Monday, 21 July 2025

ADC to Chinar Corps Commander from early 90s recalls:

 The Gorkhas were pretty disorganized when we reached Kokernag Fire Station. It was a 3 storey building,  pretty big, biggest in the area, with a few hundred metres of clear ground around. Gen Zaki reached the site before the brigade Commander and the GOC (Maj Gen VP Malik, later COAS). The JCOs of the Gorkha company told us that the terrorists were inside the building and they had cordoned it off. They also informed us that the company was ambushed on the Kokernag - Anantnag road. The Gorkhas lost a couple of men in the ambush and gave chase to the terrorists who were now holed up in Kokernag Fire Station. They surrounded it and a local headmaster was sent in to convince them to surrender. That headmaster was shot dead by the terrorists.  During the night, few Gorkhas had tried to enter the building and two of them were shot at point blank range near the door. After which they reported the events to HQ and sat down.


It was just after day break when we reached and we found the cordon haphazard. So Gen Zaki asked me to go around the perimeter and reorganize the cordon. When I went around and returned, I found that Maj Gen Malik had also reached and his escort was also deployed, the 2 generals were discussing. Gen Zaki wanted to go into the building with his escort and Gen Malik and his esport were asked to provide covering fire. Meanwhile,  the Gorkhas were asked to fire at anything that moved. After about 30 minutes, I was asked to go and inform the cordon to stop firing as our troops would enter the building.  I was supposed to coordinate with the cordon and return to lead the Corps Commanders escort into the building.  But when I returned, to my horror,  I found that Gen Zaki and his escort had crawled towards the building and were mere 20m short of the building.  Gen Zaki was unarmed but he wasn't going to stay behind!! Maybe he would strangle these terrorists!!! The escort who were all wearing bullet proof jackets and helmets were trying to form a body shield for the general.  I dashed across the open ground in zigzag fashion and reached this party as we all simultaneously reached the building.  I asked Gen Zaki to stay there under cover with one soldier and I was enter with the rest, when the house was cleared I would come and fetch him. He refused and demanded I hand over my grenades to him, which I did. Now Gen Zaki had 2 grenades, I had a pistol with 10 rounds and the men had Ak47s with 3 magazines each and 2 grenades each. I broke the glass of a ventilator above the door with my pistol butter and Gen Zaki lobbed in one grenades. After it exploded, he paused for about 5-10 seconds and lobbed in the second. Immediately after that too burst, I kicked the door in and entered. Behind me was the JCO and behind him was Nk Budhi Singh followed by Gen Zaki.

The explosions kicked up a lot of dust and smoke and we could hardly see. Entering through the door, we found ourselves in a 6 ft wide corridor and we were blinded as we came from bright snow covered outside to dark, dusty inside.  I was about 14-15 ft inside the door and the last of the escort was Entering when we heard a burst of AK fire from further up the corridor, bullets whizzing past us and a couple of flashes through the smoke.
Miraculously all the bullets missed me and the JCO.  One bullet hit Nk Budhi Singh on hit left palm, in which he was holding the barrel of his AK 47. The bullet, splinters and fragments from the rifle barrel richocheted up and hit Gen Zaki on the forehead and scalp. If he was an inch taller, he would have died then. But the firing stopped as abruptly as it started (guess they emptied a magazine and ran upstairs). As soon as the escort realised that Gen Zaki was hit, those behind him pulled him out of the door. Everyone scrambled for the door and jumped out, except me. I was too far into the corridor to make it to the door, so I dived into a room. Now I was all alone in this room on the ground floor, just 10 pistol rounds and no grenades. As Gen Zaki was being recovered to safety,  Gen Malik ordered the Gorkhas to open fire, so machine guns from all sides started to hit the building.  I wasn't worried as I  took position in the room, covering the staircase with my pistol. Then the bullets fired by the Gorkhas started to go through the walls all around me. I then realized that though the structure was RCC, the walls were made of mud and hay, finished beautifully like a brick wall with smooth plastering. I found a pillar between 2 windows and put my back to it. Then I thought to let people know that I am alive, so leaned into the window and waved. Several long bursts of LMG fire were aimed at these windows. For 45 minutes I stayed there, bullets going through both windows as the Gorkhas thought they had one terrorist pinned between the windows. Soon they started to fire 84mm Carl Gustaf rockets HE rounds at the building.  Relentlessly, one after the other. A truckload of ammunition had by now reached the site from the unit location and I had the task of trying to guess which side would be hit by the next rocket. Every 30 seconds or so, another rocket would be fired. The building was mostly dilapidated and I had lost my hearing but somehow, mind was sharper than ever. I was literally counting how much time it would take to reload, aim and fire. Using that time to run to the opposite side. Guessing right each and every time. God bless the Gorkhas for being predictable 🙏.
When the building was mostly destroyed and no movement could be seen for some time, the ADC of Gen Malik with his escort approached the building. This was Capt Khera of the Armoured Corps,  son of a Maratha LI officer. I saw him when he was about 75m away and yelled out "Khera sir, stop firing, this is AP here". A lot of shouting ensued and the firing stopped. I kept talking to him as I reached the door. He said "Hurry up, Gen Zaki is hit in the head, RMO has done the dressing,  but is refusing to be evacuated till he sees you, he thinks you may be in worse shape". I was take to where he was, convoy lined up,  him lying in the back of a Jonga, barely awake.

More, I stopped counting. That one day, I had more than 300 bullets pass me within arms reach. There were a few holes in my cap and uniform. 

But that was the easy part. Every time they fired RL, I needed to guess which side  was going to be hit, so I could run to the opposite side. One wrong guess and it would be curtains. But I predicted that the Gorkas wouldn't fire all 4 RLs on all 4 sides at once and was right, they fired one at a time. Then I guessed that the JCO would fire sequentially in clockwise direction and that turned out right too. Then I guessed that the interval between rockets would be roughly 30 to 45 seconds and even that was right. Then I guessed that the Gorkhas wouldn't change the firing pattern till they ran out of ammunition or the target was destroyed and again I was right. This unthinking,  clockwork repetitive and entirely predictable pattern kept me alive.

Hearing impairment for a week was minor price to pay in the end. Recovered hearing fully.

Also read: 


Friday, 18 July 2025

 

1965: A view from the Other Side of the Hill

Review of 'Memoirs of Lt. Gen. Gul Hassan Khan'

https://medalsandribbons.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Final-Consolidated-pdf-MR-July-2025.pdf, pp. 114-119

Brigadier Gul Hassan Khan was Pakistan Army’s Director Military Operations (DMO) during the India-Pakistan 1965 War. He had been in the chair for the preceding four years, so was privy both to the preparations during the run up and the conduct of operations. His Memoirs, that cover his professional career, carry his observations of the 1965 War. Since the Memoirs are of a forthright officer and written in a straight forward manner, his account of the War, from the unique vantage of a DMO, can be taken as reasonably fair.

Its treatment of the War is reminiscent of Palit’s War in High Himalayas, since Palit was Indian DMO during India’s China War of 1962. Whereas Palit’s is an entire book with his side of the story, Gul Hassan devotes only a portion of his book to 1965, with another substantial section covering his role in the 1971 War as Chief of General Staff (CGS), having both operations and intelligence directorates under him.

Besides Gul Hassan proving to be an engaging author, one with a keen sense of humour, his book is ‘unputdownable’ also because of his sketch of the Pakistan army in its formative years and attaining maturity on the anvil of successive wars with India. Not self-exculpatory, but being more a scathing critique of the army, the book is a valid source on understanding India’s long-time foe.

This article presents Gul Hassan’s version of the 1965 War.

Getting to the know the author

Gul Hassan got to being DMO by sheer dint of professional capability. A product of the Prince of Wales Royal Military College, Dehra Dun, he was commissioned into the Infantry from the Indian Military Academy during the Second World War. The highlight of his war years was in action he witnessed when temporarily with a Rajput battalion deployed in the vicinity of the famous tennis court at Kohima. Later, more substantially, his appointment as aide to ‘Bill’ Slim during the impressionable years of service had a lasting influence on his military life. He observed at firsthand what leadership is and generalship at the operational level is all about. Later, after Partition, as aide to Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah, he imbibed an abiding sense of probity and secularism.

Transferred to the armoured corps, he joined the Probyn’s Horse. Pakistan being member of an American-led anti-Soviet pact, professional growth of officers of Hassan’s generation benefited by the exposure to United States’ (US) training and hardware. Hassan did a tank course in the US and gained an understanding of mechanized warfare that stood him in good stead as a tank regiment and independent armoured brigade group commander. This background placed him well to take over as DMO in January 1961.

The pre-War years

On his very first meeting with his boss, CGS Yahya Khan - later of 1971 infamy - Gul Hassan was given the task of revamping the war plans in light of changes in the capabilities of both sides, India and Pakistan, and terrain changes from canal building. With its American connection deepening by late fifties, Pakistan had adopted the New Concept of Defence, involving greater frontages held by firepower, releasing manpower for raising additional formations, such as the raising of 11 Division for the Kasur sector. Equipped with two light machine guns, a section in defensive role could now hold a wider frontage. The drawback was that frontages were lightly held, which was problematic in face of the higher numbers India could bring to bear in attack.

The revised plans were eventually approved by President Ayub Khan, who though heading the country, also kept tabs on the military side. In essence the plans involved creation and tasking of a counter offensive capability, such as an additional, 6 Armoured Division, being raised. As it turned out, India was not able to keep track of this formation with telling results on outcome in the Sialkot sector. Even so, there was a shortfall of two divisions and a corps headquarters, for which sanction for new raisings was proceeded with but neither materialized by war outbreak.

The reserves created were earmarked for operations respectively in the corridors to north and south of the River Ravi. Gul Hassan was proponent of an early start to offensive operations. To him, the weaker side compensated by seizing the initiative and keeping the stronger side – India - off-balance. To Army Chief, General Musa, this was against the government policy of not initiating a war. A compromise was arrived at in that instead of an offensive, an early counter offensive would be launched on initiation of operations by India.

Even as the plans were upgraded, the DMO kept abreast of developments heralding war. Emerging from its defeat by China in 1962, India was expanding its military. The growth of its air force was seen as particularly threatening. Alongside, political activity with changing the status quo in Kashmir was ongoing, eventuating in the unrest in Kashmir in late 1963 over the episode of Holy relic at Hazratbal. Alerted to an opportunity, Pakistan stepped up to stoke it.

Pakistan army trained and launched volunteers into Kashmir. The aim, conjured up by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto-led foreign ministry was to ‘defreeze’ the Kashmir issue with application of ‘pressure’. A Kashmir Cell was set up with the foreign secretary chairing it. Since the Indian army got the better of the irregulars sent in, a concerted plan was drawn up for guerrilla activity by ‘Azad Kashmir’-deployed 12 Division, Operation Gibraltar. Operation Grandslam was prepared, yet again by 12 Division, to be launched as contingency in support of Operation Gibraltar. To the DMO, such support could only be in the form of the military crossing the Ceasefire Line, which could only provoke Indian response, including across the border. However, the foreign ministry was convinced that the operations would be restricted to Kashmir, leading to Pakistan adopting the policy: ‘Do not provoke. Do not escalate.’

Alongside, the Kutch incident broke out at the other end of the border in early 1965. Hassan records being unimpressed by Tikka Khan – later famous as the Butcher of Dacca - whose 8 Division was not only slovenly in mobilizing from Quetta but also did not exploit success after its attack. Even so, the Kutch outcome encouraged the Pakistan army, though it lost some posts in the Kargil sector to Indian action soon thereafter. The two sides mobilized during the incident and remained watchful thereafter.

The War through the DMO’s eyes

The irregulars were making no progress in Kashmir, not having received the support from the locals as they were led to believe. Operation Gibraltar was readied hastily in May after the Kutch crisis had subsided, and launched in August with little preparation. Some troops of the reserve division, 7 Division, now being commanded by Yahya Khan, were also sucked in. The DMO was not involved in its intricacies, but with India gaining the upper hand, prospects of launch of Operation Grandslam heightened. Just as India took Bedori and linked up Uri and Poonch, the DMO supported the bid of 12 Division for the urgent launch of Grandslam to snap Indian communication lines at Akhnur. However, dithering at the higher level – that of CGS Sher Bahadur, Army Chief Musa and President Ayub Khan – delayed that launch to 1 September. Though it got off to a rapid start, it bogged down midway with a change in command between the commanders of 12 Division, charismatic and innovative Akhtar Malik, and 7 Division’s Yahya, an inexplicable pause from which the thrust was not allowed to recover by Indian firming in.

On 4 September, getting early warning of Indian preparation for operations across the entire front, the DMO alerted all formations. Though after the Kutch engagement, there had been a disengagement, and troops had been permitted some leave. But by 6 September, most formations were at battle stations when India crossed the border in the plains sector. Though cautioned, 10 Division, opposite Lahore, had not quite deployed fully. Even so, forward zone elements bought them enough to avoid a critical situation developing. This complacency perhaps explains how 3 Jat got a foothold across the Bambanwala-Ravi-Bedian (BRB) canal, popularly in India, the Ichhogil Canal. Later, 10 Division launched a counter attack with limited forces, but could not fully retrieve the area lost up to the border.

Alerted to the outbreak of operations in the Sialkot-Sharkargarh sector by the confused beginning of fighting in Jassar sub-sector, the DMO was not overly concerned when India’s 1 Armoured Division made its appearance in the sector on 8 September. In anticipation, Pakistanis had placed its 6 Armoured Division in the area, which gave battle in a defensive role. Though some penetration was achieved by the Indians, the fierce battles around Chawinda ensured no dent in the main defences in Sialkot sector. Much further south, the Pakistanis had a brigade each at Sulaimanki and lower Sindh, whose performance was relatively independent of intimate oversight by the General Headquarters; thus, with greater operational leeway, the two were more successful.

The highlight of 1965 War was the Pakistani counter offensive by its 1 Armoured Division from Kasur. The aim was to seal off the Beas-Sutlej corridor by, maximally, seizing the bridge at Beas, or, minimally, to force the Indian thrust towards Lahore to recoil by threatening its rear along the Barki axis. Alongside, it would thwart any outflanking move by India from the south of Lahore. The plans for the counter offensive had been made earlier, with the DMO urging the 11 Division and 1 Armoured Division commanders to coordinate their respective roles. 11 Division was to establish a bridgehead across Rohi Nallah for the armoured division to breakout across it. It was in the execution of the operation that the Pakistanis faulted, with the major tactical error being the withdrawal by night to laager, on two successive nights, by the armoured division’s leading elements of 5 Armoured Brigade. This allowed time to India to seal off that thrust line, where Havildar Abdul Hameed is credited for his immortal deed. On the operation fizzling out, some elements of the armoured division were moved to Sialkot sector under a new commander - one for the first time from the armoured corps - for a counter attack, but were not in a fit enough condition to be launched before the ceasefire came into effect.

The DMO’s reflections

Gul Hassan reflects on both counter offensives failing. Grandslam failed due to the delay in its launch, which should have coincided with the capture of Hajipir, and the untimely change-over of command just after the initial phase. The operations of 1 Armoured Division were under a constraint of limited armoured infantry availability. 7 Infantry Division, that was to the infantry component of the reserve with 1 Armoured Division for the Ravi-Sutlej corridor, had already been sucked into the two operations in Kashmir. Also, 11 Division was not able to spare infantry, though with the offensive across its frontage, it was secure enough to have spared some. This showed up the shortage of a Corps headquarters, that had been bid for but not provisioned timely. It was only set up in the following year. The DMO blames the higher military leadership, Musa, for not pressing the case with the government, which in the event, was also led by a military man, Ayub. Apparently, Musa pointed to a poor economy as excuse against pressing for the filling up the gap.

Though history has it that the showing of both armies was credible and the War itself was a draw of sorts, the DMO is unsparing in his criticism of the Pakistani showing. True for both armies is gallantry at lower levels. However, structural, organizational and cultural factors need an accounting.

Gul Hassan, inter-alia, dwells on lack of felicity in armoured warfare. The leading armoured brigade commander of 1 Armoured Division was a cavalry officer, and had been an instructor at Quetta staff college. Gul Hassan speculates that had he placed himself right behind the leading elements for intimate control, the break out could not have been stanched. The bridgehead itself was in a rather clustered space, not allowing logistics elements room enough to replenish forward. A natural crossing downstream was not exploited but a new bridge was launched when the only crossing was damaged by a tank. However, Gul Hassan’s major grouse is in the leadership of 1 Armoured Division. He is categoric that the first three commanders not being cavalrymen, they lacked mechanized expertise and a bent for auftragstaktik and therefore could not impart a maneuver culture to their command. The incumbent commander, though having commanded an armoured brigade, was not capacitated enough to merit the appointment.

Gul Hassan’s dissecting of the shortcomings of the Pakistan army has instructive value universally, and on that count must make for a mandatory reading at war colleges. While it is true that the Pakistan army has professionalized much since then, the snapshot he provides of it in the sixties is valid for any army anywhere that departs from professional standards and roles.

He rightly begins at the top. Since Ayub Khan was forced to shepherd the country after politicians and bureaucrats proved self-centered, he placed tractable generals in the key positions in the army. Consequently, the army leadership lost its professionalism. A direct consequence was of decline in training standards, with tactical exercises without troops finding favour since it is easier to push large bodies off troops across a map or sand table. A divide opened up between the senior and junior leadership and groupism made an appearance. The staff was increasingly demanding of units, while reports and returns up the chain were unwarrantedly rosy, especially - and tragically as it turned out - on state of equipment. The security apparatus got a ballast at the cost of trust, to the extent that the outbreak of the War caught the air force by surprise! Most significantly, the institution of the Commanding Officer, the most important link in the command chain, stood devalued.

Incidentally, such straits were not markedly different from that of the Indian army, in light of the relegation of the military in the national consciousness through the fifties. Recall also that the glut of vacancies in higher ranks had resulted in speedier promotions into higher ranks, with some not even having commanded battalions. However, the 1962 War was a timely wake up call, making the government and the army, quickly pull up their socks. So, when War broke out, Indian army had an opportunity to exorcise 1962.

The aftermath

The following year Gul Hassan went on to command 1 Armoured Division, turning it into a cracking formation. He was then back to the GHQ, this time as CGS, an appointment in which he witnessed the run up to the 1971 War and the disaster there – though playing no part in the atrocity crimes that occurred. As CGS, he was a vociferous advocate of the defence of East Pakistan lying in the West and for a speedy offensive to undercut Indian operations in the East before it had time to revert to the West. As CGS, he had pushed for the Eastern Command under Niazi – who he likens to an over promoted company commander – to concentrate early for the defence of Dacca, knowing fully well that a late withdrawal would not be possible in light of Indian outflanking thrusts and the insurgency peaking. However, as is well known, Niazi held the periphery and strong points, intending to prevent loss of a portion of East Pakistan on which the Bangladeshi flag could be hoisted. As a result, he lost the whole. For his part, Yahya’s procrastination over an offensive in the West squarely led to the colossal defeat.

At the bottom of the defeat was not so much the Pakistani army, but the dismal state of politics in Pakistan, personified by Bhutto. Having spent some time with the Qaid-e-Azam, Gul Hassan was aware of the gulf that existed in the standards of political leadership set by Jinnah and the political reality in Pakistan. He saw the role and culpability of Bhutto in goading Ayub into the 1965 War; in bringing about a political impasse in early 1971; and, finally, how post ’71 War, Bhutto tried to degrade the Pakistan army. Having been elevated by Bhutto to Army Chief after the 1971 War, Gul Hassan was unable to stomach the shenanigans of Bhutto. He was forced to resign, but compensated with an ambassadorship in Europe.

Gul Hassan did not get to have a combat command experience, though he appears to have a yen for command. An interesting counter-factual is if he had been in command of 1 Armoured Division, what might have been the showing of the division in battle. Another could well be, if he had been in command in Dacca, what might have been the outcome in ’71.

(Incidentally, encyclopedic Hamid Hussain, the ‘military archaeologist of Pakistan’, informs of Gul Hassan’s refusal of the offer of command in Dacca. A contemporary and fellow school mate, Yakub Khan, resigned from the assignment in dissent against the policy of suppression of Bengali nationalism. History could have been different.)

Personalities matter. For that reason, it is important that higher military leadership is chosen well. We need look no further than Manekshaw for evidence. The major takeaway from the book then is that military leaders must stay apolitical to stay professional and the political class must enable this. Not doing so is sure recipe for a drubbing as Pakistan has found to its great cost in 1965 and more so in 1971.

Book ReviewGul Hassan Khan, Memoirs of Lt. Gen. Gul Hassan Khan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, ISBN 978-0-19-574329-2, pp. 438, Rs. 395.

 


Tuesday, 3 June 2025

https://www.thecitizen.in/opinion/the-nuclear-edge-1148925

https://aliahd66.substack.com/p/india-pakistan-off-to-riot-with-nukes?r=i1fws

India-Pakistan: Off to riot with nukes

Attending the Shangri La dialogue, Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan in an interview said that there is “a lot of space before that nuclear threshold is crossed…lot of signaling before that…and I think nothing like that happened… .” This echoes the Foreign Secretary Misri’s testimony to the parliament’s standing committee that there was no ‘nuclear signaling’ by Pakistan.

His Pakistani counterpart, General Mirza, also at Singapore, concurred, saying, “Nothing happened this time....” This is of a piece with what his defence minister said, "we should treat it as a very distant possibility, we shouldn't even discuss it in the immediate context.”

However, the two leading military men appear to differ on what might happen next time if the nuclear domain does make an entrée.

The CDS held: "It is my personal view that the most rational people are people in uniform when conflict takes place. During this operation, I found both sides displaying a lot of rationality in their thoughts as well as actions. So why should we assume that in the nuclear domain there will be irrationality on someone else's part?"

General Mirza is less sanguine: “But you can't rule out any strategic miscalculation at any time, because when the crisis is on, the responses are different."

Expectedly, while the Indian CDS hopes to widen the scope for inflicting conventional punishment on Pakistan as the ‘new norm’ by underlining military ‘rationality’, his opposite Pakistani number wishes to narrow such space, highlighting ‘strategic miscalculations’.

Is the CDS too pat in trying to extend the space he espies for war fighting below the nuclear threshold into the nuclear domain itself?

Here I dig into the mind of the CDS, the military adviser to India’s Nuclear Command Authority, to see if his advice will secure India at the crunch.

Admittedly, for now only CDS’ first book is available to peruse for evidence on his thinking. His second, most recent book, is not at book stalls as yet. In his lectures, he can only be expected to reiterate India’s tired nuclear doctrine.

Mitron, aap chronology samajhiye!

On the fourth night, after India struck Pakistan’s airbases, a report had it that Pakistan’s National Command Authority (NCA), that oversees its nuclear arsenal, had been convened. The report was speedily distanced from by the defence minister, with the foreign minister helpfully intoning that if India ‘stops here’, so will they.

Apparently, Indians had struck two air bases of consequence for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, the Nur Khan airbase that is in vicinity of its Strategic Plans Division, the nuclear hub of Pakistan, and the Sargodha airfield, which is close to the Kairana Hills, that reputedly house some nuclear facilities. The nuclear dimension was evident even to journalists, who questioned the Indian air operations chief on the targeting of Kairana Hills.

Since Indian aims could not readily be discerned enough to preclude the possibility that degrading Pakistani nuclear arsenal might have been one such, it was only prudent for Pakistan to take a view in the appropriate forum, its NCA. Who can tell that Indian targeting of the two airbases with nuclear significance was not to spook the Pakistanis in first place?

The Indian attack left Pakistan with a dilemma. If unanswered it would be India having the last laugh. But a tit-for-tat answer would only play into Indian hands, for India had demonstrated escalation dominance, an ability to prevail at that level of engagement; visible in its navy that had yet to debut.

The Pakistani gave up the satisfaction of getting in the last punch. They were content with their showing on the first night, which the CDS acknowledged in his interview in Singapore. Instead, they chose to display nuclear fangs: ‘nuclear signaling’ with a call for a sitting of its nuclear decision makers, the NCA.

The Pakistani military operations head placed an early morning call to his Indian counterpart. The Indian military operations chief, not having been briefed on how to respond to the call, played for time. The Pakistan high commission, though truncated, put in a word with the Indian foreign ministry and the two military operations chiefs had a talk in the afternoon. This sequence has India insisting no third party was involved.

To begin with, the US assurance to Pakistan on subsequent talks and on enhancing trade would have incentivized Pakistan to phone-in. To believe that a self-respecting Punjabi-dominant institution would throw in the towel is to be oblivious of strategic culture. Pakistan, catalysing the US to up its act, the limited aim from nuclear signaling – implicit in the very convening of the NCA meeting - Pakistan dissimulated over its NCA meet.

Such a reading of events explains the ceasefireunderstandingpause or ‘temporary cessation of hostilities’ (CDS Chauhan) being announced, curiously by the US, that evening. True to form, President Trump has credited himself repeatedly since.

That the Americans were concerned enough to step in is clear from their stance on the conflict shifting, from Vice President Vance indicating that they were prepared to let the two sides vent to Secretary Rubio, who is also temporarily national security adviser, working the phone.

However, while claiming a glorious victory, Indian petulance against US role makes obvious that the Indians were strong-armed into a ceasefire (‘pause’ if you will) by the Americans picking up nuclear signals, that its principal military adviser – the CDS - evinces did not exist.

The CDS’ political masters instead chose to placate the Americans - and with trade being as good a reason as any. Only they are too scared to admit it, so as to appease the regime’s more truculent supporters – the Trads – otherwise disappointed by the ceasefire.

Nuclear kabaddi

If there was no nuclear dimension to the conflict, then what explains Indian prime minister going ballistic on Pakistan’s ‘nuclear blackmail’? It is possible to argue that the American arm-twisting owed to Pakistan playing its nuclear card; which put off an India that knows better.

But then, if Americans took the nuclear card more seriously than Indians, why is India’s new doctrine for the ‘new normal’ predicated on a determination not to be thwarted next time by nuclear brinkmanship by Pakistan?

Popular scenarios have it that neither Pakistan nor terrorists deterred, a terror attack remains a prospect. A 21 per cent drop in water flowing into Pakistan increases not only the likelihood of one, but also of direct military operations by Pakistan that has equated interference with Indus flows with an ‘act of war’.

During Op Sindoor Pakistani troops had moved towards the border. It is clear that the next crisis will see conflict start where this one ended. The CDS believes there are more steps in the conventional escalatory ladder under the nuclear threshold. Cold Start-lite operations by both sides is a potential start point. Since this conflict ended on a nuclear note, the next can be expected to have a nuclear dimension from the very outset.

India’s broadcast intent not to be taken in by nuclear moves on Pakistan’s side implies it will test these steps next time. Pakistan for its part will try to make its nuclear signaling more explicit and plausible, to overcome Indian cognizance deficit or to make it impossible for India to feign nonchalance.

At such a juncture, would the CDS prove the ‘right man at the right place’?

CDS: a nuclear war-deterrer?

General Chauhan – being CDS – cannot but have reiterated the government endorsed nuclear doctrine. In an address at a seminar last year, he highlighted ‘no first use’ (NFU) and ‘massive retaliation’ as the leitmotif of India’s nuclear doctrine.

To him, ‘massive retaliation’ ought to stay Pakistan’s hand. Not quantified, ‘massive’ can mean many things, including a quid-pro-quo-plus response or counter value targeting. In any case, it is the promise of a giant step up the escalation ladder, in case of a low-level nuclear strike – the more rational and therefore more likely introduction of nuclear weapons into a conflict.

Not having first strike capability (the ability to reduce vitality of Pakistani nuclear retaliation to negligible and presumably tolerable levels), precludes a credible first strike on India’s part. Pakistan’s second strike capability makes ‘massive retaliation’ an illogical proposition.

Strategic rationality continuing into the nuclear domain implies restricting nuclear exchanges to the lowest threshold of nuclear use. Advising the rational course would be the CDS’ lot.

There is much going against such advice including extant doctrine; hate ideologies; heightened emotions; sovereign impunity; mob pressures; and, the known narcissism of all five nuclear decision makers in the Indian NCA.

CDS: a nuclear war-fighter?

The General’s first book – written on sabbatical as a One-Star at the Center for Land Warfare Studies - is about effects of nuclear war. In his previous rank, he had served at the NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) Warfare desk of the army’s Perspective Planning Directorate, where his ambit covered ‘escalation dynamics, deterrence theory and its applicability in the South Asian context.’

He is cognizant that a conventional war escalating to the nuclear level ‘cannot be discounted’ on two counts. This could owe to ‘miscalculation or misapprehension, exacerbated by the prevailing tension of war leading to unauthorized or accidental use of nuclear weapons;’ or ‘to gain a local or temporary military advantage or to avert a major military disaster.’

His response-options include ‘punitive retaliatory strikes’. These could be either counter value or counter force (he clubs counter military use with counter force). If the former, these would be ‘catastrophic’. As regards the latter, ‘devastation, though lesser in scale and magnitude,’ effects both the military and civilians.

He considers ‘single nuclear strike’ and ‘limited nuclear exchange’ as nuclear use options. Two of his case studies on nuclear damage assessments - a tactical nuclear strike on army units and on a medium sized border town.

The good part is that he rules out spasmic nuclear retaliation as the only option, despite the nuclear doctrine’s ‘massive retaliation’ phraseology. His summary of preceding assessments of the counter value targeting of Mumbai shows his awareness of consequences. His case study on the nuclear targeting of New Delhi reinforces.

The bad part is that this rules in nuclear war-fighting. His book aims at enabling the military to fight through a war gone nuclear, even as damage mitigation is done on the civilian front to enable the fight.

All told, our CDS is no hawk, notable from the phrases he uses: ‘specter of nuclear holocaust’, ‘nuclear dangers’, ‘disaster’, ‘inherent insanity in the use of nuclear weapons’, ‘madness’, ‘humanitarian disaster’. In short, he would advise against scrambling after political ends at such levels.

Deserving a Marshal’s baton

From his writings, the CDS discerns a divide in the nuclear domain between lower order and higher order nuclear exchanges. To him, nuclear rationality implies restricting conflict to lower order exchange(s). Consequently, his advice on breach of the nuclear taboo must be to temper pursuit of escalation dominance short of a higher order nuclear exchange.

The good part is that this is in keeping with Pakistani nuclear thinking. Its Full Spectrum Deterrence is predicated on asymmetric escalation with tactical nuclear weapons, even as it maintains a second strike capability. Not being ‘target rich’, it’s not pre-disposed to higher order nuclear exchanges.

The two sides could use the primer on nuclear strategy developed by General Sundarji: ‘finally, and most importantly, make every effort at war termination short of nuclear weapon use, failing which terminate hostilities at the lowest possible level of (nuclear) use, with honorable concessions.’