreements.

In April 2018, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, side-stepping a three-year negotiation for the MRCA tender, announced the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft after a deal struck directly with the French government. Later, in July 2018, then defence minister Manohar Parrikar informed Parliament that the Centre had withdrawn a multi-billion dollar tender for 126 MRCA fighter jets.

This has led to a high-decibel controversy, with the Congress, currently in opposition, accusing the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party of non-transparency and calling the deal “one of the biggest failures” of the ‘Make-in-India’ programme.

“Rafale jets, which are more sophisticated and high-end, are honestly not the aeroplanes to replace the MiG-21,” Singh told IndiaSpend, “We need jets that are smaller, lighter and cheaper fighters for the frontline.”

Indian Air Force needs more jets

Currently, the IAF has 31 fighter jet squadrons, against an authorised strength of 42. This gap is due to the slow induction of newer fighter aircraft after the existing planes retire from the fleet on completing their technical life, the December 2017 parliamentary committee report found.

Over the next decade, 14 squadrons of MiG 21, 27 and 29 will retire from the IAF fleet, leaving only 19 squadrons by 2027 and 16 by 2032. To arrest the drawdown, the Air Force will induct Sukhoi-20, Tejas Light Combat Aircraft and Rafale jets, the IAF told the parliamentary committee.

“There is a certain size of a force needed to deal with threats and challenges and we are currently in severe depletion,” Air Marshal Bhatia said. “We need as many as 400 new fighter jets to meet our requirement… We need to be locking-in deals and inducting more fighters into the fleet, not piecemeal decisions,” he added.

(Saldanha is an assistant editor with IndiaSpend.)

We welcome feedback. Please write to respond@indiaspend.org. We reserve the right to edit responses for language and grammar.

Courtesy: India Spend
 

The post As Pakistan Promises To Release IAF Officer, Accident-Prone MiG-21s Are Flying Past Their Retirement Age appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Stop Baying for the Blood of Our Soldiers: Former IAF Pilot appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: AFP
 
As the reports of Indian Air Force’s pre-emptive strike on the Jaish-e-Mohammad terror camps inside Pakistan territory came, there was a sense of gratitude among ordinary Indians who felt that the terror camps must be destroyed at all costs. But the media and those who want to use these bombings to take advantage of the political climate are using all their energy in chest thumping as if it was they who did it.
 
Political reactions were mature and in line with their policies. All complimented our forces for their bravery but the prime minister and BJP leaders claimed it as their victory. It is the same people who, during the Uttarakhand tragedy or attack on Taj, did not give credit to the government but made every effort to suggest that the government was different than the army and forces.
 
Today, all the political parties across the spectrum have supported the strike which is a good sign and BJP and its leaders must desist from taking credit for these claims. Secondly, these issues are of utmost importance and therefore it is important to leave the army and the Indian diplomacy to deal with the issue and not convert it into another hate propaganda back home. India must face this together and in unison, as many attempts to divide us will be created.
 
The biggest casualty during the ‘wartime’ is the truth, particularly when media become part of the propaganda machinery of the governing. India and Pakistan media are competing with each other when it comes to who can stoop to the lowest level of ridiculousness. We are not even allowing the army and the requisite Ministry to handle it.
 
After Pulwama, we felt proud of the way CRPF officers sent their categorical message to the country that their Jawans did not die to create religious polarisation and hatred in the country. I can say that the Ministry of External Affairs Press briefing was also mature and balanced. Of course, the claims and figures mentioned are only as per the ‘information’ received. The best part was when the Foreign Secretary Mr Vijay Gokhale spoke in a fairly measured way about ‘India’s ‘non-military pre-emptive strike’ which clearly mean that for India it was not a war against Pakistan but the specific target of ‘eliminating’ the terrorists’ camps and outfits.
 
Now, it is another matter whether those camps, terrorists, hatemongers or Jihadis have been killed and whether the threat to common Indians from these terror outfits is now finished. Frankly, it was not a press-conference but a statement of India’s position after crossing the LoC or International Border.
 
Now the ‘entertainment’ channels are reporting from ‘sources’ that over 300 terrorists were killed including Yousuf Azhar, brother in law of Masood Azhar, the chief of Jaish-e-Mohammad. The point is how do our news reporters come to the conclusion about the deaths and the individual when the entire operation was carried out in the night and just confined to the bombing of a particular target without any ground operations? Why can’t the media keep quiet when the military establishment has not spoken about these things.
 
The problem is that war or military can be used for short term process to control situations to a certain degree but ultimately, we all have to resort to using the political process. India and Pakistan cannot absolve themselves from the political process as there is no other option. There are however, people on both the sides who think of eliminating or deleting communities and countries from the world map. Added with idiotic fulmination and hateful jingoism being played by the corporate sponsored TV channels who celebrate these stories of war when people want peace.
 
During a war, the level of rhetoric grows and all this is highly patriarchal, talking of machoism and creating a false narrative of your ‘strength’. An example of this is Pakistan and what it is facing today because of fanatic Islamic groups who are extra-state actors and think they are the law unto themselves, with the army actively backing them. It is these fanatics whose shout is more audible than the common person in the street who wants friendly relations with India.
 
The danger of extra-state actors destroying democratic and constitutional values in India is equally powerful. We should be more worried because whatever form of democracy was here, it is better than any military or dictatorial regime. We all know who are the forces taking law in their hand and abusing people at their will. Democracy there was always fragile and under control of the military but we can’t have the same in India. Our forces have shown an extremely professional approach on the issue of being non-political but for the last few years, we are witnessing the political leadership trying to reap the political benefit of a military action. The soldiers die for the country and the politicians want to benefit politically.
 
Geopolitical war games are difficult to understand. It is surprising that India did not speak anything about the suicide attack on Iranian Revolutionary Guards in which 27 of these guards were killed and the Iranian Defence Minister blamed Pakistan based militant groups.
 
Why was India silent about this and did not attempt to find a common thread of Pakistani support for these extra state actors. It is also strange that we were more than eager to blame the Saudis who did not even bother to condemn the Pulwama killing through an official statement. Was India’s decision of ignoring Iran because of the fear of Americans who want to isolate Iran? Where is the independent foreign policy? Even Afghanistan has blamed Pakistan based Jehadi groups trying to destabilise their government but it is surprising we do not have any common strategy with these countries.
 
President Donald Trump and his North Korean counterpart Kim Jong Un are meeting in Vietnam, which gives a new hope to the world that ultimately the nations will have to speak to each other and take a clear stand against forces that have state patronage to destabilise their neighbours. Each country today has problem points and they need to resolve them by creating better circumstances and building confidence among people.
 
India has said that it carried out the ‘non-military pre-emptive strike’ on Pakistan because there were specific intelligence inputs that Jaish had planned to carry out more suicide attacks in India. Should we think that now, we will not have any further escalation? Will Pakistan keep quiet or respond? Will they act against the terror groups? Saying that it does not exist, when they raise open threats, is basically a blatant lie and will justify Indian action given the situation world over when nation states have to take care of their people and protect them. The only thing is whether the threat to people at large will be reduced or end.
 
It is time for all of us to stop with this jingoism and let the forces and the diplomats handle the issue. We are not afraid of the government taking a decision to protect people but our problem is the fanatics back home trying to wage a war against our own people simply because we may not follow their political ideologies. Armed forces will protect us and may win us a war but our biggest threat is from the jingoism and hatred being spread on the silver screen by the corrupted media which divides people and is creating war hysteria.
 
We have trust in the maturity of our forces but zero trust on these loudspeakers who have no sense of accountability and responsibility towards the people. We hope good sense will prevail and diplomatic efforts will isolate the terror outfits and hatemongers not only nationally, but also internationally, so that we can wage a decisive war against poverty, superstition, discrimination and illiteracy as defeating them will make us a great nation and a big power.

The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.
 

The post Opinion: Can we let the military and diplomats do their jobs instead of warmongering? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The way India chooses to respond to the Pulwama suicide attack has consequences for its future and for its relationship with Pakistan. In light of the speech made by Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan soon after the attack, India perhaps has a chance to consider responding to the offer made in his speech, although many Indians reasonably feel the speech was deficient. Mr. Khan’s speech made an offer of dialogue including talks about addressing terrorism and said that Pakistan is ready to cooperate in investigations and hold people accountable if evidence is found that anyone from his country was involved in the attack. 
 
Responding to the speech, the Indian government stated it was inadequate, lacking in offering condolence for the victims’ families. Given that Jaish e Muhammad has claimed responsibility, it asked what more proof does Pakistan want of its own involvement.  From India’s point of view, this sense of inadequacy in the offer is understandable given the magnitude of loss endured. Based on the words spoken so far, the Indian government seems to be perhaps indicating revenge. No doubt his speech would have come across as more credible if Mr. Khan had acknowledged the suffering caused to Indians with the loss of so many soldiers. He did not do so.
 
Putting aside for a moment the sentiments of sadness, fear, anger and resentment that Indians are justifiably feeling after the attack, the relevant question to ask for India is whether the offer is good enough to get both sides to the table and begin a dialogue. If the Indian government perceives the offer as inadequate, it may end up precluding a chance for peace that both countries badly need.
 
This is a critical moment for the Indian response. To find a response that could possibly be a sustainable solution towards peace, we need to step back and look at the big picture when it comes to the incident. Since partition and independence, the conflict between the two countries has increased, including the three wars that were fought. And so, has the perpetuation of hateful language that is commonly used for the other side in mainstream media as well as by a large number of political leaders on either side. If we ask whether this has helped to bring the two sides closer to a peaceful co-existence or away from it, the answer is clear. 
 
India pays a huge price for the perpetual conflict, just as Pakistan does. Mr. Khan acknowledged in his speech that the conflict has cost Pakistan tens of thousands of lives and economic costs in billions of dollars and that it is in his country’s interest to address the conflict. India also bears costs of high magnitude in lives lost and economic costs. So, it is in India’s interest to move towards a peaceful solution. It does not pay to do more of the same.
 
As hard as it would be, this is an opportune time for both sides to rise above the mindset of right and wrong, judgement and blame, and come together to work to build peace.
 
The media too bears a huge responsibility, in the way it reports stories and plays them over and over, in promoting or de-escalating the conflict.
 
Where must we look to find suggestions for ways to a peaceful solution? It would not help to look at what the two countries have done in the past because that has not worked.  The place to look would be the work of leaders who worked tirelessly to find peaceful solutions in situations of extreme conflict. Mahatma Gandhi’s genius lay in recognizing that violence is subject to a universal law. When used as a means to bring peace, violence always leads to more violence. Nonviolent means to bring peace leads to more peace. So, if we respond to violence with violence, we would never get peace.
 
Looking at historic and contemporary examples in the world, peace leaders have been clear on one principle: the antidote to violence is non-violence. Desmond Tutu, the South African leader and Nobel peace prize winner, defines violence quite simply; words or actions that separate us are violent and those that bring us closer together are non-violent.
 
If we apply this definition to the words Indian leaders are using in reaction to the violent Pulwama incident, it is violent rhetoric that will escalate the conflict. And Pakistan is using similar violent rhetoric. Of course, a tragedy where numerous families have lost members makes us contract in anger, resentment and judgment.  But if we pause and reflect, we can clearly see that to address the problem at its root we would need to seriously consider responding non-violently. This is in India’s self-interest. It may sound a cliché but it is easy to observe from past experiences that if India responds to hate with hate, we will secure more violence for our country in the future.
 
In weighing which way to respond, the question to ask is what are the pros and cons of a retaliatory compared to a non-violent conciliatory response by India? If India retaliates, the pro is we may be able to stem the immediate tide of anger and resentment in the country arising from the loss of lives and derive solace that we have exacted revenge. The con is we would contribute to another cycle of violence in the long run that has huge future costs for us. If India chooses a non-violent conciliatory response, the pro is we may end up shifting the trajectory of the relationship between the two countries to a path towards sustainable peace. The con is such a response may look weak but this is not really so. In Gandhi’s view, non-violence requires much more strength than violence.
 
A non-violent response does not in any way mean condoning the attack or letting go of seeking justice and accountability. Investigating, going after and holding fully accountable to law whoever has done this needs to be part of any long-term solution towards peace. 
 
However, if done carefully such a response holds the possibility of a win-win solution for both sides in the long term. This is the power of a restorative justice approach that holds the potential to shift the conflict from destructive to constructive.
 
On the other hand, a violent punitive response such as military solutions or attacks by either side can provide short term victory for one side but both will lose in the long run. The parents of the suicide bomber in Pulwama have stated that their son went on the route of violence after being beaten up by the Indian army a few years back.  This is one more proof that that violence begets more violence.
 
India has a choice of an empathic response to the seemingly deficient Pakistani offer in order to get the two countries to the table. Any international dispute that has been settled with mediation and resulted in a win-win outcome that is sustainable, has involved responding to the other side with empathy using some form of non-violent communication. 
 
This is at the heart of a restorative option that requires, at the very minimum, empathy because it requires understanding where the other side is coming from and finding common ground. And this does not imply condoning or minimizing the gravity of what has happened.
 
James O’Dea, former director of Amnesty International, writes of his peace work experience, “It is a fundamental basis of conflict resolution that you must give the other party the space to be the very best they can be. If you confine the other to the very limited view you have of them you will never have dialogue or a breakthrough in communication with them. Giving the other a big space to be truly the greatest they can be can feel threatening because you have to allow them out of the box you put them in. And that means you have to be open to possibilities your own experience told to close off. That means you have to be the one prepared to be vulnerable, hurt, slapped down and more. But you create that space for the other because the transformational possibility is too tantalizing—and you also know in your heart that if you don’t we will be confined to separate boxes and miniature versions of each other… or something much worse.”
 
Using a restorative approach would mean we fully denounce the Kashmir incident staying cognizant of the magnitude of suffering caused, and at the same time take up the offer of dialogue without compromising on investigation and accountability. Making peace is by no means easy in the face of such a destructive event, but it is possible and worthwhile because the stakes are very high. 
 
The President of Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, said in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, “It is much harder to make peace than to wage war”. It can be built in conscious choices that the government, media and people of the two countries make. India can make these choices if we can remind ourselves that it is in the country’s interest to do so. 
 
The writer is an Economist based in the US.
 

The post Pulwama Response: Choose Peace over Political Posturing and Propaganda appeared first on SabrangIndia.