Custom Search Engine - Scans Selected News Sites


Saturday, 26 June 2010

From Today's Papers - 26 Jun 2010

Premvir Das  Eleven years on, the Armed Forces Tribunal has cast aspersions on the integrity of the army’s hierarchy. Actions that tend to denigrate the military, which its leaders symbolise, can damage an institution that is critical to the health of the nation   Photo: Manoj Mahajan  The recent judgment of the Central Armed Forces Tribunal (CAFT) casting aspersions on the integrity of the Army's higher commanders and requiring 'the history of the Kargil operations to be rewritten' is as worrisome as it is saddening. The crux of the matter is that the Brigade Commander in the Batalik Sector, Devinder Singh, had given certain advice in April 1999 which was 'brushed aside' by the Corps Commander, Lt Gen Kishen Pal; that consequently, he had few troops to respond to the enemy presence which was much larger than that estimated by Pal and more in line with his own assessment resulting in needless casualties; that the Corps Commander then 'doctored' the 'After Action Report' (AAR) to show that much of the action had actually been carried out by another officer deputed for the purpose; and, in summation, that this 'falsified' reporting had resulted in Brig. Devinder Singh being overlooked for promotion despite his 'bravery and courage'.  First, no troops are moved from one formation to another without the knowledge, if not approval, of the Army headquarters, more so during an operation such as Kargil. To say that Pal could doctor his AARs without the knowledge of his Northern Army Commanders or even Army HQ is being utterly naïve of ground realities. So, if command of part of the sector with a certain number of battalions belonging to 70 Brigade (Singh's formation) was assigned to another officer deputed from higher headquarters, it is inconceivable that this fact and, indeed, the reasons for it and the period for which the assignment was being made, had not been discussed between the Corps Commander and also the Director General Military Operations (DGMO) in New Delhi. In all likelihood, the Army Vice Chief was also aware. To say, therefore, that Pal could hoodwink all others by claiming that the deputed officer had conducted the operations, and not Singh, is something utterly unbelievable. So, if a doctored report was put up and allowed to pass, the entire Army's hierarchy should be called to question from top downwards.  It is not possible for the Northern Command to allow Pal's report to pass knowing it to be incorrect, if not false. Even if for some reason, both the Northern Army Commander and the Corps Commander were in connivance, the 'mistake' would have been spotted by the DGMO. It defies logic that the entire Army was acting in concert to 'fix' one brigadier. This does not mean that Singh, himself, was not doing a good job or that Pal is not accountable for some serious errors of judgment. But these are two different things.  This brings us to the aspect of promotions. In the armed forces, there is need for bravery as well as leadership. It is seldom true that both go 'hand-in-glove'. Very few non-posthumous Victoria Cross winners got promoted to high ranks. It is likewise for our Param Vir Chakra, Mahavir Chakra and Vir Chakra awardees. Bravery and courage are spur-of-the-moment attributes. Leadership allows these qualities to be generated. Just because a brigadier does not get promoted does not mean that he is wanting. After all, only four out of 20 brigadiers might get promoted.  One can argue that the selection system should be more 'transparent and fair'. But it cannot change the fact that there will still be 16 'failures' for four promotions. So, if Singh did not get promoted, he was just one of the unfortunates. Kargil is only one relevant part. His annual confidential reports over at least three assignments would have been considered by the Promotion Board alongside those of other candidates of matching experience and performance.  This is not to suggest that there are not occasional aberrations. It is precisely in order to provide remedy to such an eventuality that the government has established a recourse to review by an independent authority. Until recently, aggrieved officers could approach the High Court. This process inevitably resulted in delayed redressal by already over-burdened courts. The constitution of CAFT and other AFTs is, therefore, welcome. The CAFT would have considered the issue. After all a former Justice of the Supreme Court was presiding with a former Army Vice Chief as member. They must have found that the brigadier's promotion was justified and this is a valid proposition. Based on this finding, the CAFT should have directed the government to promote the officer with retrospective effect and to give him the consequent financial benefits.  But it may have exceeded its jurisdiction in saying that the history of the Kargil operations, as written, was 'malafide' and that it ought to be rewritten. The judgment casts serious aspersion on the integrity of the entire military hierarchy. This aspect should get careful and critical scrutiny and perhaps needs to be appealed before the Supreme Court. On the other hand, if it is now established that several rungs higher than the Corps Commander were in the know and had actively or passively allowed a less than factual report to pass through unchallenged. Action should be initiated against them. Actions which tend to denigrate the military, which its leaders symbolise and represent, can only be counter-productive, and damage an institution which is critical to the health of the nation.  (The writer is a former Director General Defence Planning Staff)  Though there is consensus over the grit displayed by the Indian soldier, opinions vary on strategy and aspects of higher defence management in the country.  I feel that there was one failure overall in the entire episode and that was intelligence failure. Had the intelligence system, which comprises a host of agencies, worked in unison, the outcome would have been a lot different, especially in terms of casualties. As for the operational part, the nation fought well and the Indian soldier proved mettle. There are a lot of lesions to be learnt from the conflict like having multiple access roads and logistic infrastructure in that region, reliable and timely intelligence, maintaining optimum trop levels and finally having a determined approach towards defined objectives.  –Lt Gen BS Randhawa (Retd) Former Director General Rashtriya Rifles  The performance of troops on the ground was highly commendable. But after having won a victory, we as a nation of fools ordered an inquiry into it instead of undertaking a quiet internal assessment into the shortcomings. No war anywhere has been fought without having foul-ups and there have been a series of failures even in the most powerful and advanced nations and its intelligence agencies. Also, the air force participation in the conflict did not come in time for which the government is partly to blame.  — Brig Kiran Krishan (Retd) Defence Analyst  The biggest problem with our strategy in Kargil was that we did not open up another front in an area of our choosing. This would have created pressure on the enemy to vacate the occupied heights and thus significantly reduced casualties. Also, our stand on not crossing the LOC was questionable when the enemy had already crossed over into our area. Despite heavy casualties, it was diplomatic pressure that finally prevailed upon Pakistan to withdraw. Even then the Kargil sector is still not fully cleared of enemy occupation. Given the end result, the entire operation and the consequent cost appear to be an exercise in futility  — Col P.K. Vasudeva (Retd) Defence Analyst  Army’s Internal Assessment  A secret internal assessment undertaken by the Army in 2004 on the directives of then Army Chief, Gen N.C Vij, who was the Director General of Military operations during the Kargil conflict, has revealed several shortcomings in the rank and file as well as operational preparedness. These include:  n Senior commanders were late to assess and react to the situation. Many senior officers, including battalion commanders, had an older age profile and were physically unfit for the terrain, climate and the type of operations.  n JCOs, the junior commanders, whose experience and bonding with the troops form the Army's cutting edge failed to deliver. There was a severe lack of initiative among the JCOs. Troops rushed in to the war zone were not acclimatised.  n A sense of complacency prevailed among officers and men on the belief that the terrain was so tough that there could be no be incursions. Vacating critical posts during winter, lack of ground sensors and the inability of the Military Intelligence to analyse certain inputs proved to be the undoing.  n Indian troops maintained a defensive posture and lacked adequate firepower and poise. As the war broke out, the Army concluded that it did have adequate troops in the region to tackle the emerging threat. In addition to inadequate higher caliber artillery guns, the Army did not have committed and trained force levels to deal with Pakistan.  n The Udhampur-based Northern Command was stretched and unable to cope with the emerging threat of war as it had to oversee Kargil operations, man the entire stretch of the LoC, the LAC and the International border as well as conduct counter- insurgency operations in the state.  n Special Forces were misused. Many SF units were used as regular infantry to capture objectives. Not only were they lacking in key equipment, but were deployed for a role they were neither equipped nor trained for.

Pak-bound vessel with explosives detained in WB 
Kolkata, June 25 A Karachi-bound cargo vessel from Bangladesh with military hardware and explosives was today detained by the police at Diamond Harbour in West Bengal’s South 24 Parganas district, top police officials said.The Liberian registered ship, SG Zyat, had set sail from Chittangong in Bangladesh and had anti-aircraft guns and rocket launchers, besides a huge quantity of ammunition and smoke bombs in two large containers on board, the officials said.  “It is a consignment of heavy military supplies meant for a consignee in Karachi. Five tonnes of explosives, a huge quantity of arms and ammunition were found after the police detained the vessel,” DGP Bhupinder Singh said.  Describing the incident as “alarming,” he said: “It is surprising why the Pakistani-bound vessel was passing through Indian waters.”  IGP (Law and Order) S Karpurakayastha said the ship was detained on an intelligence tipoff and was carrying anti-aircraft guns and rocket launchers, ammunition and smoke bombs.  He said the Navy, the Coast Guard and the police have cordoned off the ship and were searching it and verifying its documents while the crew were being questioned. — PTI

35,000 ex-servicemen to lose toll plaza jobs NHAI to take over plazas and auction them through open bidding
Girja Shankar Kaura Tribune News Service  New Delhi, June 25 The National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) has decided to take over the toll plazas from the ex-servicemen and auction them to the private parties through an open bidding. The order in this regard was passed earlier this week. At least 25,000 ex-servicemen are running NHAI-owned toll plazas while another 10,000 provide logistical support.  Ex-servicemen were roped in to run these toll plazas 2004 onwards, following efforts put in by the Directorate General of Resettlement. Incidentally, the decision of the NHAI to auction the toll plazas to private players comes despite the fact that ever since their management has been taken over by the ex-servicemen, there has been a substantial increase in toll collection.  On the other hand, the ministry feels that allotting such jobs to ex-servicemen led to revenue losses and inefficient management. Reports said the collections at the ex-servicemen run toll plazas had gone up from previously 15 per cent to 80 per cent.  The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways came out with the circular No. NHAI/13013/09-10/Tolling Options dated 22-06-2010 whereby about 50 toll plazas through the country would be put on the block in the first round.  The rest would be put on the block later on, the reports stated. Incidentally, the NHAI has decided to keep the toll plazas in Jammu and Kashmir, northeastern states or in other disturbed areas, for the agencies sponsored by the Director General of Resettlement. But, ironically, there are no toll plazas in these areas. The reports said the tender process for the bidding had also been undertaken and it could take place over the next few weeks.  Of the total tolled sections, 104, including bridges, are publicly funded or developed by the NHAI. Fiftythree of them are public-private partnership projects, so the implementing concessionaire manages the toll collection or outsources it. The government has already laid the pre-qualification criteria for the selection of contractor for the operation and maintenance purposes.  A bidder should have a net worth of one-third of the estimated annual toll collection on the stretch he has applied and in case a bidder bids for more than one plaza, an additional 10 per cent of the net worth has been prescribed.  The ministry, however, has not made past tolling experience mandatory for bidding even though preference will be given for the same through weightage. A proprietorship will not be eligible for this work. The guidelines also allow partnerships registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, in addition to partnership under the Indian Partnership Act 2008.  Cooperative Societies will also be eligible for bidding, provided they qualify the financial criteria. A delegation of ex-servicemen running the toll plazas also met Defence Minister AK Antony. The minister assured them that he would take up the matter with Road Transport and Highways Minister Kamal Nath.  The delegation told Antony that this decision was against the 2009 election manifesto of the UPA government, where it had stated that their services would be utilised for nation building.

India-Pak talks being held under duress from the US: Hamid Gul
ANI / Islamabad June 25, 2010, 16:07 IST  He has been referred to as the "man who knows too much". A former ISI chief, India and US hater, there are many epithets attached with Hamid Gul’s name.  Speaking to ANI, Gul said the India-Pakistan Foreign Secretary level talks which were held in Islamabad yesterday and the Foreign Ministerial level talks next month “are being held under American pressure”.  Completely dismissing any claims of the Indian or Pakistani government that the talks are being held to bridge the trust deficit between the two nuclear neighbours, Gul said: “These talks are delusional in nature. There can be no peace between the two countries till India decides to give freedom of choice to the people of Kashmir. India''s strategic disorientation is not conducive to peace in the region.”  While India and Pakistan take hesitant steps towards building a better relationship, there are strident voices on both sides of the border which say that it is a futile exercise because the civilian government of Pakistan is quite powerless when it comes to taking decisions on foreign policy.  Gul said that the only way talks could succeed is if the first step taken is “giving the democratic rights of Kashmiris and that includes Kashmiris both sides of the border.  “India tum jhooth bolna chor do India (stop lying India). There is deficiency in faith. India does not want to talk peace. It is doing it against it''s will. Masla hai Kashmir ka (the issue is Kashmir). Who is India to decide for Kashmiris? Neither Pakistan nor India has any right to talk on behalf of Kashmiris. They should decide for themselves and till that happens all this talk about India-Pakistan peace is all nonsense,” he said.  Gul had nothing positive to say even about any future cooperation in information sharing between India and Pakistan to curb the menace of terrorism. It is probably hard to expect it of the man who is said to have tipped off Osama bin Laden about an impending US crackdown after 9/11.  Counter-terrorism expert and former US government adviser Richard Clarke had told The New Yorker: “I have reason to believe that a retired head of the ISI was able to pass information along to Al Qaeda that an attack was coming’ and this led Osama Bin Laden to flee into the caves to escape detection.  According to Gul, there is no way that Jamaat ud Dawa  (JuD) Chief Hafeez Sayeed can be prosecuted by a Pakistani court. He said that the evidence provided by India can hardly be termed that, and added that New Delhi should never have rejected the offer of a joint investigation after the Mumbai blasts.  “That would have helped in solving the case,” Gul said.

Ghana Army chief to visit India on Monday
2010-06-26 00:30:00  Ghana Army chief Major General Joseph Narh Adinkrah will arrive in India on a four-day goodwill visit on Monday.  The visit of General Joseph Narh Adinkrah is expected to further boost the defence cooperation between the two nations.  India has historical and traditional relations with Ghana, based on common ideals and principles arising from a significant legacy of social, cultural and political struggles, alongwith a shared commitment to democracy.  According to the Defence Ministry, defence cooperation with Ghana as a part of defence diplomacy, has been an important tool towards enhancing this friendship.  The defence cooperation with Ghana has existed since 1957 and Indian armed forces have played an important role in laying the foundation of all the three services of the Ghana armed forces.  The armed forces of the two nations have been comprehensively cooperating in the field of military training, United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, training and participation of observers in exercises.  During his visit, Major General Joseph Narh Adinkrah will be meeting senior Defence Ministry and military officials.  Enhancing military to military co-operation is likely to get prominence during his discussions with senior officials.  He will also visit United Service Institution (USI) and the Centre for UN Peacekeeping (CUNPK), New Delhi. (ANI)

India 'will only gain by befriending China' 
The interesting dynamics that are at play as far as the US is concerned is that it is engaging China at two levels. On one level, it needs economic partnership with Beijing and on the other, it is not comfortable in bequeathing the strategic space and the leadership role in Asia to China.      * By Nilima Pathak,
New Delhi: Brigadier Arun Sahgal (retired) has the unique distinction of being a soldier of the Indian Army, in a career spanning over 36 years. Having held a number of important command, staff and instructional appointments, his academic qualifications are envied by many.  A Master of Science in Defence Studies and a Ph.D in Defence and Strategic Studies, has enabled him to get international exposure and also attend numerous international conferences and meetings.  As Director of the Office of Net Assessment, Integrated Defence Staff, the 1971 India-Pakistan War veteran undertook long-term strategic assessments, assisting in national security planning and the development of India's future military capabilities. He is working on geo-political and geo-strategic dimensions of Asian security with a focus on China.  The senior army officer spoke to Gulf News in an exclusive interview.     Gulf   News: With India and China being viewed as the most powerful countries in the years to come, do you see the advent of a bipolar world? Or will it be the US versus the rest?  Brigadier Arun Sahgal: What we are seeing is a multi-polar world, but perhaps in a few years a bipolar system will emerge. This bi-polarity will be reflected by the US and China as two major economic and military powers, even though there could be major differentials between their capabilities. The interesting dynamics that are at play as far as the US is concerned is that it is engaging China at two levels. On one level, it needs economic partnership with Beijing and on the other, it is not comfortable in bequeathing the strategic space and the leadership role in Asia to China. This means building up strategic relationships in Asia and India is a part of that strategy. And this strategy is not to contain China but to restrain the country's influence.  Even though India believes that it has a degree of autonomy in its policy-making, the fact is that given the degree of challenge that the Chinese pose against India in terms of forays in South Asia — projections in the Indian Ocean region and the economic conflicts of interests — there is a natural tendency for us to align our interest with the US.  Going by the position that's emerging in Asia, we can say that China is on one side and the US and India on the other.     Is it in India's interest to look up to China for cooperation in the food sector regarding the grain storage facilities?  I totally endorse that we should have good trade and investment and good technological proportion with China. In fact, if we can have joint production agreements even in the security sector, we should go for it. The question is how do we deal with China? Since it's a big country and our neighbour, there is no point in fighting with it. India gains by befriending China. But that does not mean we become a proxy state to China. It's in the interest of both countries to collaborate in creating a strategic space in Asia with a greater degree of stability.  The Line of Actual Control (LAC) between India and China is not in control. What then is under control?  Apart from the central sector, there is no exchange of maps. So, there is an Indian perception of LAC and there is the Chinese perception of LAC. And no transgressions take place. Though sometimes there are intrusions when the Chinese enter Indian territory, halt for a few days and then vacate the place. These are related to what we call their ‘claims' to the territory, which sometimes is the show of force and sometimes plain intimidation. But since the last 23 years, peace and tranquility prevails on the border.     How do you view the China-Pakistan nuclear deal vis-à-vis Beijing's relations with India?  India and China's relations are akin to a curved road. And it has not come to a point where the Chinese would be sensitive to India's interests. Regarding bilateral relations, there is no doubt that China will use Pakistan as leverage against India. In that context, the nuclear deal with Pakistan is not so much about energy for Pakistan, but more of an ego tussle and a message to the US that if you have a strategic relationship with India, we will use Pakistan as a hedge against that relationship.     Considering Islamabad's dubious record of nuclear proliferation, should this be alarming for India?  That is only a part of the problem. The basic issue with us and the world community is that this deal is beyond taking the NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards into consideration by China. When India and the US signed the 123 deal, India went through the entire gambit of dealing with the safeguards procedures. But these procedures have been given a go-by by China to a country which is known for its poor proliferation policies. By doing this, China is enhancing Pakistan's nuclear weapons capabilities. This is highly objectionable. This will lead to an armed race.  Also, what is not known to many is that Pakistan is on the threshold of producing a 3,500km range missile which is being developed with Chinese and North Korean capabilities. That's why the issue is dangerous. The world also needs to take note of the height of instability within Pakistan.     Is the concern about the existence of terrorist networks in Pakistan seeking access to nuclear weapons technology, the only reason that the US is opposed to the China-Pakistan nuclear deal?  It has taken a long time for the US to determine where they stand with the deal. Now they have come to the conclusion that it will be bad for them to oppose the deal. But one cannot say how serious they are as they are concerned about the war in Afghanistan and are desperate to get the Pakistan army involved.     Much was made of the reference to Indo-Pakistan ties in a US-China statement in November last. Do you think India's fears were unfounded as the US cozied to China?  To a degree, yes, there was an unnecessary hype in the Indian media and also in certain strategic circles. There is a natural coordination of economic interests given the kind of global recession we are passing through, including the US and China.     What's your opinion on Communist leaders from Pakistan insisting that China had a role to play in the Indo-Pakistan issue saying — ‘when neighbours fight, a third neighbour can mediate?'  We have very categorically told Pakistan that we have to resolve the issue bilaterally. But can China exercise its influence on Pakistan? It can only be a facilitator. China should rather impress upon Pakistan that the mood of confrontation they have should be given up and think towards development.     Separatists in Kashmir have been welcoming China's interest in Kashmir. Are there apprehensions because of this?  It's posturing — that's all I can say. The separatists are getting sidelined politically. So they are only trying to revamp their importance.  

Israel as big supplier of weapons to India
Views From Abroad Michael William  The cooperation between Israel and India, with US blessing, is really destroying the peace and starting a new arms race in south Asia, due to such intensive Israel Cooperation with India, Pakistan and India came at the brink of war 3 times since 1998. These arms sales were part of a declared NDA policy to forge an alliance among India, the United States, and Israel. India is one of the 39 countries with whom Israel has signed “secret co-operative agreements” to prevent information leaks from joint security projects. India and Israel are two democratic countries who killed more than I million people on the name of insurgency from 1947 to 2008.  In the 2001-2006 India had purchased arms worth nearly $15 billion from Israel and has been its largest client for military hardware.2006 to 2009 $9 billion arms purchased by India from Israel. According to figures released in 2008 by the Israeli Defense Ministry India accounted for 50% of Israel’s military exports .The report of 1992 to 2001 is available. Brajesh Mishra, outlined a proposal in a speech to the American Jewish Committee in Washington in May 2003 that India, Israel, and the United States should unite to combat the common threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Israel is most probably behind the Kargill war, Indian parliament attack in 2002 and now in Mumbai terrors attacks in 2008 to Accelerating the arms sale to India and safe his arms industry and destabilized the integrity of Pakistan who is consider great threat to Israel security and stability? Israel does not have direct conflict with Pakistan. All three serving chiefs of India have now visited Israel in the last 2 years. From anti-missile systems to hi-tech radars, from sky drones to night-vision equipment, Indo-Israeli defense cooperation has known no bounds in recent times. Israel Mossad may infiltrated in Jihad Organization structure through Indian influence in Afghanistan and helping and training them to safe his defense industry to die down and start a Proxy war against Pakistan in Balouchistan and in FATA and plunge India and Pakistan to brink of war . There is already an on-going relationship between Israeli Intelligence agencies and their Indian counterparts. It is well known that Mossad routinely infiltrates even “friendly” intelligence agencies and uses them to plant information which helps Israel .Mossad working on project called A Clean Break. Reason behind defense ties between India and Israel. Pakistan’s missile and nuclear weapon technologies are main concern to Israel. Pakistani a supplier of intermediate-range missiles and may be transfer of technology to boost it’s arm industry really great threat to Israel such countries as Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, UAE,and Syria.  India helped Israel during the 1967, Middle Eastern conflict, by covertly sending military equipment to Israel. Before that in 1963, General Shalfid, Israel Chief of Army staff, visited India for discussions with his Indian counterpart In the military field in India’s critical hour of need of the 1971 war with Pakistan, India sought Israel’s help to supply it with the devastating artillery weapon, 160 mm mortars and ammunition, exclusively manufactured in Israel.  India embarked on its nuclear tests with the support of the international community, namely the United States and Israel, because the US desired a nuclear force to balance China as a nuclear power in Asia and central Asia. Israel benefited from this cooperation—according to some sources—by being permitted to conduct two nuclear tests on Indian territory, the components transferred on board an Israeli C130 military aircraft that landed in India two weeks prior to the tests. India also makes use of its nuclear cooperation with Israel in maintaining qualitative superiority over its enemy, Pakistan. During India’s 1999 Kargil war with Pakistan, Israel rushed military support to India, cementing the nascent defense relationship. Israel sent its laser guided missiles to India during the Indo-Pak Kargil war of 1999, making it possible for the Indian Mirages to destroy Pakistani bunkers in the mountains. Jane’s Defense Weekly, which gave details on the supplies. Israel, the scoundrel nation & illegal child of America supplied missiles, portable radars & other weapons during Kargil War in 1999 as confirmed by Shri Rahul Bedi on BBC and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - 8 in 1999 for surveillance purposes (Army) – 20 in 2000 during the Kargil war UAVs for high altitude surveillance, laser – guided systems and many other items were supplied within 24 hours. After September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre, and attack on Indian Parliament Israel has been selling defense supplies to India, just from 2002 to 2008 India buy more than $25 billion dollars worth weapon and transfer of technology from Israel.  In June 2002 as part of “Operation Parakram,” after the attack on Indian Parliament, Israel supplied hardware through special planes after a visit by the Director-General of Israeli Defense ministry. Israel helping the Indian forces in Kashmir and in Maoist area against right of self determination, Indian version Counter Insurgency. Israeli deputy chief of general staff, Major General Moshe Kaplinsky, visited J&K, including the 16 Corps headquarters in Nagrota for it would seem helping India with “counter- insurgency” India has signed a $30 million contract with Israel Military Industries (IMI) for 3,400 Tavor assault rifles and 200 Galil sniper rifles, as well as night vision and laser range finding and targeting equipment .Tavor assault rifles, Galil sniper rifles, and night vision and laser range finding and targeting equipment to kill the innocent Kashmiri on the name of insurgency 90000 Kashmiri is killed by Indian force from 1988 to 2008 by these weapon from Israel . India buys the counter-infiltration devices Israel uses on Golan Heights and in the Negev Desert. 4 battalion (3000) was send to Israel for special training against insurgency in Kashmir Ghatak force.  Despite this, however, it is remarkable that India and Israel managed to come together on a range of issues, especially the close collaboration between the Indian intelligence agency, RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) and Israel’s Mossad. While India got tacit help and support from Israel during its 1962 war with China and 1965 war with Pakistan. India and Israeli defence officials have initiated work on an unmanned helicopter. Being developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) unmanned air vehicle division malat. According to latest report, Pakistan army has captured Israel made weapon in balouch insurgency and in ongoing operation in Fata and in Swat. Uzi diplomacy to press hard to Pakistan for diplomatic relation through supporting insurgency and DR A.Q Khan (NPT) matter in Pakistan by Israel (Jews) lobby to investigate him by FBI. According to JINSA, India has had to significantly boost its defense budget in order to finance all its new Israeli arms purchases: By 2010 New Delhi’s annual military budget is expected to reach $100 billion.  Israeli arms experts are also seeking to sell the Arrow II anti-tactical ballistic missile system to India, which would require U.S. approval due to shared technology in the ATBM system. —The CG News

No comments:

Post a Comment


Mail your comments, suggestions and ideas to me

Template created by Rohit Agarwal