Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: counter insurgency trainning...
kommando    2/1/2006 3:53:25 AM
SOLDIERS ON ANTI-INSURGENCY TRAINING AT INDIA'S GUERRILLA WARFARE SCHOOL. THE SCHOOL, ONE OF THE FINEST GUERRILLA WARFARE TRAINING CENTERS, IS ATTRACTING TRAINEES FROM AROUND THE WORLD. VAIRENGTE (MIZORAM) Last spring when Alaska Guardsmen Staff Sgt. Michael Grunst and eight other American infantry soldiers arrived at this hilltop village in India's remote northeastern state of Mizoram, they were not at all thrilled. Little did they know that in the tiny tribal hamlet, wedged on the border between Mizoram and the state of Assam, lay one of the world's best guerrilla warfare schools. After six weeks at the Counter Insurgency Jungle Warfare School (CIJWS) at Vairengte, the nine soldiers of the Alaska Army National Guard's Long Range Surveillance Detachment were left awestruck. "This was the most amazing military education facility anywhere," Grunst told his superiors on returning to Alaska. Grunst's comments were subsequently reproduced in the unit's in-house journal. The school at Vairengte is today considered as one of world's most prestigious anti-terrorist institution with troops from several countries receiving counter-insurgency training here. "The motto of this institute is to fight a guerrilla like a guerrilla," the commandant of the CIJWS, Brigadier Basant Kumar Ponwar, told IANS. The idea to set up the jungle warfare school was conceived by former Indian Army chief Field Marshal S.H.F.J. Manekshaw some time in 1967 when federal soldiers suffered heavy casualties at the hands of the northeastern rebels who were adept at hit-and-run guerrilla strikes. The institute finally came into being in May 1970 with Brigadier Mathew Thomas at the helm of affairs. SOLDIERS SHOOT AT PRACTICE TARGETS AT INDIA'S GUERRILLA WARFARE SCHOOL. THE SCHOOL IS REGARDED AS ONE OF BEST ARMY TRAINING CENTERS IN THE WORLD AND DRAWS CADRES FROM ACROSS THE GLOBE. But one year down the line, Indian soldiers undergoing training in the school were pushed to the battlefront - they took part in Operation Jackpot to help the then East Pakistan gain independence and become Bangladesh. But once the mission was accomplished, the CIJWS reverted to its task of imparting serious counter-insurgency lessons to federal soldiers for which the institute was established. And during the next three decades, the school at Vairengte prepared troops to fight anti-India separatists engaged in low-intensity and unconventional guerrilla warfare against the state forces in different parts of the country, particularly in the northeast and Jammu and Kashmir. "The troops are taught to live in difficult and hostile terrain, eat and sleep like the guerrillas and strike as silently as the guerrillas," an instructor at the CIJWS said. Spurred by the successes in combating militancy to a great extent, New Delhi in 2001 threw the school at Vairengte open for soldiers from abroad with three US army officers being the first overseas batch to be trained. After the 9/11 terror strikes in the US the jungle warfare school at Vairengte began attracting military cadets from across the world. In 2003, a group of about 100 elite US commandos completed a three-week anti-insurgency combat training at the institute. The exercise, codenamed Balance Iroquois, saw personnel of the US Special Forces undergo an intensive exercise along with soldiers from the Indian Special Forces battalion at Vairengte. Lieutenant Colonel David Alan Wisecarver, commanding the US contingent, said the training at Vairengte would add more teeth to its unconventional combat units. Defence officials said they were flooded with queries from several Western nations for sending their troops for anti-insurgency training. "We are getting a lot of queries with many countries sending their troops for training here," Ponwar said. Another instructor said Britain even wants some Indian trainers from the institute to go and train their soldiers. Expert instructors in combating both rural and urban terrorist attacks have already trained hundreds of soldiers from 19 countries including Uganda, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Nigeria, besides the US. The reputation of the CIJWS lies in the fact that the training module is framed in a highly scientific manner - soldiers receive training in identifying improvised explosive devices (IED), jungle survival, counter terrorism, and interrogation techniques. Soldiers are also trained in jungle reflexive shooting and a fast roping technique called "slithering", used by the Indian Army. The exercises are aimed at honing special skills for soldiers exposed to terrorist attacks in recent years. The training module includes lectures and seminars, besides mock operations in the rugged jungles of Mizoram. The Vairengte school at present runs four counter-insurgency and jungle warfare courses open only to officers and soldiers below 28 years of age, with expert instructors in combating both rural and urban
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2
Aussiegunnerreturns    RE:counter insurgency trainning...   2/1/2006 8:07:31 AM
Doesn't suprise me that the Indians are good at CI. As far as I know their armed forces was founded by personal who were trained on the British model and had heaps of practice oppressing their own countrymen for the British. They have a good reputation as soldiers in general, with their troops coming from martial tribes and being trained on Commonwealth principles. My grandfather always says that in WW2 if you had the Indian's on your flank, you knew it was safe.
 
Quote    Reply

olive greens    RE:counter insurgency trainning...   2/1/2006 9:28:23 AM
Aussiegunnerreturns: I really dont know how I should take this... ... should I be pleased that we good at COIN ops? ... should I be angry that you are implying we good at oppressing our countrymen? Best I take it as your attempt at being cautiously evenhanded, I suppose. So I will ignore that aspect of it for the moment. However the whole "martial tribes" thing is really irritating. I admit I have myself been seduced by its implications for me, but seeing a bit of the real world shows its utter bullcr@p the system allows to fester out of apathy. For one thing India is a nuclear power, flies some of the most advanced jets out there, sails a pretty decent navy and has implemented complex ground forces doctrine - the technical and philosophical sophistication it requires clearly precludes this comming from a bunch of hyped-up semi-savage tribes that act Myrmidiones to British Achilles. Another thing is the markedly different recruiting results we see between pre and post Independence India - states with Communist parties in power have as a matter of principle supplied steadily more numbers than what was the norm during the British days (which was nearly 0), while the so called "martial tribes" still furnish a lot - its more because its a honorable and traditional occupation. India today is much different from what it was 50 years ago - its true that some things have been shaped by out Colonial experience, but then it was also shaped by the 50 years in between. We did dabble in Socialism, for some time now we have been learning from Israelis and Americans... all this add up to a much more complex scenario than you make of it. For a young officer today, Moshe Dayan's tactics is more familiar than Lord Roberts'. Finally taken completely out of the system, I have seen what the British described in their recruiting manuals as "dull, slow-on-the-uptake, but martial and loyal Jat Sikhs" in professorial positions in US and Canada winning Noble Prizes in sciences, I have also seen "low and cowardly, but cunning Southerners" win gallantry awards in US Army - most recently in Iraq. So all this says is that the whole "martial races" theory was an extension of the general "Divide and Conquer" paradigm. Even Pakistani military leadership - who are mostly from such "martial tribes"(Pathans Baluchis and Punjabi Muslims) - reject it today (albeit after losing Bangladesh ;-). And I can show you proof of their policy to end it.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunnerreturns    RE:counter insurgency trainning...OG   2/1/2006 10:00:38 AM
I know that India's current military capabilities are rooted in more complex causes than just the "Martial tribes and British training" hypothesis. I didn't state that it was the only reason for the Indian army's competance to the exclusion of all other causes, I just offered it as a topic for discussion. I'm sorry if you took it that way and were offended. Also, don't take the "martial tribes" comment as meaning that tribalism equals backwardness. I'll call the said groups "Martial Cultures" if you prefer a less cliched term. In any case, the British are the most martial of all "tribes", in my opinion and for a couple of hundred years they were the most powerful and advanced nation on the planet. I believe that is part of the reason why they remain very good soldiers today and see no reason not to apply the same theory to Indians or anybody else. Deep rooted cultural traditions matter when it comes to warmaking, IMHO at least. That is not to say that the Indian army hasn't absorbed lessons post-independence as well, as you have pointed out. I also don't see why the "martial tribes" theory is mutually exclusive with a technologically advanced nation like India clearly is. As for Indians oppressing their countrymen, well, that was part of your history whether you like it or not. I didn't make the comment in a judgemental manner , its just a statement of historical fact(not contemporary) fact . If one of the advantages that you have got out of it is an army that is good at CI(amongst other things), then at least something good has come out of it.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:counter insurgency trainning...OG   2/1/2006 11:42:37 AM
aussy if you are going to be oppressed by a colonial power pray to your god it's the british ;)
 
Quote    Reply

olive greens    RE:counter insurgency trainning...AG   2/1/2006 12:33:36 PM
Personally I have no reason to be offended, but the people who have at various points of time labeled "non-martial" might find it offensive. The reason I was so quick to correct it was that it doesnt reflect reality anymore. The recruiting demographics is more reflective of economics and tradition now. Some members of the so called "martial tribes" have prospered so much economically that they see little incentive in serving in the ranks, or when serving in ranks then they choose more specalized paths. On the other hand many more people from poorer communities are willing to serve in the military - and the military is more open to all patriots. I would have preferred to have sucked at CI and kept my freedom, for what its worth... and do keep in mind some things the Brits did, we simply dont/cant do any more. Overall independent Indian Government has been more humane and responsible than any other facing similar economic and geopolitical pressures.
 
Quote    Reply

olive greens    RE:counter insurgency trainning...Ehran   2/1/2006 12:39:58 PM
While I agree that Brits were better than anly other alternative for a colonial power - Belgian, Japanese, Spanish, German, Dutch, Portuguese, or French - I wonder if their "civilized" behaviour had as much to do with their "subject people" as with their own natures? I mean if British had only Congo to their name, and the Belgians had India, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, Egypt, Persia and much of Africa.... I definately think that the behaviour would have been exactly reverse.
 
Quote    Reply

BraddockCaesar    RE:counter insurgency trainning...   2/1/2006 1:05:03 PM
"This was the most amazing military education facility anywhere," Grunst told his superiors on returning to Alaska." Compared to the training they have not received at Fort Bragg, I guess so.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunnerreturns    RE:counter insurgency trainning...Ehran/OG   2/1/2006 4:39:13 PM
Ehran "aussy if you are going to be oppressed by a colonial power pray to your god it's the british ;)" Yes, I know. I'm also not being judgemental of the British in commenting about oppression. During the colonial period you were either an oppressor or oppressed... I know what I would rather be. "While I agree that Brits were better than anly other alternative for a colonial power - Belgian, Japanese, Spanish, German, Dutch, Portuguese, or French - I wonder if their "civilized" behaviour had as much to do with their "subject people" as with their own natures? I mean if British had only Congo to their name, and the Belgians had India, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, Egypt, Persia and much of Africa.... I definately think that the behaviour would have been exactly reverse." I disagree entirely. The British were more successful imperialists and had more territory BECAUSE their cultural, political and economic traits were amenable to eliciting co-operation from their subject people, not because of anything to do with the subject people that they ruled. I'd have to say that given your prior sensitivity to the "martial tribes" theory, that this comment is ironic, because it sounds distinctly uncomplementary to the people of the Congo.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunnerreturns    RE:counter insurgency trainning...AG   2/1/2006 4:46:00 PM
"Personally I have no reason to be offended, but the people who have at various points of time labeled "non-martial" might find it offensive. The reason I was so quick to correct it was that it doesnt reflect reality anymore. The recruiting demographics is more reflective of economics and tradition now. Some members of the so called "martial tribes" have prospered so much economically that they see little incentive in serving in the ranks, or when serving in ranks then they choose more specalized paths. On the other hand many more people from poorer communities are willing to serve in the military - and the military is more open to all patriots." Whether or not the people from the Indian army come from the "martial tribes" any more, the culture traits that they bought to the army may well still be reflected. It's the training and culture that matter and there is no reason to think that recruits from all backgrounds can't take it on board. As for risking offence to those with a "non-martial" background, I'm personally not going to walk on eggshells on this open discussion forum, just because some people might be over-sensitive.
 
Quote    Reply

olive greens    RE:counter insurgency trainning...AG   2/1/2006 5:51:43 PM
If you want to believe that there are inherently "martial tribes", thats fine... if you want to believe that they hold modern Indian military together, thats fine too. Because at the end of the day its really between Indians and proper Brits.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy