Bharat Rakshak

Kanishka, I guess it Shekhar Gupta of the "coup" fame giving advice to PM. He can stuff it. Is this guy working for Indian Express or Pakistan Mail!

The PM chairing the CCS has given us his stance. Does this guy have a problem with it? Who is he batting for?

Thanks for the quick one. Another quick one, BK's comment was metaphoric not a reflection on the soldiers. The comment is a reflection on political intent and directives. Maybe a bad metaphor to use in public.

>> The comment is a reflection on political intent and directives.

Then it is a disservice to political leaders like PM Shastri.

We think we are in a two person game when its four (US, UK, PRC, KSA) + one (TSP) vs one (India) person game.

So the moves made by India appear inexplicable at the two person level.

Courting Iran neutralizes KSA. UK is now a poodle.
Left with US and PRC. US is in blue funk with their pet monster. That leaves PRC with its SCO tangle.

Come on now. Then why was Lt. Gen Harbaksh Singh stopped from taking on Lahore? It was a reflection of his intent based on his judgment of realities and desired outcomes. It helps to be a little less dispassionate while evaluating historical events. Emotions can cloud the issue. No one thinks less of Shastri because of these calls but every leaders duty is to act. It is for progeny to learn from them - the things that worked and things that did not. If we go on in this manner then no critique would be valid.

Let me get this straight--Are you suggesting that PM Shastri considered 1965 war as a "riot"?

abhishek, You know he is not. You can argue on many other aspects butnot on rhetorical figures of speech. The riots with tanks was a BKism. Not from ShauryaT.

ST, Maj Gen N Prasad reached Lahore unexpectedly without any reinforcements and had to withdraw.

Lt Gen Harbaksh Singh had his hands busy preventing TSP Ist Armoured Div at Assal Uttar.

But he had western command under him? His orders were coming from COAS Chaudhary and/or MoD? Also, was not Maj Gen N Prasad relieved of Command? Anyways OT and thanks for above.

ShauryaT: What did you mean by the following statement? Can you elaborate?

Who stopped Harbaksh Singh?

Up to a point the discussion on Lt. Gen. Harbaksh Singh is OK. But, it does not add value to this thread any more.

SSridhar: I recognize that you are an expert observer of matters TSP. Also, not expecting you or anyone to change your views overnight but will share my perspective.

On Islamism, it is a long term battle, a battle in which we have to strengthen ourselves first, in all aspects of power and ideology. I have always said the solution to the issues of Islamism in the subcontinent goes through the Hindu heart. Without this strengthening, it would be premature to take on the Islamist battle head on. In context, it will be best to recognize the right of TSP to exist as an Islamic state but in practice do everything to promote that goes against the ideology of the Sunni theologians. Only engagement with their society and polity allows for it.

Every time Pakistanis open their mouths, the food they eat, the dresses they wear, the social systems they live in, the political systems they live in, what they do for entertainment, how they celebrate festivals, marriages, the music they dance to, their attitudes on family and relationships, behaviors, everywhere - they were and are far more closer to the Indian cultural milieu than Arabic or even Persian – at least the bulk of Punjabis and Sindhis and certainly Mohajirs, these aspects need to be strengthened.

TSP has been desperately trying to move the populace towards an Arabic cultural milieu since 1947 under the ideological guidance of luminaries starting from Sirhindi, Shah Wali-ullah, Abd al-Wahhab, Sayyid Ahmad Khan and of Iqbal and Jinnah along with the ideas of the Tablighi Jamaat. These ideas of Islamism have to be defeated. Their success is a threat to Indian interests. Cannot do this watching from the side, and no risk taking ability. When it is more profitable and secure enough to be a liberal, Islam can be paid lip service to, bringing them closer to the conditions of Muslims in India and this is achievable only through an engagement.

It was because we lacked enough ideological strength that we have lost in a strategic sense to the Islamism agenda in the subcontinent. It is no surprise that a weak leadership, who lacked core convictions allowed the partition first, then the crippling decisions of 1948 and then the compromise on national security by allowing TSP to acquire a nuclear arsenal, and India knew of ongoing TSP efforts, at least since 1979. I consider the above three events as crippling acts to the power of the Indian state with lasting damage, in order of precedence as listed above.

The continuing failures of our polity to not be able to maximize Indian potential and strengthen our civilization roots has led to a further compromise. The prime compromise for this generation being the non-fulfillment of the 1992 resolution on Kashmir and tolerating an unconventional war, without severe costs on the enemy. The above leads us to adopt a conciliatory posture.

My response to ramana, essentially underscored the point that in order to have meaningful dialogue, Pakistan’s military will have to be marginalized. If not through War then through peace. Both involve risks.

A failed Pakistan is not in Indian interests, IMO, and have not seen much meaningful arguments on how it can be and indeed what does failure mean? So, unless this aspect is articulated by someone, I will not know, how it can possibly serve Indian interests.

On the question why the “rush”? The question is not one of rush but one of being meaningful and doable. If we recognize that PA military concerns are something worth addressing and can work in our larger interests, then the question becomes, what type of military CBM can be worked upon, which is the least risky for India. From PA’s perspective, what is it that becomes a meaningful CBM, which will address their central concern in a meaningful manner. It cannot be Neti-Neti.

I am with Brig Gurmeet Kanwal (retd) on the matter of Siachen. Will not repeat all that has been said on the matter already. The big question for me is, what are we asking for in return. I have a huge laundry list of demands that am not seeing anyone talk about. Hope the defense secretaries did better.

I think it will be helpful, if you can put another military CBM on the table as an alternative to Siachen. I have walked through the length of the LoC, could not find one. There are some other military CBM’s that both should work on but they are not areas of disputes. Another view I have received is go aggressive on the civilian side but do nothing to accommodate the military, but then this is what we did at Lahore. One way or the other we need to be able to start influencing events within the TSP between these groups but the PA holds key cards and hence need to be addressed.

Put yourself in the PA’s shoes, if you are convinced that India is not going to negotiate anything and given the geo-political realities of today or 10 years from today, what are your options? What will you do? They still have viable options to survive and give us more shocks and further detoriate our interests and ambitions, jeopardizing our security and economic interests. If India does not address their concerns, then we better be sure that they have no other option but to negotiate and climb down. I fear they continue to have options, not those that serve them best but nevertheless options.

Co-option is the other lens from which, we can look at Pakistan.

ShauryaT, a 'comprehensive defeat' of the enemy (whatever that may mean or howsoever that may be defined) on the scale of what happened in 1971 on the eastern front is not within the realm of possibility immediately. India is not focussed on such an eventuality either, now at least. Pakistan is now a nuclear power with a very low threshold, even if it bluffs on its threshold triggers. However, we have to deal with the aftermath of Pakistan's ill-conceived decisions both in its domestic and external fronts because both of them affect us and us only. I hold the view that the cost to India from a teetering Pakistan is much more than that of a failed Pakistan.


There is evidence that PM Nawaz Sharif was briefed ahead of ABV's trip about Kargil operation and Nawaz is not blameless as he piously claims. All Pakistanis are together in 'Project India', in my humble opinion. The articulation that the PA feels threatened and therefore needs military-level CBMs to calm them down is hollow, again IMHO. All the wars, skirmishes, nuclear threats and terrorism have come from that 'threatened' PA against a much larger India. Nowadays, the PA no longer talks of 'Indian threats'. It speaks of 'Indian capabilities' that need to be addressed effectively. There is no end to this drama. Ayesha Jalal calls Pakistan "Paranoidistan' caught in a mindset ‘heavily influenced by fear of India’ and consequently ‘conspiracy theories’. However, these conspiracy theories have been used to justify atrocities within their own country. It is no paranoia. Pakistan creates a facade of paranoia in order to conduct its nefarious design on India, which is the only immutable idea of Pakistan.

There is one measure of the capability of a nation, the Composite Index of National Capability (CINC). The overall CIN Capability has been consistently at a 4:1 ratio in favour of India at a minimum and even reaching a 7:1 ratio at times and yet India was unable to translate such a superiority into a tangible resolution of its conflict. The status quo power, India, has generally tended to allow the revisionist power Pakistan to set the agenda for the conflict and has been satisfied with being merely reactive, thus defying the generally accepted principles of conflict resolution. Pakistan has always mistaken such an Indian attitude as cowardly and has launched misadventures that generally brought it only misery. But, the people of Pakistan have wholeheartedly accepted the 'misery' as a necessary condition to defeat the kafir eventually.


The mouse continues to think either it is bigger than the elephant next door or it is clever enough to gnaw its way to the elephant's brain through its ear and destroy it or it is capable of both. Its responses are conditioned by history that shows that whenever it was in the dumps, somehow something happened and it was able to recover, barely though, and fight India another day. Such hardened understanding of history will only be helped if we engage with them on Siachen on the lines you and a few others have suggested.

But, we gave recognition to Musharraf when he was shunned by the whole wide world by inviting him to Agra. We engaged the COAS of the PA if that was not a CBM directed at the PA. And, what was the result ?

Anyway, we will limit ourselves here to the Pakistani behaviour that may have a bearing on the proposed Siachen action rather than discuss other issues irrelevant to this thread.

ShauryaT every single argument of yours is from the point of view of a loser wanting to leave a legacy before one becomes irrelevant.

You have embraced GoI-demonstrated weakness as a given.


^^^ Is this epicentre of your argument? That's it? And you hold your arguments in a vaunted position compared to those wanting to slap TSPA left and right for Kargil and Mumbai? I quoted the whole paragraph just to give the logorrhoea the chance to shine.

The USA made the Soviet Union spend itself into oblivion, ending the Cold War, and everything is fine today. No nukes exploded left right and centre. The very same approach will work for India as well.

I reject your points of view from the very foundation. In fact, we are at the precipice of an opportunity to capitalise, with TSPA being weaker than it has ever been since the nuclear tests. Sacking V. K. Singh at this critical juncture is testimony to the true intent of this GoI.

There is absolutely no need to talk Siachen. Need not waste a dime on it.

I seriously doubt GOI acceptance to talk on Siachen, issue to be discussed is Paki troupe withdrawal from POK that solves Siachen.

I have seen Pakis succeeding in talking issues that they want and have seen GOI failing to correct the topic of talks.

• A broken Pakistan will have no strategic depth for any nuclear weapons that it might retain.
• A broken Pakistan will want Indian economic CBMs. Actually, they will need the economic CBMs. Holding business hostage to military or political appeasement will no longer be a luxury they can afford.
• TSPA will not succeed in suppressing the needs of the masses then. It would be akin to Marie Antoinette asking the hungry to eat cake for the lack of bread. We know how that ended up. They are due an internal revolution. I'm willing to wait for that.
• A broken Pakistan will benefit Indian industry. They won't have a viable industry of their own save for basmati rice and cotton bedsheets and towels.
• They won't have the funds to buy American. China will be unwilling to bankroll a number of disparate, broken entities. They might not even have the funds to buy Chinese. In every economic aspect, India can play Santa Claus to a collapsed TSP whilst benefiting Indian industry.

As for the peace chattering class, one can take a camel to water but one can't make it drink. If you choose not to see the benefits of a broken TSP, perhaps due to some malady, at least don't inflict the malady upon the rest.

Samapt.

A broken Pakistan will above all else will loose its nuisance value for the 3.5 friends with respect to India, especially if we have strong well fenced and well protected border with shoot at sight orders and each province will have to behave like a normal civilised country with its neighbours

Siachen Dispute - DAWN Editorial

Even before India assumes a pre-1984 position in Siachen, Pakistan has to assume a pre October 26, 1947 position in the entire Kashmir, hand over the entire state (including what it calls GB as well as Shaksgam which it handed over to China) to India, and allow India to establish peace first. Once that happens, the Siachen issue would be naturally superfluous.
He is Pakistan's hope especially if he has a one-on-one meeting with Gilani. It must be ensured somehow that Shri Man Mohan Singh never gets to meet Gilani without other Indian delegation members being present.Oh yes, India must be generous, India must lead the way, India is the big brother yada, yada. India has lead the way in many other things. What has Pakistan learnt or how it has reciprocated ? Why not Pakistan lead the way for a change now ?

much is ascribed to MMS, however i have never seen any direct quotes from him on bhai-chara concessions, so i wonder how much of this is actually true and how much is pak-propaganda to try to split indian opinion?

media keeps harping that IA has 'hardened' its stand wrt siachen. has it??

it remains the same - AGPL being delineated, authenticated and demarcated both on maps and on the ground. ok, it may not be as flexible as may be in 1992 but what one expects post KARGILL?? it is squarely in pakistan's court to show some sincerity and honour the bilateral agreements which will go a long way in building the 'trust' - sorely being missed - which btw was the reason GOI went back in 1992 (if The Hindu article is true)!!! how true it turned out.

OTOH i feel Pakistan Army post Gyari - is simply in 'no position' to resupply their frontlines besides the bigger problem of 'cost' and 'time' required to rebuild the base - to be in any position to thwart an 'imagined' indian threat to role up the defenceless PA and mop the area clean!! hence this PA 'sweet talk' to ward of 'any' such plan being devised by the IA.

actually this is a masterstroke by the PA and it is working which is not a surprise.

Exactly the same point i always wonder about. Why does it always seem that India has to show generosity and show "sincierity" while TSP can keep hitting us again and again and then sit back and wait for India to show trust again.

M.J.Akbar mentions the same in Tinderbox where he says that Zia masterfully utilised all his charm and "people-to-people", cricket diplomacy etc drama while planning for various ways to cut India to size

Lalmohan ji, with sincerity let me put it to you like this. We have never seen any direct quotes from MMS on most things.

If we have a PM, it is because we see him in photos with other living people, therefore he must be alive.

How I wish we had a PM who was a better communicator and one that actually used Doordarshan and AIR once in a while to let us know his stand on the issues that matter.

For the lack of signal, all we have is a cacophony of noise from NDTV, CNN-IBN, and the famous Barkha Dutt. She is an institution in treachery in herself.

The CFA of Nov 2003. How this came about is testimony to the fact on how this feeling of deep mistrust (not unjustified) stopped us from realizing the gains of such a CFA. The IA was opposed to signing such a CFA, citing the reason that if signed and if PA violates in a local area, IA will be duty bound to still honor it and be reduced to sending dossiers. Pakistan unilaterally declared the CFA and India followed a few days later and agreed to adhere to it. The CFA to date is not signed but has been largely upheld. The results are there for all to see. Terrorism related deaths in J&K are down to below 200, I think last year from 4 digit figures in 2002. Infiltrations are way down. No matter how imperfect or what we think the real motivations were and how did these come about, the fact of the matter is the CFA has served Indian interests. It would be these type of half way measures that would be the only way forward with TSP.

PratikDas, we have seen him do the unthinkable at Sharm-el-Sheikh when he met Gilani. We transpose such a behaviour to other situations and start worrying, especially when he meets his Pakistani counterpart one-on-one. That is the worry.

What can I say if you want to miss out other things. The Cease Fire came out for entirely different reasons.

You've hit the nail on the head.

There is still time for the one-on-one meeting and the possible capitulation. We haven't seen the last of this Confidence Eroding Measure.

I recognize the multitude of reasons and do not mean to say, it was a result of Agra only, but it is something which is a result of dealing with the PA is the key point.

On Manmohan and his statement: also Havana, and the Thimpu spirit.

Some more here


and here

http://www.indiaworldfoundation.org/New ... x?NewsID=2



Some more peace, harmony and other such wonderful ideas by Manmohan.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 622010.ece

You have one example to show the intent of PA. Of course it is honoured in the much vaunted Paki style.


The IA knows the Shitistani's and rightfully had its reservations.


Unless anybody is brain-dead or has an agenda to wilfully propogate lies and push for a viewpoint which is more favourable to the other side, i see the result with 12 vilolations just this year.
Comprehension problems anybody?

Gentlemen, my apologies for being extremely stupid and short-sighted in my earlier appreciation of Pakistan claim line in Siachen and implications thereof. It just hit me as I was reading on the boundary issue between India and China in Northern/Ladakh Sector.

Before we proceed, the portion of China-Pakistan Boundary Agreement of 1963 which deals with area of interest to us is as follows:



Please read the bold party carefully. Now, have a look at the map of POK-Siachen-Aksai Chin below:



The line marked as "no defined boundary" going straight in north-easterly direction corresponds to Pakistan claim line from NJ9842 to KK Pass. BTW, this map in Wikipedia is from Texan University Library and was prepared by one of the US Government department.

From the text quoted above and the map, two things stand out:

(a) Pakistan had demarcated its boundary in 1963 up to a point in East along Karakorum Range that it did not control - but it claimed as belonging to Pakistan. Please remember, that by this time the ADIZ Maps of US Defense Mapping Agency had started showing the exact same claim line as border and area covering Siachen and up to KK Pass as belonging to Pakistan. The actual boundary controlled by Pakistan in 1963 was well west of the Saltoro Ridge, forget being anywhere near Karakoram Pass.

(b) There is no mention of the the boundary of KASHMIR east of Karakoram Pass covering the Aksai Chin Area in the agreement.The 1962 Sino-Indian war had already taken place and PLA had established the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Now, the LAC runs a bit short of the actual Chinese claim line.

By not mentioning anything about Aksai-Chin, Pakistan accepted the Chinese claim to the Aksai-Chin; this much abused part of Indian geography was sacrificed by the British for their expediency - it was again sacrificed by the Pakistan in 1963 for its interests.

By agreeing to any agreement which throws open the question about the ownership of Siachen and gives Pakistan foot in the door, we run the risk of making Pakistan a party to any settlement between Indian and China on LAC in the Ladakh Sector. And this can unleash its own set of dynamics inimical to Indian interests. For example - if we accept the "disputed" nature of the Siachen and Pakistan claim line till Karakoram Pass, tomorrow in any settlement with China, China may well ask for opinion on Pakistan on the subject.

A situation wherein Pakistan provides a proxy vote for China while China chairs the meeting with its UNSC credentials.

Great observation, Rohit ji. You might just have let the cat out of the bag.

ShauryaT ji


This is where, I would say, you differ, and that is the source of the rest of it, I guess.

A lot of folks on this forum, (including me) think otherwise.
There are other shades in that opinion but the bogey that a failed Pakistan will pose a bigger threat than the Terroist State of Pakistan is incorrect.

India already faces whatever threat a failed Pakistan has to offer, whether you realise it or not.

(In fact, TSP does not seems to be bothered about what exact kind of threat a failed India will offer to TSP. In fact, that is taken as a right.)


On the contrary, these ideas have WON in TSP, again, you can choose to ignore it.

Even in 'tribes' where NOWHERE they have it in their Indian side an oral or written tradition which matches to it, have started saying that their ancestors came from CAR, you might have seen some evidence of that in the TSP dhaga.

Nobody in TSP has reached a point to say that Pakistan was a false premise of a false prophet. Things have not reached that point to say that "To divide the sub-continent on the basis of religion was wrong. Doesn't matter who did it."

In the physical space of what constitutes TSP today, what kind of Pakistan can co-exist with the ethos of Indian subcontinent? Whatever it is, it is certainly not an Islamic republic. If it takes it to be republics for that to happen, so be it, and that should be direction for India, of making it an "un-islamic" republic.

On your other views, yes, it is correct that India lost the plot after 1971. Hardly any gain remains today of that war. Kargil and 26/11 are evidence of that.

The only hope we really have is to get along with each other, but timing is everything. Sometimes the best outcome of talks is failure. It is not time yet, IMO.

Pakis know fumbling MMS is their best bet to get some concession out of India. Misphortunately even MMS, whose days seems to be numbered, cannot help them when it comes to Siachen. IA will and should have the final say in this matter.

But that CFA did not come until the Huge offensive artillery by IA in Operation parakram

Before the Ceasefire, we have to understand why there was a need for that. The need arose because the PA mounted a terrorism attack on the symbol of statehood, the Parliament, following a dry run on the state assembly, the first suicide attack, in J&K. Earlier, the unilateral ceasefire by Atal Behari Vajpayee invited the Red Fort fidayeen attack. Of course, we have had a series of coordinated multi-city bombings, attacks on commuter trains, urban guerrilla warfare. bombings of places of worship and so on and so forth. We may forget everything and propose to withdraw from Saltoro and Siachen but then we must be the most foolish, most generous, the softest and the timidest nation ever to have existed on Planet Earth.

There were many reasons, including Parakram, engaging with PA (Agra), American involvement (Nancy Powell is on record for a cease fire since Jan 2003), recognition of PA that Kashmir is going nowhere, PA's needs to focus on its west and get a buffer. The point of the CFA regardless of how it came and its imperfections are the following

1. It has resulted in meaningful results, that has served Indian Interests
2. At this point of time engaging with the PA is likely to provide the biggest bang for the buck with TSP and hence issues such as Siachen can be additional CBM's

The Siachen CBM should be looked upon in a similar manner. Can it further Indian interests? Can we manage its risks?

ManuT: I will respond to you later, as it relates less with Siachen but more on perceptions, ideas, goals and objectives regards Pakistan.

Cease Fire Agreement is an agreement to not fire provocatively. One still has the guns and can fire as needed.

Withdrawing from Siachen is to give up/vacate own territory which will be promptly occupied. Clearing the occupation will be awful not to mention tremendous international pressure from usual suspects. Kargil showed us despite rhetoric India did not cross the IB or LOC at places of advantage and was stuck clearing up the occupation in Kargil.

Similarly any potential occupation of Siachen will lead to combat ops in Siachen area only. Forget all those dash to Skardu or Pindi type paper exercises. We have seen the track record. It will lead to tremendous costs:monetary, lives of troops, diplomatic capital, bogey of nuclear flash points etc. Why invite all these costs?



Think of a CBM like the CFA which does not involve potential occupation of Indian lands.

Please do put yourself in PA's shoes and expand further on what options you think they have if India refuses to budge from "authenticate, delineate and demarcate".

Please also explain why India cannot deal with their "options" and why the best thing to do is to withdraw from our own territory.

For inspiration, please may I refer you to the master of your line of thinking ("peace for our time"):

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history ... lprs36.htm

Siachen is Sudeten and the PA is the German Chancellor

Wake up ...