Bharat Rakshak

Reports indicate signals intelligence has linked the attackers back to Pakistan. Intelligence services are said to have intercepted the terrorists' conversations via satellite phone. The men spoke in Punjabi and used Pakistani phrases.

From here: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120421/edit.htm#4

I'd have agreed with you ten years back. Today while its true of course that a sizable section of the media and intelligentsia is advocating peace with India with varying levels of passion, more important is the political leadership especially those with grassroots support. Their political structure is not very unlike India's - PPP is similar to the Congress - secularish, pro-farmer and devoted to the Bhutto family (which includes Zardari), the PML(N) is similar to the BJP - pro-business, slight religious tilt and then you have various regional parties - PML(Q), MQM, ANP, JeI etc. The big difference is the politically influential military in Pakistan.

The PPP was originally virulently anti-India (under ZA Bhutto), moderately anti-India in initial years of Benazir's govt and then pro-peace once it broke from the army's influence. Its the same with the PML(N) - it came to power with the support of the army, but as soon as it found its legs, it cut ties and started pursuing a settlement with India. Pervez Musharraf seized power in '99 while pursuing a hard-line but made a U-turn just a few years down the line. Every one of them came to power espousing confrontation with India right until they were in chair - then reality sunk in and they realized what that meant.

Here on BRF its popular to think of their leaders as mad men, but the truth is they are by and large rational individuals and can read the writing on the wall. It was different back in 80s and early 90s when at least they were fairly prosperous while India was poverty stricken with stagnant economy. Today, not only are they up against an economy that is 10 times larger but one that's also growing 3 times as fast. There's now a broad consensus across their political spectrum that Kashmir can no longer be resolved on their terms. Their military too is reaching the conclusion that maintaining even the traditional 1:3 military balance with India will soon become nonviable.

Point is, Pakistan is moving in a direction a lot similar to Bangladesh (which too has its fair share of loonies) - given the ongoing turmoil its less evident right now but you study the news coming out and read between the lines it does become evident.

I was under impression that ridgeline is the border in all mountain lands. For instance that is the basis with PRC and Nepal and off course when it comes to India its not followed!

I think the way forward is to look at the terrain, geographical and military logic and devise borders that work both for us and for our neighbours.

True. And Afzal Guru, Kasab are still alive as are those responsible for the anti-Sikh riots and Gujarat riots. Mafioso and thugs contest and win state and national elections. What makes you think the justice system is any less broken on that side?




That's a wonderfully simplistic way of looking at issues. Black and white, no shades of grey. Don't care to study the pressures or fissures internal to the establishment or the army's interaction with various political forces. Easier to make a blanket statement - army controls country, army hates us, therefore country hates us. Dig in heels. Therein lies the bliss.

If a straight line due north is drawn from NJ 9842, it joins Terram Shehr II glacier, which would put Sia La, eight degrees west of this line. It will also put Indira Col, west of this line. Using this logic, we would control only about 2/3 of the Siachen Glacier. Now the Indian argument shall be the watershed principle should hold, which will bring the Saltoro in the picture. But, this is still unilateral and the charge against India of a violation of Shimla will hold. However, the LoC is itself not a result of some principled border. It was demarcated based on the AGPL in 71 and 1949, held through force. The issue with the settlement of the LoC on the basis of the "thence North" of NJ9842 is the fact that the entire state is in fact disputed and hence no "settlement" of the final boundary in the glaciers can be made in isolation of the Kashmir issue. The only solution is to demilitarize the Glaciers. AGPL is a sore sticking point for the PA, as it will legitimize an aggression in their eyes.

A ridgeline is a defensible border, and also avoids complex water issues, (Whatever water is shed on this side is mine, and that side is yours) thats why its a good idea to choose ridgelines with connections as borders

For e.g. the Shaksgam valley is separated by the highest ridgelines in the world from an area that we claim, (and are in control of), i.e. Siachen. Further, its 'easier' (relative terms, its very hardy territory on that side too) reached from China than from India. Thirdly, see the Aksai chin region, if the mountain range is going to define the border, it will be along the Kunlun ranges, which cedes nearly all of Aksai Chin to China.

..
The Shaksgam Valley area watershed rests on Karakorum - the principle adopted was that Karakorum divides the watershed of rivers in Indus and Tarim Basin. The river south of this range flow into Arabian Sea while north of it (Shaksgam River) flows into Tarim Basin. There is one exception in this demarcation - 750 sq.kms area north of Shimshal Pass (on the watershed) was given to Pakistan as this area was historically used by people of Shimshal for grazing their livestock.
..

Against the overwhelming evidence in support of the Saraswati being an Indian river and majority of the Indus sites being located along its banks, the remarks of the well-known historian, R. S. Sharma, come as a rude shock. Sharma (1999: 35) says, “The fundamentalists want to establish the superiority of the Sarasvati over the Indus because of communal considerations. In the Harappan context they think that after partition the Indus belongs to the Muslims and only the Sarasvati remains with the Hindus” (emphasis B. B. Lal’s).

The fact, however, is that no scholar of repute has made such a statement. The Indus, even though today, flows, for most of its length, through Pakistan, is very much an Indian river as well for it reaches Pakistan only after flowing through Kashmir. Besides, as Sir Mortimer Wheeler (1959) said in his book, India from the Earliest Times to Ashoka, the Indus gave India her name and the Ganges gave her faith. So no sane scholar can make such a foolish and rabid statement.

The death of bin Laden opens up the possibility of hiving off the Afghan Taliban from al-Qaeda and pursuing a political solution to the war in Afghanistan. But Pakistan will not be weaned off its addiction to jihadi proxies unless three things happen – all of them necessary for an end to the Afghan war.

Pakistan’s legitimate security concerns in Afghanistan must be recognised; India is using the country to work against Islamabad, especially in Baluchistan. Detente with India and a solution to Kashmir must be addressed; if not there is no hope of changing the worldview of Pakistan’s praetorians.

If Siachen supplies any water to Indus, it is also Indian heritage. There is an independent cultural connection too.

If it has not dawned upon the protagonists of demilitarisation that it is a war out there, we shall have to redefine warfare in the 21st century. If previously it was held and practiced that "Attack is the best form of defence" now on it shall be "Withdrawal is the best form of defence".

I was under impression that ridgeline is the border in all mountain lands. For instance that is the basis with PRC and Nepal and off course when it comes to India its not followed!

One of the panelists on BD's programme on NDTV about siachen made this comment that reflects reality

Asking us to demilitarize Siachen is like asking us to demilitarize Jaipur, it is our land and no body has any business asking us to do this or that.
BD abruptly cut off a guy who was talking about Kayani being a proxy for the Chinese
There were few ex IA officers on the programme, officers who had lost parts of their limbs to the harsh conditions of Siachen, yet they were of the opinion that it was worth it..reason being it is our land and we must defend it at any cost.
A stupid, fat, fugly JNU biatch was of the opinion that if India unilaterally withdraws, the poaks would not occupy the posts vacated by the Indians because the weather is harsher than in Kagril
There was a brit on the programme with a distinct Paki bias, BD did noting to challenge her

I actually completely agree with the sentiment on Demilitarization of just not the Siachen Glacier, but Kashmir, Arunachal, Bhutan, the entire border with Tibet. These were never so in History despite movements of peoples, traders and pilgrims across without any issues at all. Militarization has been done so only the last few decades..and so the relevant question is what happened in the last few decades that the need of manning the borders arose in the first place? We have not put any Army across the border with Nepal, Bhutan for instance.

Answer: Tibetan culture was replaced with Han Chinese imperialist. The peace of Kashmir was engulfed by a newly emerged Islamist neighbor both of who detest the cultural contiguity and peace of the type India has/ had with Tibet, Bhutan, Nepal. Tomorrow if the Chinese take over Nepal, we will have to scramble to militarize our borders inevitably with Nepal too, just like we are doing with Pakistan on every inch and the Chinese on the LAC northern fronts.

These border issues are not going away, and India needs it's boots on the ground every inch even where no blade of grass grows till the Islamist and Han imperialist ideologies are wiped out on our Western and Northern neighborhoods and the necessary buffers of Tibet emerge. This core recent dimension to the border dispute must be highlighted on every channel. Why are the Chinese negotiating on Ar P? Why are we not negotiating Chinese claims on Tibet, why are we not claiming Kailash Mansarover an area that is twice as large as Aksai and which is the holiest spots of hundreds of millions of Indians? Why are we even negotiating of withdrawal from what is essentially our territory for millenia. 1 millienia ago, 2 ago, 3 ago, 4 ago..who was in Kailash Mansarover, Kashmir? THe Islamist or the Han? How and why is it that the recent intruders have made irrelevant boudaries between Dharmic states a matter of dispute? There in lies our folly. Think about it.

The NDTV programme is nothing but Congi psyops intended to influence the Indian population to create an atmosphere for Dr. MMS's anticipated trip to Jihadistan. Dr. MMS and his coterie plans to stick it to Indian Army by gifting Siachen to Pakis and hopes that this will create an atmosphere where Pakis would be dissuaded from terrorizing our cities.

His term will complete in 2014 and then he will go into oblivion, sooner or later Pakis will occupy those posts.

After watching the audience's reactions, I am shocked to see such idiots amongst our populace, who want to save human lives by giving our territory to the enemy. We are also losing troops in Kashmir, using the same logic we should also give Kashmir to the Jihadis? Pakis are also bombing Mumbai every 5 years, we should be prepared to give up Mumbai as well and eventually setup a peace park in New Delhi.

Myra MacDonald is a typical Brit i.e. Paki sympathizer. Fortunately, her opinion matters as much as Britain matters in the world today.

I hope our babus stick to their point - Dear Kiya-nahi, sign on this dotted line and make AGPL the LoC else we'll see you in the next round on Siachen.

After watching the audience's reactions, I am shocked to see such idiots amongst our populace, who want to save human lives by giving our territory to the enemy. We are also losing troops in Kashmir, using the same logic we should also give Kashmir to the Jihadis? Pakis are also bombing Mumbai every 5 years, we should be prepared to give up Mumbai as well and eventually setup a peace park in New Delhi.

Something peculiar is up in the Siachin Glacier The Pakistan Army Chief has made a third trip to the site of the avalanche that killed 133 Pakistan Army personnel. Normally, one would think one trip is enough. General Kiyani is, after all, Army chief. He has an army to run and more importantly, a nation to run. On each occasion he has called for a Siachin settlement. This third time he has even taken an Indian journalist with him. Why this PR blitz? He made an offer the first time, India said all offers for settlement were welcome. The General couldn’t have been serious about the offer because these matters are not discussed via the media. Anyway, both sides periodically call for settling outstanding issues. General Kiyani has made his point and now let the diplomatic channels do their work. Does he think he has only to call for a settlement and the next day India agrees? Why these attempts to pressure India, all made within days of each other?


· The General has talked about the enormous cost of occupying the region. We cannot speak for Pakistan, but there is no evidence the cost bothers India. There’s been no fighting for years, and the human cost of operating in the hostile environment has steadily come down as both sides have learned to live there. There is no reason for India to agree to any withdrawal, because Pakistan can occupy Indian positions within hours. And the vulnerability applies to Pakistan.

· The only thing we can think of is that there is some trouble in the Northern Light Infantry, Pakistan’s high mountain regiment. Even though after it was regularized subsequent to the Kargil War 1999, as a consequence of which 50% of the regiment is Punjabi, half still remains enlisted from locals. First, the locals are mainly Shia Muslims and Pakistani Sunnis, in common with their brethren worldwide, persecute the Shias. Second, the Northern Areas have been the scene of major crackdowns by the Pakistan Government because of local resentment against Islamabad. Third, the Chinese are now in the region in increasing numbers and this has to be causing more problems with the locals.


· It is possible – and we are only guessing – that the loss of lives in the avalanche and the failure to recover the bodies has been a trigger for resentments already building up within the NLI.



· But again, we do not see how withdrawal will solve any of these issues for Pakistan. To begin with, the men died in an act of nature. No one is to blame. The NLI are professional soldiers, they serve because they want to and because in comparison with their meager economic circumstances the Army offers a very good living. We do not see how saying “Okay, we’re pulling you back” suddenly makes everything okay for the local soldiers of the regiment – assuming there is a problem. And if the other issues we discussed are in some way making the locals less reliable, Pakistan has a population of 180-million. It can recruit replacements and make the NLI 75% or even 100% Punjabi within a few months. It can also post NLI battalions outside the region – since the regiment is now a regular regiment, Pakistan in any case sends NLI battalions where they are needed.

Attacks on what? and with what? Instead of dealing in hypotheticals, why not take a look at the terrain and see what kind of military material the Pakistanis could bring across and how they would sustain their men, once they came down from the ridges. No invasion across those heights is possible. The only possible route, that I could see, is along the Shyok valley.

Accurate targeting, but on what? some villages, which could be evacuated.. Some villages were evacuated for the duration of the war in any case! So if Civil lives were not at stake, should we have lost 600 lives for some property? We paid a price of 600 odd soldiers lives, and 1000 or so injured, two jets shot down, and one chopper. This price would not be paid by any military general, if the Srinagar Leh highway was not disrupted. The attack would have come at a place of our choosing.

To make up *my* mind, I put fwd five criteria, not just the economic one. To refresh your memory, they are strategic/political/cultural/economic/cost of operations(human/monetary). If you want to make up your mind differently, its your prerogative. Why beat up a strawman?

Sure. Give up some terror network that will not end up destabilizing the civil govt. there. Such as Paresh Baruah (though he is said to be in China these days), or give up the Indian Mujahedin network, or some muhajir don shon from India. Thats the best I could think of. I personally feel, that without such a gesture to show good faith, we should not move fwd on Siachen.

“Pakistan has violated every written agreement and verbal commitment since 1947,” Lt Gen Ravi Sawhney, former Director-General of Military Intelligence, told the magazine. “Why does our Prime Minister want to close his eyes to hard facts and trust Pakistan blindly?.......

An excessive eagerness to secure peace at any cost with Pakistan comes with enormous risks of a surrender of strategic advantage. Nothing is worth that cost: not even the prospect of a Nobel Peace Prize and a legacy as a peacemaker.

From OrBat: