Latest news with #TaskForceonIntelligenceMechanism
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Chinese support to Pakistan during Op Sindoor
S D Pradhan has served as chairman of India's Joint Intelligence Committee. He has also been the country's deputy national security adviser. He was chairman of the Task Force on Intelligence Mechanism (2008-2010), which was constituted to review the functioning of the intelligence agencies. He has taught at the departments of defence studies and history at the Punjabi University, Patiala. He was also a visiting professor at the University of Illinois, US, in the department of arms control and disarmament studies. The ministry of defence had utilized his services for the preparation of official accounts of the 1971 war and the counterinsurgency operations in the northeast. In the JIC/National Security Council secretariat, he was closely involved with the preparation of the reports of the Kargil Review Committee and the Group of Ministers on national security as also with the implementation of their recommendations. His publications include two books and several articles. LESS ... MORE With more information now available, it can be concluded that China provided critical military and strategic support to Pakistan during the four-day India-Pakistan conflict from May 7 to May 10, 2025 (Operation Sindoor). This assistance encompassed advanced weaponry, intelligence sharing, and influence operations for narrative building, favouring Pakistan. John Spencer has rightly stated that Pakistan fought as a proxy force, using Chinese weapons and systems, which failed, exposing the strategic hollowness of Islamabad. There are several credible inputs on the Chinese support to Pakistan. First, a Pakistani ex-army officer, Adil Raja, revealed that Munir ordered the Pahalgam attack after receiving the nod from China. Second, China's arms/systems were used in the operations. China is the largest source of Pakistani weapons (about 81%). The PL-15E missile landed in a village in Hoshiarpur without hitting its target, reflecting that they did not perform well. JF-17 fired Chinese CM-401 hypersonic missiles, which were used to strike Indian logistical depots and mechanised brigades near Pathankot and Gurdaspur. These were also neutralised by the Indian air defence system. Pakistan employed Chinese-made CH-4 drones for reconnaissance and precision strikes. Despite their capabilities, these drones were largely neutralised by India's advanced air defence systems, including the S-400. Third, China placed five satellites for exclusive use in observing Indian military assets. Reports suggest that China provided real-time battlefield surveillance support and advice to Pakistan and coordinates ground and air-level military operations. An Indian research group found out that China assisted Pakistan in optimising its defence systems to better detect the Indian Army's troop movements and deployments during the four-day conflict. It included reorganising Pakistan's radars and air defence systems and adjusting satellite coverage over India. Fourth, the detection of a banned Huawei satellite phone, with messaging services connected to China's Beidou satellite navigation system in Pahalgam after the terror attacks, revealed a close nexus between the Pak Army/terrorists and the Chinese armed forces. The above inputs indicated that Beijing's involvement was far more extensive than originally assessed. Fifth, China actively engaged in information warfare to support Pakistan's narrative. Chinese state media outlets echoed Pakistan's denials of involvement in the Pahalgam attack and suggested alternative narratives, including labelling the attack as a potential 'false flag' operation by India. Chinese-controlled social media platforms disseminated unverified claims of Pakistani military successes, such as the downing of Indian Rafale jets, aiming to undermine India's military reputation and promote Chinese weaponry. Chinese bloggers and wumao soldiers (5 cents) provided massive support to Pakistan in spreading disinformation and psychological warfare. They were receiving inputs directly from Pakistan's Inter-Services Public Relations. They exaggerated Indian losses, thereby helping to bolster the Pakistani narrative. They portrayed India as an aggressor. Sixth, China provided comprehensive diplomatic support to Pakistan at the UN Security Council, coordinating with Turkey and Bangladesh. At the UN Security Council committee 1267 on counter-terrorism, China blocked any mention of The Resistance Force (TRF), an offshoot of the Lashkar-e-Tayiba, that initially took responsibility for the Pahalgam terror attacks. In sum, despite China's extensive support, Pakistan's military efforts during Operation Sindoor were largely unsuccessful. Indian forces effectively countered Pakistani offensives, dominating the escalation ladder, and India's indigenous defence technologies outperformed Chinese-supplied systems. India achieved its stated objective of destroying terrorist camps at nine places. Now, some details are available on the losses of aircraft by Pakistan during the operations. In the operation, the IAF destroyed at least six Pakistani fighter jets, two high-value surveillance aircraft, and one C-130 military transport aircraft. More than ten armed drones (UCAVs), several cruise missiles, and radar sites were also taken out during India's operation. Chinese HQ 9 and HQ 16 systems were destroyed by India's missiles. Interestingly, while India claimed to have hit 11 places in Pakistan, the latter now says India attacked at 19 places. Perhaps to project itself as a victim of India's action aimed at the civilian population. The Chinese platforms and defence systems were for the first time put to a real combat test. Their underperformance must be unsettling to China. Pakistan's losses of China's aircraft and air defence systems raise questions about the reliability of its defence equipment in real-world combat scenarios. This will have an impact on the Chinese export of weapons and systems. China is using Pakistan as a tool for its hegemonic and expansionist designs. Pakistan occupies the central position in the Chinese geopolitical calculus for two reasons. First, Pakistan's antipathy towards India allows China to use it as its proxy to keep pressure on India, which it considers an obstacle to achieving its regional ambitions. Second, Pakistan constitutes an important country in the Chinese string of pearls around India. Pakistan's geographical position allows it to have access to the Indian Ocean and thereby overcome its Malacca choke point problem. Besides, China may have viewed India's economic growth as a threat to its dwindling economy. The plan of some manufacturing units moving from China to India must have been unnerving. Hence, China may have asked Pakistan to escalate terror attacks in India to project that this country is not safe for investments. Given the above, China is likely to continue to provide support to Pakistan, which will encourage Pakistan to continue with its policy of bleeding India through a thousand cuts. India has done well by announcing its policy that it will react strongly in case of any terrorist attack, and would not differentiate between the state sponsors and terrorists and would not accept the nuclear bluff. India must maintain its firm retaliatory policy and continue to enhance global narrative building efforts. India needs to pay urgent attention to the dimension of cognitive warfare. This is a process to weaponise public opinion of targets and drive them to act in the initiator's interest. The victims of this process start supporting the adversary's narrative after their minds are manipulated. This can undermine national resilience. A comprehensive study should be made to develop a robust strategy to counter this menace. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Time of India
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Consequences of Munir's promotion to Field Marshal: Pakistan army echoes terrorist rhetoric
S D Pradhan has served as chairman of India's Joint Intelligence Committee. He has also been the country's deputy national security adviser. He was chairman of the Task Force on Intelligence Mechanism (2008-2010), which was constituted to review the functioning of the intelligence agencies. He has taught at the departments of defence studies and history at the Punjabi University, Patiala. He was also a visiting professor at the University of Illinois, US, in the department of arms control and disarmament studies. The ministry of defence had utilized his services for the preparation of official accounts of the 1971 war and the counterinsurgency operations in the northeast. In the JIC/National Security Council secretariat, he was closely involved with the preparation of the reports of the Kargil Review Committee and the Group of Ministers on national security as also with the implementation of their recommendations. His publications include two books and several articles. LESS ... MORE The elevation of General Asim Munir to the rank of Field Marshal has taken the strategic community by surprise. Many had assumed Munir's primary goal was to secure an extension of his tenure by escalating tensions with India. His promotion, however, came in the wake of a significant military setback against India, raising serious questions about its timing and intent. Operation Sindoor: A strategic setback for Pakistan India's Operation Sindoor inflicted a severe blow on Pakistan's military and terror infrastructure. In this decisive operation, nine terrorist camps were destroyed, resulting in the death of over 100 militants, including senior commanders. Indian forces also targeted and destroyed 11 Pakistani airbases, eight fighter jets, an airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft (SAAB 2000), six Bayraktar TB2 UCAVs, and two Shaheen-class missiles. India captured a Chinese-made PL-15 air-to-air missile and neutralized Pakistani LY-80 and HQ-9 air defence systems, underscoring the vulnerabilities of Pakistan's Chinese-supplied arsenal. International military analysts echoed the success of the operation. Austrian expert Tom Cooper described it as a 'clear-cut victory' for India, while American analyst John Spencer highlighted that India had demonstrated the capability to strike Pakistan at will. Faced with overwhelming losses, Pakistan requested a ceasefire. False narratives and manufactured propaganda Despite the heavy damage, the Pakistani military, in coordination with its civilian government, launched an aggressive propaganda campaign claiming victory over India. Unsupported allegations of damage to Indian airbases were circulated, though satellite imagery provided no evidence. This false narrative served a domestic purpose: to mask the military's failure and to justify Munir's elevation. The civilian government, led by Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, quickly endorsed Munir's promotion, stating it was in recognition of his 'brilliant military leadership' and 'courageous defence of Pakistan's sovereignty.' However, the move is widely perceived as a political manoeuvre to restore the Army's image and solidify Munir's position amid internal criticism from within the ranks. A dangerous convergence with terrorist ideology What followed Munir's promotion was even more alarming: a marked shift in the rhetoric of the Pakistan Army, increasingly resembling that of terrorist organisations. Pakistan Army spokesperson Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry declared, in language eerily like Hafiz Saeed, 'If you block our water, we will choke your breath.' Such rhetoric suggests that the Pakistan Army may be adopting narratives crafted by terrorist outfits. Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif is the son of Mahmood Sultan Bashiruddin, a notorious Pakistani scientist known for attempting to provide nuclear secrets to Osama bin Laden through the organisation Ummah Tameer-e-Nau. His important position raises further concerns about the ideological leanings within the military's senior leadership. Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif even claimed that Pakistan had avenged its 1971 defeat-an assertion that appears to cater to demands long made by terror outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Al-Badr. On May 11, while defending Pakistan's 'Operation Bunyanum Marsoos,' Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif described Munir as someone deeply committed to 'jihad.' Munir had received his early education in a madrasa. This has earned Munir the label of 'Jihadi General' among analysts. Terrorists empowered, subservient civilian government Munir's authority within Pakistan has grown unchecked. The civilian government, widely seen as subservient to the military, is incapable of restraining him. Under his leadership, the military has provided state funerals for senior terrorists, further strengthening the perception of an unholy alliance between the army and extremist groups. Despite initial condemnation, the international community's response to recent escalations has been muted. Some global players continue to equate India and Pakistan, ignoring the stark contrast in their approaches to counterterrorism. Meanwhile, China actively supported Pakistan during the conflict, sharing intelligence on Indian airbases. Turkey reportedly supplied military equipment. Notably, former Pakistani Army officer Adil Raja alleged that Munir ordered the Pahalgam attack only after receiving approval from China. Implications for India and regional stability For India, the situation remains precarious. Munir is widely held responsible for orchestrating the Pahalgam attack. His 16th April speech, where he invoked the two-nation theory and expressed strong anti-Hindu sentiments, highlighted his ideological rigidity and intent to continue Pakistan's long-standing policy of 'bleeding India through a thousand cuts.' Although some Pakistani analysts argue that economic decline and limited military capacity make a large-scale conflict with India unlikely, given Munir's radical views and close alignment with terrorist objectives, future provocations cannot be ruled out. India must remain vigilant. Strengthening surveillance and early-warning systems to detect terrorist activity is essential. Pre-emptive countermeasures should be prioritized. India must also continue leveraging strategic tools such as the Indus Waters Treaty to pressure Pakistan until wanted terrorists are handed over. Simultaneously, India must intensify diplomatic efforts to build a strong strategic narrative exposing the nexus between the Pakistan Army and terrorism. Sustained engagement with international stakeholders could generate pressure on Islamabad and create space for democratic forces within Pakistan to challenge military dominance. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Time of India
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
India defines new doctrine against terrorism: A stern message to Pakistan
S D Pradhan has served as chairman of India's Joint Intelligence Committee. He has also been the country's deputy national security adviser. He was chairman of the Task Force on Intelligence Mechanism (2008-2010), which was constituted to review the functioning of the intelligence agencies. He has taught at the departments of defence studies and history at the Punjabi University, Patiala. He was also a visiting professor at the University of Illinois, US, in the department of arms control and disarmament studies. The ministry of defence had utilized his services for the preparation of official accounts of the 1971 war and the counterinsurgency operations in the northeast. In the JIC/National Security Council secretariat, he was closely involved with the preparation of the reports of the Kargil Review Committee and the Group of Ministers on national security as also with the implementation of their recommendations. His publications include two books and several articles. LESS ... MORE PM Modi, in a speech on the 12th May, unveiled a new doctrine to deal with terrorists and their sponsors in future. In a strong message to the Pakistani establishment, he pointed out that several big terrorist attacks like 9/11, the London Tube bombing and major attacks in India in the past decades had links with the terrorist hide-outs in Pakistan, destroyed by India during the Operation Sindoor. He averred that bases in Bahawalpur and Muridke were universities of global terrorism. This was a necessity as the Pahalgam attack was a calculated move to achieve a demographic change in J&K and integrate it with Pakistan. Crucially, this was also confirmed by a Pakistani ex-army officer, Adil Raja, who revealed that not only Munir did order the attack but also had the nod from China. PM Modi announced a decisive shift in India's strategic approach against terrorism. There are three important dimensions of the new doctrine. First, if there is any terrorist attack on India, a strong and resolute response will be given on India's terms: it is 'the new benchmark and set up a new parameter and new normal.' This envisages strong actions at every place where roots of terrorism emerge. In a significant toughening of its counter-terrorism doctrine, India declared that any act of terrorism will be treated as an act of war and responded accordingly. Under international law, an 'act of war' implies a hostile action by one state that could justify retaliatory use of force. India's new stance signals a readiness to invoke self-defence provisions under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The UNSC on the 25th April 2025, in its press briefing, underlined the need to hold perpetrators, organisers, financiers, and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism accountable and bring them to justice. Second, India will not tolerate nuclear blackmail. India will strike precisely and decisively at the hideouts developing and operating under the cover of nuclear blackmail. This was also essential, as the Pak Establishment was using the nuclear card every time any crisis emerged to ensure the involvement of other powers to pressurise India to stop taking any action against Pakistan. India has decided to call out Pakistan's bluff. Third, there will not be any difference between government-sponsored terrorism and the masterminds of terrorism. This was a clear message to the Pak Army, which is nurturing terrorists, imparting training, and providing wherewithal to carry out terrorist attacks. There will be no difference between the operatives and their supporters and sponsors while penalising them for the mischief. This is important in the context of the Pak Army. On 11th May, the Director General Inter-Services Public Relations, Lt Gen Ahmad Sharif, declared support for jihad, indicating clearly that there is no difference between the uniformed personnel and non-uniformed cadres of Lashkar-e- Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e Mohammad (JeM), and Al Badr etc. which have been waging a war against India for several decades. He declared that 'Islam is part of not only our belief but part of our training.' He was justifying why the Pak Army's operation was named 'Bunyanum Marsoos' meaning that the Pak Army's actions were guided by the path shown by Allah. He further stated that the Pak Army Chief has a strong belief in it, who was trained in a madrasa. Lt Gen Ahmad Sharif is the son of Mahmood Sultan Bashiruddin, the rogue nuclear scientist of Pakistan who tried to give details of a nuclear bomb to Osama bin Laden and had formed Ummah Tameer-e-Nau (UTN) for this purpose. The Operation Sindoor exposed the close nexus between the Pak Army and terrorists. Pakistan, taking the side of terrorists, decided to launch attacks on our military and civil assets. The funerals of terrorists were attended by senior Pakistani Army and police officers. Wreaths were sent by the President and the COAS. This brings to an important issue the nature of Pakistan. Earlier, it was said that Pakistan's case is different from any other country in the world: it is the case of the Pak Army having a nation. Now it can be said that it is the case of terrorists having a nation with an army at their disposal. The sustenance of the understanding of the ceasefire depends upon four factors. First, Pakistan should act against the remaining terrorists and ensure that no terrorist attack on India takes place. However, this is doubtful. Second, Pakistan's record of adhering to its promises is very poor. It indulged in duplicity. After the Tashkent Declaration, it launched a war. After the Simla agreement, it began to use terrorism against India. In 1999, it occupied Kargil heights. After that, it tasked its terrorists to hijack IC 814. Then its terrorists attacked India several times: 2001 Parliament, 26/11 Mumbai, 2016 Uri, 2016 Pulwama and 2025 Pahalgam attacks. The list is very long. Third, China supports Pakistan and that can encourage Pakistan to continue its game plan of dealing with India through a thousand cuts. Fourth, Pakistan is indulging in a disinformation campaign. This can vitiate the environment. India is going ahead with non-kinetic measures to press Pakistan to stop supporting terrorism. India has averred that terror, and talks cannot go together and water and blood cannot flow together. India has made it clear that if there are talks with Pakistan, it will be only on terrorism and PoK. India is opposed to any third-party mediation. The international community needs to understand Pakistan's deep links with terrorists and its policy of using terrorism as a state instrument to deal with India. Pakistan must be pressured to verifiably dismantle all the terrorist structures. The international community should also understand that it plays the nuclear card only to get India pressurised. India, as a responsible nation, has never threatened to use nuclear weapons. India did not attack any Pakistani nuclear site; it only destroyed their capabilities to use air bases. The international community should understand the reality, rather than being influenced by the Pakistani disinformation campaign and start hyphenating India and Pakistan. They are different: one is a sponsor of terrorism and the other is a victim. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Time of India
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Pahalgam terror attack investigations: Inputs confirm Pak Army's role
S D Pradhan has served as chairman of India's Joint Intelligence Committee. He has also been the country's deputy national security adviser. He was chairman of the Task Force on Intelligence Mechanism (2008-2010), which was constituted to review the functioning of the intelligence agencies. He has taught at the departments of defence studies and history at the Punjabi University, Patiala. He was also a visiting professor at the University of Illinois, US, in the department of arms control and disarmament studies. The ministry of defence had utilized his services for the preparation of official accounts of the 1971 war and the counterinsurgency operations in the northeast. In the JIC/National Security Council secretariat, he was closely involved with the preparation of the reports of the Kargil Review Committee and the Group of Ministers on national security as also with the implementation of their recommendations. His publications include two books and several articles. LESS ... MORE While the investigations into the terrorist attack in Pahalgam are ongoing, inputs available point not only the role of the Pak Army/ISI but also to that of Gen. Asim Munir, the Pak Army Chief. The following inputs merit attention. First, a former Pak Army officer Adil Raja claimed it was Munir who gave the order for the attack. The sequence of events also suggests this. Munir's speech proved to be a dog-whistle and the plan was executed by his foot-soldiers. On the 18th April, LeT commander, Saifullah Musa, hosted a rally in Rawal Kot, and declared: 'Jihad will continue, guns will rage, and beheadings will continue in Kashmir.' The attack took place on the 22nd April. Micheal Rubin, a former Pentagon officer stated that Munir is 'a terrorist' likening him to Osama bin Laden. He also urged the US to formally designate Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism. Munir's background suggests why he justifies 'the Two Nation' theory and desires to annex Kashmir, which he calls Pakistan's 'jugular vein' like all radical elements in that country. Munir, the son of an Imam, went to Markazi Madrasah Dar-ul-Tajweed, an Islamic seminary in Rawalpindi for his early education and his views were shaped by its environment. His statement on the 16th April reflected a deeply ingrained, Islamist and anti-Hindu mindset. He follows the policy of his predecessors towards India: the use of terrorism as a state instrument to deal with India. Second, at least one of the terrorists was former Pak Army personnel: Hashim Musa, the Pakistani terrorist behind the Pahalgam massacre, is a former para commando of Pakistan Army's Special Forces. According to the NIA, eyewitnesses provided critical details, reporting more than five attackers involved in the assault. Third, some news channels quoting sources reported that the terrorists in Pahalgam used the highly encrypted Chinese telecom equipment, which China has given to the Pak Army. This enabled them to remain in touch with their handlers in Pakistan and each other without getting detected. Fourth, the training was imparted by the Pak Army. A geopolitical activist Mark Kinra has revealed the presence of the Kashmiri terrorist groups at the Kakul Military Academy, providing irrefutable evidence of the linkages between the Pakistani Army and the Kashmiri terrorists. Therefore, whether they served in the Pak Army or not, is immaterial. They all receive rigorous training by the specialised personnel. Fifth, the terrorist strategy of inquiring about the names and identities of the deceased tourists was in line with Munir's speech. Sixth, the timing also indicates the compulsions of the Pak Army and Munir to escalate terrorism to divert the attention of the Pakistanis from their problems and of International Community. The Pak economy has been in doldrums and the Pak Army's hold on the Pak polity is being contested increasingly by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The TTP with the support of Afghanistan increased its attacks on the Pakistani security forces. Baluchistan and PoK were witnessing a demand for separation from Pakistan. In the US Senate, a bill was introduced in March calling for sanctions on Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff General Syed Asim Munir and other generals and officials for the prosecution of political opponents, including the imprisoned former Prime Minister Imran Khan. For Munir, the post-2019 developments in J&K were frustrating. While the situation in J&K improved significantly, India's rise globally continued unabated. In J&K, terrorist attacks came down significantly and local recruitment declined with economic growth touching 7.8% – a shade better than the national average. The tourism sector witnessed considerable growth that created employment opportunities for local youth. With better security measures, infiltrators were neutralised at the border. Munir could not swallow the loss of this issue, which was essential to tighten its hold on the Pak polity. Hence, the revival of terrorism was crucial for Munir/the Pak Army. Munir's extension is due and could further push Pakistan to the abyss. India was focussing globally on countering terrorism leading to Pakistan's marginalisation. The Indo-US Joint Statement called on Pakistan to expeditiously bring to justice the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai, and Pathankot attacks and ensure that its territory was not used to carry out cross-border terrorist attacks. This was a strong message to Pakistan. Earlier, a similar mention was made of the Pak-based terrorist groups in the joint declaration with Russia. Prospects of isolation of Pakistan, when it needed funds must have worried the Pak Establishment. Seventh, the Resistance Front (TRF) claimed the responsibility but later withdrew stating that it was a technical flaw. This group is the new name for the Lashkar-e Taiba (LeT) and includes terrorists from some other outfits like Hizb-ul Mujahideen (HuM). This was done in the post-2019 period to shed the Islamist identity, give a secular nomenclature to attract the international community and evade scrutiny. Pakistan pressed that TRF was not included in the UN statement. This exposed close links between this group and the Pak Establishment. The Pahalgam attack is seen as an attempt by Munir to create a wider endeavour aimed at dividing India's homogeneous society. This larger dimension should be kept in our calculus. India's response is well calculated with PM Modi making it clear that Pakistan will not be able to use its territory for sponsoring terrorism against India in future. India is clear that terrorism can wither away only when its support systems- funding, arms, and recruitment- are dismantled and destroyed. While India has taken steps to punish Pakistan through several bold steps, Pakistan like in the past is playing the nuclear card to ensure that India gets pressurised to stop taking further action against Pakistan. While their leaders boasted their capabilities to draw the attention of the International Community, the Pak Army displayed manufactured allegations against India. India needs to continue pressuring Pakistan by all means to ensure that the pain this time is unbearable. The International Community needs to understand the situation realistically. In the words of Jaishankar, India seeks partners currently and not preachers. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
