S.M Hali In the closing stages of the tumultuous year 2009, Indian Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor, living up to his reputation of issuing irresponsible statements, showcased India's new War Doctrine, 'The Cold Start Strategy' by claiming that his forces are geared to take on both China and Pakistan simultaneously. Announcing the Indian army's plans to increase its forces from 1.13 million to 2 million in the next couple of years, he claimed that they plan to fight on multiple fronts by launching self-contained and highly mobile 'battle groups' i.e. to be able to go to war promptly and make big thrusts into the enemy's territory within 96 hours. And end the war decisively forcing the other side into a fast submission of ceasefire. The self-styled Guderian's jingoism and brinkmanship cannot be ignored because it is attributed to none other than the Indian army chief who through a series of statements, in November, warned that a limited war under a nuclear overhang is still very much a reality at least in the Indian subcontinent. Earlier he had made critical comments on the security of Pakistan's nuclear assets and now General Kapoor is threatening of dire consequences for both China and Pakistan with his strategy of Blitzkrieg. In view of the recent Indian machinations to destabilise Pakistan, sponsor proxy terror attacks and the irrefutable and concrete evidence of Indian involvement in Balochistan, Swat and FATA, the Indian threat must be viewed with concern. Pakistan's Army Chief General Parvez Kayani and General Tariq Majeed have provided timely and strongly worded riposte to the Indian army chief. Furthermore, the Foreign Office had also issued a tough rebuttal that the Indian army's new military doctrine "betrays a hostile intent as well as a hegemonic and jingoistic mindset which is quite out of step with the realities of our time." Let us examine the possible rationale for the belligerent and xenophobic dares from the Indian camp in response to Pakistan's extension of the olive branch and invitation to resumption of peace dialogues. The motive of destabilising Pakistan was spelt out in the earlier paragraphs. While the other intent could be drawing attention away from the serious infighting in the Indian army's top brass. Transition of command in India used to be relatively smooth in earlier times but the current Army Chief, General Deepak Kapoor, has tried to rock the boat. His successor would have inevitably been the senior most Lieutenant General in the Indian Army, V K Singh, the Chief of Indian Army's Eastern Command, but Kapoor promoted his junior, Lieutenant General P C Bhardwaj as his Vice Chief in September this year, ignoring Singh. As reported, the differences between Kapoor and Singh emerged after the inquiry into a military land scam began. Findings indicate that the tension between the two officers of the Indian army reached to the extreme when a Court of Inquiry, convened by the Eastern army commander who is based in Fort William in Calcutta, started the proceedings and recommended the sacking of Kapoor's Principal Staff Officer (PSO) and Military Secretary Lieutenant General Avadhesh Prakash, indicted in the land scam in Sukhna Cantonment in West Bengal. Therefore, the Indian army chief had to take action before Prakash retired on January 31, 2010. However, he has so far demurred over the decision, allowing time to his protg to retire gracefully rather than face the extreme action of dismissal from service. General Kapoor would better serve his country in dousing the fires of corruption, sleaze and graft that have beset his army generals rather than shooting off threats to India's neighbours. Furthermore, like Kapoor the Indian Air Force Chief, Air Chief Marshal P V Naik, in October 2009 had decided to jump into the fray by announcing: "A repeat of the 1962 India-China war is not possible now as the Indian armed forces have enhanced their capability." This statement needs to be viewed with a pinch of salt. A sad aspect of the current imbroglio is that a section of the Pakistani media is bending backwards to accommodate the Indian propaganda. Although it is the desire of every Pakistani to have peace with its neighbours, for we cannot reach our true potential unless we remove the threat of war, but we should not be so blinded in our quest for peace that we become oblivious of the clear and present danger. I am alluding to the Amn ki Aasha initiative. On the contrary, the Indian media which is smoking the peace pipe with its Pakistani counterpart, is stabbing us in the back by criticising Pakistan for its arms build-up, ignoring that in a decade since the 1999 Kargil conflict, India has inked deals worth over $50 billion to acquire fighters, warships, tanks, missiles, other weapon systems and platforms, a majority of them from abroad. That is not all. India is poised to spend well over $30 billion over the next four to five years to import military hardware and software, which will only serve to reinforce its position as the developing world's biggest arms buyer. Stephen Cohen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, maintained that the extremists, who hate both Pakistan and India equally, would try their best to trigger a new war between the neighbours. But what is of concern is that the Indian army chief has emerged to be a champion of the extremists and is proving to be a stumbling block for the peace process. Moreover, the general is adding fuel to the fire of the massive trust deficit between India and Pakistan. It is not a conspiracy theorist but Pakistan Foreign Office Spokesman Abdul Basit, who has asked the world community to take notice of the remarks passed by the Indian Army Chief, stressing that India has set the stage and is trying to impose a limited nuclear war on Pakistan. He has cautioned against reports that the Indian intelligence agencies have made a macabre plan to hit some Indian nuke installation, alleging Pakistan for the incident and using it as an excuse for striking Pakistan. Nevertheless, Indian brinkmanship should only be ignored at our peril. The writer is a political and defence analyst.