To be honest, I have a very detailed understanding of the Kajir conflict. I believe that the vast majority of experience here can be consolidated and improved through training and exercises. And how useful is the experience from 25 years ago for modern warfare? What truly enhances the military should be high-level training and military exercises. As for combat experience. We see that Russia's combat experience in Ukraine in 2014 caused a huge disaster in the Russo Ukrainian conflict. Not to mention the combat experience in 1999.
Many of our decision makers today joined the army in the 80s and 90s and had 10-20 years of experience during the Kargil War. Our current army chief was commissioned in 1981 and had the rank of a major at the time. So all the captains and majors during Kargil are generals today. So that means officers with real war experience are creating new requirements.
So who do you think has the advantage?
Russia never had any real combat experience in 2014. They used far too few forces in their war. Their objectives and doctrine are different. Their terrain is different. Their soldier competency is different.
He can certainly pass the test, as long as he gives enough kickbacks to the officers or allows their children to skip the Ivy League exam, which is not uncommon in Indian military history.
Your only argument is nepotism and corruption. But no, there are too many checks and balances for that to happen. Indian-made equipment is especially harder to induct 'cause the IA is much more strict.