Should India pullout troops from Siachen

Aaryan · Post by **Aaryan** » 11 May 2012 17:50

1 now and 5 when we are ready..

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 11 May 2012 18:31

stay put. No better option for now.

sudhan · Post by **sudhan** » 11 May 2012 18:49

7. More avalanches to send more pious to their 72

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 11 May 2012 21:50

If one avalanch makes the TSPA sue for peace. Then I am all for one. Else my vote remains 5.

Advait · Post by **Advait** » 11 May 2012 22:29

Guys, doing some "out of the box thinking". Can Siachen be "blown up"?

There was a scifi/thriller I once read where NoKo plans to put nuclear reactors under Antarctica's ice sheet and make it melt to cause worldwide disaster.

Can the Siachen glacier be melted, if not the whole thing, then at least a part of it to make life for our soldiers easier and reducing cost too.

Advait · Post by **Advait** » 11 May 2012 22:51

I am not kidding. I will address your points.

Damaging the environment - well ever heard of the egg breaking, omelet making analogy.

Pakistan will not be there in 50 years - are you sure that this will happen. Our enemies say the same about India. This seems like wishful thinking to me.

Indus has always been there - Saraswati river dried up. Nature itself causes major changes.

all in all, no reason why not to take some action.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 May 2012 23:11

I am not sure you guys hate pakistan or pakistanis. The land is ours, btw.

member_22710 · Post by **member_22710** » 12 May 2012 01:48

Question - What will pakistan do if :-
1.PA occupied the ridge and major strategic heights
2.IA was facing huge causalities
3.IA morale was low for Siachen deployments
4.World opinion in general was against India
5.IA didn't have funds for expensive high altitude deployments

Outcome shall be clear to anyone, if Yes/NO type answers are provided. However diplomacy is not black & white at all times, so following may be considered to reach any opinion:-
1.What strategic objectives are achieved by Demilitarizing Siachen.
2.What is the risk if Pakistan backtracks from written accord. ie. cost of reaching current status quo.
3.How will it effect morale of IA.

What can help in finding an agreement.
-Acceptance of AGPL & LOC on international cartographic maps and its validation by both parties.
-Phased Demilitarization - Starting with non vital & non strategic but verifiable pullouts.
-Agreement on keeping operational presence at two to three strategic points until confidence level is inadequate.

What can derail the agreement
-IA's justification of Siachen Deployments.
-Public opinion in both Pakistan (if accepts AGPL & LOC) and India (if not accepted by Pakistan)
-Some mischief (terror attacks , PA misadventures, Indian Parliamentary debate

)

Considering Pakistan's history of keeping promises / agreements , solution is not clearly marked out. If Siachen was a quick fix and leaders of both countries could achieve results in one quarter, then there was no need of 3 decade standoff at world's highest battlefield. IMHO - patient and skillful negotiations are required to Demilitarize Siachen - Pakistan has to clean its dirty slate and come up with verifiable record of upholding agreements, India has to accommodate risk and learn to display enough spine so that it can play bigger games not only in South Asia but as mature global power. If India's own neighborhood is in mess it cannot become a leader on world stage. Now I will not put a time frame to such a complicated task when India Pakistan cannot uphold or agree on written treaties (ie. Simla agreement , Indus water treaty).

member_23440 · Post by **member_23440** » 12 May 2012 02:33

India should tell the world in general and Pakistan in particular to vacate Western Kashmir, and for China to withdraw from our land. There's nothing else to it.

partha · Post by **partha** » 12 May 2012 02:50

cbharadwaj wrote:India should tell the world in general and Pakistan in particular to vacate Western Kashmir, and for China to withdraw from our land. There's nothing else to it.

Only if it was so easy

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 12 May 2012 04:01

moi voted for 2. The reason being that it is about time to make bigger moves while realizing the gains. The master and slave who together screwed us have apparently developed "trust deficit" and their discondant relations have lasted a decade now. So, strong reason to say seeming reality is actual as well. We should use this opportunity to set a narrative that is favorable for us and make progress from the position of strength.

Extemely grateful to our Armed forces for holding the fort so long in such extreme conditions. It is now civilian administrators' turn to book those gains on paper for perpetuity.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 12 May 2012 04:36

5. Take Skardu, Goma, Gyari, don't stop at that also take PoK when you are at it, when it's ours, why give them even an inch? why are we even having this poll? When you are wishing the destruction of TSP, we are also discussing how to part our land?

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 12 May 2012 04:54

Now that welfare checks from their masters have either slowed down or almost stopped, paakees can't fund their meeleetary, SO indics should retreat from Siachen, so they can outsource trespassing to self-motivated tellorists....... Of course, they want us to pull out...Innovative idea to save money....

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 12 May 2012 08:47

Guys, Just a little feedback from my side.

Thanks for your the participation till now. Compared to mauling one can get in threads I thought one would not mind a little scratch.

As you can see it just something on the fly. I do apologise if it is a little confusing. I not an expert in these matters.
I wanted to get some footing on what are the various positions. Nothing more.

I wanted to know India should <a> because of , that is.
As I see it, India can do 1 of 5 things. <a> in this case.
But would be really "your" reason.

In a way, without <a> is kind of meaningless. I see I did not specify that in the beginning, not that without it would not be counted, but, it would offer us fewer insights.

If it had been possible to get only <a> and without the User Name, it would been ideal. But there was no way to run it without the User Name.

There is 2 1/2 days to put in.
Thanks

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 May 2012 08:50

Manu you are talking in C++.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 May 2012 09:52

The emergence of Chinese forces on the ground in POK is extremely alarming.Using the Karakorum Pass,the PLA can insert massive forces into POK whose mere presence would be enough encouragement for the Pakis to launch another Kargil or even '65 against J&K. It would be suicidal for India to abandon Siachen at this juncture after the Chinese factor has been added to the game.Unfortunately,our doddering,senile,geriatric leadership (which takes its cue from Washington), one foot in the grave and both eyes on a potential Nobel peace prize,want to be remembered for something other than the legacy of 2-G,CWG,Antrix and a host of other "tricks" that have been perpetrated against the nation.

Had the China factor not been present,perhaps a limited demilitarisation of Siachen would've been an option.Even if a deal is to be made.India should have (reduced) troops on the ground at key positions ,with logistic supplies pre-positioned and back up forces close at hand,ready to return and engage the enemy almost immediately if he welshes upon his word.

anjan · Post by **anjan** » 12 May 2012 11:11

2 is a distorted version of the Official govt line. And the idea that we shouldn't withdraw because it's ours is a deeply flawed argument. We don't guard every meter of our country. We don't defend every inch of the desert either. Next people will say why not do that. The argument is made that the Pakis are not to be trusted. Fair enough. So how come the LC and IB aren't held along every ridge? We don't because we plan to strike elsewhere in a place of our own chosing and we plan on expanding the conflict. Sure political stupidity like Kargil for grandstanding purposes may happen where we refuse to expand the conflict. Isn't the solution to make the political class accountable? This idea of constantly increasing the burden on the Armed forces because we trust them more will only add to strain on them. Some of the people who make statements here should meet battalions coming off Siachen some time. For that matter go meet the pilots who do air maintenance for the place. If I was a Paki faced by this mentality then the easiest thing for me to do is alternately keep making incursions all over the place.

I don't agree with the "we can verify so let's withdraw" or the "no real military value" arguments that's being peddled by some here. I do however agree with the official stand of the Indian Army though. Delineate , demarcate and withdraw with the clear understanding of who's territory it is. And hopefully if the Pakis have a go at it the Govt. of the day has more sense. The Armed forces are meant to defend the country and whatever the cost they'll do it. The country however owes them that we explore a safe political solution if possible. Otherwise it's just being reckless with other people's lives.

jai · Post by **jai** » 12 May 2012 11:41

Wait for pakis. To vacate on their own as they are going bankrupt, then retake posts and heights that give us an advantage. It's a militarily held line that can change depending on who can take it. Assert our ownership aggressively and in all international forums, keep pakis under constant pressure to make them spend more on their military and push them to bankruptcy, then start retaking all of Pok

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 May 2012 11:43

Voted for option 4; not a blade of grass grows there.

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 12 May 2012 12:31

shiv wrote:Manu you are talking in C++.

Sir
I can only hope that the folks have voted also picked out a reason for their vote.
That can come from the list provided or that can be their own.
But I can't influence any to put in a reason, right, I can only hope.

If the second part is confusing, that is coming from different people make the same choices due to different reasons.
To put it another way, let's say the question is. Do you exercise. "yes". Reason could be. "Because the Doc told me", "I don't want to see the Doc", "I like to" all 3 would be valid, someone could say "Rehab".

I thought that would be interesting to know, what those are.

The limitation here is that you know who voted what, because we log in. But there are good reasons for asking this here because the pool of people is (in a way) filtered, in a good sense.

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 12 May 2012 12:34

negi wrote:Voted for option 4; not a blade of grass grows there.

Negi ji,
requesting a small clarification.
Your choice is with Option 2 or Option 3.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 12 May 2012 13:09

^^negi is being sarcastic I'm sure.

member_19648 · Post by **member_19648** » 12 May 2012 13:09

Peace!!! Peace with the Pakis?? I ask why?? and most importantly why is peace a hostage to gifting away Siachen or Kashmir or AP to the rapists, goons!! There can be no peace with the losers period, its time the world accepts the Pakis as they are, rapists, goons, good for nothing morons. Siachen as for that matter the whole of Kashmir is Indian territory, India can withdraw its troops, build a peace park, national park, modern skyscraper city or whatever over that barren land where no blad of grass grows, that should not be anyone's concern. As other part of borders, Siachen needs troops for vigil, what is the problem of morons in that?? I wonder how people are making it a point that our jawans are suffering, what about all the sacrifices that our Jawnas have made and are making now, all those are waste!!! The Pakis have tried so many things, covert war, overt war, terrorism, strategic depth, nuke war scare and they have failed in everything, in fact they are an utter failure as Dr. Shiv points out. Now they are resorting to all sweet talk and cordial relations, that doesn't change a Paki from a rapist. Peace should be at India's behest as it is our land and we have control over it, if the Pakis so much as even dare to scratch, we should make sure, the Pakiland is a modern day Atlantis at the bottom of Arabain Sea, and everyone lives happily thereafter at PEACE.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 12 May 2012 14:55

There can be no peace, as long as the paki's intension is just to bleed India with state sponcered terrosim continues. There can be peace only when the ISI is dismantled, and pak country is turned in to a true democrasy, and when they want real friendship with India which can NEVER happen !! So there can be no peace. Option 1 for now <stay put> and when get a chance go for option 5.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 12 May 2012 19:51

PratikDas wrote:
shiv wrote:I can't understand anything beyond the first 4 words in option 1. I voted for the first 4 words.
+1

me too

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 12 May 2012 20:12

5 and 1 all the way

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 12 May 2012 21:31

>>>>>Troops should pull out in reciprocity, with authentication and monitoring mechanism in place

I have mentioned earlier that I favor and voted for 2 based on the reasons I mentioned. However, I wanted to spell out certain assumptions and implications contained in that choice so we are all clear.

the real issue is the cost of trust gone awry (not the trust itself per say).

For example, cost of pre-84 paki actions is that we had to spend money and lives to take the positions we have today. However, in the event of non-unanimous agreement on the Indian side or that which isn't led and/or totally endorsed by military folks, is that Pukis have a card to play at a future date that can agravate civilian/military relations within India. This plays so well with other benefactors of pukis that it will be compelled it play mischeif.

The cost of trust in pukes gone awry isn't limited to retaking the position but dealing with a whole different situation within India.

So, while booking current positions on paper, it becomes extremely important for the Indian side to ensure the "monitoring mechanism" is air tight and leaves no way pukes can abrogate it.

That's why I felt there needs to be another component from the puki side to compensate for this risk we are taking.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 12 May 2012 22:40

What about the growing chinese presence in PoK? IMO, vacating the heights at this juncture is suicidal. They aren't on the glacier so what exactly are they bringing to the table? Closing terror camps, handing over hafiz, ha! This is our territory and we saw what the Pakis did in 1999. Those islamic buffoon get buried by an avalanche and ashphuk comes on teewee and all of a sudden these liberal tadpoles peak out of the pond totally oblivious to the fact that the same PA still runs that sh*thole next door. When pakistan starts showing signs of gangrene and is about to go through a couple amputations then maybe.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 12 May 2012 23:43

RoyG ji, those are very valid points. I wish to see better handling of PR on the Indian side and take the debate to next level asking Pukis to comment and committ on those issues.

The trap here is that of allowing the perception of initiative to pukistan - whether it is grounded in reality or not should not be allowed to happen. The reason being that it gives pukis an excuse to perpetuate/continue the terror policy as we can be seen as unwilling to make peace. Not sure if it is by design or the result of our incompetence. If we are in this situation, there are plenty of ways to wiggle out of this situation. We can restart this dialogue on our terms later on.

I also wish a person more vocal than MMS, who seems quite secretive and manipulated (not manipulative) almost to the point of being remote controlled, having barely displayed personal stake (not much public following, hardly won elections, kids all living outside, educated abroad and highly susceptible to praise/endorsement from external stakeholders than inside) to lead this effort. Economic reforms are already under his belt. Breaking out of nuclear aparthide apparently are half achieved. I would rather he followed that up than perhaps risking us in another venture.

Requesting ManuT ji to extend the poll closure beyond May14th pl (if possible)

. Let's evaluate what other elements are involved and how situation at Gyari unfolds.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 13 May 2012 07:52

Along with Skardu, Goma and Gyari!! Also bomb Murdike and other LET and Dawood's know hideouts.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 14 May 2012 08:01

Hmm...isn't making much sense. I took a inspiration out of some dal badlu MPs. I made a switch to 1. Let's the folkers spend to get the base back and we can talk of demil later. Pukes need to do more to rebuild the trust and come clean on collusion with cheenes.

member_23438 · Post by **member_23438** » 14 May 2012 08:02

plasbhemy!!! this thread is outright tyrannical

Virendra · Post by **Virendra** » 14 May 2012 15:11

Opted for "1: Stay put"
Fact 1 - We cannot trust the neighbors on both sides. Period.
Fact 2 - We cannot evalute the purpose of holding territory purely on direct material benefits accruable from it. Strategic value of Siachen reflects a lot on the tangibly fruitful regions of J & K.
Fact 3 - We ought not be so defensive and try finding reasons to move out from our own land. In this atmosphere we should instead be farsighted and know the reasons to stay there. It is our land and we need not justify to anyone as to why we have to be there, be mindful of its defense.

Regards,
Virendra

Amitabh · Post by **Amitabh** » 14 May 2012 16:56

Wow - 53% of the voters in this poll clearly live in a fantasy land (i.e. chose options 3-5). Who would have thought that I would feel like a peacenik for voting for option 2, which is the army's supposed "hardline" position!

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 14 May 2012 18:30

I voted for 2
I imagine there would be a need for troops for monitoring, but the numbers could be reduced.

If not possible then 1. till a series of minor others issues are solved first.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 14 May 2012 19:27

The question to ask ourselves is whether India can trust the pakis (for the fouth time) again. Pakis' entire purpose of being is to defeat the Hindus and capture Delhi. They will keep trying until they do. This new tamasha is all in the interest of buying time to regroup.

You all know this by heart: Bin Qasim's campaign (PeeBUH) was beaten back twice, let go and he came back with a vengeance. Ghori was beaten several times by Solankis and Chauhan but was let go and he kept trying until he succeeded. India's history is replete with such benevolence and, as aresult, look where it is today.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 14 May 2012 20:26

If Kargil happened in spite of Indian army constant monitoring, what makes one to think this time around Siachen monitoring will succeed? I am not doubting the ability of our army, they have given enough sacrifices, but there are limits, one can't think and be complacent that enemy doesnt have the will to circumvent monitoring and that our army can monitor 24/7, 365 days a years given that Siachen is one of the harsh places to monitor.

Prevention is better than cure, how are you going to dislodge an enemy after it occupies? and you will loose more men for that? and when all this can be prevented in the first place? In sports, there is a saying "best defense is to be offensive". Going against wisdom and trusting an enemy which broke all possible accords we had before, is nothing but overconfidence at the least and foolishness at the worst.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 14 May 2012 20:59

Under the current conditions: To even pose the question of "pre-emptive withdrawal" is somewhat treasonous, no?

At the same time, what is there to be gained from adventurism, when what awaits you is flowing in your direction already?

Siachen is a holding.
Just hold on to it.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 14 May 2012 21:03

Any land where Indian blood is shed becomes forever Indian. No Indian Government should be allowed to barter away what has been won in war.
Gautam

Virendra · Post by **Virendra** » 15 May 2012 12:54

That way we own parts of north Africa, middle East, S E Asia and China