Home / Articles / Cold start or Hot start, We are ready!

Cold start or Hot start, We are ready!

Army chief’s quip: “Cold start or Hot start, We are ready!” is reflective of national sentiment in the face of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ongoing childish brinkmanship. Archives of the Indian media show that grossly exaggerated claims of military success were made by India during the 1965 war; some of the headlines were: “Our valiant forces have set up a civil administration in Lahore after capturing the railway station, airport, Mughalpura, an ordinance factory ….”; “Civilized attitude of our soldiers wins hearts of Lahoris” & “Lahore captured: Our forces are moving into Kasur”. Closest the Indian forces came to Lahore was 14.2 “Bloody miles”. Indian psyche remains unchanged. After 50 years, India officialdom has embarked upon a foolhardy spree to make believe that India was outright victorious.

In a related tri-services seminar on September 1, 2015, Indian Vice President Mr. Hamid Ansari launched an Indian Air Force (IAF) commissioned book, “The Duels of the Himalayan Eagle: The First Indo-Pak Air War”, by a former IAF Air Marshal Bharat Kumar, book is an effort to hang a new narrative in vacuum by refuting all accounts by neutral analysts that portray PAF as a clear winner. Indian Army, too, is coming out with its “new” account of the 1965 war.

Nevertheless, the IAF book is constrained to acknowledge that IAF “suffered disproportionately higher losses” than the PAF. The IAF was numerically superior, with 28 combat squadrons (460 combat air craft) to PAF’s 11(186 aircraft)”. Indian Air Marshal admits that IAF was caught off-guard by the PAF offensive (read pre-emption) and had lost its 35 aircraft on the ground during pre-emptive strikes, on Pathankot on September 6 and then on Kalaikunda, on the following day. As per his count, IAF lost 59 aircraft, while the PAF lost 43.

To justify these losses, he goes on to argue that IAF grappled with first-generation subsonic fighters like Vampire and Dassault Toofani as well as second-generation transonic ones like Mystere, Hawker Hunter, Gnats and Canberra bombers; and just a handful of third-generation supersonic MiG-21s. And that the PAF was equipped with F-86 Sabre jets, F-104 Star-fighters and B-57 bombers, along with much-better weapons and radars. Another offered lame excuse is that 13 out of IAF’s 28 squadrons had been deployed in the eastern and central sectors to tackle the Chinese threat. He portrays that the effective ratio of combat squadrons between IAF and PAF was 12:10.

Air Marshal Bharat again brushes with falsehood: “Whereas Pakistan was fighting on one front, India had to be ready on more than one and therefore had to divide and conserve her resources accordingly”. He continues with fanciful arguments: “There is no doubt that Indian losses in aircraft were higher and Pakistan has tried to use just this figure alone to proclaim its victory…Nothing could be farther from the truth…In the final analysis, despite initial reverses, India was able to successfully thwart Pakistan’s grand design.”

For a change, book takes a candid look at the abysmal lack of coordination between IAF and the Army, with the author admitting that “mistakes were made”. “Absence of joint IAF-Army planning and tardy intelligence as well as poor communication links and radar coverage, scarce resources and the wide theatre of operations, all led to the disjointed conduct of operations by India.”

Like her war with China on the NEFA and Ladakh borders, India’s Rann of Kutch adventure against Pakistan also turned out to be a fiasco. However, reaction in both cases was different; while India had lost the will to fight another encounter with China, Pakistan had to be avenged, mainly for face-saving amongst Indian public. Soon after the Kutch debacle, Indian ‘Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri announced his intention to “choose a front of our liking”. Obviously, this was to be the Kashmir front where ceasefire line violations had been stepped up. The UN Military Observers Group reported 2,006 violations during the first seven months of 1965 as against 700 in 1964 and 20 in 1963. From April 1965, when the Rann of Kutch encounter had started, the violations took a sudden jump – from 80 in March to 290 in April. In May, they rose to 380, in June to 400, and in July they swelled to 756. A too familiar scenario even after 50 years!

Exercise Desert Hawk during the Rann of Kutch operations had brought the PAF almost on war footing, and when the Indian Army clashed with the Pakistan Army in the Chhamb sector, the PAF was ready to meet the challenge. Due to this inter-services synergy, Pakistan Army quickly swept across the plains of Chhamab Jurian sector inside the Indian-held Kashmir.

The PAF gained ascendancy in the September war after the first four crucial days; by this time, the IAF had, lost heavily in aircraft and pilots, and the PAF had achieved the miraculous air supremacy all over Pakistan. The IAF planes came in waves, with a numerical edge of 5:1; but went back in singletons and twos, spraying the wreckage of remaining on vast swaths of (West) Pakistan.

PAF took full cognizance of the IAFs much larger air fleet and prepared its aerial strategy to offset this handicap. IAF fell into the trap by fighting the crucial air superiority battle over Sargodha. The PAF made full use of the medium level capabilities of the highly maneuverable F-86 Sabre. Supported by a few high performance F-104 (only one squadron), the PAF turned the tables. Harassing and running tactics by the IAF were an invitation to disaster; for which it had to pay heavily. The PAF aircraft, orbiting and waiting for them, would pounce and get them after a chase either inside Pakistan or a little across the border. Heavy losses suffered by the IAF, in its attacks against PAF Base Sargodha, convinced the IAF that it could not match the PAF. Though Indians have made much of the PAF possessing air-to-air missiles (GAR8), only a few aircraft were installed with these sidewinders; most of the PAF kills were recorded from the aircraft guns.

PAF fully capitalized on air superiority and went on all-out offensive; striking almost all IAF bases by day and night. Close support to the army was provided on different fronts. Air superiority over the land battle zone enabled the Pak Army to move and fight unhindered by the IAF. PAF also had sufficient effort to spare for attacking the Indian army at will, thus restricting its combat capability.

PAF, proved to be a responsive instrument, which adopted requisite aggressive posture that crippled the IAF on the ground. Decision to go ahead with the initial strikes against the main IAF air bases, even when the number of available aircraft was considerably below the required figure, indicates a typical aggressive mindset. Erstwhile Control & Reporting (C&R) Branch of the PAF (later renamed as Air Defence Branch) played a significant role in achieving the vital objective of air superiority. The synergic effect created by induction of scant inventory of radars in to aerial combat had largely offset PAF’s numerical disadvantage. The climax of air defence operations was conduct of intercepts, in non-radar lit up zones, by utilizing inputs from Mobile Observer units.

Times of India has reported that Modi government’s plan to celebrate the 1965 war as “a great victory” has raised quite a few eyebrows because even Indian defence ministry’s official war history had long ago described its end as a stalemate. In military jargon, the term “stalemate” is synonymous to defeat when used to portray own performance.

About admin

Check Also

Time to create Rakhine as a Muslim State for Rohingyas

Myanmar insists that Rohingyas are interlopers from Bangladesh despite most of them living for generations in western Rakhine state of Myanmar, they have long been denied basic political rights and liberties. Bangladesh does not accept that Rohingyas have a Bengali lineage. Anthropologists believe that Rohingya roots trace back to Saudi Arabia, who migrated to Myanmar (Burma) around 7th & 8th century AC. Except Bangladesh and Myanmar who think such a return as a good idea, there are hardly any buyers of such forced eviction. United Nations doesn’t want forced eviction to happen. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, warned that forcing the first batch of about 2,200 Rohingya living in refugee camps to ground zero of mass violence against the minority Muslim group would be a “clear violation” of core international legal principles. Human Rights groups have called the move “dangerous and premature.” A number of Human Rights groups say “they are shocked”. Even the people who will be affected the most, Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, are upset that their future, once again, is being decided without their input.So far Aung Suu Kyi’s leadership performance has been derisive. No one expected governing to be easy for her, as country’s leader. Her election had ended more than a half-century of military rule; yet the hegemony has not retrieved; and Bonapartism is galore. In pursuit of her over ambitious political objectives, she has been used and discredited by Junta. Suu Kyi had declared ending the long-running ethnic insurgencies that have torn the country apart as her top priority, but her lacklustre peace effort has proved ineffective. Ever since fighting between government forces and ethnic groups has been spiralling up. Though World has been shocked by reports that the military has carried out atrocities, including rape and murder, against the Rohingya, Aung Suu has said little on the matter and done even lesser. Her government’s growing suppression of speech on the Internet seems perverse for a onetime democracy icon who spent 15 years under house arrest. No wonders her popularity is on decline. Growth has slowed and foreign investment has dipped significantly. Suu Kyi faces daunting challenges. In rebuilding the country, she must overcome decades of mismanagement and profiteering by previous military governments that enriched the generals and their cronies and brought the economy to its knees. The biggest stain on Suu Kyi’s record may be her government’s brutal treatment of the Rohingya, and her tepid response to it. Prevailing World order is known for acting very fast in Muslim versus non-Muslim conflicts where outcome is likely to benefit non-Muslims. And it shows criminal negligence when Muslims are likely to gain through political settlement of any such conflict. When pushed too hard, conflict is settled in a way that it’s a paralytic outcome, ensuring mitigation of equitable advantage to Muslim faction of population. Some of the conflicts like Kashmir and Palestine are deliberately kept on back burners as their settlement would benefit Muslim segment of respective population. Myanmar’s Rohingya conflict also falls in “let ferment” category. Likewise is the situation about Afghan and Yemen crisis, as well as simmering Middle East and North African Muslim countries. Muslims are right to assume that current World Order has not served them a fair deal; and unless there is a significant change in its format, Muslims will continue to be marginalised at state, community and individual levels. But the billion dollar question is that how long the current World Political Order would take to assume ownership of Myanmar crisis? Time has already reached for declaring Rakhine as a sovereign State where Rohingyas could live peacefully and practice their religion peacefully.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *