Bharat Rakshak

There is no evidence to indicate that the Pak Army is sick of the conflict, enough to turn down an opportunity to occupy the glacier. There is one piece of evidence that the Major located at one of the posts near the glacier is sick of the conflict and has bad mouthed Col. Kumar in one interview to an adventure magazine. The same article also recounts how an Indian Capt. doesn't want to be stationed in those climes, but that doesn't mean either he or the Indian Army wants to give up the territory.

The fact that PA refuses to authenticate the AGPL indicates that they believe they can tire the IA out into offering good terms for a withdrawal.



The strategic value of the territory to the Pakistan Army lies in its political value. Regaining the glacier will be spun as evidence that the Pakistan Army alone is capable of defining and defending Pakistani national interests, at very high cost to itself.



What other major offensives and to capture what other terrain? Why would the PA even want to do that?



What big picture?



And such a postulate would be based on wishful thinking. The experience of the last 22 years has taught the IA and the PA one thing - if either of them occupies the main passes, they cannot be dislodged by the other.



The end game then was to vacate the PA aggression in Kargil. What would be the endgame here? Retake Siachen? Is it possible? Hold on to other enclaves along the LoC? What does that do to India's broader strategy of ensuring that the LoC should not be changed by force?



Right. When there isn't even a Parliamentary debate on what to do with the territory we hold.



How about we have a public debate on the permanent loss of Siachen without the possibility of recovering it?

I don't see anything new in your posts. I can't help but observe that this is a significant climbdown from your earlier tone of "what part of permanent guarantees can people not understand?".Yet, the salient issues are still missing.

That'll be all from me on this issue unless something new is brought to the table.

Amitabh, maybe I have missed your opinion, or maybe I cannot decipher where you are going with this Siachen thing: so I have a basic fundamental question for you:

Irrespective of what TSP thinks, why do you think India should vacate Siachen now, and what good does it do for us?

Thanks.

Amitabh wrote:


The army has stated that retaking siachen is out of the question, so I am not sure why they would pummel the pakis in Siachen if there is no chance of retaking the place. As for the GoI making a bold decision like retaking territory elsewhere, let us recall that the Parliament attack resulting in a lot of hot air and nothing else -- the BJP's Law Minister Ram Jethmalani even assisted some of the terrorists to evade the law -- and this was when a supposedly hawkish BJP govt. was in power.



Given that India already has a political problem in J&K, why will occuping more paki-infested territory be a good thing? Siachen has no pakis or anyone living in there, but that is not true of Pok, which is infested with hard-core jihad types. What are we going to do, throw them out of the territory? Or are we going to start get more Indian soldiers killed in newly captured territory in PoK? We can be assured that the Pakis will get their jihadis all energized by such actions, which is clearly not a good thing from India's POV and a good thing for a Paki army.

How do we hope to stay on in this newly captured territory without getting embroiled in another high-casualty conflict with the pakjihadis?


Where is the public debate on the pros and the cons of this withdrawal. Some "analyst" in the GoI decided that a couple of pakis being "Sick of the conflict" (but not sick enough to readily agree on an established AGPL) and then uses the time-tested anal-extraction method to proclaim -- yup, we can get out of siachen, all three Indian experts in the GoI have agreed. Where is the public expositioning of this reasoning? How are these jokers in the GoI any better than a dictatorship if they just go about changing 20 year old policies on a whim and a peace process?

You mean the marijuana joint that raises you above the real world to a spiritual place where all is peace and all is harmony and all Pakis keep their word ?

No, thanks. I will pass on that offer



I must have missed a beat. The Pakistani army is still butchering people in Balochistan, fighting a half-hearted war against their former allies, the Taliban, in NWFP, still shooting across the LoC at our boys and sending terrorists across the border.

I think you took too deep a drag on that joint




Its possible you mislaid the map of the region when you were deep in the fumes but the Pakistani supply base is less than 12 km from their forward positions on Siachen, while Indian supply base is a 75 day trek from ours. The only way to supply our positions is by air.



If the Indian army's offensive in other sectors is limited, then all that will accomplish is paint the Indians as the aggressor (I can almost imagine the Europeans and Americans telling us "Why are you risking starting a war over such a frozen hell of a place ?") while impose no serious conditions on Pakistan. In 1999 during Kargil, the Americans did not need Pakistan to fight for them on Afghan border. Today they do, and they are not going to stand by and watch their proxy destablized from power just for some frozen hell of a place that Indians consider important. In 2002, Pakistanis attacked the Indian parliament - and even then the Americans exerted extremely heavy pressure to make India stop the retaliation. Pakistani infiltration into India continues even today - they killed a bright Math prof in Bangalore last year. Can you imagine what they are going to do if all that is at stake is a frozen glacier ?

If the Indian army's offensive in other sectors is heavy and seriously threatens the viability of Pakistan, the Pakis are going to use the nukes - they have no no-first use policy, and even if they did, it would not be worth paper it was written on. Needless to add, the Americans are going to twist India's arms to the breaking point in that case.

So what is your bloody problem ? You want to risk a future unwinnable conventional war from an Indian standpoint so that the world you see while you are stoned persists with you when you come back down to earth ?

The Indian army has already stated - they cannot retake the heights. I would trust the seasoned military minds of our army over a pinko marijuana addicted idiot any day.



A country's national interests and its strategic posture cannot be predicated on the possible good faith of its enemies.



So you think India is going to occupy Bahawalpur or Karachi in retaliation and Uncle Sam is going to let that happen ? Tell me, did someone commit you to an asylum before they let you have the computer you are using right now ?



[sarcasm] India's borders are very long, maybe we should all withdraw to Delhi and cede everything to Pakistan, China and whoever else will relieve us of the burden of maintaining our borders. [/sarcasm]

Amitabh wrote:

Here's what I think (and B Singh I'd be happy to mail you my chillum so you can get off the crack that clearly makes you a bit aggressive):




You mean the marijuana joint that raises you above the real world to a spiritual place where all is peace and all is harmony and all Pakis keep their word ?

No, thanks. I will pass on that offer

Yaaa.... I was missing that "Asli khabrein ...." thread

PM to visit Pak at an 'opportune time': Narayanan



Aren't we putting unnecessary pressure on ourselves by making such statements? Why can't the PM just make a quick chai-biscoot tour of IRoP and be done with it? Just attend some Ghazal Mushairas over there in Mushy's company and then come back.

My feeling is that MMS is too much of a babu to concede anything. Narayanan is correctly termed as NiSA by Ramana (National Insecurity advisor)

NSA's son is settled in NY.

I think the discussion in Kargil - IV thread should convince the Indian "leaders" to keep Siachen.

It would be foolhardy to give up Siachen now that we have gotten acclimatised to it. Also, giving up anything at the peak of our strength makes no sense!! Position hundreds of Pinaka on the Norhtern and the Western borders and let them rip every time there is an attack.

just as the paks think that a thrust along akhnoor will choke the kashmiri chicken... there must be a geographical feature - perhaps a valley or pass, whose occupation will permanently choke off the muzzaffrabad end of POK and all the northern areas? (and i don't mean haji pir pass)

whilst the armoured thrust across the rajasthan desert could bisect the main TSP/IROP landmass, there must be another jaguar vein crunching opportunity in POK that the IA has studied

can someone more knowledgable please enlighten us? or someone with some good sat imagery!

From the Statesman (India) of May 3, 2006 Wednesday. Somebody pl. post a link if you find it:

HEADLINE: ADVANI SAYS SIACHEN PULL-OUT WOULD BE A SELL-OUT

from Pioneer, 4 May 2005



Wonder what is driving the NiSA and the UPA govt in making these deals? Also notice there is never a political face to these proposals. All hide behind the ex-babus. What is going on?

jr^2 here you go
Advani says Siachen pull-out would be a sell-out

[quote]
Advani says Siachen pull-out would be a sell-out

Press Trust of India
BHILWARA, May 2: The BJP today said any “ill-conceivedâ€

Almost certainly, one can replace the term "international community" with "USA" ...

Rename the damn place "Rahul Gandhi Ridge".
Indian Army will never be permitted to leave...

WTF is going on? Why the hell is MMS silent all this while? Waiting for the parliament session to resume? He's also been silent on the nuclear issue. Looks like there is no one in charge! Now I'm beginning to wonder if MMS has any say in running the government at all.

Stating the obvious. I wonder how our government can be out to implement such a clutch of anti national measures?

1 - Demilitarisation
2 - Reservations of 50% in colleges
3 - Job reservations in private sector
4 - Amnesties to Naxalites

Building deniability for their inaction or if anything goes wrong.. Classical CYA tactics..

Folks I had said something about MMSji before and it is something to ponder.

Anoop/Rye,

Firstly, it seems to me that there is a public debate going on, so I am not sure why people are complaining about a lack of public debate.

Secondly, let me turn things around. If you disagree with what I have said, surely you must disagree with critics like Advani and Parthasarathy who imply that a withdrawal would be acceptable if the AGPL is authenticated by the Pakistanis. In fact, my understanding is that this is the position of the army as well.

If my reading is correct, are Advani, Parthasarathy and the army also dupes? How exactly does authentication of the AGPL assure Pakistani non-aggression other than through the mechanisms I have suggested above?

P.S. People need to be civilised on this forum. Yes, B Singh, I am referring to your ridiculous tone. Grow up and learn to argue properly.

Amitabh,

A debate is conducted by two sides discussing their positions. We have heard objections to the pull-out proposal from people outside the govt. What clarification have we heard from the NSA or MoD or the PMO? All I've heard are conflicting signals - from the MoD stating that we're far away from a deal and the NSA saying we're close to one. Neither have specified what the contours of the deal will be. I have read inspired leaks stating that Pakistan is unwilling to authenticate the AGPL and that India is willing to put that in an Annexure to overcome this "technicality". None of this constitutes a debate - it is merely confusion. Parliament has not been addressed on this issue either and if this deal has been a while cooking, then there was enough time to do so before it adjourned.

I have stated earlier that even a Pakistani authentication of an AGPL is insufficient to prevent them from seizing it. On this matter, I am merely repeating the Army line - they say that at a minimum such a condition is necessary. They do not say it is sufficient. In fact they are very clear that if Pakistan does seize the Saltoro, we will not be able to dislodge them. The only preventive measure is the one reported in the media as being discussed - Pakistani positions move back to such an extent that they take the same time to reach the Saltoro as our troops do from the new positions. What has not been mentioned is whether Pakistan has agreed to this. You may recall that the previous 7 rounds of negotiation have been stuck on this point - Pakistan has insisted on a pre-1984 location of Indian troops while claiming that they are entitled to stay where they are now under the Shimla Agreement.

What is there to discuss? India occupies the heights, we got there, we are in place there, now Siachen is part of India, so why are we talking with Pakistan about evacuating our own land?

Yes there are harsh conditions that our soldiers go through over there, but it is needed. It is Pakistan that seems to have a problem with India being there, and enemies problems are our solutions.

If India has to vacate from Siachesn, then Pakistan should vacate its forces from Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

Still dont understand why Indian govt is even talking about Siachen with Pakistan? Whats next, Pakistan asking for Indian army to vacate the Punjab sector? Keep buying time, the General's grave is almost there, 2007, till then let him have some spotlight, let him think he is important.

Anoop has already said what needed to be said, but let me just reiterate.

Amitabh wrote:


What public debate? A bunch of nobodys on some random forum is not a public debate, not withstanding the fact that BRF is a popular forum, but we are not members of the GoI. Where is the "official" public debate? Whose name is going to be on the document gifting away Siachen to Pakistan? Is MMS willing to be made a scapegoat or is all this secrecy surrounding the Siachen sellout to ensure that all the necessary buttocks are covered in New Delhi/GoI?



The AGPL is a minimal instrument -- it is necessary but not sufficient, as Anoop has pointed out. Where is the public details of what the paki response to the AGPL proposal is? How does India plan to enforce the AGPL if *the army has already restated that IF PAKISTAN VIOLATES THE AGPL the ARMY CANNOT RETAKE SIACHEN. PERIOD*

That alone implies that the AGPL will be just another piece of paper that will be violated by the pakis -- note how the pakis lies for DECADES about the UN resolutions requiring India to get out of J&K (ignoring that fact that they had to get out of PoK first), and the worthless response of India, which could not counter this lie until recently, and that too only because the pakis screwed themselves. There was another replay of the same unwillingness to adhere to bilateral treaties -- the shimla agreement, the pakis refuse to honor that one to this day after crawling before India to get its signature on the dotted line in 1971. Now, some fool paki armyman is tired of siachen, and Indian policymakers think that is a good enough reason to conclude that "pakis are tired of the conflict"? Should we not have higher standards for pakis before we make such conclusions? The pakis are creating terror attacks in India on a regular basis, and we are suddenly supposed to believe that they are "tired of conflict"?

Thus, given the GoI's poor history of making Pakistan adhere to treaties, why this cretinous hurry to repeat the same mistake that has been made a couple of times before with the same lying entity -- the pak army? Are we being lorded over by Amnesiacs and/or fools?



Advani, army and GP do not support this move. GP's most recent article on Siachen asks many of the same questions being put to you.




So basically, your claim is:

1) AGPL does not assure paki good behavior, so why bother?
2) the half-assed "mechanisms" on the Indian side seem to proclaim that India will attack pakis in PoK if the Pakis take over siachen --- never mind the niggling fact that the LoC is fenced and the AGPL being not authenticated would give the pakis plausible deniability and would give India none, if both sides violate the LoC. This is exactly why the AGPL has to be authenticated, and even then, getting out of Siachen would place more pressure on the Indian Army in order to relieve pressure from the paki army. If I did not know any better, I would imagine that Indian policies of this sort was being created by a bunch of people who cannot tell the different between a strategic interest and a hole in the ground.

Is the claim made by MMS and the NiSA that the losses to the Indian army will be less in PoK than in Siachen? If not, what kind of "policy" would seek to provide an advantage to the enemy and get more Indian soldiers killed?

There seems to be a hurry to get out of siachen based on some dimwitted notions of pakis being "tired of the conflict", when the paki army's behavior only indicates that they are not really tired of the conflict but overstretched on multiple fronts, and want some breathing room -- an ideal situation from the Indian POV to hurt that hostile entity. AND YET, the Indian PM takes the Pakistani POV and tries to reduce the pressure on the PAki Army, and talks to the paki proxies like the hurriyat rats and tries to hand over siachen to pakistan in time for his photo op in Islamabad. Why are the PM and the NiSA kissing up to our mortal enemies in the paki army? Why is the PM MMS so gung-ho on a peace process that has only created more terror in India? What gives?

Why is the rest of the political spectrum being kept in the dark in such an important issue? Why are there NO EXPLANATIONS for WHAT has changed to require us to get out of Siachen ASAP? What's the bloody hurry? And yes, we can afford to stay in Siachen for a bit more, so I do not believe money is the issue here.

You are missing my point. How do you explain the following quote? That is the crux of my question. If an AGPL authentication is inadequate and no "foolproof mechanisms" exist, why would G Parthasarathy argue this?

Amitabh quoting GP:


I agree with this statement. However, I don't think there has been a convincing case made of the response in the event of a kargil-type intrusion -- unless the costs to pakistan are immediate and severe and in public, the paki army will be tempted to try a kargil -- the paki army seems to have no aversion to very risky and stupid ideas.

The ground positions in Kargil were well authenticated but that did not stop Mush from trying out something new. That should give us an idea of what we should expect from the Pakis.

That will never happen.

Heard that some US based think tanks were encouraging India on such withdrawal. It did cross my mind that the US could be planning to tie up India knowing that Pakistan will never keep such a promise or the US could always threaten India by issuing an advisory (like the travel advisory she issued a few years ago ) threatening to let Pakistan violate such a deal.

Unless Pakistan disbands 1/2 her army and the US stops all military aid to Pakistan such a thought is not worth it.

That India even entertains such a thought, to some extent, shows her weakness.

Amitabh-

Many in the Army are against this pull outno matter what.

Constrained by uniform they have to mouth platitudes - but off the record - this is unacceptable at thistime and when Mush is in charge. That devious b@stard can never be trusted.

Siachen: A Warning
The army is pretty lukewarm about demilitarising Siachen

That says it ALL.

From a Pakistani PoV, there is no one there right now too. However, they cannot occupy the ridge too (for reasons known to us all).

Bingo!! This is exactly what bothers me too. From time to time you have these rumours that GoI is considering some outrageously stupid decision or other, and instead of promptly shooting them down in public, MMS and Co let them just dangle there in full public view without comment.

It is entriely reasonable to fear some kind of ultra-stupid give-away simply to suck up to the Americans or something.

Mohan Raju wrote:



This Siachen withdrawal smells of a american suckup, especially with all the stupid nonsense about the PM wanting "the Siachen Deal" sealed for a photo-op to pakistan. Withdrawing from Siachen will give the pakis a new way to infiltrate jihadis via Leh, and the dumbos in charge of Indian Security want to let that happen WITHOUT AUTHENITICATING THE AGPL PHYSICALLY!!!

Apparently, dealing with the pakis for 3 decades is not enough to give these "leaders" pause about paki behavior when it comes to violating bilateral agreements, or complaining about INDIA being the one violating the agreement even when there is no violation (as in the Indus Water Treaty). And these jokers are supposed to lead 1 billion Indians to "great power" status (to use Texmati's words)? Why does that defy credibility?

I would not go that far. Heard that there were some think tanks encouraging India. GOTUS could be behind it too, but nothing official seems to have surfaced - so far. (I could be dated.)

There are two things that rile me:
1. There seems to be some urgency in getting THIS "deal" completed before meeting Mush. When in hell did Mush, the architect of Kargil, become this important, specially in India?
2. One thing at a time - get the civilian nuclear deal with the US first. Then refer #1

Does anyone else think that, Instead of Unkil it may be china behind all this faracas. Is pakistan the real beneficiary of this withdrawl or is it chinese who will ultimately benefit from it. Right Now, Our position give us some advantage over karakoram HWY. If we leave and pakistani's move in, what if Mushy will immediately gifts that area of chinese, it makes it defacto territory of china, where chinese will breath down our neck. Chinese will have direct road access to Arabian Gulf, they will be able to move men and material at rapid pace. IA will be stretched thin just to counter chinese threat, that will reduce pressure on western front, pakis will have more freedom, renewed vigor to escalate Jihadism. Maoist of Nepal will gladly oblige their chinese masters and create trouble for India along border. What a wonderful picture.
Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, China a quartet breathing down from all sides. Smelling blood, Sri Lankans side with chinese and Pakis to launch offensive against Tamil Tigers. Myanmar starts helping Nagas in their struggles against Indian Union. China doesn't want direct confrontation with US, let her underlings do her dirty work. If this scenario pans out, China will become undisputed power of Asia. Forget about IPI pipeline it will be more like IPC pipeline.

What will Indian Leadership do...It is best answered by ASPuar.

Karan,

For what it is worth and for better or worse, there are a few things we share with the US. The threat from that scenario, IMHO, is one that we share with them.

It is for that reason I feel that the Chinese would not be interested in taking over that area - certainly they would love for TSP to control it and get access to the sea - (via BD too) - as you state.

Frankly, from a threat perspective I am a lot more concerned about Indian politicians (what we will not do) than either TSP or Chicom plans(what they will do).

Karan wrote:


This raises the question: what is in it for the US to support china to gain access to Gwadar --- are they just trying to make Mushy's musharraf more secure, given all the troubles he's got right now.

Can I ask a basic question: If Pakistan is not willing to mark the AGPL, isn't that evidence enough of bad intentions? What more evidence does India need that Siachen should not be vacated?

Can someone comment on this, please.

s

Surinder,

There are at least four parties to (pretty much all) Indo-Pak problem: India, Pakistan, US and the rest (Japan for instance when Pakis say "nukes" and some Islamic states when it comes to Kashmir - not that all are equally important, etc).

Then there is a concept called "confidence building" - which is defined differently by each.

Then there is a lapse of memory on the part of Pakistan and the US - for instance Kargil - people outside India seem to behave as though it never happened. (Forget marking maps, I would not withdraw just based on Kargil - period. Why even think of withdrawing?)

Now we SEEM to have US think tanks (which have not been cleaned for eons - the tanks that is) that appear to be getting into the act of mediating or whatever.

Just too many cooks.

But, IMHO, the problem is mostly with India - that we have put ourselves in this predicament. The fact that such things linger without resolutions and that the Pakis can afford to keep coming back with a broken record shows some amount of impotency from an "open source" PoV.

JMTs.