SOURCE:

http://www.asianwarrior.com/2016/08/india-balochistan-kashmir-hinduism-the-key-to-a-strong-asia-pacific.html


                             PROJECT SARASWATI

India’s Civilizational Ties: The Key to a Strong Asia-Pacific

                                 By 

                    ASIAN WARRIOR

                    

Demography has always played a critical role in shaping the destiny of countries across regions. We have detailed in Demographic Warfare how the population can be used as a tool by countries against other nations strategically. The demography of a region is also influenced by sociological and cultural factors that significantly influence the foreign policy of countries in terms of nationalist pride and their civilizational ties to a region. Thus, the Russian claims of their sphere of influence from Eastern Europe to the Caucasus and Central Asia are based on the Czarist rule during the glory of the Russian Empire while the Chinese claims are based on the ancient maps of the Qing dynasty; claiming the entire South China Sea, Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh (Tawang), parts of Russia’s Far East and extending all the way to the West Pacific island chains.

Even today, an important factor contributing to Russia’s revisionism is its claim that ethnic Russians dominated Eastern Ukraine and the strategic Crimean Peninsula which has changed hands many times over the last few centuries in various wars like the Crimean War of 1853. After the 2014 Euromaidan Coup in Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin used this domination to annex Crimea in a referendum, to stake Russia’s claim over Eastern Ukraine which has an ethnic Russian-dominated population citing the protection of the ethnic Russians along with Russia’s strategic interests. Undoubtedly, the Chinese have been one of the best exponents of using civilizational heritage and history to validate their claims through an aggressive foreign policy along with instilling strong nationalism in their citizens about the ancient glory of China. Whether it is the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the demographic invasion of Xinjiang by Hans or the Patriot Education Program; the Chinese have long used their ancient culture and teachings (like Sun Tzu) to define their foreign policy and military doctrines. Initiatives like OBOR that use the Old Silk Route should also be seen in this light.

While Russia and China have been successful in raising the pitch of nationalism to reclaim their glorious past, India has been rather apologetic about its ancient glory that transcends any other civilization on the planet. Post-Independence, India’s adoption of NAM and other pacifist doctrines has made it passive in asserting its civilizational heritage in the projection of its foreign policy. The ancient Indian glory has the hallmarks of astronomy, medical science; and the doctrines of statecraft, diplomacy and espionage (penned in Arthashastra) during the Mauryan Era centuries before the European States brought in the concept of sovereign states, diplomacy, etc. Despite this rich heritage for nearly half a century, India practiced NAM and a defensive policy of credible minimum deterrence except for the brief period of 1971 during the Bangladesh Liberation War when India managed a resounding victory over Pakistan by creating Bangladesh out of East Pakistan.

While these doctrines are slowly being unshackled through multilateralism and military defence agreements with the US, the pursuit of military exercise in far-off waters like South China Sea and Pacific Ocean with the US and Japan etc., it is time that India also sheds its apologetic mindset and develops pride for its ancient past and contributions to the world. It is time for India to develop a unique identity about what an Indian model of partnership means and what is the message it would like to send to the world. It is only the adoption of a proud Indian identity by the establishment and its syncing with the domestic and foreign policy that will lead to strong nationalist values in its citizens. The above will be an uphill task as India’s ecosystem is dominated by leftists who propagate the myth of the Aryan invasion theory.

While the above by no means suggests that India should also embark on a path of revisionism like Russia and China, it simply means that India should strongly stake its claims over what is rightfully its and that means no room for accommodation on Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh. Simultaneously, India should also focus on leveraging its civilizational ties across Asia-Pacific with the message of peace and prosperity as a “developmental partner” across the region that respects the diversity of culture, language and religion of other countries, unlike China who is an aggressor undermining the sovereignty of nations through neo-colonization and ideological subversion.

The Indian establishment and the people of South Asia must remember the civilizational ties that bind the region and take pride in them. This should be the starting point of India’s identity in the region. The Indus Valley and Saraswati Civilization once formed the cradle of the Indian cultural heritage spreading across South Asia from Afghanistan to Pakistan to Sri Lanka to Nepal and Bangladesh and Bhutan. The regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan were once a part of the ancient Hindu culture that extended from the Balkh region in Afghanistan to Swat Valley, Multan, and Gilgit-Baltistan in Jammu & Kashmir. The Swat Valley in Pakistan (named after the Swat River) is derived from the Sanskrit Word “Suvasthu” while Multan got its name from the Sanskrit word ‘Mulsthana’ and was once known as the city of Lord Surya (Sun). The city housed a glorious temple and held an annual fair and festival for Lord Surya till the Tughlaqs demolished it in the 12th century AD. Similarly, Gilgit-Baltistan in POK houses the Sharda Peeth, a religious centre in learning, Takshila in Pakistan has the famous Buddhist centre of learning and Balochistan has the famous Hinglaj temple, a Shakti Peeth in reverence of Goddess Sati the consort of Lord Shiva.

Moreover, the Indian empires from the Mauryas to the Guptas have ruled from Afghanistan to Myanmar, the gateway to Southeast Asia. Beautiful Hindu temples are found in Bali, Indonesia while the Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhala clans herald from Indian descent with cultural ties dating back to the historical age of Ramayana. India has been responsible for the spread of Buddhism under the Maurya dynasty, and this includes the Sinhala, the Sri Lankan ruling class, the Naga Tribes in Myanmar and countries like Bhutan, China, the Far East and Southeast Asia.

The Indian civilizational ties run deep with Nepal that was once a Hindu Rashtra and a majority Hindu-dominated country. Though with the rise of communists in Nepal after the fall of the monarchy, the Indian influence has waned yet India must continue to leverage all the tools it has from civilizational ties to the cultural centres to demographic changes to maintain its sphere of influence over Nepal. Like Nepal, even Bangladesh (earlier East Pakistan) was a part of India before 1947. Bangladesh, a majority Muslim-dominated country has a vast imprint of Indian civilizational ties in the form of Hindu temples and a good number of Bengali Hindus continue to live there. India has as much right to care for its Civilizational Brothers in South Asia as it has the right to advocate for regions that still hold the Indian cultural heritage. India should thus also stand up for Balochistan that is directly or indirectly intertwined with it.

Thus it is evident that India’s civilizational ties extend beyond its man-made borders, and it must assert these civilizational ties and extend communication lines with people of these regions whose destinies are intertwined with each other. For this India mush shed its pacifist doctrines and reinvigorate it ancient glory and project it through its foreign policy across the region and the world through study groups, contacts between political leaders and movements, cultural centres, media, people forums highlighting ties with its civilizational brothers. India must break away from its ostrich syndrome and rise upto its role as the leader in Asia-Pacific and not accept any spiel that it has no interests in the internal affairs of Balochistan as for India to emerge as the leader in the region and a challenger to China, it needs regional peace, security and development in its neighbourhood to be able to facilitate a strong South Asia and later Asia-Pacific.

India must take a leaf out of strategies of Russia and China who have asserted their civilizational ties and used demography to their advantage in Ukraine or Xinjiang. India must encourage and give platforms to Baloch Human Rights activists to expose Pakistan’s duplicity on the State-Sponsoring of terrorism and human rights violations. It is also in India’s interests to bring to the limelight how rigged democracy is being supplanted on the people of POK who have for long vociferously protested against the suppression of basic human rights. It is time for India to show Pakistan a mirror and send a global message that just like Bangladesh in 1971, India will stand for the people in Balochistan and all other regions of South Asia that have civilizational ties with it.

The Indian PM Narendra Modi’s Independence Day address to the nation on 15th August 2016 was historic as he thanked the people of Balochistan, Gilgit-Baltistan (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) for the support and faith they have reposed in him was a step in the right direction. The invocation of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Balochistan in the Independence Day Speech was a first ever by an Indian PM and sent political shockwaves across the region and the world. While Pakistan has for long accused Indian intelligence R&AW for fomenting terror in Balochistan (its largest province accounting for nearly 44 percent area of Pakistan); it has miserably failed to substantiate these outlandish claims and even the EU Parliament has recently asked Islamabad to be held accountable for human rights violations in Balochistan.

Pakistan also conveniently forgets that unlike Jammu & Kashmir that signed an instrument of accession with India at the time of Independence in 1947, the Pakistani army bombed the residence of the Baloch Leader Mir Ahmadyar Khan and used force to occupy Balochistan illegally. It is worth noting that the international media on 11th August 1947 had acclaimed Balochistan to be an independent country. Pakistan attempted a repeat of the above through its guerrillas in Kashmir. Thus, Balochistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir have been forcefully and illegally occupied by Pakistan, and the above are clear examples of Pakistan’s psyche at inception which the entire world is now acknowledging.

While there are certain quarters of intellectuals in Pakistan and India that state that India has no right to interfere in Balochistan which is an internal matter of Pakistan; on account of their gravy train; the statement by the PM Modi invoking Balochistan has now established that India is finally willing to be aggressive in its role as the leader in South Asia and beyond leading its civilizational brothers. This message has already been welcomed by Bangladesh and Hamid Karzai, the former President of Afghanistan.

The invocation of Balochistan and POK though primarily aimed at Pakistan has big ramifications on the other big player in the region i.e. China and its proposed CPEC running from POK to Gwadar in Balochistan. India has already raised the matter of CPEC in POK with the Chinese, as it is Indian Territory illegally occupied by Pakistan. Moreover, even the Balochis have long protested the Chinese CPEC and targeted the Chinese officers, and installations in and around Gwadar Port. Thus India’s upping the ante on POK and Balochistan is bound to have a serious impact on CPEC, and the Chinese-state media Global Times recently called it Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) instead of the usual Pakistani Administered Kashmir. The people in POK also recently called for a total shutdown as a protest against the CPEC which was successful and China has now also opened the communication lines with India on regional and global issues given the stakes that are involved. Moreover, the independence of Balochistan will also have great implications for the region. It is the duty of India to fight for the struggle of the suppressed Balochis as a responsible power in Asia-Pacific following its motto of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam or the welfare of all the people in the world.

While it is true that civilizational ties can be the foundation of alliances or partnerships, in today’s era, it is equally important that these ties should be leveraged to create strong economic partnerships that will help the developmental goals of all the countries in the region. It is only by promoting an alternate model of sustainable development for all the nations that India will be able to create its order that will be welcomed by its neighbours against the aggressive expansionist Chinese agenda. Others initiatives such as India’s pronounced foreign policy goals of “Neighbourhood First” and “Act East” are also important for India to emerge as the regional giant. India’s setting up of a SAARC satellite for the benefit of other SAARC nations, the Indian Ocean Rim Association, the BBIN initiative and the International Solar Alliance for the sharing of solar technology are crucial steps in cementing these civilizational ties.

Going ahead, India will need to de-hyphenate Pakistan from SAARC and make the cost of abetting terror unsustainable for it and reduce it to a pariah nation. At the same time, India should aim for creating an economic union in Asia-Pacific by setting up a comprehensive trade agreement that could include FTA’s and preferential trade and tariffs for nations. The above may also include sharing the advantages of the Chabahar Port, NSTC, and Sagarmala Project with other countries that need access to facilitate their movement of goods. India can position itself as the centre for both Indian Ocean trade as well as access to Central Asia. Apart from this, more military cooperation, joint drills and information sharing can be done which can act as a buffer for countries against the powerful Chinese military. The exchange of students and professionals for mutual benefit can be carried out between the nations in the region which could also strengthen the civilizational ties. India can also set up wellness centres in the nations that focus on Ayurveda and Yoga to promote physical and mental wellbeing based on the ancient holistic principles and also position itself as a centre for medical and religious tourism at preferential prices for the region.

An important component here will be the citizens of the neighbouring countries who are of Indian origin. They can be effective brand ambassadors of India and prove a useful link in connecting the people of their countries with Indians and the Indian way of life. Friendship and cultural forums that celebrate the diversity of festivals, music, language, poetry and literature can also be created which can also serve as a common platform for people to engage and build professional and economic partnerships. India’s population is the second highest in the world after China, and it is high time that it starts using this demographic dividend strategically. It is also in the interests of India and the people in South Asia to assert their common civilizational heritage to maintain peace and stability in the region to stall the Talibanization of parts of South Asia.

Hence while it is true that India believes in the values of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam; yet it also must invoke the doctrines of Kautilya in Arthashastra that heralded the Golden Age across the region, and assert its role as a civilizational brother leading the way for countries in the region and the world. As Hu Shih, the former Ambassador of China to the USA once aptly remarked,

 “India conquered and dominated 

China culturally for 20 centuries without 

ever having to send a single soldier 

across her border.” 

They say history always repeats, and the time is ripe for India to ensure that it happens to create a powerful Asia-Pacific that can be a role model for the world to emulate.

• TAGS
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Baltistan
• Buddhism
• Gilgit
• Hinduism

NUKES INDIA - PAK- Dilemma over the N word : ‘NO FIRST USE ’

SOURCE: :
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/dilemma-over-the-n-word/336812.html

Dilemma over the N word

G Parthasarathy
India needs to make its nuclear doctrine relevant

Dec 15, 2016

Choose right: Does the ‘no first use’ 
                policy need revision? 


EVER since India commenced building a nuclear arsenal after the Pokhran tests of 1998, queries have been raised about what the size of its arsenal should be, accompanied by a discourse on how to fashion its nuclear doctrine. Quite clearly, India’s nuclear weapons have to be primarily targeted on its two neighbours, Pakistan and China, which possess nuclear weapons and with whom India has serious territorial and other differences. This strategy has also to take into account the fact that while Pakistan has relatively limited indigenous research and development capabilities, its nuclear weapons and missile programmes are predominantly based on Chinese designs and technology transfers.

India’s nuclear doctrine, first officially enunciated on January 4, 2003, asserts that it intends to build and maintain a “credible minimum deterrent”. While adopting a policy of “no first use”, the doctrine clarifies that India’s nuclear weapons will only be used in retaliation against an attack on Indian territory, or on Indian forces anywhere, in which nuclear weapons are used. India also retains the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of attacks on Indian territory, or on Indian forces anywhere, in which chemical or biological weapons are used. 

Pakistan has not officially enunciated its nuclear doctrine. It justifies its entire nuclear weapons programme as being an equaliser to balance Indian conventional military superiority. More importantly, it constantly uses nuclear blackmail by threatening to use nuclear weapons if India responds to cross-border terrorist attacks by military action on its soil. The sad reality is that substantial sections of our so-called “intellectual” and “liberal” elite panic at such Pakistani tantrums. Pakistan’s generals live too comfortably to commit collective suicide. Moreover, one has to rationally analyse what needs to be done to deal with Pakistan’s nuclear bluff, bluster and blackmail. One hopes some reality has dawned on this “elite” after the recent surgical strikes across the LoC. Pakistan should not be allowed to get the impression that this was a one-time occurrence.

While Pakistan has not formally enunciated a nuclear doctrine, Lt Gen Khalid Kidwai, head of Pakistan’s Strategic Planning Division of its National Command Authority, told a team of physicists from Italy’s Landon Network that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons were “aimed solely at India”. According to the report of the Landon team, Kidwai added that Pakistan would use nuclear weapons if India conquers a large part of Pakistan’s territory, or destroys a large part of Pakistan’s land and air forces. Kidwai also held out the possibility of use of nuclear weapons if India tries to “economically strangle” Pakistan, or pushes it to political destabilisation. 

General Kidwai, who is highly regarded internationally, enunciated these views over a decade ago, when he was head of the Pakistan’s Strategic Forces Command. He has since retired. But, anyone who understands the strategic thinking of the Pakistan army, realises that the “red lines”, enunciated by General Kidwai, especially in regard to the fallout of an Indian attack, would remain the basic parameters of current strategic thinking. There is, however, one significant difference in Pakistan’s capabilities since then. Thanks to Chinese assistance, Pakistan has now built plutonium reactors and reprocessing facilities in the Fatehjang-Khushab plutonium complex, enabling it to assemble an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons and miniaturised plutonium warheads. But, in practical terms, Pakistan cannot use these tactical nuclear weapons in the Punjab area, which is densely populated. They can perhaps be used in the Sind/Rajasthan desert, with Pakistan presuming that such an attack will not prompt India to resort to a full-scale nuclear conflict as enunciated in India’s nuclear doctrine, as this would result in mutual destruction.

Viewed in a global context, the entire theology of a nuclear “no first use”, which was enunciated by the Soviet Union during the Cold War and rejected by the US and its NATO allies, has few adherents today. The Russian Federation does not subscribe to “no first use” of nuclear weapons. The US and NATO now aver that NATO members can use nuclear weapons against states armed with biological and chemical weapons, even if those states have signed the NPT. China has expressed its readiness to sign “no first use” agreements with the other “recognised” nuclear powers and affirmed its commitment not to threaten or use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states, China thus appears to have maintained a measure of ambiguity on whether its “no first use” pledge will be applicable to India. An unambiguous clarification on this issue has to be sought from China.

The BJP manifesto in 2014 had declared that it would “study in detail” India’s nuclear doctrine and revise and update it to make it relevant to the challenges of current times. The manifesto spoke of a credible minimum deterrent in tune with “changing geostrategic realities”. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s response at a book launch in Delhi on November 10, 2016, brought the issue into public focus. Referring to India’s “no first use” doctrine, he said: “Why should I bind myself [to the nuclear no first use doctrine]? I should say I am a responsible nuclear power and I will not use it irresponsibly”. Given the change in the strategic scenario since the transfer of plutonium facilities from China to Pakistan for developing tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons, it is imperative to have a serious internal debate on our nuclear posture to consider available rational options. Moreover, our nuclear deterrent will not be “credible” in Chinese perceptions till the Agni 5 missile is operationalised and our sea-based nuclear missiles are positioned on the INS Arihant and future nuclear submarines built by us.

India has played an active role in nuclear disarmament. This gave us a moral stature. We should continue to initiate and promote measures for universal and complete nuclear disarmament. Moreover, there is growing concern in many parts of the world about the endless production in Pakistan of dangerous fissile material which could fall into wrong hands. We should join others to push for a non-discriminatory treaty ending the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. We should also reiterate our commitment for de-alerting all nuclear weapons and separating nuclear warheads from their explosive packages. Interestingly, the US and its NATO allies are likely to be the main opponents of such a move.

TEJAS :LCA to get AESA Radar :

SOURCE :
http://www.defencenews.in/article/LCA-to-get-AESA-Radar--US,-Israeli-and-EU-companies-to-bid-for-tender-159572

   TEJAS :LCA to get AESA Radar :

: US, Israeli and EU Companies 

                              to 

                     Bid for Tender

India is set to initiate a major international competition to acquire new age radars for its indigenous combat planes in the coming weeks, the winner of which is likely to gain a strong foothold for future domestic projects. 

Sources have told ET that an expression of interest for a new set of AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Mk 1A is set to be floated shortly, with top global aviation firms expected to participate. The government had recently cleared an order for 83 of the LCA Mk 1A jets. 

The competition would be the largest international contract for AESA radars that are the heart of modern combat jets. These new radars give much more range and engagement potential to fighters, enabling them to engage targets from a distance without getting detected. AESA radars can track and direct weapons to multiple air and ground targets simultaneously. 

With India working on an indigenous next generation plane under the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), it is likely that the winning company will have a much larger order book, with the potential number going upwards of 200. 

The first Indian Air Force aircraft with AESA radars will be the Jaguar fighter that is being upgraded to the DARIN 3 version. The first Jaguar with the new radar is expected to fly in January. The contract to equip 58 Jaguars with AESA radars had gone to Israel’s ELTA, making it the frontrunner for the LCA Mk 1A project as well. 

There could, however, also be surprise entries into the Indian competition from the US, with Raytheon, which manufactures the AESA radar for the F/A 18 Super Hornet and the F 16 also showing interest. 

While in the past, US firms had limited options to offer to New Delhi, with India now gaining Major Defence Partner status, transfer of sensitive technology and licences have been made easier. 

The integration of an AESA radar was a key parameter for the Air Force to clear the order for 83 LCA Mk 1A fighters, after years of blocking the indigenous fighter on concerns that it would not be combat worthy. 

The AESA will give the LCA an edge over similar fighter operating in the region that are equipped with conventional radars. 

The LCA project took a minor hit earlier this month when Navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanba announced that the naval version of the fighter is not suitable for aircraft carrier operations, necessitating an international competition for a new range of combat aircraft. 

SOURCE:

WHY HAS THE ARMY CHIEF NOT BEEN APPOINTED YET  

December 08, 2016 

According to convention, Lieutenant 

General Praveen Bakshi should be 

named as General Dalbir Singh 

Suhag's successor as army chief, says 

Ajai Shukla/Business Standard.

If the government had followed tradition, Lieutenant General Praveen Bakshi, currently commanding the Eastern Army from Fort William in Kolkata, would have been named two months ago to succeed the present army chief, General Dalbir Singh Suhag, who is scheduled to retire on December 31.

General Bakshi is the senior-most amongst the qualified generals; and the government has traditionally named its incoming army, navy and air force three months ahead of time, to facilitate a smooth handover.

But with just 23 days to go for General Suhag's retirement, and no successor named, the New Delhi grapevine is abuzz with speculation that the government is finalising the appointment of a tri-service chief, along with the next army chief.

The four-star or five-star tri-service commander would be over and above existing army, navy and air force chiefs of four-star rank --- general, admiral and air chief marshal respectively.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar have both earlier pledged to create a tri-service chief.

There would be both political and functional benefit from such an appointment, with the Bharatiya Janata Party reinforcing its claim to being strong on national security.

However, the degree to which creating a tri-service chief would transform the military's functioning would depend on the structures around the appointment.

There are three ways this could be done.

The least disruptive measure, and therefore the least transformative, would be creating a four-star 'permanent chairman chiefs of staff' (PCCOS), as proposed in 2013 by the Naresh Chandra Committee.

This would leave the operational command of field forces with the army, navy and air force chiefs, as at present, while the tri-service chief would handle strategic and perspective planning, long-term equipment and manpower structuring; while also rendering military advice to the political leadership.

In effect, the new PCCOS would only be an upgraded version of the three-star officer who currently heads the Integrated Defence Staff --- set up in 2001 as a gesture to jointmanship.

While the PCCOS is spoken of as 'the first amongst equals,' the untrammelled power of the three service chiefs over their respective fiefdoms would render the PCCOS a nominal tri-service chief.

The government's second option is to appoint a five-star rank commander termed the 'chief of defence staff' (CDS), who would be the direct boss of all three service chiefs and the single point military advisor to the political leadership.

In 2001, a Group of Ministers had recommended a five-star CDS, echoing the recommendations of the Kargil Review Committee, which had criticised the lack of tri-service coordination during the 1999 Kargil conflict.

The CDS appointment could be rotated between the army, navy and air force; or handpicked by the political leadership from any of the three services.

Smaller services like the air force and the navy worry that the army, being the largest service, would predominate in CDS appointments, which in turn might bring it disproportionate funding and equipment allocations.

The IAF has publicly opposed having a five-star CDS exercising control over the air force chief.

The bureaucracy, especially the Indian Administrative Service, also opposes a five-state CDS, apprehending that he would be senior to the top bureaucrat --- the Cabinet secretary.

The third option, which would be the most transformative, is a root-and-branch restructuring of the entire military command structure, to impose tri-service jointmanship not just at the apex of the hierarchy, but also on the combat force --- the so-called theatre commands.

The US military enforced this in 1986 through the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which placed American combat forces from all four services (including the Marine Corps) under geographic theatre commanders -- Pacific Command, Central Command, etc.

A similar exercise would merge our 17 single-service commands, into 5 or 6 tri-service commands, organised geographically, each under a commander with full authority over all the army, navy and air force assets in his theatre.

Every theatre commander would report to the defence minister, including for combat operations in his theatre.

Meanwhile, the five-star CDS, without the burden of operational command responsibility, would be an advisor to the political leadership on military affairs.

Meanwhile, the army, navy and air force chiefs, also relieved of operational command, would focus on manpower, training and equipment of their respective services, ensuring that the soldiers, sailors and airmen they send into the field are suitably selected, kitted and trained for combat.

This is the trend globally. In February, China's People's Liberation Army transformed from a single-service to a tri-service structure, with its 7 'military regions' reorganised into 5 tri-service theatre commands.

Each of these so-called 'battle zones' incorporates units from the PLA navy and PLA air force.

It remains unclear who would be the first tri-service commander.

In the options being spoken of, the first involves elevating General Suhag to that job, while promoting General Bakshi to army chief.

The second option is appointing General Bakshi to one of the jobs, while promoting the army's current vice-chief, Lieutenant General Bipin Rawat, to the other.

Last December, addressing the military's top commanders, the prime minister declared: 'Jointness at the top is a need that is long overdue. We also need reforms in senior defence management... This is an area of priority for me.'

Now, the government has just three weeks to decide whether to deliver.

The three service chiefs at the Amar Jawan Jyoti on Navy Day. Photograph: Press Information Bureau