This was a June 2, 2025 discussion on Sindoor and its fallout between the two principal discussants hosted by ‘Ignition’ forum under the aegis of the Shiv Nadar Foundation. It may be of interest because Raghavan reflects the MEA’s viewpoint and perspective to a fault! This Ignition event was held at the Westin Hotel in Gurgaon.
[WARNING: I misspoke on the 1965 War — India had 14 DAYS of ammo and spares, when Pakistan was left with only 4-5 days when the ceasefire was called! Sorry about this, it happens in a live discussion!]
Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, he was Member of the (1st) National Security Advisory Board and the Nuclear Doctrine-drafting Group, and author, among other books of, 'Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security: The Realist Foundations of Strategy', 'India's Nuclear Policy' and most recently, 'Why India is Not a Great Power (Yet)'. Educated at the University of California (undergrad and grad), he was Visiting Scholar at Princeton University, University of Pennsylvania, the Shanghai Institutes of International Studies, and Henry L. Stimson Center, Washington, DC.
Dear Sir, you made good points. Raghavan’s main point is there is no diplomatic or military solution for Pakistan. He is basically happy with just hitting pak after every major terror attack on India.
I feel there is really no dettarance for Pak. They lost huge chunk of territory in 1971 still behavior remained same.
What other options do you recommend other than taking parts of pok like Skardu,Haji Pir etc which Indian govt is not ready for due to various reasons.
Should we have hit energy infrastructure,damaged ports to cause severe economic impact on common people of pak before agreeing for abrupt ceasefire?
Looking at the difficulty the host, the co-panelist and most of audience had, in understand your lessons in realpolitik, I appreciate the uphill effort you must have made over the years to educate Indian decision makers in the past.
A thought experiment for Mr Raghavan would be. What if Pakistan was in India’s shoes and had the resources and geography of India and India was in Pak shoes what would it have done with the opportunities presented to it from 1947-8, 65, 71 and so on?
As you have said in past Map reading is not a particularly strong trait of the Indian mind. Had British not snatched Gilgit Baltistan from India and handed it to Pakistan it would have been an inconsequential geography for the world powers and India’s China problem would have been halved.
Mr Raghavan is also advocating that India should now have a dialogue with Pakistan. Indian’s fail to understand that Pak (with terror) and its friends are only coercing you have a dialogue. Because they want you to make some or other concession to Pakistan. Hope Modi government does not reward the latest Pak aggression with a dialogue on a “whole range of issues” as being advocated by him.
What India surely needs is consistency in its Pakistan policy which means we should continue to coerce Pak by various means rather than relieve pressure by rewarding with dialogue. India should tighten screws though various economic sanctions.
host was not security and geopolitical expert i believe …who made them moderator dont know.. she seems to be generalist …she should have been moderator and neutral and giving enough space to both panel members but she behaved like Govt spokesperson and wanted to tell the audience that we stopped war because that of fear of nuclear attack by pakistan….one way Govt saying not to nuclear blackmail and other way saying we fear nuclear attack….its dichotomy and contradictory…
The Japanese absorbed their nuclear strikes and rebuilt with a quiet strength that few can manifest. Do our hyper-emotional Indians have the ability to absorb?
Hamid gul said rightly yeh buzdil log kuch nhi karenge
narvane quoting clautwitz that war is continuation of politics by other means and slyly hiding the fact stating war is for political dispensation but ending war is based on military and social priority of the entity , just see the lecture by CDS Lecture in he also quotes clautwitz in same sense to justify their inactions
If you remember my prediction that Asim munir aspires to be a dictator but it turned out wrong he is content with being field Marshal but he will definitely indulge in some misadventures for power consolidation
Just two questions professor
Why did you come back to India from US ? Don’t you regret it . In countries like america people die for their liberty, Spanish people die for love, Russians die for motherland where as in India aadmi apni family aur parents ko khush karne mein marta hain , so what made you come back do you regret it
2
Please do a book suggestion blog article where you enlist your favourite books and must read books for anything and everything, it would be great if you upload some photos also of your library ,
Shivam@ — Absolutely no regrets. Curious, that most of my 1967 cohort to the University of California were grad students headed to do PhDs — there were just 2 of us undergrads. Most of us returned. Differently motivated, I suppose, considering in the last few decades middle class youth are desperate not so much to get an education as somehow to stay on, get a job.
Gosh Professor! It seemed Shoma and your counterpart on the stage didn’t have a clue on how military strategy works. Or rather they look down on such type of thinking which is very concerning ! I bet you were in the wrong crowd.
1)The fact is pakistan may seek Chinese hypersonic capabilities like df-17 which can travel at mach 5-10 because pakistani missiles failed to breach indian air space thanks to the indian air defense
what should we do sir
2)Also sir you say arm nation’s on Chinese periphery but why would they become our ally and indirectly fullfil our interest. Should ask them whether they want such armaments or not
Beijing is unlikely to hand over DF-17s to Pak anytime soon coz’ there are not enough of them with PLA. It will open up India and other states to export their hypersonics. States on China’s border fear China. The Brahmos they all seek can be N-armed, and should be. It will be welcomed. Consider SE Asian views re: China
buy sir I still don’t get it why will vietnam go and pick up a fight with china and specially threaten the CPC with nukes. I am aware that the brave Vietnamese beat up the chinese 50-60 years ago but things have completely changed now
just to add what @Nuclear General said why don’t the United States allow the nuclear weaponization of Vietnam, Phillipines , SK and Japan I mean it’s common sense that such a setup will help America too to contain china’s ambitious designs within this theatre of conflict
Pls read my chapter on the N-dominoes in my 2008 book — ‘India’s Nuclear Policy’ — and why nuclearisation of S Korea, Japan, Taiwan is inevitable, and US irrelevant
Email from Dr V Siddhartha, former Science Adviser to Defence Minister
V Siddhartha
Fri, 6 June at 9:08 pm
Not one mention of Islam — not even by you!
The crux, Bharat is that we do not have a theory of India — which requires only us all to buy into –but have a propagated Vishwa-Idea of India that requires Abrahamic-others to buy into as their behavioural guideline towards us, which they are simply not intellectually equipped to do, even if their Abrahamic faiths will allow them, which they will not — witness Muslims in India.
sir the host were hostile and they are only behaving like Govt spokesperson..
u did great… but we need more screen time for u in this type of forum and polular tv or social media where in policy circle these idea can be resonated
India’s position in relation to the Sino Pak challenge remains a difficult proposition for it.
China will take all necessary measures to counteract any conventional Pakistani military weakness in relation to India. The biggest problem for India, which needs to be fully appreciated, is that Pakistan will evolve a new more troublesome nuclear deterrence posture, in response to India supposedly overcoming nuclear blackmail and embarking on punitive actions for acts of terrorism. Pakistan will likely lower the nuclear threshold in ways that will pose compelling dilemmas for India in a major crisis. What exactly this new Pakistani nuclear deterrence policy will constitute remains to be seen. I can think of a number of them that Indian policy makers will find deeply troubling.
In this context, the significance of the new Indian policy of regarding Pakistani terrorism as war is being overstated. More worryingly, it’s being oversold to the Indian public, potentially tying the hands of the government in a complex future crisis.
India’s only real potential weapon is river waters but its unflinching use would be far too consequential to be a realistic option. However, carefully calibrated withholding of river waters might be a deterrent to acts of terrorism originating in Pakistan.
In the long term, reducing Pakistan to West Punjab would be an historic act of Indian statecraft but perhaps requires political determination, focus and resources not easy to mobilise by Indian decision makers. It will also almost certainly require US concurrence.
Ultimately, India must outgrow its regional rivals and change their national deterrence calculus in relation to it.
I myself also predict China will encounter major domestic economic and political setbacks, accentuated by international challenges that will alter the regional balance of power and India’s position in the geopolitical equation.
I think the root cause of all our troubles is vegetarians running the country Hindus should be encouraged to consume Pork, Average IQ and Height will go up dramatically
This Op has had a dubious and unforeseen outcome. The fact that both countries ended hostilities through a sudden and unexpected ceasefire and that there have been no clear and visible wins for India in terms of territorial gains (like your Haji Pir proposition), downed jets or sunk warships, aside from assorted claims of elimination of terror camps and infrastructure, has emboldened all three of our adversarial neighbours and our geopolitical stance is under question. Even our strategic options for the next war appear to be limited. On the positive side, one hopes this op will act as a wake-up call for the military to rejig the competencies and to incorporate the latest tech to be able to cope with a two or three-front war.
First of all thanks and respect to you for playing such a pivotal role in designing indias nuclear doctrine.
I have some doubts regarding indias defense and what should we do to solve those critical gaps in certain areas.
1 . Should we do like this. We in parallel of AMCA (5.5 gen aircraft) , we also need a 6.5 gen aircraft . What I personally believe that to do this. Now there are two 6.5 gen aircraft programs, one is GCAP led by Uk, Japan, Italy and other is FCAS led by France, Germany, spain. In your opinion can it be done like this, we (India) bring both of them on the table and ask them ‘Who will offer us full tech transfer (especially next gen engine and source codes) and whosoever agrees will partner with them and also who has more advanced fighter plane (technologically) will join their program and get equal share and fund it. In your opinion should India do like this as IAF currently doesn’t have any feasible plan for 6th gen fighter plane. Your opinion?.
2 . Should AMCA (Indias own indigenous 5.5 gen fighter plane) program be bought under the pmo. As pmo is the only office where the babus start shitting in their pants even without losing seniority. You look at isro missions, nuclear capable missile program, ssbn program. It’s all so successful as they are directly reporting to the pmo . I fundamentally believe its now a crisis enough situation where the pmo really needs to get involved and start cracking the whip or else India will also bring out a window dressed product just like Russian su-57 or Chinese j-20 which are frauds and no one is willing to buy it. What’s your take on it. Looking forward for your response. Thanks.
well sir this is interesting now the pak delegation that is in United States is asking missile defense system from America to protect themselves against indian missiles they have no confidence in the Chinese HQ series of missile defense
Is there any possibility that Americans can handover let’s say patriot system to pakistan?
India should clearly tell Washington that any American systems that will strengthen Pakistan or weaken us in any way will lead to a reconsideration of our moratorium on nuke tests, and will also result in us testing, and thereafter inducting, ICBMs with ranges in excess of 12,000 KMs.
Of course, I don’t think our short-sighted, characterless, pusillanimous politicians will do that, but it is high time we rewrote some of the expectations that the world at large has come to repose in us as that of a docile, weak-kneed people afraid of doing anything drastic even when threatened. Sindoor has to an extent given them pause but an altogether new idea about us as an aggressive no-nonsense power needs to be imprinted in their collective consciousness.
Until such time as we have a qualitative and quantitative military disadvantage against China, we must declare that NFU does not apply to that country (as you yourself have recommended), and also that NFU will not hold in a multi-front scenario.
I also think that our estimated 172 nukes are insufficient and that we must ramp up to around 800 nukes to back up our eschewal of NFU and make necessary adjustments to the nuclear command and control systems to support a first-use policy.
The question of whether this will lead to an arms race is not something we will need to worry about because it is already being answered for us by China which is ramping up its arsenal. China’s long range radar systems also necessitate us to increase the size of our arsenal while also ignoring the white man’s sensitivities to induct ICBMs with ranges that make it hard for China to place inside a circle less than or equal to 8,000 KMs.
You see the reactions of the ambassador, Gen Navarane no new insight the same old strategic restraint.As civil servants, militiary leaders they are supposed to implement and fulfill the political requirement but all their efforts are directed in creating doubts in minds of policy maker which is good as long it does not paralyse the decision making the worst part is they have no expertise. How confidently the ambassador dismissed your arguments as impracticable without any proper reason has he done any work in nuclear policy and its usage? The aversion they have to even discuss use of militiary power, nuclear weapons as part of militiary doctrine is worrying as if its a taboo Does MEA have experts on nuclear policy?
Dr Karnad, your arguments were good however a lot of issues have not been addressed by any of the panelists. The most important of them is the increased Indian dependency over the Chinese rare earth magnets. I believe that the Chinese are currently using the same to ensure that India does not stop water flowing to Pakistan. Without these rare earth magnets, Indian automobile industry may shutdown. So China does control the well being of the Indian economy. I would love what is your arguments on this issue ?
There is a difference in temperament between Indian generals and Pakistani generals. The former are more “people persons” to put it euphemistically, who can schmooze civilian bosses; whereas the latter tend to be gung-ho, cowboy types. Indian military officers at the Colonel or Brigadier level who show the same latter temperament have their careers stunted and do not end up in the highest positions. The audience at the talk seemed to be ex-bureaucrats and the like, so they were scarcely receptive to Prof Karnad’s cowboyish points.
Vikram@ — your take on the difference between Indian and Pakistani generals is correct and, in fact, forms an entire chapter in the book I am writing. In fact, you have put it so attractively and in a nutshell that I mean to use your words to cap off the arguments I have made — with attribution, of course, to “Vikram Singh” — a correspondent on my blog! Await it!
But “cowboyish points”? In the few minutes allotted to me at the Ignition event and in my writings, I thought I gave the pol-mil reasons why the Indian army should have pivoted to a Haji Pir land offensive May 10.
Agreed, the dovish ambassador hogged the discussion, saying much but amounting to little strategic sense and repeating his favourite word “riparian” too many times. Thanks for the note; will look forward to the book.
I am not a highly knowledgeable person when it comes to foreign policy and defence matters. But, from my very limited understanding, sir, your conversation with the hostess, Mr. Raghavan, and the audience in that discussion felt to me like reality knocking on the door of a dreamland. It looked as if a war correspondent had wandered into a bedtime story circle.
And if we go by the hostess’s logic, then the Prime Minister, NSA, Defence Minister, and other people in power without a military background should not take any military-related decisions — simply because they haven’t done a posting at Siachen?
I mean no disrespect to the hostess or Mr. Raghavan, but to me, it seemed as though they were speaking as if they lived in a fairy tale. I remember, in one of your previous interviews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNjE26plruI , you said : “There are more peaceniks in Delhi than anywhere else in the world including the Arms Control Association of Washington DC.”
And what is the point of taking pride in the fact that our country has never attacked or invaded any other nation first, when we ourselves have been attacked and invaded countless times?
Instead of pride, doesn’t it seem more like a delusion?
sir it seems your recommendations are being heard and it feels good
Have a look at the above video
after pahalagam massacre in the blog you wrote to develop and deploy Ai driven autonomous machine guns and sensors and activating high rates of fire with shoot to kill functions on fidayeens attempting to cross
they are doing the exact same thing
Sir I realised one thing when you propose a policy at the first instance the government is reluctant to adopt it and you are called a war Mongerer or ultra realist or armchair person but at the end of day or after getting beaten up the government accepts your recommendation as a official policy and majority of your policies if not all are proven correct
Assuming that Raghavan views mirror that of Indian MEA, the most unfortunate part of his stand is the view or rather his assessment that there is no solution to India’s Pakistan problem – that the problem can not be addressed diplomaticall nor militarily!
Countries across the world do not hesitate to combine hard-option of military with diplomacy when confronted with challenges of the kind Pakistan represents for India – this is true of a small country like Israel to the world’s superpower USA and even in the case of Russia in the Ukraine war.
Even in the case of Pakistan when they did Kargil, it was a much bolder and larger military operation than what Karnad is proposing about taking Haji Pir salient (which incidentally would cut the distance between poonch and Uri from about 282 km to 56 km). What were the consequences of Kargil to Pakistan – virtually nothing! Similarly, India took the Siachen in 1984 – no consequences except a hot line-of-control, and later in 90s blocked Neelam valley in Pakistan. Again, Pakistan has been pursuing a hybrid war in Kashmir since 1990s with active involvement of its military, but with little consequences for itself.
I am outlining these examples basically to make the point that the Indian MEA seems to have a misplaced fear of combining military hard power with diplomacy as a means to address Pakistan challenge in the long term. Ultimately, deterrence based on a strong military posture (which incidentally is not just based on nuclear thresholds) has been demonstrated, time and again globally, to work to reduce the risk of uncontrolled escalation – it worked even in Op Sindoor.
It is high time India did a reset in its geopolitical thinking with respect to Pakistan. The cost of not doing so is too high!
Dr Karnad, I believe your assumptions that India should supply Vietnam with Brahmos and nuclear weapons ignores the fact that in reality Vietnam is competitor to India when it comes to exports and ally of China when it comes to overall economic development. Remember both Vietnam and China are part of RCEP and India is not. China understands this very well. Alas we in India do not.
Security Wise 
Dear Sir, you made good points. Raghavan’s main point is there is no diplomatic or military solution for Pakistan. He is basically happy with just hitting pak after every major terror attack on India.
I feel there is really no dettarance for Pak. They lost huge chunk of territory in 1971 still behavior remained same.
What other options do you recommend other than taking parts of pok like Skardu,Haji Pir etc which Indian govt is not ready for due to various reasons.
Should we have hit energy infrastructure,damaged ports to cause severe economic impact on common people of pak before agreeing for abrupt ceasefire?
@bharatkarnad
Looking at the difficulty the host, the co-panelist and most of audience had, in understand your lessons in realpolitik, I appreciate the uphill effort you must have made over the years to educate Indian decision makers in the past.
A thought experiment for Mr Raghavan would be. What if Pakistan was in India’s shoes and had the resources and geography of India and India was in Pak shoes what would it have done with the opportunities presented to it from 1947-8, 65, 71 and so on?
As you have said in past Map reading is not a particularly strong trait of the Indian mind. Had British not snatched Gilgit Baltistan from India and handed it to Pakistan it would have been an inconsequential geography for the world powers and India’s China problem would have been halved.
Mr Raghavan is also advocating that India should now have a dialogue with Pakistan. Indian’s fail to understand that Pak (with terror) and its friends are only coercing you have a dialogue. Because they want you to make some or other concession to Pakistan. Hope Modi government does not reward the latest Pak aggression with a dialogue on a “whole range of issues” as being advocated by him.
What India surely needs is consistency in its Pakistan policy which means we should continue to coerce Pak by various means rather than relieve pressure by rewarding with dialogue. India should tighten screws though various economic sanctions.
host was not security and geopolitical expert i believe …who made them moderator dont know.. she seems to be generalist …she should have been moderator and neutral and giving enough space to both panel members but she behaved like Govt spokesperson and wanted to tell the audience that we stopped war because that of fear of nuclear attack by pakistan….one way Govt saying not to nuclear blackmail and other way saying we fear nuclear attack….its dichotomy and contradictory…
The Japanese absorbed their nuclear strikes and rebuilt with a quiet strength that few can manifest. Do our hyper-emotional Indians have the ability to absorb?
Hamid gul said rightly yeh buzdil log kuch nhi karenge
narvane quoting clautwitz that war is continuation of politics by other means and slyly hiding the fact stating war is for political dispensation but ending war is based on military and social priority of the entity , just see the lecture by CDS Lecture in he also quotes clautwitz in same sense to justify their inactions
If you remember my prediction that Asim munir aspires to be a dictator but it turned out wrong he is content with being field Marshal but he will definitely indulge in some misadventures for power consolidation
Just two questions professor
2
Shivam@ — Absolutely no regrets. Curious, that most of my 1967 cohort to the University of California were grad students headed to do PhDs — there were just 2 of us undergrads. Most of us returned. Differently motivated, I suppose, considering in the last few decades middle class youth are desperate not so much to get an education as somehow to stay on, get a job.
Gosh Professor! It seemed Shoma and your counterpart on the stage didn’t have a clue on how military strategy works. Or rather they look down on such type of thinking which is very concerning ! I bet you were in the wrong crowd.
https://idrw.org/pakistan-seeks-chinese-hypersonic-missile-technology-after-fatah-i-fatah-ii-and-cm-400akg-fail-to-breach-indias-air-defense/
shouldn’t this be a redline for us
1)The fact is pakistan may seek Chinese hypersonic capabilities like df-17 which can travel at mach 5-10 because pakistani missiles failed to breach indian air space thanks to the indian air defense
what should we do sir
2)Also sir you say arm nation’s on Chinese periphery but why would they become our ally and indirectly fullfil our interest. Should ask them whether they want such armaments or not
your thoughts?
Beijing is unlikely to hand over DF-17s to Pak anytime soon coz’ there are not enough of them with PLA. It will open up India and other states to export their hypersonics. States on China’s border fear China. The Brahmos they all seek can be N-armed, and should be. It will be welcomed. Consider SE Asian views re: China
buy sir I still don’t get it why will vietnam go and pick up a fight with china and specially threaten the CPC with nukes. I am aware that the brave Vietnamese beat up the chinese 50-60 years ago but things have completely changed now
Vietnam sees its enmity with China as “a thousand year war”! So, what do you think?
@BharatKarnad
just to add what @Nuclear General said why don’t the United States allow the nuclear weaponization of Vietnam, Phillipines , SK and Japan I mean it’s common sense that such a setup will help America too to contain china’s ambitious designs within this theatre of conflict
would like to know your views
Pls read my chapter on the N-dominoes in my 2008 book — ‘India’s Nuclear Policy’ — and why nuclearisation of S Korea, Japan, Taiwan is inevitable, and US irrelevant
Email from Dr V Siddhartha, former Science Adviser to Defence Minister
V Siddhartha
Fri, 6 June at 9:08 pm
Not one mention of Islam — not even by you!
The crux, Bharat is that we do not have a theory of India — which requires only us all to buy into –but have a propagated Vishwa-Idea of India that requires Abrahamic-others to buy into as their behavioural guideline towards us, which they are simply not intellectually equipped to do, even if their Abrahamic faiths will allow them, which they will not — witness Muslims in India.
Or is that too abstract?
VS
Sid — To be honest, I thought mentioning Islam would
make it easy for Raghavan, the hostess, and the
audience to dismiss anything I said as so much
communalised drivel.
Bharat
@bharatkarnad
sir the host were hostile and they are only behaving like Govt spokesperson..
u did great…
but we need more screen time for u in this type of forum and polular tv or social media where in policy circle these idea can be resonated
Email from Dr Gautam Sen
Gautam Sen
Sat, 7 June at 12:57 pm
India’s position in relation to the Sino Pak challenge remains a difficult proposition for it.
China will take all necessary measures to counteract any conventional Pakistani military weakness in relation to India. The biggest problem for India, which needs to be fully appreciated, is that Pakistan will evolve a new more troublesome nuclear deterrence posture, in response to India supposedly overcoming nuclear blackmail and embarking on punitive actions for acts of terrorism. Pakistan will likely lower the nuclear threshold in ways that will pose compelling dilemmas for India in a major crisis. What exactly this new Pakistani nuclear deterrence policy will constitute remains to be seen. I can think of a number of them that Indian policy makers will find deeply troubling.
In this context, the significance of the new Indian policy of regarding Pakistani terrorism as war is being overstated. More worryingly, it’s being oversold to the Indian public, potentially tying the hands of the government in a complex future crisis.
India’s only real potential weapon is river waters but its unflinching use would be far too consequential to be a realistic option. However, carefully calibrated withholding of river waters might be a deterrent to acts of terrorism originating in Pakistan.
In the long term, reducing Pakistan to West Punjab would be an historic act of Indian statecraft but perhaps requires political determination, focus and resources not easy to mobilise by Indian decision makers. It will also almost certainly require US concurrence.
Ultimately, India must outgrow its regional rivals and change their national deterrence calculus in relation to it.
I myself also predict China will encounter major domestic economic and political setbacks, accentuated by international challenges that will alter the regional balance of power and India’s position in the geopolitical equation.
Dr. Gautam Sen
I think the root cause of all our troubles is vegetarians running the country Hindus should be encouraged to consume Pork, Average IQ and Height will go up dramatically
This Op has had a dubious and unforeseen outcome. The fact that both countries ended hostilities through a sudden and unexpected ceasefire and that there have been no clear and visible wins for India in terms of territorial gains (like your Haji Pir proposition), downed jets or sunk warships, aside from assorted claims of elimination of terror camps and infrastructure, has emboldened all three of our adversarial neighbours and our geopolitical stance is under question. Even our strategic options for the next war appear to be limited. On the positive side, one hopes this op will act as a wake-up call for the military to rejig the competencies and to incorporate the latest tech to be able to cope with a two or three-front war.
Professor Karnad,
First of all thanks and respect to you for playing such a pivotal role in designing indias nuclear doctrine.
I have some doubts regarding indias defense and what should we do to solve those critical gaps in certain areas.
1 . Should we do like this. We in parallel of AMCA (5.5 gen aircraft) , we also need a 6.5 gen aircraft . What I personally believe that to do this. Now there are two 6.5 gen aircraft programs, one is GCAP led by Uk, Japan, Italy and other is FCAS led by France, Germany, spain. In your opinion can it be done like this, we (India) bring both of them on the table and ask them ‘Who will offer us full tech transfer (especially next gen engine and source codes) and whosoever agrees will partner with them and also who has more advanced fighter plane (technologically) will join their program and get equal share and fund it. In your opinion should India do like this as IAF currently doesn’t have any feasible plan for 6th gen fighter plane. Your opinion?.
2 . Should AMCA (Indias own indigenous 5.5 gen fighter plane) program be bought under the pmo. As pmo is the only office where the babus start shitting in their pants even without losing seniority. You look at isro missions, nuclear capable missile program, ssbn program. It’s all so successful as they are directly reporting to the pmo . I fundamentally believe its now a crisis enough situation where the pmo really needs to get involved and start cracking the whip or else India will also bring out a window dressed product just like Russian su-57 or Chinese j-20 which are frauds and no one is willing to buy it. What’s your take on it. Looking forward for your response. Thanks.
@BharatKarnad
https://www.republicworld.com/india/after-begging-india-for-ceasefire-pakistan-now-pleads-us-for-advanced-air-defence-system
well sir this is interesting now the pak delegation that is in United States is asking missile defense system from America to protect themselves against indian missiles they have no confidence in the Chinese HQ series of missile defense
Is there any possibility that Americans can handover let’s say patriot system to pakistan?
your views?
Whether the US gives the Patriot to Pak or not, Washington will certainly use it to pressure the Indian government.
India should clearly tell Washington that any American systems that will strengthen Pakistan or weaken us in any way will lead to a reconsideration of our moratorium on nuke tests, and will also result in us testing, and thereafter inducting, ICBMs with ranges in excess of 12,000 KMs.
Of course, I don’t think our short-sighted, characterless, pusillanimous politicians will do that, but it is high time we rewrote some of the expectations that the world at large has come to repose in us as that of a docile, weak-kneed people afraid of doing anything drastic even when threatened. Sindoor has to an extent given them pause but an altogether new idea about us as an aggressive no-nonsense power needs to be imprinted in their collective consciousness.
Until such time as we have a qualitative and quantitative military disadvantage against China, we must declare that NFU does not apply to that country (as you yourself have recommended), and also that NFU will not hold in a multi-front scenario.
I also think that our estimated 172 nukes are insufficient and that we must ramp up to around 800 nukes to back up our eschewal of NFU and make necessary adjustments to the nuclear command and control systems to support a first-use policy.
The question of whether this will lead to an arms race is not something we will need to worry about because it is already being answered for us by China which is ramping up its arsenal. China’s long range radar systems also necessitate us to increase the size of our arsenal while also ignoring the white man’s sensitivities to induct ICBMs with ranges that make it hard for China to place inside a circle less than or equal to 8,000 KMs.
You see the reactions of the ambassador, Gen Navarane no new insight the same old strategic restraint.As civil servants, militiary leaders they are supposed to implement and fulfill the political requirement but all their efforts are directed in creating doubts in minds of policy maker which is good as long it does not paralyse the decision making the worst part is they have no expertise.
How confidently the ambassador dismissed your arguments as impracticable without any proper reason has he done any work in nuclear policy and its usage?
The aversion they have to even discuss use of militiary power, nuclear weapons as part of militiary doctrine is worrying as if its a taboo
Does MEA have experts on nuclear policy?
No, MEA has no N-experts
Dr Karnad, your arguments were good however a lot of issues have not been addressed by any of the panelists. The most important of them is the increased Indian dependency over the Chinese rare earth magnets. I believe that the Chinese are currently using the same to ensure that India does not stop water flowing to Pakistan. Without these rare earth magnets, Indian automobile industry may shutdown. So China does control the well being of the Indian economy. I would love what is your arguments on this issue ?
There is a difference in temperament between Indian generals and Pakistani generals. The former are more “people persons” to put it euphemistically, who can schmooze civilian bosses; whereas the latter tend to be gung-ho, cowboy types. Indian military officers at the Colonel or Brigadier level who show the same latter temperament have their careers stunted and do not end up in the highest positions. The audience at the talk seemed to be ex-bureaucrats and the like, so they were scarcely receptive to Prof Karnad’s cowboyish points.
Vikram@ — your take on the difference between Indian and Pakistani generals is correct and, in fact, forms an entire chapter in the book I am writing. In fact, you have put it so attractively and in a nutshell that I mean to use your words to cap off the arguments I have made — with attribution, of course, to “Vikram Singh” — a correspondent on my blog! Await it!
But “cowboyish points”? In the few minutes allotted to me at the Ignition event and in my writings, I thought I gave the pol-mil reasons why the Indian army should have pivoted to a Haji Pir land offensive May 10.
Agreed, the dovish ambassador hogged the discussion, saying much but amounting to little strategic sense and repeating his favourite word “riparian” too many times. Thanks for the note; will look forward to the book.
I am not a highly knowledgeable person when it comes to foreign policy and defence matters. But, from my very limited understanding, sir, your conversation with the hostess, Mr. Raghavan, and the audience in that discussion felt to me like reality knocking on the door of a dreamland. It looked as if a war correspondent had wandered into a bedtime story circle.
And if we go by the hostess’s logic, then the Prime Minister, NSA, Defence Minister, and other people in power without a military background should not take any military-related decisions — simply because they haven’t done a posting at Siachen?
I mean no disrespect to the hostess or Mr. Raghavan, but to me, it seemed as though they were speaking as if they lived in a fairy tale. I remember, in one of your previous interviews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNjE26plruI , you said : “There are more peaceniks in Delhi than anywhere else in the world including the Arms Control Association of Washington DC.”
And what is the point of taking pride in the fact that our country has never attacked or invaded any other nation first, when we ourselves have been attacked and invaded countless times?
Instead of pride, doesn’t it seem more like a delusion?
@BharatKarnad
https://x.com/BSS_Materiel/status/1931615234734665759?t=yFxEacSF6EI6GYyiIds4Ng&s=19
sir it seems your recommendations are being heard and it feels good
Have a look at the above video
after pahalagam massacre in the blog you wrote to develop and deploy Ai driven autonomous machine guns and sensors and activating high rates of fire with shoot to kill functions on fidayeens attempting to cross
they are doing the exact same thing
Sir I realised one thing when you propose a policy at the first instance the government is reluctant to adopt it and you are called a war Mongerer or ultra realist or armchair person but at the end of day or after getting beaten up the government accepts your recommendation as a official policy and majority of your policies if not all are proven correct
why not do it before?
Assuming that Raghavan views mirror that of Indian MEA, the most unfortunate part of his stand is the view or rather his assessment that there is no solution to India’s Pakistan problem – that the problem can not be addressed diplomaticall nor militarily!
Countries across the world do not hesitate to combine hard-option of military with diplomacy when confronted with challenges of the kind Pakistan represents for India – this is true of a small country like Israel to the world’s superpower USA and even in the case of Russia in the Ukraine war.
Even in the case of Pakistan when they did Kargil, it was a much bolder and larger military operation than what Karnad is proposing about taking Haji Pir salient (which incidentally would cut the distance between poonch and Uri from about 282 km to 56 km). What were the consequences of Kargil to Pakistan – virtually nothing! Similarly, India took the Siachen in 1984 – no consequences except a hot line-of-control, and later in 90s blocked Neelam valley in Pakistan. Again, Pakistan has been pursuing a hybrid war in Kashmir since 1990s with active involvement of its military, but with little consequences for itself.
I am outlining these examples basically to make the point that the Indian MEA seems to have a misplaced fear of combining military hard power with diplomacy as a means to address Pakistan challenge in the long term. Ultimately, deterrence based on a strong military posture (which incidentally is not just based on nuclear thresholds) has been demonstrated, time and again globally, to work to reduce the risk of uncontrolled escalation – it worked even in Op Sindoor.
It is high time India did a reset in its geopolitical thinking with respect to Pakistan. The cost of not doing so is too high!
Dr Karnad, I believe your assumptions that India should supply Vietnam with Brahmos and nuclear weapons ignores the fact that in reality Vietnam is competitor to India when it comes to exports and ally of China when it comes to overall economic development. Remember both Vietnam and China are part of RCEP and India is not. China understands this very well. Alas we in India do not.
Do NOT strategically equate India with Vietnam
Read the said Raghavan’s op-ed piece in the Indian Express today. Again, lots of verbiage, but amounting to very little.