High, Cold, And Combat-Ready: Indias New Killer Airbase At 13,700 Feet Puts China, Pakistan on Notice
english
2934525
India recently experienced and saw one of its worst fears come true - a China-Pakistan military nexus against New Delhi. The recent military conflict with Pakistan exposed China's duality as Beijing extended all possible military help to Islamabad against India. As border tensions persist with Pakistan and China rapidly build infrastructure near the Line of Actual Control (LAC), India is responding with speed and strategy. One of the boldest moves is the development of its new airbase in eastern Ladakh — a game-changing addition to India's military preparedness at high altitudes that will give a massive edge to the Indian Air Force.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
39 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Kargil, Pahalgam and a revamp of the security strategy
It is the 26th anniversary of the Kargil war that was fought between India and Pakistan in the icy heights of Kashmir, but the memories are still fresh. It was also the first 'live televised' conflict, which brought the war (May 3-July 26, 1999) into the living rooms of India. Victory was hard fought and won through the sheer grit, the determination and the love for 'Bharat' that the Indian armed forces showed. India not only evicted the Pakistani forces but also forced Pakistan to withdraw and seek a ceasefire. All this sounds familiar and similar to what happened recently. On April 22, 2025, Pakistan-based terrorists launched a terror attack on innocent civilians at a popular tourist spot in Pahalgam, Kashmir, killing 26 tourists (singling out only the men). What followed next was the most devastating punishment that India has ever delivered on Pakistan's terror network in the form of Operation Sindoor (May 7-10, 2025). In four days of pin-pointed and extremely effective strikes, the Indian military struck nine terror bases across Pakistan and took out 11 military air-bases in Pakistan, bringing Pakistan to its knees in a matter of 96 hours. And if reports and analysis are to be believed, India's BrahMos missile strike on the Nur Khan Base in Pakistan, at the foothills of the Kirana Hills, crippled a key nuclear weapon storage facility too. Pakistan made a request for an immediate ceasefire. If Kargil was a watershed moment for India in its conventional fighting capability, Pahalgam has set the bar against any future terror attack in India. Over two decades, India has steadily re-strategised its security policies, sending out a clear message to Pakistan and the world that India will not tolerate any future mis-adventure. The lessons from Kargil The context of the Kargil war was set in a period when India was tentative and vulnerable. It may be recalled that India had declared itself to be a nuclear weapon state in May 1998. India's nuclear tests prompted Pakistan too to test its nuclear devices within weeks. All of a sudden, South Asia was home to two nuclear-powered adversaries. India was threatened with economic sanctions by the western countries for having gone nuclear. In addition, India was not in a very strong position due to its weak economy and a coalition government at the Centre. The fight against terrorism in Kashmir since 1990 and continuing insurgencies in the North-East led to the strengthening and the modernisation of India's military being put on the back burner. Kargil also happened in the backdrop of India's attempts at a reconciliation with Pakistan — Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had travelled to Lahore in February 1999 in what became a famous bus-ride across the border. This was also the time before the 9/11 terror attack on the Twin Towers in New York (September 11, 2001) and there was hardly any support for India's fight against Pakistan-based terror in Kashmir. Kargil was, therefore, a rude wakeup call for India. It was the first war between India and Pakistan after 1971 and fought under the nuclear overhang. It demonstrated that limited war was still possible even between nuclear-armed states, provided the escalation was controlled. A Kargil Review Committee was set up which made many key recommendations, laying the foundation for many structural changes that have taken place over the years. One of the most significant shortcomings highlighted was the intelligence lapse. Neither military nor civilian intelligence agencies had worked on the possibility of any large-scale military infiltration by Pakistani forces in Kargil. The absence of real-time intelligence and effective aerial surveillance led to a delayed decision making and early losses. The war also exposed serious shortcomings in terms of equipment, logistics and the operational readiness of India's armed forces. India's troops lacked the wherewithal to fight war in high altitude areas as they did not have specialised high-altitude gear, adequate artillery support, and real-time communications. The structural changes A number of new agencies were set up such as the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) in 2002 and the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) in 2004. Measures to strengthen coordination between the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the Intelligence Bureau (IB), and military intelligence wings were undertaken, leading to a revamp of the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) and the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). The appointment of a National Security Adviser (NSA) too was made a permanent fixture in the strategic decision-making hierarchy, headed by the Prime Minister. There were many other institutional and structural changes that were made in order to enhance the intelligence set up in India. On the conventional front, the Kargil war was a timely lesson to modernise the military, in equipment and strategy. There was a clear realisation that India had few allies who would assist it in a time of war; therefore, modernisation and self-reliance had to be priorities. It led to the evolution of India's 'Cold Start Doctrine', aimed at rapid mobilisation and swift, limited incursions without breaching the nuclear threshold. There was great emphasis on mountain warfare preparedness which included the raising of a Mountain Corps in the Indian Army. The war also highlighted the urgent need for joint coordination between the three wings of the armed forces, a unified command and operational coordination. Some of these have led changes such as the appointment of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) in 2019 and the process of setting up integrated theatre commands. A key lesson from Kargil was the modernisation of equipment and weapon platforms, with an emphasis on home-grown technologies and self-reliance in production. The acquisition and the deployment of modern weapon platforms such as Rafale fighters, Apache attack helicopters, Chinook heavy-lift helicopters, and S-400 missile defence systems, home-grown artillery and BrahMos missiles are some of the results. The long fight against terror Unlike Kargil, which brought in massive changes in conventional military, India was slow in fighting terror proactively. For decades, Pakistan kept hurting India without any heavy costs to itself. Among the major terror incidents, the most important was the hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight, IC-814 on December 24, 1999, just after Kargil. In one of India's weak moments, New Delhi agreed to release dreaded terrorists. The terror attack on Parliament, on December 13, 2001, led to a year-long mobilisation of Indian armed forces under 'Operation Parakram', but it did not result in any direct punishment to Pakistan. The 26/11 Mumbai terror attack (November 2008) — widely considered to be India's 9/11 moment — also did not lead to any punishment for Pakistan. It was only after the Uri terror attack (September 18, 2016) that the strategy of a fight against terror began to take shape. The surgical strikes were not only a strong reply but also a statement of intent. Taking the intent further, following the terror attack on a Central Reserve Police Force convoy in Pulwama, Kashmir, on February 14, 2019, the Indian Air Force (IAF) launched strikes on a terror camp of the JeM in Balakot (February 26, 2019). This was the first time that the IAF had crossed into Pakistan airspace to launch a strike. The recent Pahalgam attack has set a new threshold. By striking key terror locations and military assets deep into Pakistan, India has made it clear that the era of restraint and patience is over. Pakistan will have to pay a heavy price for any terror attack hereafter. From Kargil to Pahalgam, India has had to learn many hard lessons. The good news is that India is no longer in any mood to relent. In May 2025, India's conventional military capability has displayed what it is capable of. 'Make in India' is bearing fruit, with many outstanding weapon platforms being made in India now. Fighting terror too has got a new meaning after Pahlagam. However, the Indian political and military leadership has to remain vigilant and stay ahead of the curve. There cannot be another Kargil or Pahlagam, ever. Rajeev Agarwal is a Senior Research Consultant at Chintan Research Foundation, New Delhi. His X handle is @rajeev1421
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Operation Sindoor ongoing, future soldier must be info, tech and scholar warrior: CDS Gen Chauhan
Asserting that Operation Sindoor 'still continues', Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan on Friday said the country's military preparedness must remain at a 'very high' level, round the clock and throughout the year. read more Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan on Friday said Operation Sindoor remains active, and stressed that India's military preparedness must stay at an exceptionally high level—24/7 and year-round. Delivering the keynote address at a defence seminar held at Subroto Park, General Chauhan said that future warfare will require more than conventional combat skills. Soldiers, he noted, must evolve into a blend of 'information warriors, technology warriors, and scholar warriors." The event, themed 'Aerospace Power: Preserving India's Sovereignty and Furthering National Interests', was organised under the Indian Air Force's No.4 Warfare and Aerospace Strategy Programme (WASP). STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The seminar on 'Aerospace Power: Preserving India's Sovereignty and Furthering National Interests' was held under the aegis of the 'No.4 Warfare and Aerospace Strategy Programme (WASP)'. The CDS said there are no runners-up in a war, and any military must be constantly alert and maintain a high degree of operational preparedness. 'An example is Operation Sindoor, which still continues. Our preparedness level has to be very high, 24×7, 365 days (a year),' Gen Chauhan said. India launched Operation Sindoor early May 7 and decimated multiple terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir (PoK). Pakistan also launched offensives against India, and all subsequent counter-offensives by India were also carried out under Operation Sindoor. The military conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbours halted after they reached an understanding on the evening of May 10. The CDS also emphasised the importance of learning about both 'Shastra' (warfare) and 'Shaastra' (knowledge system). Gen Chauhan defined a scholar warrior as a military professional who combines intellectual depth and combat skills, who possesses strong academic knowledge and practical military expertise that enable him to analyse complex situations and address 'diverse challenges to meet military aims and objectives'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Tracing the relationship between a scholar and a warrior, from ancient Indian history, through the World Wars up to recent conflicts, the CDS highlighted that today's military professional must be a 'well-calibrated mix of a scholar warrior, a techno warrior and an info warrior'. A technology warrior to understand and apply the cutting-edge technologies and AI that are changing the nature of warfare, and an 'info warrior' to shape narratives, counter disinformation and dominate the invisible battlespace of perception. Elucidating the changing character of warfare, especially as evinced through recent and ongoing conflicts, the CDS underscored the important role of a scholar warrior in modern warfare, emphasising their role in preserving India's sovereignty and furthering national interests. Operation Sindoor was a critical focus and found ample mention during the two thematic sessions. The Headquarters Integrated Defence Staff (HQ IDS) also shared some photos of the event on X. 'He complimented the Indian Air Force, College of Air Warfare and @CAPS_INDIA for constantly evolving the scope of the program. CDS awarded Certificates to 12 officers of Indian Armed Forces for their contribution in taking forward the strategic thought process,' it said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD IAF Chief Air Chief Marshal A P Singh, Army Chief Gen Upendra Dwivedi were also present on the occasion. The CDS in his address also said, 'If we look at modern warfare today, we are seeing unprecedented pace give by relentless march of technology. Turbulent geopolitical shifts happening, battlespaces are no long longer a linear front, but transparent, swift, multi-domain arenas.' 'We are now on the cusp of what I have been calling a third evolution in military affairs…a convergence of kinetic and non-kinetic, first and second generation with third generation of warfare, convergence of tactical, operational and strategic kind of domain,' he said, adding that a warrior today needs to master all the three level of warfare, tactical, operational and strategic levels and all domains — land, air, sea, cyberspace and cognitive. Gen Chauhan underlined that only a warrior with 'superhuman capabilities' can decode this complex mode that may connect a drone strike to a cyber breach, a narrative war to an orbital disruption, and 'still have moral courage to lead men through fog and fire'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He emphasised that future wars will demand 'hybrid warriors' who can fight on borders, manoeuvre in deserts, plan counter-insurgency operations in dense jungles, neutralise drones and decode cyber intrusions. WASP was conceived by Indian Air Force to cultivate critical thinking in its future leaders. It prepares officers to think through politico-military environmental layers, to interpret the frameworks within which decisions are made, and to assess outcomes including second-order effects, the defence ministry said in a statement. This edition of WASP featured the participation of twelve officers, comprising ten from the Indian Air Force and two from the Indian Navy, it said. With inputs from agencies
The Print
4 hours ago
- The Print
Thailand-Cambodia clash is more than a border fight—it's a new front in Cold War 2.0
For observers in South Asia, the crisis strikes a familiar chord. Much like the subcontinent's own post-colonial challenges, this conflict is deeply rooted in contested borders callously drawn by colonial powers. In South Asia, the legacy lies with the British; in Southeast Asia, it's the French. Now in its second day, the hostilities continue and a ceasefire remains elusive, if not impossible. The implications for regional stability and the broader US-China strategic rivalry—often dubbed 'Cold War 2.0'—are already profound. The sudden military escalation between two ASEAN members, Thailand and Cambodia, has jolted the Indo-Pacific, a region that's already on edge amid the Great Power contestation between the United States and China. The timing couldn't be more telling. Global military budgets are rising amid geopolitical strains, and Southeast Asia is no exception. Even as ASEAN countries pursue deeper economic integration—modelling aspects of the European Union—defence spending has surged across the bloc. This, even though ASEAN is far from unified in its political, economic, or military postures. While the ASEAN Free Trade Area has made strides in tariff reduction, wide disparities persist. Singapore boasts high per capita income and advanced infrastructure, while countries like Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar continue to struggle with poverty, fragile institutions, and uncertain futures. The World Bank recently revised Cambodia's 2025 growth forecast down to 4 per cent, citing a range of economic vulnerabilities. Also Read: Trump's Ukraine U-turn puts Russia's trade partners at risk. India caught in the middle Fragmented security postures In security terms, ASEAN remains a mosaic of national agendas, even in the face of China's aggressive build-up in the South China Sea and its expansive nine-dash line claims over the EEZs of several member states. A common threat should have united the bloc. But as China is also ASEAN's largest trading partner, siding against it remains unaffordable for most, even those with a pro-West tilt. Military modernisation is progressing, but along divergent paths. Between 2013 and 2022, the region spent approximately $60.9 billion on weapons procurement and defence R&D, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). But looking closer, these investments reflect broader geopolitical alignments: some countries lean toward the US, like Thailand and the Philippines; some toward China, such as Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar; and some are building ties with Russia, such as Vietnam and Indonesia. The presence of the UK and France, as well as the growing influence of Turkey and Israel in the region, adds further layers of complexity. From imperial maps to military clashes Southeast Asia has long been a stage for Great Power rivalry. The roots of the current Thailand-Cambodia conflict lie in the 1907 Franco-Siamese Treaty. Under pressure from both Britain and France, Siam (modern-day Thailand) ceded territories to the French. At the time, Cambodia was under French rule, and the treaty left many areas of the border vague—sowing the seeds of future disputes. During World War II, Siam allied with Japan and briefly regained some of the lost territory. But following Japan's defeat, these areas returned to French control. When Cambodia gained independence in 1953, the problematic colonial borders remained. One hotspot is the Preah Vihear Temple. Though the International Court of Justice awarded it to Cambodia in 1962, the surrounding territory was left undefined, allowing the conflict to simmer. The Cold War further complicated the picture. Cambodia's civil war, the Khmer Rouge regime, and Vietnam's 1978 invasion turned the Thai-Cambodian border into a Cold War flashpoint. The US, China, and several ASEAN members supported anti-Vietnamese resistance, including remnants of the Khmer Rouge. Even after Vietnam withdrew in 1989, and the 1991 Paris Peace Accords attempted to stabilise the region, no durable border resolution was reached. Efforts at rapprochement resumed in the 2000s, culminating in a February 2024 strategic partnership between Cambodia and Thailand focused on de-escalation. But on 28 May 2025, a deadly clash between patrols in a disputed area killed a Cambodian soldier, shattering the fragile peace. Since then, serious escalation has happened. New theatre for the new Cold War? In the ongoing military standoff, Thailand has clearly dominated from the get-go. The skies over Southeast Asia quickly became a theatre of conflict, with Thailand deploying its F-16 fighter jets and reportedly decimating Cambodia's 8th and 9th infantry divisions. For the first time, Thailand also fielded its Ukrainian-made T-84 Oplot-M main battle tanks in combat, facing off against Cambodia's outdated T-55s. The disparity in military capabilities between the two countries is not merely significant—it is exponentially vast. Cambodia's decision to escalate, despite its weaker military, raises questions. One possible explanation is Chinese backing—part of a broader strategy to test the limits of US commitment to its allies. US arms sales, including to Thailand, are governed by strict end-use agreements that limit how and against whom they can be deployed. It is unlikely Thailand would have used F-16s without prior US consent. If true, this suggests Washington tacitly approved Thailand's response—a subtle yet pointed signal to Beijing, which has become Cambodia's chief military patron since 2017. After Cambodia dissolved its main opposition party and jailed political leaders, the US slashed aid. China quickly stepped in with military equipment, training, and joint exercises such as 'Golden Dragon'. More concerning is China's role in expanding the Ream Naval Base on Cambodia's southern coast. Though not officially a military base, satellite imagery shows a pier nearly identical in length and design to one at China's Djibouti base—capable of docking its largest aircraft carriers. US officials have repeatedly raised concerns about growing Chinese military access to the base. These developments may explain why Washington allowed Thailand to respond forcefully—viewing it as an opportunity to counterbalance Chinese influence. Also Read: Paradox of India's S-400 deal—key asset delayed when country needs it most The wider web of power projection This conflict must also be understood in the broader context of foreign power projection in Southeast Asia. The US has deepened ties with the Philippines, now one of ASEAN's most hawkish voices on China. Meanwhile, the UK exerts influence through the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA)—a long-standing, though non-binding, security pact with Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Singapore. This agreement, notably, was originally designed to ensure peace between Malaysia and Singapore. For the uninitiated, on 9 August 1965, Singapore officially parted ways with Malaysia, becoming an independent and sovereign nation. The split was driven by serious political and economic disagreements between the leadership of both countries, which had fuelled communal tensions and led to racial riots in July and September 1964. Although those tensions have long since eased, the UK continues to maintain its involvement through existing defence agreements and regular military exercises. France, another former colonial power, also maintains a strategic presence in the Indo-Pacific. It often champions 'strategic autonomy,' positioning itself as a balancing force in a region crowded with competing powers—though it would side with NATO allies if a hot war broke out. Even intra-ASEAN military tensions carry geopolitical implications. Indonesia, for example, has long struggled to fully control its airspace, as parts of it—including the skies over the Riau Islands and the Strait of Malacca—are under Singaporean operational control. Jakarta is now addressing these concerns by upgrading its air defence capabilities, including a $10 billion deal for Turkish-built KAAN fifth-generation fighter jets, which will involve significant contributions from Pakistani engineers. It has also ordered a huge number of Rafale jets from France, amid other equipment. At its core, the Southeast Asian theatre remains central to the unfolding Great Power contest between the US and China (backed by Russia). But it is also a landscape where middle powers—France, the UK, Turkey, and others—continue to shape the strategic environment in nuanced but significant ways. The Thailand-Cambodia escalation underscores not only the unresolved trauma of colonial legacies but also how quickly they can be weaponised in today's fraught geopolitical climate. As great powers manoeuvre and middle powers assert their influence, the Indo-Pacific grows more complex. With war now an ever-present possibility rather than a distant threat, Southeast Asia finds itself not just at the centre of Cold War 2.0—but at the frontline of an increasingly crowded, competitive, and dangerous global order. Swasti Rao is a Consulting Editor (International and Strategic Affairs) at ThePrint. She tweets @swasrao. Views are personal. (Edited by Asavari Singh)
