Siachen News & Discussion

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Mar 2014 09:42

How does this discussion contribute to the subject of this thread ?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Apr 2014 20:07

Beyond NJ9842: The Siachen Saga. Foreword by Gen VP Malik. 200+ rare pixs Links to image on Twitter.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 07 Apr 2014 17:37

i paid money for the book ....but no acknowledgement or the book??

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 07 Apr 2014 19:22

manjgu wrote:i paid money for the book ....but no acknowledgement or the book??

When i asked last, it was to be released in April, not sure of date. Ping the Author on twitter.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Apr 2014 22:51

^^^The book is being released on 11th April and they've now started asking for the advance to get an autographed copy of the book. Was invited to the book launch but traveling outstation on that very day...

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 09 Apr 2014 05:32

they could have atleast called the guys who paid in advance for the book launch !!

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 12 Apr 2014 22:42

Interesting article

PM's ex-aide Sanjaya Baru blames ‘hawkish’ Antony, Army for scuttling Manmohan Singh's Siachen initiative, Gen JJ Singh hits back

Rajat Pandit,TNN | Apr 12, 2014, 09.14 PM IST

NEW DELHI: It's well-known that PM Manmohan Singh was very keen to convert Siachen into "a mountain of peace" after visiting the forbidding glacial heights in June 2005. But the Indian defence establishment was equally adamant that Pakistan would have to first authenticate the relative troop positions before any withdrawal from the Siachen Glacier-Saltoro Ridge.

Indian soldiers, after all, controlled almost all the dominating heights, ranging from 16,000 to 22,000-feet, on the Saltoro Ridge region. But with Pakistan unwilling to give ironclad guarantees on existing troop positions, the PM's dream slowly ebbed away and perished.

The PM's media adviser during UPA-I, Sanjaya Baru, has now set the cat among the pigeons by holding that Manmohan Singh's peace initiative for the world's highest and coldest battlefield was effectively torpedoed by the "hawkish" position of defence minister AK Antony, as also his predecessor Pranab Mukherjee, as well as the then Army chief General JJ Singh.

"I was never sure whether Antony's hawkish stance was because he genuinely disagreed with the Siachen initiative or whether he was merely toeing a Nehru-Gandhi family line that would not allow Dr Singh to be the one finally normalizing relations with Pakistan. After all, the Kashmir problem had its roots in Nehru's policies ... I felt Sonia would want to wait till Rahul became PM so that he could claim credit," writes Baru, in his new book "The Accidental Prime Minister".

Both Mukerjee and Antony, as successive defence ministers in UPA-I, were not enthusiastic about a deal on Siachen, though Sonia had "blessed"" the peace formula. Moreover, the PM also had to contend with "a declining quality" in military leadership. "In closed-door briefings, the general would say that a deal with Pakistan was doable, but in public he would back Antony when the defence minister chose not to back the PM," says Baru.

Gen Singh, who was the Army chief from 2005 to 2007 and Arunachal Pradesh governor till last year, hit back on Saturday. "What does he (Baru) know? What are his qualifications to pass such sweeping judgements and make disparaging statements on the military leadership? Does he have any idea what leadership is all about?" said Gen Singh, talking to TOI.

Dismissing Baru's knowledge of classified matters, Gen Singh said the military had given "perfectly sound advice" to the PM on the Siachen imbroglio. "We said unless Pakistan authenticates the troop positions, both on the ground and maps, there was no question of any withdrawal," the former Army chief said.

And even if Pakistan agreed to this pre-condition, the disengagement and demilitarization of the Siachen could only be done in a phased manner. "If Pakistan tried to indulge in some misadventure (to take the heights), the response and reaction time of our troops would have to be factored in. I am happy India's continues with the same stand," said Gen Singh.

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Apr 2014 23:31

As per some comments of a very senior then serving Military officer in a BRF meet, Sam Manekshaw told the political leadership that if he takes any area in West Pakistan after shedding blood of his soldiers, there will be no way he will give it up in any post war negotiations. After this discussion, army was told to go easy ie limit losses in West Pakistan.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 12 Apr 2014 23:44

The fact that ANY Indian government will trade even 1 cm of Indian territory to Pakistan in exchange for "peace" should have made all Indians cry bloody murder on the streets. And when it comes to Siachin that should be doubly so.

What is sickening is the casualness with which these politicians would trade hard won territory for some momentary political photo-op. These politicians haven't sacrificed in blood, sweat or tears yet are ready to reap and barter the fruits of others sacrifices. What does Manmohan Singh care about the difficulties faced by those who man the ridge at Siachin ? He would get his 15 mins of fame and his photo-op and when the Pakistani's invariably backstab India, it won't be his carcass than is left on the ice of Siachin as "just another casualty".

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 13 Apr 2014 01:36

eklavya wrote:Interesting article

PM's ex-aide Sanjaya Baru blames ‘hawkish’ Antony, Army for scuttling Manmohan Singh's Siachen initiative, Gen JJ Singh hits back

Rajat Pandit,TNN | Apr 12, 2014, 09.14 PM IST

Gen Singh, who was the Army chief from 2005 to 2007 and Arunachal Pradesh governor till last year, hit back on Saturday. "What does he (Baru) know? What are his qualifications to pass such sweeping judgements and make disparaging statements on the military leadership? Does he have any idea what leadership is all about?" said Gen Singh, talking to TOI.

Dismissing Baru's knowledge of classified matters, Gen Singh said the military had given "perfectly sound advice" to the PM on the Siachen imbroglio. "We said unless Pakistan authenticates the troop positions, both on the ground and maps, there was no question of any withdrawal," the former Army chief said.

And even if Pakistan agreed to this pre-condition, the disengagement and demilitarization of the Siachen could only be done in a phased manner. "If Pakistan tried to indulge in some misadventure (to take the heights), the response and reaction time of our troops would have to be factored in. I am happy India's continues with the same stand," said Gen Singh.

Makes me very anxious when someone lambasts a critic just going by his/her qualifications, when the person himself in question is not held in very high regard as COAS in Army.
The author was privy to many matters.
Such General's should keep their mouths shut, lest someone points out that they (he being a political appointee) are shouting to cover the A$$es of their political masters.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 13 Apr 2014 02:20

S Roy,

General JJ Singh was appointed COAS by Dr Manmohan Singh's government in Nov 2007. Also, it wasn't a particularly "political" appointment, as General JJ Singh was the senior-most serving Lieutenant General of the Indian Army at the time.

It appears that as COAS, General JJ Singh was clearly aware of his constitutional duty to protect India's frontiers, even when it meant providing military advice that was contrary to and unsupportive of the ill-conceived and naive vision of his "political masters".

It appears (not least from Mr. Baru's book), that Dr. Manmohan Singh had neither the courage to stand up to his "political masters" (in 10 Janpath), nor the integrity to resign his high office when he could no longer uphold his constitutional oath to the people of India.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 13 Apr 2014 05:12

and the fact that it had the approval of Mrs gandhi... I wonder if she will be so willing to part with even a inch of italian territory?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Apr 2014 05:27

^^^^^

If her son could get *all* the benefits associated with *any* historic value, I bet she will. Glory to the framily.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 13 Apr 2014 09:23

No wonder the pakis are pissed and continue to be.

After fixing the highest office in the land, they were thwarted by a mere general

Army said no to Gujral’s order to vacate Siachen

VISHAL THAPAR New Delhi | 12th Apr 2014

nder Kumar Gujral, the peacenik Prime Minister of a Congress-propped United Front Government, asked the Indian Army to withdraw from Siachen Glacier in 1997 to accommodate Pakistan.

The then Indian Army chief, General V.P. Malik vetoed the move, demanding iron-clad guarantees as a precondition, which Pakistan has refused to concede till date. The collapse of the Gujral government in March 1998 stalled further movement toward what many strategists reckon would have been a monumental blunder.

This disclosure was made by General Malik at a book release timed to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the undeclared war on the world's highest and coldest battlefield. It was on 13 April 1984, that India launched Operation Meghdoot to pre-empt a Pakistani takeover of the strategically-located Siachen Glacier. Thirty years on, it is an ongoing operation, with no end in sight.

Gujral's position was in complete contrast to that of Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, attests former Indian envoy to Pakistan, G. Parthasarathy. "Rajiv told me that he would not vacate the area where Indian troops have shed blood," recalled Parthasarathy, speaking after General Malik at a function to mark the release of journalist Nitin Gokhale's book, Beyond NJ 9842: The Siachen Saga, here on Friday. Rajiv too was under pressure from the peacenik lobby in 1987-88 to take advantage of his equation with his counterpart Benazir Bhutto and pluck the "low-hanging fruit" of Siachen.

Gujral is best known for a dubious contribution to India's strategic history in ceasing during his tenure the activities of India's external intelligence agency, the Research and Analyses Wing (R&AW), in Pakistan. This is assessed by analysts as a huge strategic setback to India. Capabilities which took decades to build were swept away in one stroke.

The precondition General Malik insisted upon was the authentication and demarcation of respective troop positions along the 110-km-long Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL). The Indian Army is in physical occupation of the Saltoro Ridge west of Siachen Glacier, which puts India in a dominating position.

Warning that it would be a folly to ignore the strategic significance of Siachen, General Malik said, "The strategic consequences of a deal without formal authentication are obvious. It'll give Pakistan easier access to Saltoro and to the glacier, ensure security of Shaksgam (ceded by Pakistan to China).... and put a final stamp of China on its political control (of Shaksgam)."

The Indian Army has since stuck to this "veto line" to resist an on-off politico-diplomatic push to vacate Siachen, first by the Gujral regime, and more recently, by Manmohan Singh, who wanted Siachen to be a "Mountain of Peace". The Indian Army believes Pakistan will sneak into Siachen if the commanding heights of the Saltoro Ridge are vacated.

While the Army's insistence on demarcation of troop positions with Pakistan is well known, for the first time, it has come out in the open that the real military red line on Siachen is China, and its nexus with Pakistan. In his foreword to the book, General Malik says India must deny China and Pakistan an opportunity to link up via Siachen, and that their anti-India intent is transparent for the following reasons:

* Pakistan illegally ceded the Shaksgam Valley in PoK, flanking Siachen, to China in 1963 under a Sino-Pak border agreement, in violation of the 1949 Karachi Agreement on the Ceasefire Line with India, and claiming a border link with China running through Siachen and terminating at the Karakoram Pass, east of Siachen. India's position is that the Karachi Agreement puts the boundary beyond the last demarcated Point NJ 9842 as running west of Siachen Glacier.

* While China did a boundary deal with Pakistan on the PoK area west of Karakoram, it has refused to discuss the J&K boundary with India on the ground that it's "disputed".

* Pakistan claims all of J&K but recognises Chinese sovereignty over Aksai Chin, which has been annexed by China.

* In 1997, China went back on an agreement to send its military commander opposite Ladakh to meet his counterpart in Leh. This was an indication that they were unwilling to endorse Indian sovereignty over Ladakh.

* China declined India's invitation to all military attaches in New Delhi (except Pakistan's) for a conducted tour of the battle zone post the Kargil War.

* Four years ago, China started issuing stapled visas to visitors from J&K, thus questioning its status as part of India, refused visa to the highest ranking Army officer in J&K.

* Increased Chinese presence in the northern areas of PoK, purportedly to improve infrastructure, repair the Karakoram Highway, and build oil pipelines and rail lines linking western China to the Arabian Sea.

Ambassador Parthasarathy strongly argued that any deal on Siachen must be linked to an overall resolution of J&K. He endorsed the view of Brig V.N. Channa, the first commander of the Indian forces in Siachen, that by restricting itself to the Saltoro Ridge (west of Siachen), India lost an opportunity to take over the position now occupied by the Pakistanis beyond this ridgeline. "We should have gone beyond the Saltoro Ridge and taken over Gyari (now occupied by Pakistan). Had we done so, there would be no need to occupy the glacier (which is done at great cost)," rued Parthasarathy. Sadly, the story of missed opportunities for India does not end with Siachen.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 13 Apr 2014 09:26

I think we should amend the Indian constitution that there should be consencus in Parliment before any Indian territory is vacated.

srin · Post by **srin** » 13 Apr 2014 12:58

What gives away the ignorance of the peaceniks is that they consider Siachen a purely Indo-Pak issue and want to show off their more-Pak-than-Pak stance by gambling it away.

Siachen is strategic because it is literally and figuratively a middle finger into Pakistan and China. Those who don't consider the relevance of China are bone-headed.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 13 Apr 2014 17:26

manjgu wrote:and the fact that it had the approval of Mrs gandhi... I wonder if she will be so willing to part with even a inch of italian territory?

As if the Italians would be so crazy to allow such a person to ever enter high-office. No, even Silvio Berlusconi and his "bunga bunga" affair were better than the wholesale national plunder of the Indian exchequer by the previous regime. For them, its Gandhi first - pocket next and party last. India is merely the means to an end.

Give up Siachin, give up Kashmir, give up Punjab - these mean nothing in their estimation before ensuring the Gandhi family's perpetual power. Like a feudal lord or some Maharaja of old, the land and its subjects are merely there to serve the "high command's" (what kind of democratic party uses military terms for organization?) whims.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 13 Apr 2014 18:52

Aditya_V wrote:I think we should amend the Indian constitution that there should be consencus in Parliment before any Indian territory is vacated.

A constitutional amendment is required before giving up sovereignity over a part of land.

Hence the world play, "make borders irrelevant" and such nonsense.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Apr 2014 03:37

Unrelated to def:

PM was unable to counter vested interests: former Coal Secretary PC Parakh says in memoir

Mr Parakh, against whom the CBI has registered a case in coal block allocation scam, said the Prime Minister expressed anguish and stated that "he (Singh) faced similar problems every day. But it would not be in the national interest if he was to offer his resignation on every such issue."

"I do not know if the country would have got a better Prime Minister if Dr Manmohan Singh had resigned, instead of facing the humiliation of his own ministers not implementing or reversing his decision.

"By continuing to head a government in which he had little political authority, his image has been seriously dented by 2G scam and Coal-gate although he has had a spotless record of personal integrity," Mr Parakh writes.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 15 Apr 2014 13:43

The simmering Siachen and Indo-Pak ties

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/the-simmerin ... l[quote]In May 2005, as Indian and Pakistani Track I negotiators were reaching a 'settlement deal' on the forbidden Siachen Glacier, the then Chief of the Army Staff Joginder Jaswant Singh made an unexpected public statement. A deal would only work, he said, when Pakistan agreed to authenticate the 110-km Actual Ground Position Line dividing the two armies. The deal was about the 'demilitarisation' of the glacier, a euphemism for India vacating this strategic battle-ground to appease Pakistan and some common alien masters. Obviously it fell through.

In his Book 'The Accidental Prime Minister' Sanjaya Baru accuses General JJ Singh of playing double game: "In closed-door briefings, the General would say that a deal with Pakistan was doable, but in public he would back (AK) Antony when the Defence Minister chose not to back the PM." JJ Singh, vehemently denies this, but considering the past manipulations of this General including the obnoxious doctrine of 'Line of Succession' a jury need to be put out!

While so, on this simple revelation, Delhi is simmering even as temperature in Siachen glacier is hovering around -15 degree Celsius! Heat is such that BJP's highly-visible prime ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi, has taken up this as a grave national security issue and has asked the non-visible Prime Minister to come clean, saying that this matter is going viral on social media. What is going around in the social media is a brief on the subsequent developments on Siachen under UPA II, when Baru was not there.

In September 2012, the Ottawa based Atlantic Council, alleged to have links with Pakistan's ISI, announced the signing of an agreement to demilitarize Siachen as part of Confidence Building Measure between India and Pakistan. This agreement was negotiated by a 22-member India-Pakistan Track II team, headed on the Indian side by former Air Chief Marshall SP Tyagi. The Pakistani side was led by General Jehangir Karamat, a former Pakistan Army Chief. Meetings were held at Bangkok, Dubai, USA and finally at Lahore. This was despite the clear stand adopted by the Army, Defence Ministry and Ministry of External Affairs against 'demilitarization' of the glacier that has huge strategic value for India.

There was something sinister in the whole thing because Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been under pressure from the US to pull back from Siachen as a sop to the Pakistan Army who has been threatening to lease out Baltistan/Gilgit to China. It was also known that despite having no actual presence on Siachen, Pakistan continues to claim the territory.

As soon as details of the 'Agreement' were put up on the internet all hell broke loose. It went ballistic on the military (serving and veteran) email circuit in which I was also a part. Lt. General PC Katoch, a former commander of the Siachen Brigade fired the first salvo: "For decades, India has always distrusted the Atlantic Council, which is perceived to be in bed with the Pakistani military. In this arrangement Pakistan has grabbed the strategic opportunity to attain all its key goals. It is surmised that the PM is aiming for a Nobel Peace Prize to recover the legitimacy his Government has lost after a succession of scandals." This was followed up by an article by me and Kunal Verma (Author, 'The Long Road to Siachen: The Question Why) in Gfiles in August 2012. Otherwise there was no whimper.

The just retired General VK Singh's take on the issue was nuanced and candid: "Let us first be very clear as to who is asking for this so-called demilitarization. The Pakistanis are not on the Siachen Glacier, but are west of the Saltoro Range. Contrary to what they want their own people to believe, they have a zero presence in Siachen. I wonder if demilitarization will also result in Pakistan withdrawing from Baltistan, pulling back to the west towards the Karakoram Highway. It is ludicrous that in such circumstances we are talking of demilitarization and withdrawal. Our troops are well established and administratively well off so what is the rationale to pull them out of the area?"

A set of twelve questions were posed by me to the Track II team: (i) Who appointed the Team and what are their credentials and service record in the Siachen area? (ii) Who all in the Government briefed the Team? (iii) Did the Team visit Siachen before inking the agreement? (iv) Was the decision of the Team unanimous? (v) Decision to demilitarize Siachen has grave military consequences. Were the three Service Chiefs consulted on this? (vi) This issue has serious strategic, deployment, logistics, demographic, displacement, cost and time implications for the Army. Was the matter discussed with the Northern Army Commander? (vii) After 'demilitarization' what additional measures will be required to check terrorist infiltration in Kashmir Valley? (viii) Is it merely a Track II initiative? If so why were the members briefed by Government officials before the Lahore meet? Were they not told that this team is "as good as Track I"? Does it not make it official? (ix) NSA is stated to have briefed the leader of the Team and one/two members separately? If so why? To firm up a secret deal? (x) The whole process, particularly signing of the Agreement was kept under wraps. Why this secrecy? (xi) On whose orders did some select members of the Team justify the agreement? (xii) Why was such a major decision not discussed in Parliament and President kept informed?

None of the Track-II participants answered even a single question, perhaps secure in the knowledge that their actions will be protected by those on behest of whom they had been acting. But faced with intense heat from several quarters, including charges of treachery, the Indian co-chair of Track II, a former Air Chief Marshall confessed that they only acted on orders and there were bigger players including the PMO behind this.

However three of the key players of Track II participated in the email exchanges. It included retired Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal who authored the original demilitarization plan in 2005 along with a Pakistani Army officer under the aegis of a US think-tank. This is what he said: "We have different views on the issue of the demilitarisation of the Siachen Conflict zone.... My views are consistent since the summer of 2005 when I did some research into the subject in a US think tank along with a Pakistani colleague and realised how both the nations were wrong in continuing to occupy their positions....."

This was followed-up by the co-chair ACM Tyagi who clarified: "Brig Gurmeet Kanwal has already sent an email...The press release by the Atlantic Council was approved by me and General J Karamat.... Before its release we in India informed the Service Chiefs and many Very Senior Offrs in the establishment dealing with Indo Pak issues... There was "No Conspiracy".... We were not appointed by any Government Agency nor do we have anything do with the Govt of India. While it is true that we did meet several Government functionaries to keep us up to date, we take full responsibility for what we say and do... We hold no official post, have no authority and we voice our individual opinions. We did not suggest that we should give up Siachen now. All that we agreed upon was that should the two sides ever agree to demilitarise then this could possibly be a way."

Col. (Retd) Ajay Shukla who was PMO's key facilitator in Track II was pontificating: "The crucial thing to understand about the Siachen Proposal is: it spells out the modalities for the demilitarization of Siachen, but does not say anything about when this demilitarization should be done. That vital question-i.e. whether to demilitarize Siachen at all-is a political issue that the two governments continue to discuss in the Track I Siachen dialogue. The modalities of demilitarization, naturally have relevance only after a full-fledged Siachen Accord between the two governments.... It is important to note that the much-vilified Track II dialogue is entirely in line with the Track I official dialogue with Pakistan. In that, India insists upon the authentication of ground positions as a pre-requisite for demilitarization. The Track II Siachen Proposal explicitly specifies that "The present ground positions would be jointly recorded and the records exchanged."

The no-nonsence General VK Singh could not take this crap and retorted: "Shuklaji, what are you defending? A jaunt given by the government to work out an informal agreement that can then be sold to the Public? Your defence is in itself an indictment of the stupidity of the group which attempted this."

Forced to the corner Col Shukla turned abusive. He called us all 'communal scums' and pointing to me wrote: "Amongst those with the most dubious credentials in this group is you. An IAS officer turned moralizer! What a combination, Sir-ji." This impotent outburst did not work and for the second time PMO beat a hasty retreat and Siachen lived for another day. But the questions still remain unanswered!

Finding the answers is the task cut out for the new Government. The Siachen issue has multiple ramifications and in light of Sanjaya Baru's revelations, it is perhaps vital that a detailed investigation is done. While it is possible that most of the Track II members were acting in good faith, the role of the three key members-Tyagi, Kanwal and Shukla-looks suspect. It is also imperative that General JJ Singh's role is also looked at, because it involves the Institutional Integrity of the Armed Forces that has been sliding down hill. Senior commanders are in the habit of compromising national interest and tell the political bosses what they want to hear. This is not acceptable.

Given the magnitude of what the Army has achieved over the last thirty years in securing not just the Glacier but also the Saltoro, we need to bury the issue once and for all. If for nothing else, we owe it to the blood, shed by our valiant soldiers to accomplish this. Let them at least be secure in the faith that while they guard the 'final' frontier, the gates to the country shall not be opened from within! [/quote]

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 15 Apr 2014 14:17

Sent off a nasty email to that scum Shukla. Urge others to do the same.

His email is broadswordbs@gmail.com his handle in twitter is @broadswordblog

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 15 Apr 2014 14:41

I have added reference material about 2012 attempt at Siachen sell-out to the first page of the thread. The link to CBM Paper by Atlantic Council of Ottawa is no longer available; I've added content of an old post of mine where I had copied the entire content.

Apart from 2007 Paper presented by Gurmeet Kanwal and ex-PA Brigadier at Sandia National Laboratories, I've dug up some old papers from Cooperative Monitoring Center (CMC) of Sandia National Laboratories which discuss Siachen in one way or another. It is not difficult to see a pattern - the 2007 Paper (which was actually prepared in 2005) builds on these previous 'studies' on various aspects of de-militarization in Siachen.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 15 Apr 2014 14:58

Vijay Kumar Singh ‏@Gen_VKSingh 5h

Everyone who tried to sell Siachen needs to be brought to book. PMO must answer how long they will protect such people @jehangirPocha

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Apr 2014 20:50

So no wonder Shukla was targeting VK Singh. And his INC tendencies in full flow. Anyone opposing the sellout was "communal scum".

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Apr 2014 20:53

And we had a pro Siachen sellout type bragging on BR how powerful people supported this and times had changed and only rabid hindutva zealots were opposing the sell err peace initiative. What consistent messaging.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 15 Apr 2014 23:05

pankajs wrote:
Vijay Kumar Singh ‏@Gen_VKSingh 5h
Everyone who tried to sell Siachen needs to be brought to book. PMO must answer how long they will protect such people @jehangirPocha

ACM Tyagi's family getting comission in Chopper deal would have been open secret to authorities and MMS Sarkar used it form blackmail its own officer into recommending this Siachin Treachery Act . Should not they all Ex-servicemen be tried in miltary court as they used their military rank &knowledge to undermine National secuirty.

VijayN · Post by **VijayN** » 16 Apr 2014 00:09

For someone reading about this new gotala, simply shows how anybody can run roughshod over this nation of 1+ billion people. Where are the institutional mechanisms, where are the checks and balances!!! Shudder to think, that a small section of people have the wherewithal to sell a nation's national security. This issue definitely needs to be investigated objectively and fairly, anyone found anti-national and associated with vested interests must be "put away" permanently.

I wish the Indian public were more assertive in their rights, demand answers and action. We need a media that can focus attention on such matters, sadly everyone is too busy with sunny leones and premier leagues. National Security is confined to the corridors of south block, and that should change if we want to keep this nation together.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 16 Apr 2014 00:21

Introduce the requirement of ratification of any treaty or obligation with any entity outside India. Same concept as in US.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 16 Apr 2014 00:27

Jehangir Pocha ‏@JehangirPocha 16h

Important Siachen map - shows where India would have to withdraw to if Siachen is demilitarized. pic.twitter.com/KTdW0rTT8D

VijayN · Post by **VijayN** » 16 Apr 2014 01:44

Yes, no doubt we must institute a system of ratification. Most importantly, what is missing is how little discourse we have among the general public on such matters. I am hoping that one day, every citizen will understand and debates these things. We cannot be blind to the happenings, that is all the anti-national scum need.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Apr 2014 02:34

VijayN wrote:For someone reading about this new gotala, simply shows how anybody can run roughshod over this nation of 1+ billion people. Where are the institutional mechanisms, where are the checks and balances!!! Shudder to think, that a small section of people have the wherewithal to sell a nation's national security. This issue definitely needs to be investigated objectively and fairly, anyone found anti-national and associated with vested interests must be "put away" permanently.

I wish the Indian public were more assertive in their rights, demand answers and action. We need a media that can focus attention on such matters, sadly everyone is too busy with sunny leones and premier leagues. National Security is confined to the corridors of south block, and that should change if we want to keep this nation together.

Mind you, when we raised this issue, much sarcasm ensued from certain sections who mocked everyone how only people on BRF were patriots etc as versus the real patriots in GOI, the lofty position of the PM etc. Shows though how institutions rot from the head. The saving grace? All the jingoistic, communal groups etc banding together and defeating this attempt. No coincidence that VKS was eased out either.

MurthyB · Post by **MurthyB** » 16 Apr 2014 04:29

Karan M wrote: The saving grace? All the jingoistic, communal groups etc banding together and defeating this attempt. No coincidence that VKS was eased out either.

Are you sure? Barus's book suggests that it is dynasty worship that saved the day: Antony's idea that the giveaway credit should go to shehzada rather than a Nehru family keep. Long live dynasty!

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 16 Apr 2014 07:16

What has confidence building measures got to do with Siachen? There is no connection.

However, there is a clear attempt to make pakis look civilized by demanding something and all this has nothing to do with Siachen either. It gives pakis excuse to talk about confidence building measures from their side. More alarming is how the chattering class is not talking about and avoiding issues like
(1) war in Kargil
(2) terrorism
(3) nuclear blackmail
(4) supplying arms to terrorists in India

If you simply look at the map, you can see how the chattering classes are not talking about
(1) Shaksgam valley sold to china by pakis
(2) paki claim on areas of J&K
(3) chaina claim on Aksai Chin

The chattering classes avoid all these issues in the first place. Total pseudos. And give cover of respect to pakis by repeating wild claims.

About USA throwing a bone to pakis at the cost of anyone else-what has that got to do with confidence building measure(lol USA & paki confidence building measure). USA can offer pakis Miami state for all anyone can care. Pakis will be happy to be pakis in Miami too.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 16 Apr 2014 07:19

Vishvak saar,
'chattering classes'... nice term!

VijayN · Post by **VijayN** » 16 Apr 2014 07:25

[quote="Are you sure? Barus's book suggests that it is dynasty worship that saved the day: Antony's idea that the giveaway credit should go to shehzada rather than a Nehru family keep. Long live dynasty![/quote]

The bottom line - Be it shehzada or the Track II crooks, they have no frickin standing. Who gave them the power to unequivocally decide that giving away a piece of the motherland is in the interests of maintaining peace?? We should all fight to change this, and change it quickly. the Constitution must be amended to include provisions for a national consensus (opposition parties, representatives of public, etc). I am afraid, in the absence of a water tight mechanism we must expect many such happenings.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 16 Apr 2014 08:27

johneeG wrote:Vishvak saar,
'chattering classes'... nice term!

That term is in use for few years. Example link

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Apr 2014 18:58

I use chatteratti

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Apr 2014 19:45

MurthyB wrote:
Karan M wrote: The saving grace? All the jingoistic, communal groups etc banding together and defeating this attempt. No coincidence that VKS was eased out either.
Are you sure? Barus's book suggests that it is dynasty worship that saved the day: Antony's idea that the giveaway credit should go to shehzada rather than a Nehru family keep. Long live dynasty!

am referring to mgd article plus baru who both quote communal

fascists defeating poor seculars like shukla

MurthyB · Post by **MurthyB** » 17 Apr 2014 00:00

Karan M wrote:
am referring to mgd article plus baru who both quote communal fascists defeating poor seculars like shukla

I hear you. I am just stunned at how dynasty worship entered the picture here

more sneakily than the terrorists in Kargil. Fractal recursivity, full circle and all that. One example where dynasty worship helpful !?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Apr 2014 21:40

true saar, no matter what lay indians do, somehow dynasty gets the credit. IMO, what we now know shows us two things:

1. the absolute inability of GOI uber alles crowd to understand how bad things were under the UPA in past 8 years and how badly MMS was compromised. they didnt understand and mocked, attacked, dismissed those who did raise these issues.

2. how despite everything, whether it be fear of elections or desire to take credit from dynasty side, or the obdurate insistence by the IA and other "commooonal" security types, the likes of MMS etc could not push through their agenda.