PROJECT SARASWATI : India's 'Miracle River'

SOURCE:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2073159.stm


                PROJECT SARASWATI

          India's 'Miracle River'

Saturday, 29 June, 2002

Scientists say new evidence could              unearth the Saraswati

The legend of the mighty Saraswati river has lived on in India since time immemorial. Ancient Hindu scriptures called the Vedas, recorded thousands of years ago, are full of tantalising hymns about it being the life-stream of the people.

In a new radio programme, Madhur Jaffrey recounts the legend of the Saraswati river - and explores startling new evidence that it may not have been a myth after all.

Vast and awesome, the Saraswati's holy waters are supposed to have flowed from the Himalayas into the sea, nourishing the land along the way. But as the centuries passed and no one could find it, myth, belief and religion came together and the Saraswati passed into the realm of folklore.

Now most people in India think of it as a mythical river. Some even believe that it is an invisible river or that it still flows underground. Another commonly held perception is that the Saraswati once flowed through the north Indian city of Allahabad, meeting there with two other rivers, the Ganges and the Jamuna.

The confluence of these three rivers - one of which is not visible to the eye - is considered one of India's holiest spots.

For most of the country, the name Saraswati is better known for its divine namesake - the goddess Saraswati, Hindu goddess of Learning. Worshipped particularly by students and school children, her festival falls in February, and the city of Calcutta is famous for celebrating her in style.

                        Saraswati, 
    Hindu Goddess of Learning 

Makeshift shrines are erected in every street and after the festival is over, thousands of the images are taken to the banks of the river Hooghly and pitched into the water where they are forever carried away by the river.

The goddess' connection to water is part of the enigma that surrounds the river. But that mystery could be set to be dispelled forever, as startling scientific evidence has come to light.

Through satellite photography, scientists have mapped the course of an enormous river that once flowed through the north western region of India. The images show that it was 8 km wide in places and that it dried up 4,000 years ago.

Dr JR Sharma who heads the Remote Sensing Services Centre in Jodhpur which is mapping the images, believes a major earthquake may have played a part in the demise of the Saraswati. There was, he says, a big tectonic activity that stopped the water supply to the river.

Sharma and his team believe they have found the Saraswati and are excited about what this discovery could mean for India. The idea is to tap its potential as a water source. They are working with India¿s leading water experts who are using the satellite images as clues.

Deep in the western Rajasthan desert, not far from the security-conscious border with Pakistan, an extraordinary programme is underway. Giant drilling rigs probe deep into the dry, arid earth pulling out undisturbed layers of soil and sediment for scientists to study and test.

          Scientists Hope to Find 
          Water Under the Desert 

Water engineers are exploring the region's ancient riverbeds for what they call groundwater - underground reservoirs that contain perfectly drinkable water. If they are successful, their discovery could transform the lives of thousands of locals who currently experience harsh water shortages.

Mr KS Sriwastawa of the Rajasthan State Groundwater Board believes one of these ancient buried channels may be the Saraswati.

He knows the stories refer to the ancient river flowing through this area and says excitedly that carbon dating has revealed that the water they are finding is 4000 years old. That would date it to the time of the Saraswati.

The modern search for the Saraswati was first sparked by an English engineer called CF Oldham in 1893 when he was riding his horse along the dry bed of a seasonal Rajasthani river called the Ghaggar.

As he rode on, he was struck by a sudden thought. The Ghaggar when it flowed, was a small, puny river and there was no reason for its bed to be up to 3km wide in places unless it occupied the former course of a much larger river - the Saraswati.

The discovery of a vast prehistoric civilisation that lived along the banks of a major river, has added impetus to the growing modern belief that the Saraswati has been found.

Over 1000 archaeological sites have been found on the course of this river and they date from 3000 BC. One of these sites is the prehistoric town of Kalibangan in northern Rajasthan.

The town has proved a treasure trove of information about the Bronze Age people who actually lived on the banks of the Saraswati. Archaeologists have discovered that there were priests, farmers, merchants and very advanced artists and craftsmen living there.

Highly sophisticated seals on which there is evidence of writing have also been found, indicating that these people were literate, but unfortunately the seals have never been deciphered.

They may well hold the clue to the mystery of what happened to the Saraswati and whether it has really been found again.

The Miracle River is broadcast at 3.30pm on Saturday 29 June on BBC Radio 4

Is India Prepared To Deal With Hybrid War? – Analysis

SOURCE:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/08122016-is-india-prepared-to-deal-with-hybrid-war-analysis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29


Is India Prepared To Deal With Hybrid War?
                                       By
                  Brig Anil Gupta (Retd)*


December 8, 2016


Samba, Gurdaspur, Pathankot, Pampore, Uri, Macchail, about 200 ceasefire violations targeting civilians and now Nagrota — the list is endless and increasing. After every incident, strong statements are made, Pakistan is blamed, provocative debates are held on TV channels, an inquiry is ordered — gradually it fades away from the nation’s memory and things return to square one till we are awakened by another rude shock.
Pakistan remains in the denial mode as usual and indulges in mutual blame game till conclusive evidence is produced of its involvement and even then it has the audacity to continue to harp about home-grown militancy.

In fact, ever since 1947, Pakistan has never ever admitted initially to its involvement in tribal raids in J&K, 1965, 1971, Khalistan movement, Kashmir, Kandhar, Parliament attack, Kargil, and the current unrest in Kashmir. It is part of its strategy.


There is no denying the fact that Pakistan has been using hybrid threats against India since Independence. With the emergence of technology, the threats have become more deadly and potent and have been given a new name of “Hybrid War”.


Hybrid War can best be described as a combination of conventional and sub-conventional threats and can be unleashed both by the state and non-state actors.

China, another adversary of India’s, is also a big proponent of this type of warfare in the 21st century and terms it as “Unrestricted Warfare.”

This type of warfare is characterised by undefined battle space and extends to the flanks and rear as well. In other words, there is no front or rear in the hybrid warfare battlefield and it can manifest anywhere on the borders or deep inside the hinterland


The tools of hybrid war, or the hybrid threats, include conventional warfare, irregular warfare, economic warfare, cyber warfare, subversion, criminal acts, Special Ops, information warfare or propaganda and violence. In hybrid war, conflicts are as much political as military.


Pakistan continues to use terrorism as an instrument of state policy. A section of Indian elite is also a tool of Pakistan’s hybrid warfare against India. Through its intelligence agencies and Track 2 diplomacy, Pakistan has successfully cultivated a section among India’s political and social elite that is not only pro-Pakistan but also questions the Indian Parliamentary resolution of 1994 claiming the entire state of J&K as an integral part of India.


The Nagrota attack bears the trade mark signature of General Raheel Sharif who was relinquishing office that day. During his tenure as Chief of the Pakistan Army, he ensured that any possible attempt at holding talks with India were nipped in the bud through sensational terror acts using the apparatus of the Deep State.

In the instant case, Raheel Sharif killed two birds with one stone. He not only negated the offer of talks during the proposed visit of Foreign Affairs Advisor Sartaj Aziz for the Heart of Asia Conference at Amritsar but also somewhat restored his military reputation that had been dented badly after the Indian surgical strikes in September.


In fact, the expected response from Pakistan after the surgical strikes was increase in terror activities. We should have been prepared to meet this threat from our adversary.

The stark reality is that we, as a nation, are not prepared to meet the challenges posed by the hybrid threats from our adversaries. Fidayeen attacks and mass casualty terror acts like in Mumbai in 1993, 2006 and 2008 are the manifestations of hybrid war unleashed by Pakistan.


We should have woken up in 1993 and minimised, if not totally eliminated, such threats in our heartland. Alas, we didn’t and had to suffer the ignominy of 10 more such attacks in different parts of the country till we were shocked by the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai in 2008.


Sadly, we are a nation of rhetoric. Lot of noises were made after 26/11 but even today, after 8 years have elapsed, can we put our hands on our chest and say that we are fully prepared to meet such threats. If we were, incidents like Gurdaspur, Samba, Pathankot, Pampore and Nagrota would not have happened.


After the 9/11 attack, the US revamped its entire security and intelligence apparatus to ensure the safety of its citizens and went whole hog to eliminate the terror threat from its soil. It raised the Department of Homeland Security with complete mandate and wherewithal to ensure that such threat could not manifest in future and Americans could live peacefully.


The result is there for all to see. Despite several attempts, the terrorists have found it virtually impossible to penetrate the American homeland security system.

 This is how strong nations respond to the challenges of hybrid threats which manifest in the worst form of terrorism.


Regrettably, India has barely addressed the problem post-26/11 and not taken much action to ensure the safety of her citizens from these threats.


Since hybrid threats can manifest anywhere and everywhere, security becomes the responsibility of the entire society and not only that of the security forces or the government.


Security is not merely a thought process but a concept and a lifestyle which has to be understood and implemented by all citizens to make our nation secure. It can no more be treated as a routine activity.


We need to develop a ‘security culture’. Every citizen needs to imbibe security protocol. We have to get used to discomforts and inconveniences that may be caused due to implementation of security procedures.


Even those serving in various security agencies, including police, need to understand its importance and not treat it as a mere job to earn a livelihood.


A cursory look at the security personnel deployed at crowded places like bus stands, railway stations, malls, market places, religious shrines and so on will certainly raise a question in your mind if they are properly equipped, trained, geared and motivated to handle any kind of terror threat? The answer is obvious.-

BIG  ""NO""


That is why terrorists move freely on our highways and travel distances to strike at will wherever they choose to. If that was not so, how did the terrorists reach Nagrota — it is neither located on the Line of Control nor close to the International Border.

We have a plethora of agencies but they lack coordination and cooperation. Turf wars are more important to us than national security and the lives of our citizens.

To counter the challenges of hybrid threats, we need a national response. First and foremost, without wasting any more time, we need a dedicated ministry to look after our internal security. The present MHA is too big and unwieldy to address the issue and don the desired role.


We need to invest heavily in our intelligence and surveillance capabilities. They are nowhere near the optimum level. Coordination and cooperation among the plethora of agencies should form the mandate of the proposed dedicated ministry.
We also need to invest heavily in state police capability-building. From a “Danda Force”, they need to be upgraded to a force capable of acting as a first line of defence against internal threats.

Our airports, coastal areas and highways need to be made impregnable. We also need to change the habit of working in watertight compartments. A greater amount of interaction and consultation between various organs of the state responsible for national security is required. Fortunately, we are no more saddled with highly risk-averse political leadership.


Our information warfare and counter propaganda capabilities need a quantum leap so that they can penetrate deep into Pakistan to exploit the obvious fault lines in that country. At a time when we are moving rapidly towards e-governance, digital world and cashless economy, our cyber warfare capabilities need a thorough re-look and enhancement.


Last, but not the least, we should be militarily prepared for punitive and pre-emptive operations against the terrorists and their sponsors and such operations should form part of our doctrine to combat Hybrid War.

Special Forces form an important component of this doctrine and we need to focus on their capacity and capability building as well as training.


Let us all vow not only to avenge Nagrota but also ensure that it is the last such incident and no more — not through words but dedicated actions. Funds should not be a constraint because national security is paramount to create an environment of peace and development.

*Brig Anil Gupta (Retd) is a Jammu-based political commentator, columnist, security and strategic analyst. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent to editor@spsindia.in

TOPICS:Foreign PolicyIndiaMilitaryPakistanSecuritySouth AsiaTerrorism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nandan Nilekani Joins Govt Committee to chart path to less- "CASH SOCIETY"

SOURCE:
http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/newsindia/nandan-nilekani-joins-govt-committee-to-chart-path-to-less-cash-society/ar-AAlicVY?li=AAggbRN&ocid=iehp





               PRELUDE : BLACK MONEY

               [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEzcjbn8EaU ]

Nandan Nilekani Joins Govt Committee to chart path to less- "CASH SOCIETY"



Faced with chaos after eliminating India’s highest value rupee notes, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has roped in a billionaire from the ranks of his adversaries to help.

Nandan Nilekani, a high-profile member of the opposition Indian National Congress (INC) party, has joined a committee to map a path to digital payments. India is trying to end its reliance on cash, especially in rural areas where almost every transaction is done in hard currency. It’s not the first time the former head of outsourcing giant Infosys Ltd has tackled a national project. He also spearheaded the country’s biometrics-based Aadhaar unique identity program.

Designed to eliminate corruption, Modi outlawed existing Rs500 and Rs1,000 notes on 8 November, which wiped out more than four-fifths of the nation’s currency and caused pain for millions, from street hawkers in the south to diamond cutters in the west. The government is trying a Plan B to salvage a situation that Credit Suisse Group AG and Deutsche Bank AG estimate will slow expansion by about 1 percentage point in the year through March.



COMPLETE COVERAGE: War on black money


Nilekani and his 13-person committee are meeting to work out how to get more Indians to adopt digital payments, via everything from their own smartphones to point-of-sale machines in local villages. While the nation has already rolled out its United Payments Interface, with hundreds of millions lacking phones or web access, a multipronged approach is needed to wean the nation of its dependence on cash.


“India has the underlying digital financial architecture in place to get this going,” Nilekani said in an interview after the committee’s first meeting. “How quickly the government can reach everyone is a question of execution and speed.”

Digital Wallets

As presses run all day to crank out new Rs500 and Rs2,000 notes, the committee featuring chief ministers of prominent Indian states as well as the India head of Boston Consulting Group met for the first time last week.

As start-ups such as Paytm, MobiKwik and Freecharge push their digital wallets to a slice of smartphone users, the committee is focusing on two key avenues: getting more merchants to accept the United Payments Interface and procuring more point-of-sale devices.

The interface, rolled out by major banks in April, makes transferring money as easy as sending a text message. With the system already in place, Nilekani says boosting acceptance of the payments interface is achievable in weeks. Getting the estimated one million new POS devices, which would almost double the number in use as of August, would take longer because of the need for a tender.


Rural Impact

“Breaking down the problem into digestible chunks is the first step to solving it,” said Nilekani, who lost a battle for a parliamentary seat in the 2014 election to a key member of Modi’s cabinet.

 Nandan Nilekani says boosting acceptance of UPI is achievable in weeks. Photo: Hemant Mishra/ Mint

India has also made it easier to make digital payments, with the central bank this week doing away with the two-step authentication process for transactions of less than Rs2,000.

The impact of the money ban, known as demonetisation, has been felt the most in the countryside, where cash is preferred for everything from buying clothes and selling produce to paying for weddings. The lack of cash notes has slammed the brakes on business in some areas.

“There is no economic activity, transactions are at a standstill,” said Srikanth Nadhamuni, chief executive officer of incubator Khosla Labs which has funded electronic payments start-up Novopay. The start-up has 40,000 micro ATMs—no more than a smartphone with a fingerprint scanner attached and sometimes a printer - at small street-corner retail outlets called kirana stores.


Adapting Technology

The committee is expected to meet again this week to look at how to approach those with limited access to technology. While India has 250 million smartphone users, there are about 350 million who only have feature phones while another 350 million don’t have a phone at all, Nilekani said.

For feature phone users, the committee recommends India’s existing retail e-payments app be adapted to technology that could be rolled out within weeks. That will be helped by lower charges, with the telecommunications regulator slashing the charges for transactions from Rs1.50 rupees to Re0.50. “Each category has to have a different strategy” said Nilekani.


Big Target

Before demonetisation, digital payments had already been projected to surge. Google and Boston Consulting Group projected India’s digital payments industry to grow to $500 billion and cover half the population only by 2020.

A financial inclusion panel hosted earlier this year by the country’s software products think tank, iSpirt laid out a four-year plan to go cashless.

“It is a big target for four years but government support can shorten the time,” said Sharad Sharma, co-founder of iSpirt and a member of the government-appointed committee. “While it cannot happen in the next few months, it will happen within this decade.”

The real challenge is the 350 million people without phones, many of whom are economically-challenged. The plan is to draw those enrolled in Aadhaar, and quickly enlist the remaining, toward micro ATMs promoted by large Indian lenders such as IDFC Bank and start-ups like Novopay which already have a presence in 130,000 village retail outlets or kirana stores.

“There is a sense of urgency,” said Nilekani. “All the strategies have to be deployed at the same time to aim for universal coverage.”































 

Make In India: Transfer Of Technology Dreams Versus Reality – OpEd

SOURCE:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/05122016-make-in-india-transfer-of-technology-dreams-versus-reality-oped/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29





     Make In India: Transfer Of Technology                   Dreams Versus Reality

                                     By
                  Vishakha Amitabh Hoskote


December 5, 2016 

Make in India logo.


India and Russia recently signed deals for S-400 air defence missile program, Kamov 226T helicopters, etc.

 The question remains what about the transfer of technology?

For several experts in the field of National Defence and Security, ‘Make in India’ has been more than just a mere slogan, and an amalgamation of all the ongoing projects, procurements and forward planning in India’s security sector.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his bid to transform the otherwise lackadaisical approach of India’s Defence Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and Defence Research and Development Organisations (DRDOs) as well as Private Companies envisioned a progressive approach strongly backed by a strategy built on the ethos of credibility and immediate deliverables, job creation, thus adding strength to India’s indigenous defence industry under his mission “Make in India”.


Marred by project delays and issues of Request for Information (RFI), Request for Proposals (RFP) and Transfer of Technology (ToT), licensing issues with Russia, United States, India’s defence sector is currently undergoing massive transformation, a natural corollary to Modi’s frequent visits to other countries and subsequent discussions with his counterparts on defence and security.

The revised Defence Procurement Policy is also being projected as the game changer. However financial, political and strategic investments in projects meant to modernise India’s defence industry exhibit a very uneven path. Whether it is the MMRCA, Tejas or AWACS statistics reveal that India is yet to achieve a great breakthrough in defence, compared to China or Pakistan as in the case of AWACS.

The Cabinet Committee on Security has time and again sanctioned several projects, but uneven investments have often defeated the very purpose of rapid military transformations, to tackle new asymmetrical threats. If statistics provided by the defence ministry are to be believed, India has signed five deals of more than Rs 2,500 crore since May 2014.  (a) Projects for Tactical Communication Systems  (TCS), (b) Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) (worth $ 7.5 billion) for the Indian Army, (c) construction of seven Shivalik class frigates (Project 17 A) for the Navy, by Mazagon Docs Limited and Garden Reach Steel Industry, amounting to Rs 45201 crores are currently under consideration(d)Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is currently in the process of building basic trainer aircraft HTT 40 and Sukhoi MK 1 aircraft in line with the 272 target set for 2018 by the Indian Air Force. There are several such deals being planned, but deadlock over(d) Rafale continues to make headlines.


Meanwhile, reacting to the commercial deadlock over Rafale prices with Dassault, other players such as Lockheed Martin (F 16), Saab (Gripen) are now streamlining their business strategy, to meet the requirements of the Indian industry under Make in India. Saab is willing to partner with Indian companies, giving India complete software control to build the Gripen fighter in India. Saab is also keen on setting up an aeronautic training academy in India.


For a strong indigenous defence industry both outside support and internal political commitments are very crucial. Integral to any development program, is the need to provide a conducive socio-economic and political environment where any proposed idea can take roots. The liberalisation of the FDI Policy in Defence, which shifted the fulcrum of indigenisation from ‘state of the art technology’ to ‘modern technology’ was indeed a welcome change.


The buzz word, Indigenously Designed, Developed and Manufactured’ (IDDM) now stands at 30:70, (Imports 30%) focus remaining on indigenisation. The FDI policy was revised to fill critical gaps in technology aiding job creation and growth if Indian industry. Despite the very obvious reports on project delays, falling production targets in the case of the Ordnance Factories, and sudden inflow of private players such as Reliance and Mahindra for example in the defence arena, ‘Make in India’ is a progressive move aimed to strengthen India’s defence industry.


However, there is no systematic explanation for India’s dialogues with Russia and the US over defence procurements and projects. The very crucial aspect of Transfer of Technology (ToT) especially nuclear propulsion (for example, in the case of nuclear supercarrier) has often caused unnecessary delays in signing of agreements between Original Equipment Makers (OEM’s) and India. Offset policy (2012) allows Joint ventures through the non-equity route.


Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar recently stated that the real impact of Make in India will be seen in 2017. Parrikar stressed on the need to outsource certain products in order to maintain a healthy production chain. So the question remains: Can private players deliver better? Is the budget enough to meet the requirements of Make in India? Will the dynamics of a Russia- US power play (add China for good measure), affect India’s position as a strong defence power in South Asia and subsequently on the global stage? It was in 2001 when private players first entered the defence domain, with a 26% FDI bid. But terms and conditions laid out by the government were so stringent, that deliverables were far from being met. Technical education lagged behind affecting human resource availability.
One very important aspect of defence modernization is the ongoing Research and Development (R&D) in the field of security that has been crafted to meet the requirements of the modern day battlefield. Advancement in information technology and the changing nature of threats, whether man-made or accidental, on land, sea, air and even the virtual space now coerces one to assess the outcomes of procurements, acquisitions and mergers, in defence manufacturing sector.


The pace with which technology is becoming obsolete is a real problem. Defence preparedness calls not just for military modernisation but also reforms, which are capable of accelerating the R& D processes in the field of security. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that no one player or OEM can fully manufacture critical equipment. Several components are now procured from various producers, making the procurement procedure lengthy and complicated. These can cause unnecessary delays too. Another point of view currently attracting a lot of attention is that opening the doors of the security sector to foreign players will jeopardise India’s position as a strong defence power.

That foreign players are still not fully convinced with the idea of ‘Make in India’ especially shifting their production bases to India, a market which has inherent haphazard supply chain structures, is a different question altogether. Lastly, more than flooding the market with success stories, the focus should be on the needs of the defence forces and on the operational efficacy of equipment manufactured under Make in India. Positive market trends have indeed widened the horizons of defence manufacturing in India but India still needs a little more political and financial push to achieve a higher degree of self-reliance in defence technology.

TOPICS:

Economics  Foreign Policy  India  Russia  SouthAsia  Trade

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why the Indian Navy Is Unhappy With Its Carrier-Based Light Combat Aircraft Project

SOURCE:http://thediplomat.com/2016/12/has-the-indian-navy-canceled-its-carrier-based-light-combat-aircraft-project/



             Why the Indian Navy Is Unhappy
                                   With Its

Carrier-Based Light Combat Aircraft Project
                                       By
                             Abhijit Singh for The Diplomat

 

India’s chief of naval staff reiterates reservations about the Tejas’ suitability for carrier operations

December 03, 2016

 

Ahead of Navy Day celebrations on December 4, Admiral Sunil Lanba, India’s chief of naval staff (CNS), caused a minor flutter in the media by suggesting that the Navy was doing a rethink on the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project, India’s premier light fighter jet program. At a press conference, Lanba remarked that the navy was looking for a temporary replacement jet from a source abroad for carrier-operations as the LCA (Navy) wasn’t “yet up to the mark.” Even though the navy chief did not go as far as to suggest the project was being scrapped, he was categorical about the navy’s dissatisfaction with the naval variants under production.

Lanba’s admission is likely to have placed many officials in the Ministry of Defense (MoD), as well as the Defense Research and Development Organization, in a spot of bother. After a slow start in the early 1980s, the LCA struggled for over three decades before showing progress in the past few years. Having obtained operational clearance in 2013, the aircraft has now been officially integrated into the Indian Air Force. Oddly, the naval chief’s statement came only a day after the ministry cleared an order for 83 LCA Mk 1As from the government-owned defense manufacture Hindustan Aeronautical Limited (HAL) for the IAF.


This isn’t, of course, the first time that a naval chief has publicly expressed reservations about the LCA program. In 2012, Admiral Nirmal Verma, then CNS, in an interaction with the media chided the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) for frequent cost and time overruns in the development of the naval version of the aircraft.

The Navy, he suggested, was beginning to lose faith in the project.


Now, as then, the problem with the LCA remains the same:

 its inability to take off with its full weapon load from a carrier top.

Naval sources point out that since 2013, the LCA has consistently failed the test of flight from a 200-meter deck with full weapons load. In a series of trial sorties at a Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) in May this year, ADA officials claimed that the aircraft had made the cut by successfully ascending from a short deck with two R-73 close combat missiles. But naval managers clearly weren’t impressed.


The Navy’s real problem is that it believes that the LCA is a largely air force-centric program that isn’t essentially geared to meet aircraft carrier-operations. At many points during its evolution, naval managers are said to have emphasized the need for aircraft systems to be reconfigured to meet the requirements of carrier take-off and landing, but the ADA never reportedly made a serious attempt to undertake the necessary modifications.

Naval aeronautical engineers believe that the LCA’s naval variant is slightly but “significantly” different from its air force version, not least on account of a major modification needed in the aircraft’s landing gear that enables arrested landings on a carrier deck. Unfortunately for the Indian Navy, the ADA hasn’t ever fully committed itself to developing a modified undercarriage. As a consequence, the suspicion of an institutional indifference toward the Navy’s specific needs of carrier operations has only grown stronger.


Another concern has been the lack of a reliable air-to-air refueling system. Despite renewed efforts, the complex integration of the aerial refueling probe on to the Tejas fighter hasn’t been properly accomplished. The absence of reliable “hot-refueling” implies a restriction in aircraft mission ranges, which maritime managers have been unwilling to accept.


Why, however, must the Indian Navy be fussy about an aircraft that is only meant to supplement the Mig-29K? Aircraft carrier experts say middle and light category aircraft have different peacetime roles profiles. Given India’s geostrategic interests in the Indian Ocean region, it is important for the Navy to project both hard and soft naval power. High-end combat aircraft like the Mig-29K are meant to exert hard military influence by signaling coercive intent. Equally important, however, is the need for a carrier-borne aircraft to showcase the Indian Navy’s prowess as reliable security agent in the littorals. Indigenous medium-capability assets help in creating a circle of trust, owing to their utility in joint multinational operations. With a leading role in regional forums such as the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) and Milan, the Indian Navy has come to be known as a friendly maritime agency. Its low-end light combat aircraft aids in the cultivation of a benevolent image. In addition, the aircraft’s export to friendly countries would help in the forging of strong working-level partnerships.


Misgivings about the LCA program, however, go beyond the perceived disregard for specific functionality. In an article in July this year, Admiral Arun Prakash (retd.), a former chief of naval staff, outlined three reasons why the military leadership was apprehensive about the project. Firstly, Prakash pointed out that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), the huge public sector firm manufacturing the LCA, is a monolithic, indolent giant with a work ethos that “struck dread in the hearts of air-warriors.” The company’s unionized employees were a cause for low productivity and poor production engineering standards that created many maintenance and inter-changeability problems on aircraft. Secondly, there was a high failure rate of HAL manufactured components and systems that didn’t inspire confidence among military aviation managers. And lastly, Prakash pointed to the suboptimal production support, which often left “HAL customers high and dry.”


Scrapping the LCA (Navy) program, however, will not be without consequences. For one, the Indian Navy will need to start afresh in the search for a foreign source for a new light combat aircraft. Given the stringent provisions of the Defense Procurement Procedures (DPP), especially the need for a domestic manufacturer, this implies a substantial delay in the project. Besides, having invested considerable funds in the LCA program since 2009, the Indian Navy will need to explain losses, as well as the wisdom of investing in a new project. Not only will it push back delivery of the platforms by a few years, the work-load on the Mig-29K will dramatically increase with involvement in both low-end and high-end missions.


For the moment, the critics of the LCA program will feel vindicated. At least until the Indian Navy clarifies that its chief’s statement is being misinterpreted.

Abhijit Singh is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Fellow in New Delhi

 

NUKES :Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program

SOURCE:

Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program

The Beginning

If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own. We have no other choice. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto - 1965

 
                       Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program
 

SOURCE:
https://news.usni.org/2016/06/29/pakistans-nuclear-weapons

Document: Report to Congress on Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons

June 29, 2016 8:57 AM • Updated: June 29, 2016 5:14 PM

The following is the June 14, 2016 Congressional Research Service report, Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons.

 

CLICK / GOOGLE TO OPEN THE pdf DOCUMENT

Report to Congress on Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons - USNI News

https://news.usni.org › Documents

1. Cached

Jun 29, 2016 - Document: Report to Congress on Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons ... Close. via fas.org ... Get USNI News updates delivered to your inbox.

 

SOURCE:
http://thediplomat.com/2016/12/did-donald-trump-just-raise-the-odds-of-war-between-india-and-pakistan-with-one-phone-call/

The Debate

Image Credit: Flickr/ Gage Skidmore

Did Donald Trump Just Raise the Odds of War Between India and Pakistan With One Phone Call?

                                    By

                          Ankit Panda

Let’s talk about Donald Trump’s first phone call with Pakistan’s prime minister.

Panda

 for The Diplomat

December 01, 2016

U.S. President-Elect Donald Trump’s first phone call with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif — three weeks into the presidential transition in the United States — gives South Asia watchers cause for concern.

As a Pakistani readout of the call shows, if there’s anywhere Trump would be better off speaking to world leaders with a State Department briefing in hand, it would be in the Indian subcontinent. Here’s the full text of the Pakistani Press Information Department’s readout:

Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif called President-elect USA Donald Trump and felicitated him on his victory. President Trump said Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif you have a very good reputation. You are a terrific guy. You are doing amazing work which is visible in every way. I am looking forward to see you soon. As I am talking to you Prime Minister, I feel I am talking to a person I have known for long. Your country is amazing with tremendous opportunities. Pakistanis are one of the most intelligent people. I am ready and willing to play any role that you want me to play to address and find solutions to the outstanding problems. It will be an honor and I will personally do it. Feel free to call me any time even before 20th January that is before I assume my office.

On being invited to visit Pakistan by the Prime Minister, Mr. Trump said that he would love to come to a fantastic country, fantastic place of fantastic people. Please convey to the Pakistani people that they are amazing and all Pakistanis I have known are exceptional people, said Mr. Donald Trump.

It’s easy to get pulled into the absurdity of the typically over-the-top Trumpian language at play here, but these two short paragraphs could easily have the effect of snowballing into an early diplomatic crisis in South Asia for the Trump administration. First, for Pakistan, after more than a decade without a U.S. presidential visit (George W. Bush visited President Pervez Musharraf in 2006), here you have a U.S. president-elect accepting an invitation to visit. Second, Trump’s declaration that he is “ready and willing to play any role that you want me to play” will give cause for celebration in Islamabad and cause for concern in New Delhi.

India’s reaction to this statement will be as important as Pakistan’s. Though it hasn’t dominated headlines in the United States, tensions between India and Pakistan across the Line of Control in Kashmir have been consistently high since a September attack on an Indian Army camp by militants killed 19 Indian soldiers, the highest casualty attack against the Indian Army in more than a decade. Moreover, days before Trump and Sharif spoke, seven more Indian soldiers were killed by militants in Nagrota in Kashmir. Though neither side has directly escalated since India claimed to have carried out “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control, the possibility of a conflagration between the two nuclear-armed neighbors remains very real. (India and Pakistan last fought a conventional war as armed nuclear states in 1999.)


For India, despite Trump’s well-known tendency to reverse course on issues, there is no option but to take the Pakistani readout of the Trump-Sharif call as a literal suggestion of what Trump plans to do. Betting on the alternative — that Trump was simply trying to satisfy another interlocutor by saying what he thought Sharif wanted to hear — cannot become a basis for national-level policymaking.

Based on the call, India has to be ready for the possibility that the next U.S. administration will not only stay away from directly condemning Pakistan for deploying militant proxies on the Indian side of Kashmir, but that Trump may be gearing up for a return to treating Pakistan like any other U.S. major non-NATO ally. The trend line in the Obama year suggested gradual distancing from Pakistan and rapprochement with India, with New Delhi potentially having factored in continuity in U.S. policy post-2016. Indeed, India would have preferred if Trump had stuck with his thoughts on Pakistan in 2012, when he tweeted the following:

When will Pakistan apologize to us for providing safe sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden for 6 years?! Some ‘ally.’

Vipin Narang, a nuclear weapons and security studies expert and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told the The Diplomat that “the one thing that would give [the Government of India] an aneurysm is any US effort to ‘mediate’ Kashmir, which is, it sounds like, what Trump was offering–or at least it was vague enough that India could interpret it that way.” Narang’s right that a U.S. offer to mediate between India and Pakistan is the last thing that would interest New Delhi given repeated incidents of militant violence in Kashmir since September. “On the heels of Uri and Nagrota, this is probably the last thing India wanted to hear. Phone calls like this where [the president-elect of the United States] goes off-script can create problems for US policy and global security — in a volatile nuclear-armed region — where one previously did not exist.”





“This could literally start a nuclear war,” Narang added.


Of course, Trump, once he’s adequately briefed on the situation in South Asia and on the trajectory of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship since 2011, may come to realize that the promises he laid out in his call with Sharif are probably untenable. That realization won’t in itself be a positive development, since any move to pull back will unnecessarily strain ties with Pakistan. Even if the civilian leadership in Pakistan understands that Trump’s effusiveness on the call was his characteristic brand of insincere exaggeration, public opinion and even the Pakistani military’s view of the new U.S. president may force the relationship downwards.

Is there a way to fix the damage that may have been done as a result of this call? Trump could attempt to walk-back his ad hoc signaling by delivering a teleprompter-based policy speech crafted by knowledgeable staff on South Asia, but even then, the commitments laid out to the Pakistani prime minister here are now an on-the-record fact of what the next U.S. president has said he intends to do. That, regardless of what comes next, will play a part in determining outcomes in U.S. diplomacy with India and Pakistan.

Trump must understand that the stakes are exceptionally high in South Asia given the persistent and real threat of nuclear exchange. And while the United States’ position doesn’t directly affect tactical decision-making by Indian and Pakistani leaders on when and if to escalate, both sides do consider the likely U.S. reaction to escalation in their evaluation of the available options.

Since the immediate aftermath of the Uri attack, South Asia watchers have wrangled with the question of whether it’s likely that India and Pakistan will once again go to war over Kashmir. Trump’s phone call to Sharif suggests that this debate won’t end anytime soon and may indeed persist through the next four years.


Update: Later Wednesday evening, the Trump transition team released its own, less-detailed read-out of the call:

President-elect Trump and the Prime Minister of Pakistan Muhammad Nawaz Sharif spoke today and had a productive conversation about how the United States and Pakistan will have a strong working relationship in the future.  President-elect Trump also noted that he is looking forward to a lasting and strong personal relationship with Prime Minister Sharif