Analysis of India's Ability to Fight a 2-front War 2018

by Ravi Rikhye

  This much is known to the public:

  The Indian battalion was nearing the end of its 3-year deployment to Kashmir and was waiting for relief by another battalion. Allegedly, it is usual for departing battalions to relax their vigilance.

  The patrol had the same routine every day. Some sources believe the attack was planned a month earlier with the Pakistanis keeping the Indians under observation, to move in when the opportunity arose.

  The Army has given local commanders the right to retaliate when border incidents take place. The retaliation is by means of fire only: Indian troops cannot cross the LOC to get at Pakistani positions. For unknown reasons the local commanders did not retaliate.

  The following questions arise: (a) Why are Indian troops taking matters lightly, for whatever reason, in a combat zone? (b) Why was the fence cut not automatically detected? Is this a “dumb” fence? If so, can we assume the GOI is not serious about preventing infiltration? (c) Did the patrol leave no member on guard while they slept?

  The following misconception needs correcting. The press said the bullet-proof vests used by the mean were faulty.[22] Perhaps; but that conclusion cannot be drawn from what is known. Times of India reported in 2015 that the Indian Army still had not received vests authorized for purchase in 2009. If the men were wearing 4-kg vests or similar for low-threat situations, these would not protect against high-power bullets fired at very close range. That requires the “Full Monty” armor weighing almost 12-kilos.[23] Even then, the intruders would have aimed for the head, as was the case in at least one of the deaths. Indian soldiers are significantly bigger and heavier than those of two-generations ago, but unless discipline is very tight, wearing armor is exhausting, particularly in the mountains. It is possible the men removed their vests to rest.

  In the absence of more details, this incident appears to be a single case of gross negligence on the part of the unit, and reflects badly on the battalion, brigade, division, corps, and army commanders. Unfortunately, these things happen particularly in a culture like India’s, where short-cuts are the norm for any work.

  It is not the details of the incident that are of interest in the larger national security context. It is the response, which was precisely zero. Unless the hot air expelled by GOI counts as action. Climate scientists have calculated a full 50% of global warming is the result of GOI’s pronouncements. GOI said Pakistan should not take India’s inaction for granted. But why not? When the country did not react to the major terrorist attack on Bombay 2008, why should it react to a minor incursion? As with China, GOI’s chief concern was that impending talks with Pakistan not be derailed. The MEA has said – this is not in the media – that India must go through with talks else we would be falling into the Pakistan Army trap of scuttling talks by creating an incident.

  There most definitely is a significant percentage of Pakistanis who understand the 70-year war has been futile and has harmed Pakistan. The civilian governments also want peace, to cut the power of the Pakistan Army. Nonetheless, hardline civilians, religious fanatics, and most of the military do not want peace. For the Army, it is no longer a question of grabbing a disproportionate share of resources. Pakistan’s official defense spending is 3.2% of GDP, which is quite restrained.

  The issue is, rather, the addictive intoxication of power, and the personal benefits the military gets, for example, in the acquisition of good land which is parceled out among the military, and the benefits senior officers enjoy by grabbing choice public sector jobs. This I separate from the 50 commercial companies the military runs.[24] Also separate are the estimated 1000 military officers filling civil service positions [25] (unfortunately the source seems to use 2005 data). The Army rules supreme, even as it pretends deference to the civil government. The top generals have stopped holding obvious power because they now escape blame when things go badly. Moreover, they have decided that the business of Army chiefs perpetuating their power by giving themselves extensions is not workable because it denies other generals their chance at the top job and creates internal unrest in the Army. I realize that Indian readers of the next statement will shake their heads in disbelief, but many Pakistan senior officers themselves understand the damage caused by military rule, and many are honest and reject more privileges and pecuniary benefits than they are entitled to. All this said, any Pakistan leader, civil or military, who pushes for peace with India endangers himself. A workable peace destroys the rationale for Partition, which was based on the core belief that Muslims would not get a fair deal in a Hindu-majority India because the Hindus would seek retribution for six hundred years of Muslim dominance. If there can be peace on Kashmir, there can be peace between the two nations, and it will follow that Hindus and Muslim can live together in confederation. [To be fair Jinnah offered Nehru a confederation, but for what then seemed correct reasons, Nehru refused.] This is too intense a paradigm shift for Pakistanis brought up from childhood to hate India.

  India’s theory on this is: Be patient, one day the Pakistanis will see sense. Fine, but the cost of not ending this conflict by force is enormous even though no one has gotten around to quantifying it – subject matter for another book. Patience and inaction suit the Indian temperament, but a very great price has been paid. Today the most obvious is that India and Pakistan’s quarrel has given rising China the opportunity to surround India and reduce us to impotence.

  Apropos nothing, to test my hypothesis that the breakup of India has caused great internal instability, I once studied the matter. The conclusion? United India would also have faced great instability, but from the outside, not internally. This can be discussed at another time

  2.6 Chumar Act 2 2014

  Nitin Gokhale, in his recently published book,[26] has informed of a second Chumar crisis, of which naturally I had no idea. This took place in 2014, and the summary account below is based entirely on his investigations. After the 2013 incidents, India began patrolling Chumar more closely. Suddenly, the Chinese arrive with seven engineer vehicles, determined to destroy a shelter created for our patrols. Night temperature fall to 0-degree C even at the height of the summer. So, an Indian brigade commander arrives and admonishes the Chinese (be nice to know if he was OC 70th Brigade or one from 39th Division sent to the area for summer exercises). The Chinese replied by sending forward a border regiment of 1800 troops. The brigadier brings in 3,000 troops. The Chinese bring in more and escalate to intrusions at nine other points. The Army moves in two brigades from 39th Division, making it three.

  Meanwhile, President Xi was visiting India. Strange time to be creating problems? Not at all. This is a consistent Chinese pattern, to cause trouble on the border when a major diplomatic exchange is underway. The idea is to show the Emperor of All Under Heaven is powerful, we’re just the pathetic village yokels. Chinese flew five warplanes into ROK’s Air Defense Intercept Zone on December 18, 2017[27]. It was no coincidence that the ROK president had just returned from a 4-day visit to China, for a “new start.” Now an ADIZ is not a legal exclusion zone, and a part of this one is shared by Japan and ROK. China claims rights based on Socotra Island,[28] which is 178-miles from China, 171 from Japan, and 93 from Korea, much too far from the 12-nautical-mile zone of each country to be claimed as anyone’s territory. The “island”, of course, is a rock submerged most of the time at high tide and thus not within the meaning of island as per the law of the sea.

  Nonetheless, it is customary to at least identify oneself before entering an ADIZ, or in case of military exercises, issue prior notice of entry. China just sent in two H-6 bombers, two J-11 fighters, and a Tu-154 reconnaissance aircraft. They were intercepted by two ROK Air Force fighter, and later by two Japanese F-15s. The real problem arises because China claims an EEZ of 200-nm around Socotra, is an invalid claim. This is Chinese diplomacy at its finest: thuggish, militaristic, and highly aggressive. It also follows a policy of muting claims when it is insufficiently strong, and letting its adversary believe what it wants, before asserting a claim
backed by force when it is strong. It is long past time India understood this, terminated all negotiations on any subject because when our offers to talk are taken as weakness by the Chinese. The only thing the Chinese understand is a bigger gun.

  Returning to Chumar, The Prime Minister of India confronted President Xi. As usual the Chinese deescalated declaring victory. This confrontation is important because it is the first time in 47-years, after the 1967 stand-off at Nathula and Chola in Sikkim, that we stood up for ourselves with China. The 1962 confrontation we initiated was mad foolishness. This time the Prime Minister spoke from strength.

  Gokhale’s book will be attacked as a panegyric to court favor with the government and omits its failures of the last three years. His motivation is of no interest to me. He has added to my knowledge, and for that I am grateful. Am I sucking up to the Government by saying the Prime Minister stood for India? Not in the least. GOI does not know I exist, and so could not care less what I think, and I gladly return the favor. When our leaders fold before the cards are dealt, as is our wont, it is my duty to India is to attack them. Equally, if they stand up, it is my duty to commend them. After that one episode the GOI has most shamefully backed down, and I will excoriate it. The GOI’s first priority is defense of the country, else all its other priorities become irrelevant. Is 1.56% of GDP defending India? It is a cop-out every bit as cowardly as was the case with Mr. Nehru, and all Indian governments after 1989.

  2.7 Doklam 2017 and 2018

  June 16, 2017. Indian troops crossed 1-km into Bhutan’s Doklam plateau to stop the Chinese from extending their road. The Chinese have a Class 5 unsurfaced road (3-ton) terminating opposite Indian positions at Dokula (Doku Pass), in the trijunction area between China’s Yatung salient, also called the Chumbi Valley, Sikkim, and Bhutan. They had earlier encroached on Bhutanese territory, and say it is theirs. One of their pieces of “evidence” is a receipt for grazing fees paid to a Chinese representative. Should an American visit India, s/he must first pay $75 for a visa. This irrevocably proves that Americans are subject to India, and we have the right, two hundred years later, to claim America is part of India. Does this make sense? Neither does the Chinese argument.

  understanding between India, China, and Bhutan is that the dispute is to be settled through negotiations, not by creating facts on the ground such as building a road and then claiming right of possession by right of the road. As usual, the Chinese don’t believe in talking unless they first get what they want, talks are intended simply to get us to accept the aggression, and to prepare the ground for the next set of intrusions.

  China claims its occupation of Bhutan south of the tri-junction is based on the McMahon Line and an 1890 treaty between the Chinese and the British. They further claim that Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru accepted this. Unfortunately, the Chinese are exceptionally dishonest in their border claims, at least with respect to India. (a) Since the Chinese reject the McMahon Line, they can hardly selectively use it to claim part of Bhutan. (b) Nehru rejected the Chinese claim, point by point.

  Chumar

  Moreover, in India’s view, the Chinese did not control Tibet in the first place when the British expanded northward. Indian claims to the border are based on India as the successor state to the British. Certainly, since about 1200 AD at times China had a sometimes actual, sometimes symbolic presence in Tibet. Equally, however, there have been times when Tibet as an independent nation has controlled huge swaths of southwest China. And using the Chinese method, India could lay claim to Tibet, Pakistan, Afghanistan, parts of Iran, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and present-day Burma, Malaysia, Cambodia, and Indonesia. This would, of course, be absurd. The Chinese gambit of selectively producing ambiguous documents to prove a continuous occupation of Tibet, with new documents being “discovered” in the archives when needed, is fraudulent.

  After the October 2017 standoff, India congratulated itself on its firm stand again China. Except anyone who has bothered to study China knew the Chinese had not given up. They had pulled back because they did not expect India would raise an outcry about their occupation of Bhutanese land to which Bhutan had raised only muffled objections. The Chinese immediately moved a brigade into North Doklam, and continued their road building through January and February, at the height of winter. By March they completed a road to Jhamperi Ridge, their original objective, and that was that. India is left, as usual, sucking its thumb and making small, incoherent sounds.

  (Please to note that the map below shows new Chinese claims are more extensive than made earlier. The Chinese simply make up new claims as they go along. Another reason negotiation is pointless. In 1956-61 they kept shifting their Ladakh claim line eastward to seize increasing parts of Indian territory.)

  China, incidentally, is addicted to editing history. The first emperor of China, in 200 BC not just destroyed every record of the past, he also executed the historians so that no memory of the past remained. When Nixon went to China, Mao said China had ruled Taiwan for China for a thousand. Just another big fat lie. Aside from one attempt by China’s last dynasty to attack Taiwan to root out pirates, the Chinese have never controlled Taiwan. China sent expeditions for exploration, even had outposts at times. China’s claim to Taiwan is more absurd than Turkey claiming India.

  Mao, in his Cultural Revolution, staged history’s greatest book burning ever so that he could remake China in his own image. It is said the Red Guard even set out to burn down the Summer Palace, but Deng sent in the army to stop the Guard.[29]

  This a Chinese map of its Bhutan claims from Claude Arpi. He says it represents the situation about 30-years ago but it may not be authentic.[30]

  Doklam is hardly the only issue. The Chinese also claim a big area of eastern Bhutan bordering on West Arunachal. The Chinese, of course, claim not just the whole state, but further south to the Brahmaputra River. Readers will notice the eastern claim is not even contiguous to Tibet. That’s because the Chinese say it is part of Arunachal.

  We should not concern ourselves about Chinese documentary claims, a futile process because the Chinese simply make up “history”. Best to evaluate the Chinese position based on “possession is ten-tenths of the law”. This at least reflects real history since records began and avoids the need to treat with China on its distasteful and dubious claims of law. Readers will recall that from 1950 to 1962, India quoted law and diplomacy in abundancy. It thought it had an agreement with China on a peaceful resolution of competing Aksai Chin claims. Instead, the Chinese staged a systematic series of grabs, taking what they could defend, and then grabbing more.

  India must face the reality that as China has become more powerful, it has expanded. There is nothing immoral in the process: all strong empires do this, and we have too, at least since the start of the Mauryan Empire. This process, probably, started well before, but good records are available only from the 4th Century BC. The Mauryan empire, not that it matters, predates the first Chinese empire by a hundred years. China always referred to itself by dynasty. It is only in the last hundred years or so that the idea of a country called China has arisen. As China surges toward economic parity with the US – the 2017 difference in GDP is just $6-trillion, with China at $13-trillion, far ahead of third-place Japan at $5-trillion, and behind the US with its $19-trillion – it will keep expanding its direct and indirect claims against India. The implication of a direct claim is self-apparent. An indirect claim is when China will force India to organize its foreign and defense policy in ways that China considers non- threatening. When China speaks of peaceful coexistence, it really means “on our terms”. That, for China, means an India armed only to a degree dictated by Beijing, and subordinated as a vasal. Terms will include accepting Chinese military superiority in South Asia and the Indian Ocean, and Beijing’s “guidance” in the matter of India’s relations with the US. The vassal part should not bother us much. As my mentor, K. Subhramanyam bitterly said, Indians can be kings, or they can be slaves. There is no in-between. We seem
to be in a lengthy slave period.

  [China’s GDP is disputed. Western economists say that whereas GDP is measured on output, China measures it in terms of input. The Central government decides what the GDP is to be, and lets local governments borrow what they need to make that figure. Michael Pettis, a professor at Beijing University says that he knows of eleven cases this has happened in the past, all except one ended badly. Pettis’ statements were contested by Tsinghua University economics professor David Li, who is also a prominent China expert. Clearly, I am in no position to judge, and use the World Bank estimate for China’s GDP. Deborah Yong gives a brief description of the debate.]

  To repeat, what China is doing is not immoral. Every growing power does this. The United States, for example, has treated the Americas as its sphere of influence for 210-years. It later expanded to claim dominance of the Pacific east of Hawaii, and joint supremacy with Great Britain of the North Atlantic. In the first 40-years of the 20th Century, an ever more economically powerful America pushed its claims to the whole of the Pacific, and projected them to western Europe, committing itself to preventing any one power from dominating Western Europe. After the Second World War, and into 2018, the United States declared the entire world its security zone. The countries of concern can be Syria, Somalia, Mali, Ukraine, Georgia, Eastern Europe, Southeastern Europe, Western Europe, Northwestern Europe, the whole of the world ocean, Venezuela, South and Southeast Asia, Australasia, Taiwan, Japan, and the Koreas. China will do the same as its economic power expands. Currently it wants to be accepted as a great power – and it has earned that right. In the next two-three decades it wants super-