Demonetisation, Opposition & Bandh

SOURCE:
http://mrinalsuman.blogspot.in/2016/12/demonetisation-opposition-and-bandh.html




       Demonetisation, Opposition

                              &

                           Bandh

Major General Mrinal Suman

Life is full of surprises, nay shocks. When Manmohan Singh slammed demonetisation as ‘organised loot and legalised plunder’, one did not know how to react. The man who facilitated generation of maximum black money was accusing Modi government of ‘monumental mismanagement’ – some brazenness!

Manmohan Singh virtually pawned national assets to the coalition partners in exchange for the prime ministerial chair. He allowed and abetted open loot of the treasury.  Ministries like coal, telecommunication, aviation, railway and sports had become dens of corruption. He expressed his helplessness, taking shelter under the unscrupulous plea of coalition compulsions. In a way, it was an open admission by him that he would lose his chair if he took action against his corrupt colleagues. Therefore, it was most incongruous for him to talk of loot and plunder.

One does not know why the Congress party fielded him. Did it really think he was their trump card, being a renowned economist and an ex Prime Minister, or was it done in jest to embarrass him? More surprising is the fact that he agreed to speak on the subject. He made a laughing stock of himself with his homilies, inviting sniggers from viewers. His track record both as the head of the government and pragmatic economist is appalling.

Congress party appears to be at its wits’ end. It does not know how to respond to Modi’s initiatives. The party joined the whole country in lauding surgical strikes across LoC. When it realised that Modi was gaining popularity, it started questioning its occurrence. Most ridiculously, it demanded that proof be made public. When scoffed at by the whole country, it started claiming that it had also allowed similar strikes when in power.

Demonetisation evoked similar response. Initial reaction was muted. However, with Modi acquiring iconic status as a crusader against black money, Congress quickly changed tracks. Having failed to find a convincing economic argument against demonetisation, it has started resorting to the dishonourable tactic of disrupting parliamentary proceedings.

Most laughingly, Congress has declined to debate the issue without the presence of the Prime Minister. Yes, it is not satisfied with just a statement from him but wants his presence throughout the debate – an unprecedented and irrational demand.  A new low has been reached in India’s abysmal parliamentary conduct – issues are not important, individuals are. It shows total bankruptcy of ideas and logical thinking.

Taking a cue from the Congress party, other opposition parties have also joined the bandwagon of protests and bandhs. They are expressing their Aakrosh (anger), ostensibly for the discomfort being caused to the common man. Can there be a more ridiculous excuse? Actually, it is the political leadership that is getting discomfited. 

Common man is supporting the decision and is willingly enduring the temporary hardship for he long-term good of the nation. People standing in long queues for hours showed no anger at all. Even leading questions of some infamously shameless media men have failed to evoke negative responses.

 

Responses sought by Modi on his app showed overwhelming support for the step. True to its wont, opposition dismissed it as a contrived poll.  

A survey was carried out by C-Voter (an international polling agency) across different age and income groups on 21 November. It covered nearly half the country’s parliamentary constituencies. Almost 87 percent of respondents supported the move against black money while 85 percent opined that the inconvenience being faced by them was worth the effort. Therefore, which common man’s discomfort is bothering the opposition parties?

Even if the above survey is dismissed as non-representative, how do the opposition parties explain sweeping victories scored by the ruling party in the recent civic elections in Maharashtra and Gujarat? These were held after demonetisation and people had already endured cash difficulties.

The truth is obvious to all. Elections are an expensive business. Political parties had hoarded huge stocks of ill-gotten cash to fight elections and bribe voters. They are feeling ‘cheated’ and their anger is explicable. How will they arrange liquor and other freebies to influence voters? How will they gather supporters for their rallies? Who will pay for the fleets of buses for transporting them, arrange their meals and cash rewards? Hiring of helicopter fleets and cavalcades of vehicles for flitting across various constituencies will become difficult.

Many political parties used to collect huge funds by auctioning party tickets for elections to the highest bidders. Needless to say, such donations were always in cash. Demonetisation has dealt a fatal blow to this trafficking of electoral rectitude. As there is no cash, there are no takers. Any wonder then that many political leaders are shrieking and behaving in such a despicable manner. Their treasure chests have been demolished.  

In addition to the politicians; some builders, traders, smugglers, hawala operators, presstitutes, lawyers, doctors, private hospitable, schools/colleges and such other segments of the society have also been thriving on black money. Therefore, their opposition to demonetisation is understandable.

However, what is not acceptable is their incendiary and inciting agenda. Old pictures of long queues (including those outside cinema halls) are being circulated as of cash starved restless crowds. Every unfortunate death anywhere in the vicinity of a bank/ATM is being attributed to demonetisation. A heart patient died at home while getting dressed for going to the bank. The headline read, “Man dies of fear of long wait at the bank”. Absurdity has no limits.

According to jurisprudence, all decisions taken in good faith must be accepted accordingly. Everyone knows that demonetisation is a colossal step towards ridding India of the menace of black money. The whole country is supporting the government. Exceptions are only two – those who thrived on black money and those who are inimical to Indian interests. As regards the latter, they are incorrigible. Anti-nationalism is a part of their DNA. Every progressive step towards a better India has to be opposed by them; and that is India’s misfortune.*****

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOURCE:


BBC Documentary Drone Attack Drones in Military Documentary History Channel  

        [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_tMNAAVxY0 ]

 

                  The Drone Revolution

                Less Than Meets the Eye

                                    By

                Lawrence D. Freedman

 

 

 

It is a measure of how much the United States’ security has improved since the more dangerous moments of the Cold War that the most troublesome issues in the military field today concern not weapons of mass destruction but targeted killing.

 

 

The power that comes with access to the nuclear codes, of course, remains foremost when considering a presidential candidate’s fitness for office. Yet no American leader has authorized the use of nuclear weapons since 1945. The last two U.S. presidents have regularly authorized the elimination of alleged Islamist terrorists.

 

 

The U.S. government has assassinated jihadists through a variety of means, including Special Forces and attack helicopters. But drones have become its new weapon of choice. This has prompted a large body of literature exploring the ethical, legal, and strategic dilemmas that these weapons pose. Some of these books, such as The Drone Debate, by the political scientists Avery Plaw, Matthew Fricker, and Carlos Colon, and Drones, by Sarah Kreps, also an academic, provide admirable overviews of the debate.

 

 

Objective Troy, meanwhile, by the New York Times reporter Scott Shane, presents a gripping account of the hunt for Anwar al-Awlaki, the charismatic New Mexico–born preacher and senior al Qaeda operative who, after a drone killed him in Yemen in 2011, became the first U.S. citizen to be assassinated since the American Civil War. The Assassination Complex, by the investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill and the staff of The Intercept (and which includes a foreword by the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden), amounts to a searing indictment of the U.S. drone program. Other commentators are more gently critical, such as the anthropologist Hugh Gusterson, in Drone, his thoughtful examination of the dilemmas this new weapon poses.

 

 

Although these books differ in style and focus, they cover a similar set of issues and are drawn to the same set of sources. Underlying them all is the claim that drones represent a new era of warfare, or at least of counterterrorism. It is true that with drones, governments can eliminate political leaders and activists with relative ease. And perhaps one day, fully autonomous military systems, once programmed, may be able to decide whom to watch and then eliminate. Yet for now, at least, drones are just another weapon in the military’s arsenal. Winning a war requires controlling territory, and that will always necessitate supporting ground forces. Drones are an important innovation, but they are not revolutionary.

 

 

"ADDICTIVE AS CATNIP"

 

Unmanned aerial vehicles have existed since the early days of airpower. The first was developed but not used during World War I, for target practice. But it was the Israeli engineer Abraham Karem, who had been working on drones to confuse Arab air defenses in the 1970s, who realized that with new technologies, drones could provide real-time intelligence. In his enthralling history of the U.S. drone program, Predator, Richard Whittle tells Karem’s story. After immigrating to the United States, Karem failed to convince the Pentagon of his idea, and in 1990, he went bankrupt. But General Atomics, a California-based defense contractor that had been developing drones of its own, saw the potential of his designs. Together, they built the Predator

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAN A PAK ARMY CHIEF CHANGE HIS STRIPES ?

SOURCE:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/view-from-india/330194.html

                            Pakistan’s New Army Chief

                     – PSYCHO Analysis

                                          FOUR OF  'FOUR' PARTS

[A] PART ONE

 http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/11/pakistans-new-army-chief-psycho-analysis_43.html

 

[B] PART TWO

http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/11/profile-pakistan-armys-general-qamar.html

[C]  PART THREE
http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/12/pakistans-new-army-chief-general-bajwa.html

[d]  PART FOUR
http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/12/can-pak-army-chief-change-his-stripes.html


CAN A PAK ARMY CHIEF CHANGE HIS                              STRIPES ?

                  Bobby Builds, Bajwa Inherits

                                        By

                 Lt Gen Bhopinder Singh (Retd)

Pakistan has a new Army Chief. In Pakistan’s scheme of things, this is a very consequential appointment. Two former Indian army generals (retd.) offer their asssement about the change of guard at the Rawalpindi General Headquarters.








   

INTERESTING FACTS

Pak has appointed 16 Chiefs including Bajwa but the first two were British.

•  Gul Hassan was sacked after the `71 defeat. Zia and Asif Nawaz Junjua died in harness. Karamat was eased out.
• Three took over the reins -- Ayub Khan, Zia and Musharraf. Ayub made himself Field Marshal. Yahya Khan became President after Ayub.
• All three Pak Army Chiefs who took over the reigns remained COAS, some preferring Army House over President House.
• The longest tenure was by Gen Zia (12 years) and the shortest by Gul Hassan (less than 3 months).
• Most were from Infantry with Armored Corps having three (Gul Hassan, Zia and Jahangir Karamat) and Artillery two (Tikka Khan and Mushraff).
• Nawaz appointed five while his move to appoint Ziauddin  to replace Mushraff was scuttled.
• Baloch Regiment has given the maximum of four Chiefs(Yahya, Aslam Beg, Kayani and Bajwa)

LITTLE ELSE CHANGES: The incoming chief will adhere to the prescriptions by the Deep State but should avoid personal wars of his own, especially towards the end of his tenure


Nawaz Sharif has the dubious distinction of a fractious relationship with all five Chiefs of Army Staff he has worked with, including the three that he chose himself.

It started with his first handpicked choice of General Waheed Kakar (superseding four senior officers) in 1993 subsequently reneging and pressurising Nawaz Sharif to tender his resignation as the Prime Minister. The next General that Nawaz Sharif had to deal with was General Jehangir Karamat (choice of the previous Benazir Bhutto government), and soon the irreconcilable disagreement between the two flared up, leading to the general’s premature resignation. 

Having burnt his fingers, Nawaz wanted to play absolutely safe. He superseded a ‘pliant’ Mohajir Gen Pervez Musharraf. He soon demonstrated his independent adventurism with Kargil and finally Nawaz Sharif was bumped off and exiled in a bloodless coup. In his third return to power in 2013, Nawaz had to ‘manage’ a cold and unpredictable Gen Pervez Kayani (chosen by his bête noire, Gen  Musharaf in 2007). After he ‘hung his boots as promised (after an  extension), Nawaz quickly pounced upon the opportunity to make his third personal choice in Gen Raheel Sharif.

Bobby (Gen Sharif’s pet name), like the new chief, was not the frontrunner and therefore seemed a ‘safe’ choice who could oblige! Except, Bobby too, would prove otherwise. He had lived his fairly illustrious military life in the shadow of his brother’s legacy, the late Major Rana Shabbir Sharif (recipient of Pakistan’s highest gallantry award, ‘Nishan-e-Haider’ in 1971 war). 

Bobby was always struggling to ‘live up’ to the proud legacy of his elder brother, who incidentally was the batch mate of Gen Pervez Musharraf. Belonging to the proud martial stock of the Janjua clan, Gen Raheel Sharif was the quintessential Pakistani general - barrel chested, plain speaking and perceptibly nationalistic. Soon, he would follow the independent streak that typifies the generals in the ‘Army House’ in the manicured cantonment town of Rawalpindi, as opposed to the despised politicos in Islamabad.

Expectedly, General Raheel Sharif came into his own and decided on the national narrative by taking on homegrown terror (after the Peshawar school massacre) and started defining the contours of foreign policy with dashes to Kabul, Riyadh, Washington, Beijing etc. on briefs that went beyond military matters. A hapless Nawaz Sharif was often left suffering the indignity of  making political retractions (post Ufa summit), policy flip-flops (with India) and getting lectured on domestic corruption (after ‘Panamagate’) by his Chief of Army Staff. 

Today, with the ensuing ‘selective’ war on terror, the ‘Panamagate’ expose and the flaring volatility on the LOC, made the Pakistani armed forces and Gen Raheel Sharif in particular, the real McCoy in Pakistan. By keeping his word on retirement, Gen. Sharif has further strengthened his legacy, and importantly of the Pakistani armed forces. Bobby won all the battles against the politicos, and built-up the relevance and favourable perception of the parallel institution, the armed forces. Bobby ensured that he could indulge in leisurely game hunts, whilst, the institution retains the glint in its bayonets, without having to resort to unnecessary formality and complexities of a military coup d’état.   

Gen Bajwa is the fourth time Nawaz Sharif has made a selection on his own. Unsurprisingly, his supposed apoliticalness and low profile ensured that he too, hopped over four generals. His credentials are eerily similar to those of Gen Raheel Sharif -- both were ‘dark horses’, both were IG (Training and Insp) before elevation, both are of Punjabi stock and supposedly, apolitical. 

However, a careful analysis of the Pakistani military history bears out the deep institutional truth, of a close-knit decision-making network that operates through a guarded and consultative grouping of corps commanders, which toes its own line. The military institution is larger than the individual, and the institution takes care of its own – the brazen freedom afforded on Gen Musharraf is a testimony. Clearly, Gen Bajwa does not carry the operational scars of the Indo-Pak war (he joined the Baloch Regiment in 1980) or suffered a personal angularity like that of Gen Raheel Sharif’s family in the `71 war. However, his familial credentials of military upbringing are impeccable, with both his father and father-in-law having served in the Pakistani Army. 

Gen Bajwa is the veritable inheritor of the well-oiled Pakistani military juggernaut, with carefully selected military men well ensconced in sensitive positions like the NSA (Lt Gen Nasser Khan Janjua) and the ISI chief (Lt Gen Rizwan Akhtar) to oversee the seamless continuum of operations.

The present arrangement of an ostensible civilian government, with the reigns firmly in the hands of the burly military men works perfectly fine for the institution of the Pakistani armed forces. No perceptible change of strategic track is envisaged by the strategists in New Delhi. Nawaz Sharif has personally punted thrice before and got it terribly wrong. Gen Bajwa is the fourth time Nawaz has thrown the dice in a perennial power struggle that he has always lost, so far.

The writer is a former Lt Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry

 

             CAN A PAK ARMY CHIEF
             CHANGE HIS STRIPES?

                           View from India

                                     BY

                       Lt Gen KJ Singh(Retd)

 Nov 30, 2016





Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, after months of speculation and suspense, has finally made his choice (record fifth time) for the Pak Chief of Army Staff (COAS). He has chosen the ‘dark horse’ and the junior most general as the next Chief. Gen Bajwa has been preferred over the senior most Gen Zubair Mahmood Hayat who has literally been kicked up-s tairs.  The other two in the  probable list included Lt Gen Ishfaq Nadeem Ahmed, GOC of Strike Corps at Multan, who enjoyed wide popularity due to his professional acumen in shaping operational plans and policies leading to successful operations during Raheel’s tenure.  However, his being out spoken and high profile may have gone against him.

The fourth one in the race, an early favorite, Lt Gen Javed Iqbal Ramday, may have lost out despite family ties.  Did it have something to do with the leaking of information to Cyril Almeida? They will have to be  found some sinecures or may resign. This will lead to five apex level changes: Chief of General Staff (CGS), two Corps Commanders, IG Training and Evaluation besides DG ISI.

The current process has also seen some very interesting trends.  

The first one is that the process entailed suspense and even intrigue till the `dark horse’ was nominated, that too after all the mandatory ceremonials of the outgoing incumbent were over. Nawaz, after disregarding seniority, would hope that t he new incumbent will buck the trend and remain loyal unlike his previous appointees. This last minute nomination and secrecy reflects insecurity and may impact continuity especially as the CGS is to be changed.

The choice of Gen Bajwa has led to some Indian Jats suddenly discovering links with Muslim Jats of Sialkot region.  We may recount that Gen Zia was a Mohajir blessed with liberal education at St Stephens. But he turned out to be a “Maulana General” who set the Pak army on the path of Islamisation.  The other Mohajir, Gen Mushrraf tried to prove himself more Punjabi than the real Punjabis. The obvious lesson is not to stereotype Pak generals based on their background. Gen Bajwa may also want to live down his relationship with Ahmadiya relatives though  his connections may have been played up by a rival.  This may also free him of the shackles that Nawaz may have planned to keep him in check.

Another complexity is that their responses are shaped by the deep state including the ISI, driven by its own interpretation of Pak national interests. Every new Chief goes through a  normative process and may even display two to three character profiles depending on the length of his tenure.  Musharraf-I was a hardliner with Kargil as his signature statement, Musharraf-II seemed to be yearning for a place in history and came very close to anchoring a possible solution in Kashmir, wanting to possibly match up to Vajpayee and Manmohan in statesmanship.

Like Raheel, Gen Bajwa steps up from a low profile job, yet brings hands-on experience of 10 Corps  with responsibility of PoK and LoC.  Initial reports of his easy going in style need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Pak media’s attempts to project him as a pro-democracy general seem to be part of  an orchestrated campaign that only the passage of time can validate.  As regards his UN experience  under an Indian GOC, the advice of his erstwhile [Indian] boss that projection in an international environment is different needs to be factored to rule out skewed profiling.




Transformative Chiefs  are becoming rare. Powerful ones have generally tended to be “roguish” and led Pakistan on dangerous pathways.  Gen. Zia’s Islamisation drive and Gen. Musharaff’s Kargil misadventure are two such obvious examples. Gen. Raheel was also set on this dangerous path with BAT actions; one possible lesson is that no general should be allowed to start a private war for his own ends and especially towards the end of his tenure. Let us hope Gen. Bajwa respects civilian hierarchy that will pave the way for cooling down on LoC. Luxury of this window may not be for very long as with time Pak Chief is likely to become more assertive and autonomous.




In sum, there is a now a new movie with a new hero and a new cast. Yet the story and script may remain the same as the deep state remains the ghost writer. The next Pak army chief is likely to remain focused on these interests and more importantly insecurities. Like they say more things change, more they remain the same.  The challenge is to help Pak civilian structures to re-assert their supremacy in this narrow window before the Army starts asserting itself again.


The writer was former GOC, Western Command, Indian Army

:



































 

Pakistan’s New Army Chief General Bajwa And India’s Futile Speculation

SOURCE:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/30112016-pakistans-new-army-chief-general-bajwa-and-indias-futile-speculation-analysis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29







                Pakistan’s New Army Chief

                     – PSYCHO Analysis

 

                                    [https://youtu.be/o_areOPIPRY ]

 

 

Published on Nov 27, 2016

Lieutenant General Qamar Bajwa has been appointed as the Pakistani Army Chief, and he is set to take charge on Tuesday.
Former Indian Army Chief Bikram Singh who worked with Bajwa on an assigment at the United Nations has said that things at the LoC won't change much with Bajwa taking charge, and that Pakistan's aggression will continue.

                           THREE  OF  'FOUR' PARTS

 

Linked To

 

[A] PART ONE

 http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/11/pakistans-new-army-chief-psycho-analysis_43.html

 

[B] PART TWO

http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/11/profile-pakistan-armys-general-qamar.html

[C]  PART THREE
http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/12/pakistans-new-army-chief-general-bajwa.html

[d]  PART FOUR
http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/12/can-pak-army-chief-change-his-stripes.html 

 

 

India must learn to recognize that no Pakistan Army Chief ‘controls’ the Pakistan Army even though by virtue of his office he commands it. It is the Pakistan Army which institutionally through its Corps Commanders Collegium that controls the Pakistan Army Chief and Pakistan.


   Pakistan’s New Army Chief General Bajwa        And India’s Futile Speculation –
                                 Analysis


                                                                               By
                                                    Dr Subhash Kapila

Pakistan’s announcement of new Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa on November 24 2016 set in motion a torrent of futile Indian media speculation on positive implications for India in terms of his attitudinal postures.

India must learn to recognise that no Pakistan Army Chief ‘controls’ the Pakistan Army even though by virtue of his office he commands it. It is the Pakistan Army which institutionally through its Corps Commanders Collegium that controls the Pakistan Army Chief and Pakistan.

Strangely, the Indian media and strategic community comparatively never debates such aspects when changes in China’s military hierarchy takes place even though the fact is that China’s policies towards India are conditioned by the Chinese military hierarchy and that China is more decidedly the major threat to India amplified since 2014 by the China-Pakistan Axis.

Before moving on to the examination of the main theme it would be proper to briefly shed light on the external and internal environment that presently dominates Pakistan. The new Pakistan Army Chief cannot operate in a vacuum and Pakistan’s political and security environment that prevails will certainly count for much as General Bajwa’s operational assessments and the policy he crafts when he dons the mantle on November 29 2016.

Pakistan can be said externally to be bereft of support of the United States and Western countries, its traditional supporters. China and with Russia in tow cannot fill the vacuum so caused. China is only an aphrodisiac that excites delusionary military highs in the Pakistan military hierarchy in confronting India

Regionally, Pakistan and the Pakistan Army are at confrontational odds with its two major neighbours, Afghanistan and India. This makes Pakistan Army’s both military flanks troublesome. Within SAARC also Pakistan stands isolated.

On Afghanistan, with Pakistan Army’s fixated obsession of controlling it for strategic depth, Pakistan Army Chief has to confront the new reality that today there is a strategic consensus between India, Iran and Afghanistan and that is at cross-purposes with Pakistan Army’s end-aim.


Internally, the domestic environment is in turbulence not only politically but also militarily. Politically, Pakistan PM has not been allowed to settle down stably on many counts. Militarily, Balochistan and to some extent Sindh and the Western Frontier regions will provide challenges to the new Pakistan Army Chief. These can be serious distractions as General Bajwa confronts the military turbulence on its Western and Eastern Flanks.


Then are the major challenges that could arise within the Pakistan Army hierarchy as in their perceptions the smooth transition of command of the Pakistan Army Chief in a way for the first time opens a window for greater Pakistani civilian control of the Pakistan Army. There could be reverberations as General Bajwa by Pakistani media accounts was not the favoured choice of the outgoing Pakistan Army Chief General Raheel Sharif or the Pakistan Army.

Surely, it is an established fact that Pakistan’s policy stances towards India are not dictated by any incoming Pakistan Army Chief’s personal preferences.
It is the Pakistan Army’s institutional mindset on India that prevails ultimately and no new Pakistan Army Chief can afford to shrug that off.


Pakistan Army’s institutional mindset on India is decidedly Anti-India not only because of post-1947 reverses that Pakistan Army has suffered at the hands of the Indian Army. The Pakistan Army’s mindsets are also historically moulded by the nostalgia and hangover that the Pakistan Army are the true heirs of the Islamic Slave Kings and Mughal Empire that ruled India for nearly eight hundred years before the advent of the British.

With that contextual background it can be asserted that the Pakistan Army is in a state of paranoid fixation towards seeking strategic and military parity with India. Since this could not be achieved in the outcomes of Pakistan Army’s four wars with India, the Pakistan Army for the past few decades resorted to asymmetric warfare whose main instruments have been proxy wars and state-sponsored terrorism by Pakistan Army jihadi terrorism affiliates.

With the advent of General Bajwa as Pakistan Army Chief, therefore, nothing changes for India in terms of conflict escalation and military brinkmanship on the LOC and the international border. India must learn to live and not only live but defeat Pakistan Army’s institutional obsessive fixation to downsize India and its military might.

Would General Bajwa as the new Pakistan Army Chief be able to restrain Pakistan’s terrorism and disruptive activities against India and especially in the Kashmir Valley, the answer is in the negative. Unlike previous Pakistan Army Chiefs, General Bajwa has practical hands-on experience and mastery of operational matters all along the LOC and the IB having served many tenures in every rank in Pakistan Army’s X Corps which is the largest Corps in the Pakistan Army whose operational responsibility covers the entire expanse of Jammu & Kashmir. That makes him a General to be reckoned with when it comes to military operations in Jammu & Kashmir.

The Indian media has widely quoted that General Bajwa had once stated that Pakistan faces more internal threats than the threat from India. But that does not imply that the Pakistan Army would isolate/insulate itself from its military adventurism in Kashmir or seek peace and tranquillity on India’s borders. Or, more significantly for India, restrain terrorism against India and other disruptive activities.

Pakistan is currently under great international pressure to defang Pakistan Army’s notorious affiliates the Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad, as the major powers feel that their activities could provoke India into an escalated armed conflict with Pakistan.


Should the new Pakistan Army Chief succumb to such international pressure, it would not be from any fears of Indian military backlash but out of coercive pressures from Pakistan Army’s erstwhile strategic patrons. The rest of Pakistan Army’s military adventurism against India is unlikely to cease.
The other major ongoing speculation in India is whether Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif having personally selected General Bajwa as the new Pakistan Army Chief could possibly expect him to second the Pakistani PM’s penchant for better relations with India which in the past were over-ruled by previous Army Chiefs.


It would be a flawed assessment that speculates that Pakistani PM’s main determinant in selecting General Bajwa was that the new Army Chief would be more accommodative in promoting Pakistan’s peace dialogues with India. Pakistan’s institutional opposition to such initiatives would ultimately prevail and even if there is no threat of military coups exist but until such time Pakistan Army comes under complete control of its civilian masters, no Pakistani PM can be oblivious to Pakistan Army’s institutional Anti-India fixations.


The ‘China Factor’ has now surfaced as a major factor and determinant in Pakistan’s and Pakistan Army’s policy attitudes towards India with the emergence of the China-Pakistan Axis in more concrete terms. Further, China prefers dealing directly with the Pakistan Army Chief and the Pakistan Army, and not with the elected Government of Pakistan. China can ill-afford any Pakistan Army Chief who displays soft attitudes’ towards India. General Bajwa cannot be expected to be an exception.


Lead editorials in Pakistan’s more prominent dailies reflecting on General Bajwa’s selection as Army Chief in outlining the agenda for the new Pakistan Army Chief have stressed that General Bajwa should focus on the continuation of his predecessor’s aggressive policies which in any case were not India-friendly.


Pakistan seems to be suffering from heightened besieged paranoia where one columnist has gone so far as to suggest that the ‘Trump-Modi Combine’ would be out to destroy Pakistan.
Concluding therefore, the major assessment that surfaces from the above analysis is that India should be under no delusions’ that Pakistan’s policy on India would change for the better with the advent of the new Pakistan Army Chief. A complex mix of external and internal factors may propel Pakistan to greater military adventurism against India on the plea that India threatens Pakistan’s very existence now with no restraining coercive pressures of the United States existent.

TOPICS :Foreign Policy IndiaMilitary Pakistan  Politics  South Asia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROFILE : Pakistan army's General Qamar Javed Bajwa

SOURCE:
http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/profile-pakistan-armys-general-qamar-javed-bajwa/ar-AAkOKUE?ocid=iehp#image=1




               Pakistan’s New Army Chief

                  – PSYCHO Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

                                 TWO  OF  'FOUR' PARTS

 

Linked To

   

[A] PART ONE

 http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/11/pakistans-new-army-chief-psycho-analysis_43.html

 

[B] PART TWO

http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/11/profile-pakistan-armys-general-qamar.html

[C]  PART THREE
http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/12/pakistans-new-army-chief-general-bajwa.html

[d]  PART FOUR
http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/12/can-pak-army-chief-change-his-stripes.html 

                              PROFILE 

 

 Pakistan army's General Qamar Javed Bajwa

 

 

 

 

General Raheel Sharif is due to step down has stepped down  as Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff  when his three-year term expired on November 29.

In his place, Lieutenant-General Qamar Javed Bajwa has been 
appointed in a rather smooth transition in accordance with the constitution.

The change of guard is being seen as an unusually amicable one given that  Pakistan's military has played a prominent role in the country's politics since its independence in 1947, staging three coups.

Bajwa's appointment also comes at a crucial time when relations between India and Pakistan are tense along the Kashmir border. 

In Pakistan, under the constitution, the prime minister is head of the country's executive, but the army controls domestic security affairs, the spy agency [the Directorate-General for Inter-Services Intelligence, better known as ISI] and the defence and foreign policies.


READ MORE: US must challenge Pakistan's duplicity on Afghanistan


The announcement on Saturday by Nawaz Sharif, the Pakistan prime minister, is being described by analysts as an act that places Pakistan's civil-military relationship on a firm footing.
"General Bajwa, whom I have met a few times, is someone who will not interfere a lot in the civilian government matters," Lieutenant-General (retd) Talat Masood, a defence analyst, told Al Jazeera.

"He will indeed give his advice on certain things but will not dominate the political scene, which will prove to be very helpful in terms of relationship with the government."


Bajwa was chosen over at least three contenders:  Lieutenant-General Zubair Hayat,  the army's chief of general staff, who was previously responsible for the security of the country's nuclear programme; Lieutenant-General Ishfaq Nadeem, the commander of II Corps, Multan, who was viewed by many as the favourite for the job; and Lieutenant-General Javed Iqbal Ramday,  Bahawalpur Corps Commander.


Bajwa's current designation is Inspector General (Training and Evaluation) at the general headquarters (GHQ) of the Pakistan army, a position Raheel also held before he became the chief of army staff.


Bajwa was the general officer in command (GoC) of X Corps, Rawalpindi, the army's largest, which is responsible for the area along the  Line of Control (LoC) the de facto border dividing Indian and Pakistani-administered Kashmir,  has extensive experience in handling affairs in the region and the northern areas.

With cross-border shelling along the LoC that began in September showing no sign of ebbing, Bajwa's military colleagues told Al Jazeera there is a likelihood that he would try to arrange a ceasefire between the two sides.


READ MORE: Pakistan information minister removed over news report


Lieutenant-Colonel (retd) Muhammad Irfan, who served with Bajwa in 1984 in the Northern Light Infantry (NLI) unit, which has the primary ground operations responsibility of protecting the northern areas of Pakistan, said Bajwa will "fight back with full force if the attacks from the other side of the border do not stop".


"India is the one attacking our soldiers, killing civilians too, at the LoC. [Indians] are taking the heat, not us. So if India does not agree to the conditions of a ceasefire or ceasefire at all, I think Bajwa is someone who will take rapid action against it."

In 2007, Bajwa served with a UN mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo as a brigade commander alongside Bikram Singh, an Indian general who was also there as a division commander before going on to become his country's army chief.

Ranjeet Rai, an Indian defence expert, has been quoted by the New Indian Express daily as saying:

"[Bajwa] takes over when a mortar war is going on between India and Pakistan along the international border and along the LoC.

"Now, he has two options: He can either stop terrorism or control the mortar firing from Pakistan or will he continue the old army chief's policies.

"He will definitely carry General Sharif's legacy forward and the decisions he has taken to fight terrorism in the country. He is indeed a firm opponent of extremism and terrorism."


Pakistan's Dawn newspaper reported that Bajwa may prove even more forceful in the fight against armed groups than Raheel Sharif, who is credited with launching Operation Zarb-e-Azb in an effort to wipe out the groups and their bases in the North Waziristan.

Cleary, Bajwa will have his plate full, from the tension with India and the violence in Afghanistan to growing links between homegrown armed groups and the implications of a Donald Trump presidency.

"There will be some minor differences here and there" between what Bajwa has done so far and will do as the chief of army staff, Masood, the defence analyst, told Al Jazeera.

"However, we all know he has a very brilliant record of service."