Siachen News & Discussion

[sudeepj]

^ +1

All these talks of demilitarisation is from the comfort of couches and chairs of power. Ultimately the price will be paid by some unknown soldiers' lives. I challenge anyone proposing demilitarisation to enlist themselves or one of their near and dear in the field army and then speak of the p"ss process in Siachen.

@nelson, and Bajwa saab.

Look, this exact statement can be be turned back with just a few syllable changes here and there. In fact this is a standard line of argument among certain circles.

All these talks of demilitarisation of Siachen is from the comfort of couches and chairs of power. Ultimately the price will be paid by some unknown soldiers' lives. I challenge anyone proposing demilitarisation to enlist themselves or one of their near and dear in the field army and then speak of the p"ss process making war in Siachen.

This above is a pretty unfair line of argumentation. The problem with it is, it is a personal argument, that attacks the person putting fwd the argument and not the argument itself. We are all Indians here, and are making arguments that in our view are best for India. What will be gained by attacking each other? Let it go..

[brihaspati]

ShauryaT wrote

• SSN and Eastern Ladakh will become focused objectives of Chinese strategic acupuncture. Defence potential of SSN will be totally degraded with western flank exposed and KK Pass to north, which India stopped patrolling years back for fear of annoying the dragon. We continue to remain thin in Eastern Ladakh against Chinese threat via Aksai Chin – heightened more now with possibility of two front war.

The only way for SSN/Ladakh to be threatened by China is through Karakoram pass and Aksai Chin and NOT through Siachen. The ability of TSPA to occupy the ridges and come down from there is slim to none. The maximum TSPA can do is occupy the ridges and threaten the valleys and the glacier itself, but then India should be smart enough to provide a disproportionate response. The only case that TSPA has is if PRC joins in from the east and even then the axis of attack through Siachen would not make sense. SSN/Ladakh can be exposed, if Pakistan threatens the Shyok/Nubra valleys. Which leads us to the next point.

The ability of TSPA to occupy and descend from the ridges is slim - suppose. Is it equally slim for the PLA's mountain warfare formations? the axis of attack through the Siachen seems improbable for what we have seen so far about Paki technique. But we do not know about the future - especially if we substitute PLA for TSPA. Every position left in the hands of TSPA is potentially a position occupied by the PLA. There is insufficient public domain knowledge of current PLA preparations for mountain warfare. All that exists are speculations.

• Our next line of defence will perforce base on Ladakh Range with possibility of Leh coming within enemy artillery range.

This is where our non linear response options come into play. It will be stupid for us do an upfront assault on the ridges. As Kargil shows it is very expensive and hence other options SHOULD come into play.

Which would translate into not doing anything.

Ladakh and Zanskar Ranges will be targeted for terrorism by ISI nurtured groups while Pakistan will say they are ‘out of control’. ISI has been nurturing Shia terrorist outfits with an eye on Ladakh since late 1990s.

Then co-existence breaks and all options are open again.

Terrorist outfits have been continuously infiltrating and carrying out atrocities. Coexistence has not broken after any of the more spectacular atrocities. Atrocities on the thin populations of Ladakh, with much less media presence - is likely to be reported even less - because that would disturb communal harmony. So how do you conjure up this claim of "coexistence breaks"?

What is meant by "all options are open again"? You mean all options are open now that they can open "again"? At the moment all options means all the food menu options on the dining table for chai biskoot sessions.

Quote:
Why are the Ottawa University, the Atlantic Council and the National Defense University, Washington not discussing a ‘Peace Park’ astride the Durand Line? Will demilitarization of Siachen increase the chances / avenues of conflict between China-Pakistan and India?

I think we should ignore the desires and pontifications of the west and act on Siachen, strictly based on how we see our interests and our ability to manage the risks.

We should ignore even when the desires and pontifications of the west coincides with Paki desires and our own internal withdrawalist agenda? Isn't that an even greater reason not to ignore it?

Quote:
• If the whole exercise is based on trusting Pakistan, what exactly has Pakistan done to earn that trust? Has the anti-India terrorist infrastructure including 40 terrorist training camps in POK been dismantled? Has ‘any’ progress been made in punishing the perpetrators of 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks?

TSP has to act BEFORE de-escalation takes place. However, Siachen would be a low risk way to test the waters before other larger de-escalation steps are considered.

I think this is something I can agree to - provided all those who support taking this risk also commit themselves to commit suicide if they are proven wrong. When its a matter of conceding any advantage to TSP that it can turn over to PLA and others for military, and therefore subsequently for Paki jihad or genocide advantages - death, voluntary or assisted, should be the level of commitment if proved wrong.

Quote:
• How will Ladakh be defended post de-militarization?

There is no attack force coming in from the Glaciers or the Saltoro, so I do not get the import of this question.

Cannot be ruled out. Those of posters here having some exposure to high altitude warfare planning can draw your own conclusions. This will also be related to your remaining military-tactical questions.

however a curiosity : in the context of Gilgit-Baltistani demographics you say

The population base here is really small to do any major damage. They are largely rural, socio-economically weak. There is fragmentation along language, religion, regional etc. This is probably the most diverse region in all of Pakistan. There is only so much this population can do, without active support of outsiders. But, the good part for India is they are not Sunnis for the most part. So, the issue can be kept alive for India's benefit in the future. Who knows, how things will shape up in the distant future.

And you still claim that the Chinese cannot manage this demography? Their resistance is meaningless for TSPA but overwhelming for PLA?

[sudeepj]

rohit

apologies for the light hearted response.. but a lot of handwaving has been done in the thread, my response was only concerning the flight of fancy to Skardu, and pointing out that to isolate the Siachen garrison, one does not need to go that far.

Well, you've to...w/o taking Skardu, Siachen Bde cannot be isolated.

OT, but why do you say that? I thought that all the roads leading to the ridges met at Huldi/Khapalu/Khansar area.. (a little bit like bastogne in WWII) and if that is attacked with paratroopers (they even have a lovely landing area in the Huldi/Khansar/Khapalu triangle), while at the same time a combined arms push is made along the Shyok valley floor (Shyok being a snow melt fed river, in winters, the flow would slow to a trickle), and supply units along the road, thats basically it for the pak Siachen garrison.

[ramana]

We should hold on to this for another decade at least. Pakistan is collapsing. Why think of making an international park and invite the world NJ9842-K2-Karakoram Pass? Who gave that authority to whom? Do we convert Gir forest to an International Park?

Another idea i have and am putting it here loudly..so please bear with me. What if we withdraw from Siachen..Paki's occupy it. Why are we thinking of trying to reoccupy Siachen without crossing the LOC? All we have to do is destroy Skardu and cut it off from the Northern areas completely. All logistic routes to Siachen pass through Skardu. Cut Skardu completely off from the Northern areas. A single winter will finish the Paki's however many at Siachen.

The only sense it makes to withdraw from Siachen is if in case of Paki misadventure, the IA has a free hand in cutting off the entire Northern areas from them. Not North to the Glaciers but West to the J&K border. So if at all we withdraw, the punishment for Paki's should be heavy. So can the IA squeeze that guarantee from the GoI? If not, then how can GoI even think of us withdrawing from our own territory?

Some people argued in this manner in Kargil 1999 that India should cross the LOC and even the Intl border and make TSP pay a heavy price.

ABV said after all is done and over there will be a ceasefire and India and TSP will withdraw to their respective parts of the LOC and IB and TSP would still be in occupation of Indian land. So none of the fire and bluster will evict TSP from Kargil.

Only thing that will evict them is to fight them there and kill them.

To add to that it will play into the TSP escalation strategy and brings in US (nuke flash point) and PRC (give more nukes to TSP) to meddle in the affairs. Not to mention look like idiots for having allowed the TSP to fool us repeatedly.

[brihaspati]

One of the theories behind the norm breaking blaming of Pakistani help to Uyghur terrorists again this year by the regional Xinjiang gov was that China was keen to obtain some more/new military operations/base rights within Paki controlled territories.

The possible role of China behind this Paki clamour for Indian withdrawal from Siachen should be explored. Were the PLA engaged in expanding their activities to the north? Is Siachen issue a diversion being built up by TSPA and PLA for something else?

[ShauryaT]

Well, you've to...w/o taking Skardu, Siachen Bde cannot be isolated.

OT, but why do you say that? I thought that all the roads leading to the ridges met at Huldi/Khapalu/Khansar area.. (a little bit like bastogne in WWII) and if that is attacked with paratroopers (they even have a lovely landing area in the Huldi/Khansar/Khapalu triangle), while at the same time a combined arms push is made along the Shyok valley floor (Shyok being a snow melt fed river, in winters, the flow would slow to a trickle), and supply units along the road, thats basically it for the pak Siachen garrison.

Because it would take time to move through a narrow well defended valley. In the mountains, it is all about the logistics. As long as Skardu is up, it will keep on reinforcing the Khaplu based brigade. Unless there is some dramatic swift, stealth and rapid action. Unlikely. But, rohitvats will opine on this.

[sudeepj]

I also notice that Pakistanis are not Idiots and have positioned a heavy brigade a Khaplu

meanwhile, here are some links to Pravin Sawhney and Ghazala Wahab's take on this. I know extracts of Force magazine are not welcome, but I think links are OK. Pravin Sawhney is somewhat rambling and very colorful

http://forcenewsmagazine.blogspot.com/2 ... prise.html [Pravin Sawhney's take]
http://forcenewsmagazine.blogspot.com/2 ... tegic.html [Gen Chibber's take]
http://forcenewsmagazine.blogspot.com/2 ... s-ill.html [Gen Hoon's take]

[SBajwa]

by Sudeep ji
Quote:
All these talks of demilitarisation of Siachen is from the comfort of couches and chairs of power. Ultimately the price will be paid by some unknown soldiers' lives. I challenge anyone proposing demilitarisation to enlist themselves or one of their near and dear in the field army and then speak of the p"ss process making war in Siachen.

Sir!! Forget about Siachin!!! It is occupied leave it as it is!! think about Antartica, Moon and Mars!! that's where the next battle lines will be drawn.

100 years from now if there is an Indian base on Moon!! I would expect my descendants to fight and protect that base with their blood., let along talking of "not even a blade of grass grows on moon" talks!!


Pacifists are the reason that Prithvi and Hemu only thought of defending India at Panipat and not at Indus or beyond!! We should not fall back to the same old time tested trap that our ancestors have fallen time and again!! LEARN FROM IT.

We got to consolidate our advantages and gain more from them while giving nothing to the adversary (tactical or strategic) at the same time!

also as per Kalam sir!! India is the seventh nation in the world to get par with the best in each field!! Why are we even bothering about napakis? The more we want to give them the less respect we have among the rest of the world.

[Kanishka]

Pacifists are the reason that Prithvi and Hemu only thought of defending India at Panipat and not at Indus or beyond!! We should not fall back to the same old time tested trap that our ancestors have fallen time and again!! LEARN FROM IT.

We got to consolidate our advantages and gain more from them while giving nothing to the adversary (tactical or strategic) at the same time!

In order to do that one needs vision, foresight and deep love for country.

[svinayak]

Well, you've to...w/o taking Skardu, Siachen Bde cannot be isolated.

The operation was finally launched on 13 April 1984. It was still winter in Siachen. The plan was a vertical envelopment by surprise during winter, when the passes were closed and this is what happened. By 18 April, we had secured control over Siachen, including Indira Col…
As commander of the operation, I wish to state that the operation was launched after a careful logistics planning. The initial plan of putting 20 to 30 men over Sia La, Bilafond La and Gyong La was only an interim action. This was to be followed by the raising of a brigade (three battalions with 1,200 troops each) trained in ‘white shod operations’ ie, who would be ski-trained and hence would operate throughout the year. The brigade was raised when I was the corps commander of 15 corps. This was to be further made into a division (three brigades or nine battalions) and then within one or two years it was to be organised into a STRIKE FORCE CORPS FOR WHITE SHOD OPERATIONS (author’s emphasis). This was never carried out.

This was the plan to take over skardu

[nachiket]

I have mentioned in other posts, how PA can alleviate Indian concerns. To repeat with some more thoughts on it. I do not consider PA a credible conventional threat to India. Their threat comes from unconventional means and this is where most action should be sought.

1. Dismantle Jihadi infrastructure

So why are we talking about demilitarizing Siachen when there has been zero progress on this front? Why not say that there will be no talks about Siachen unless Hafiz Saeed sleeps with the fishes (or is at least extradited to India).

2. Stay away from being the spoiler for trade, people-people relations citing Indian security threats.

How does this help India exactly?

3. Keep the larger resolution of Kashmir in cold storage and focus on normalization and less militarization of the area on both sides

Considering that terrorists are coming in to India from pakistan, how does demilitarization of Kashmir help us?

4. Stop trying to compete with India's increasing national strength, they will not be able to and will only hurt themselves in the process

Why the eff do we care if pakis hurt themselves? How is India affected? In fact if they hurt themselves, they might just become less of a headache for us. Let them keep spending beyond their means.

5. Limit their nuclear arsenal. India has no intention to annihilate the people of Pakistan

I agree fully with Rohit's response
What do you mean by limit?Is 10 Nuclear Bombs limited arsenal or 20? And as long as a single one remains along with delivery mechanism, it threatens the Indian population.

6. Cooperate with India on demilitarization of the region, as India gets ready to adjust its own doctrines and force structures, currently optimized for threats to Pakistan. India has no will or capability to consume the state of Pakistan, even if PA completely disappears tomorrow

You think the PA is going to let common pakis believe that when the fear of India is the basis of all their power in the country?


Lastly, since the pakis haven't even hinted that they are willing to do any of the above, why should we accede to their demands? Why is the onus of compromise always on us?

[krisna]

I reiterate -- None of the folks have answered why India should withdraw from siachen region- I mean it.

1) what is it for India that it is imperative to withdraw from our own land. (kindly cut the crap about economy and lives etc-- other reasons please)

2) what is it in store for TSP .

3) what is it in store for panda.

4) what is it for uncle.

There are no free lunches for anyone. It is always give and take.

If so then what will India get for withdrawing from siachen from panda uncle and TSP.

Can the folks who advocate demilitarisation/withdrawal kindly enlighten on this issue.

[krisna]

I have mentioned in other posts, how PA can alleviate Indian concerns. To repeat with some more thoughts on it. I do not consider PA a credible conventional threat to India. Their threat comes from unconventional means and this is where most action should be sought.

1. Dismantle Jihadi infrastructure
2. Stay away from being the spoiler for trade, people-people relations citing Indian security threats
3. Keep the larger resolution of Kashmir in cold storage and focus on normalization and less militarization of the area on both sides
4. Stop trying to compete with India's increasing national strength, they will not be able to and will only hurt themselves in the process
5. Limit their nuclear arsenal. India has no intention to annihilate the people of Pakistan
6. Cooperate with India on demilitarization of the region, as India gets ready to adjust its own doctrines and force structures, currently optimized for threats to Pakistan. India has no will or capability to consume the state of Pakistan, even if PA completely disappears tomorrow.
7. Limit its own size and structure to what the Pakistan state can afford, without external dependencies
8. Let the people decide, where they want to draw their lines of cooperation and conflict

PA is not a credible conventional threat to India. Their threat is from unconventional means-- My understanding is that PA is still a credible unconventional threat.
How should India respond--- please explain.

The points 1-8 are the basis for existence of TSP.
You are advocating merger of TSP with India if it happens. there will be nothing as a paki to be a separate country.
Yes if these are carried out automatically siachen is solved.
brilliant. can it be sold to pakis.


ShauryaT -- honestly how much of it will you believe.
If you do not believe even some of it why do you advocate demilitarisation of sicahen.

[amit]

^^^^
More importantly none of the above eight points are permanent. they can be reversed. On the other hand Indian withdrawal will be permanent. Another point to note the talk of agreement is today and if implemented will take only a couple of months for Indian withdrawal. The prescriptions for Pakistan, on the other hand, are long term adjustments which will take more than a decade, even if we assume the Pakistanis are serious. So at the end of the day we are being asked to vacate our own territory on nothing more than hope. And why? Because the Pakistanis are in a royal mess following the avalanche. It's not for nothing that the Pakistanis (and the Chinese) think us to be fools.

[Bade]

Why not wait for another generation to be in power in Pakistan before going for any kind final negotiation. There are people who are still in theirs 60s and 70s at the helm there with a boastful view of their equal capabilities as a nation to India. IMO, it is a little early to make concessions from our side.

[amit]

Why not wait for another generation to be in power in Pakistan before going for any kind final negotiation. There are people who are still in theirs 60s and 70s at the helm there with a boastful view of their equal capabilities as a nation to India. IMO, it is a little early to make concessions from our side.

+100

Bade ji, my thoughts exactly. On our side also we need a post Independence generation to come to power before we tackle all these problems. IMO they would look at the problems with less emotional involvement.

[ManuT]

Sudeepj

This POV on Chibber-Hoon has been posted here on BRF.

(i) So now the alternative is withdrawal without authentication.

(ii) by any chance, is this being offered now by TSPA?

What should have India done? Instead of occupying the Saltoro passes, Indian troops should have occupied territory west of the Saltoro Range, which then was lightly held by Pakistan. Dansum, which after the launch of Operation Meghdoot became Pakistan’s 323 brigade headquarters, at an average height of 10,000 feet, was an ideal location. This would have helped an Indian occupation in six ways:

·One, Dansum is a relatively flat area at lower heights and is ideal for heliborne operations and troops build-up.

·Two, the three major passes on the Saltoro Range — Sia La, Bilafond La and Gyong La — meet at Dansum. This makes Dansum an excellent base to defend the Saltoro ridge and the glacier itself.

·Three, an Indian occupation of Dansum would have threatened Khapalu, which is Pakistan’s heavy brigade size garrison.

·Four, Indian casualties due to weather on the Saltoro ridge and the glacier would have been minimal.

·Five, the benefit of occupying Dansum was to be in negotiations with Pakistan as India would have been in a strong bargaining position to trade ‘land for peace’.

·And six, Dansum provides an easy link-up with Sub-Sector West, area west of map point NJ 9842 which is the most sensitive and fighting prone area in Siachen

(iii) Has TSPA agreed to authentication? (It might in the next round)

(iv) other issues lower on the scale have been solved?


Not sure what is being peddled here.

[ShauryaT]

I reiterate -- None of the folks have answered why India should withdraw from siachen region- I mean it.

Because it serves our interests of co-existence with Pakistan. It is a CBM to build trust to address more contentious issues to be solved at the LoC. Holding it the way we hold it provides little strategic value. If there is a demilitarized way to manage the area, it a low risk option to explore. These risks can be managed and if managed, trust is built. Verifiable Trust.

1) what is it for India that it is imperative to withdraw from our own land. (kindly cut the crap about economy and lives etc-- other reasons please)

Since, Economy and lives are crap to you, I do not know, what else is more important than security. Economy would rank just below it. I guess, things like SAFTA, access to CA and middle east over land, people and relatives being able to meet more easily and the potential for the next generation to not base their future on the animosities of the past would be below crap?

2) what is it in store for TSP .

Same things.

3) what is it in store for panda.

They could potentially loose TSP as a state that they can use to box India in south asia.

4) what is it for uncle.

India as a potential partner for security in the ME, in the long term and as a hedge against China.

There are no free lunches for anyone. It is always give and take.

Yes, but do not let, seeming near term losses to endanger future profits. These near term losses are investments that can pay off, no guarantees and always has risks.

If so then what will India get for withdrawing from siachen from panda uncle and TSP.

The right word is demilitarization not withdraw, as both sides withdraw not just India. Forget the PRC and the US from the picture as far as this specific Siachen proposal is concerned. As written earlier, it is a CBM, that is all.

[Prem]

Why not wait for another generation to be in power in Pakistan before going for any kind final negotiation. There are people who are still in theirs 60s and 70s at the helm there with a boastful view of their equal capabilities as a nation to India. IMO, it is a little early to make concessions from our side.
+100Bade ji, my thoughts exactly. On our side also we need a post Independence generation to come to power before we tackle all these problems. IMO they would look at the problems with less emotional involvement.

Revenge better served cold for Poaq. Nothing more satisfying than watch them dying disappointed.
This is one of the reasons they keep asking for MMS's shoulder to cry on. The new generation with 10Plus Trillion Dollar economy gonna be carrying 10Feet Long Danda in hand.
Djinnah ke Saat jo gaye
Na Djannat mili , Naa Hoor
Aassa tooti Kassmir ki
Awrr GUBO Hui Jaroor.

[ManuT]

Maybe a poll on BR is needed?

[ShauryaT]

Maybe a poll on BR is needed?

I know the result. Do not trust Pakistan wins, hands down!

[ShauryaT]

The points 1-8 are the basis for existence of TSP.
You are advocating merger of TSP with India if it happens. there will be nothing as a paki to be a separate country.

Nation-Sates evolve and adjust. India adjusted to a post cold war world. India adjusted to an economic crisis. Pakistan will also adjust to reality. The reality is they cannot compete with India. They can never dream of taking the Valley from us, through force or any stratagem. If they do not adjust to reality, then they will never be a chance to be a "normal" country. I am NOT advocating merger. TSP continues to exist as a separate Islamic state.

Yes if these are carried out automatically siachen is solved.
brilliant. can it be sold to pakis.

Over time, in steps, I believe so but the GoI and IA will have to take steps too to address their fears.

ShauryaT -- honestly how much of it will you believe.
If you do not believe even some of it why do you advocate demilitarisation of sicahen.

I have always believed that it is imperative to reduce the strategic value of TSP. In order to do that, TSP's geographical lock on Indian access to the Asian land mass has to be opened up. India will always have an ideological opposition to TSP but can accept TSP as a separate state. Choosing war or peace are tools for the objective. I advocate a peace effort because the Indian state has made too many mistakes, is ideologically and structurally weak and is unprepared to subdue and enforce its will on Pakistan within acceptable time and resources through war. We have lost time and cannot afford to loose more. The risk/reward ratio does not favor war.

[ShauryaT]

And you still claim that the Chinese cannot manage this demography? Their resistance is meaningless for TSPA but overwhelming for PLA?

My view is China does not want this region. There is no credible public evidence that they do. You can form your own differing view.

[brihaspati]

There are some serious assumptions going on here :
(1) we want to coexist with TSP
(2) we want a demilitarized way to manage the area and it is a low risk option to explore.
(3) These risks can be managed and if managed, trust is built - Verifiable Trust

[Note the "IF" : risk takers are claiming that "risks" "CAN" be managed and then adding an "IF" risks can be managed then onlee trust is built. There is a new concept of "trust" being verifiable. How do you verify trust? That which needs verification == trust?

(4) things like SAFTA, access to CA and middle east over land, people and relatives being able to meet more easily and the potential for the next generation to not base their future on the animosities of the past

[assumption that demilitarizing Siachen and then progressively work out a Good Friday style framework for J&K, modelled on a different religious divide but foisted on an Islamic substrate with mercantile Indians using the Hindu as a charade as partners in this shenanigan when convenient - will make TSP give all this.

As for people and relatives being able to meet more easily - yes Islamists will meet more easily. Not many Hindus or Sikhs are left in pious and oh-so soft hearted and changing-heart Pakiland for people from Indian side noticing any great difference. For those who need, the existing porosity seems to be nice - like a certain Indian player from south - even finding hubby across the border seems to be a breeze!]

(5) Same things are in store for TSP - things like SAFTA, access to CA and middle east over land, people and relatives being able to meet more easily and the potential for the next generation to not base their future on the animosities of the past.

[but TSP already has access to CA and ME. So much so that both Kazakhstan and Tajikistan are shaking in orgiastic afterglow by Paki jihad love glances. Pakis meeting their relatives in India will of course be facilitated. As for next generations not basing their future on past animosities - I guess a case study can be started off from our very own God's own country - Kerala. Within India, not separated by borders - territorial exclusivity, love jihad, assorted cow head s and pregnant cow slaughters, and new generations of thuggery based on theology - should be a good indicator, as to what might more likely happen under a Islamophile Indian regime.]

(6) panda could potentially loose TSP as a state that they can use to box India in south asia.
[Or panda could gain greater ease of movement for their bootlickers and Islamist agents while still preserving a separate national identity called pakistan]

(7) for uncle : India as a potential partner for security in the ME, in the long term and as a hedge against China.

[But what is the need for hedging China at all - when we are already assuming that China does not want to take on more trouble in its neighbourhood? India is already a partner for security in ME - at least to protect the Gulf Sunni royalties, and therefore the theologians exporting Islamic qaffir liquidation jihad, and India will continue to do so without needing the US to give anything! There are millions of Indians working in the gulf and therefore hostage, and gazillions of funds flow from the same Sunni realms that will make India a sooper power.]


(8) do not let, seeming near term losses to endanger future profits. These near term losses are investments that can pay off, no guarantees and always has risks.

[I think the bankers who screwed millions of average earning Joes used to say exactly the same line : do not let, seeming near term losses to endanger future profits. These near term losses are investments that can pay off, no guarantees and always has risks.

Dear desowalon - always remember this banker dialogue whenever you hear of fin-daku style claims of "managed risks" - especially when some of the most basic modern risk industry's rules are deliberately being ignored here. That is the past "claims" records of this particular risk. We are being asked to "trust" that the risky behaviour of this particular individual has suddenly changed and that we should keep the premium low based on the whole population which has civlized to a greater extent and ignore the individual component. No true-blue findaku will actually even quote a price on that basis. ]

[brihaspati]

And you still claim that the Chinese cannot manage this demography? Their resistance is meaningless for TSPA but overwhelming for PLA?

My view is China does not want this region. There is no credible public evidence that they do. You can form your own differing view.

Its not about whether they want to do or not - you said among other factors, "demography" of the area was a problem for Chinese leasing.

[Yayavar]

...is an ideological one and there is no point in repeating one anothers ideology again.

Calling it ideological or 'nationalistic' (in some fora) are ways of escape.

The desire to demilitarize without adverse results is an admirable one but if you ignore obvious Paki perfidy on display so far, or if there are proposals that are incomplete or inane comments (such as Pak to return Paresh Baruah) are made then you will be questioned.

Anyway, onto other things ...

[Satya_anveshi]

I think from this point in the siachen debate, the logical jump to yellow-sea = eye-bee is pretty close. I am wondering if that is what is being subtly driven in people's heads. How would people react at a soon enough date to that proposal in the backdrop of a recent "siachen agreement" and aman-ki-undi (shorter than pajama) bonhomie?

Secondly, I am also wondering that Siachen debate intensifying was not because of Gyari incident but the other way. Gyari incident happened to give impetus to the debate and paki declaration of intent and seriousness. Kiyanahi and paki crore kammanders have blood on their hands. I have no basis to say this but the timing of that incident is highly interesting.

This basically answers the "trust deficit" question that is raised and given central focus by some Indians.

Indian concern is that when things were stable (71-84), Pukis initiated the encroachment by tourist expeditions and we responded by doing the needful in 1984 (Op Meghdoot). Now the clock can't be turned back and also puki credibility is worse than ..say americans.

Well..Puki says...boss I am serious, I will remove my base camp (Gyari) and then I will also remove my capability to re-occupy (get the whole bunch of well trained force killed or made disappear along with the base is tantamount to saying just that). They are not even bothering removal of dead bodies to signal that mistrust is buried. This is quite symbolic in its own way.

IF there is any grain of truth in it then does it come close to addressing trust?

My suggestion (based on big IF above) is that… ok..you earned our time and we are listening but

-you started (#1) and you are calling for ending this standoff (#2) so this can’t and should not be == give and take. AGPL should not even be an issue. AGPL is logical result of #2 and we need something more against #1.

-what about shaksgam valley?...you get that back from your deepel than ocean and tallel than k2 fliend and I will ready chai biscuits for us meanwhile to discuss this thru

- and/or...for the CBA folks..say that because of paki ch-_-yapaa, we spent XYZ crores (and lost xyz lives) so far on this mission. We don't care how much you spent because of your misadventure but bring your compensation check before we sit for discussion to demilitarize it. After all you know better than us how many hundreds of millions of hungry we need to feed.

- and/or..when I move back x , you move back 50x distance from your current location.

-and/or.. actually my favorite has been that we could agree to puki influence in AFG *unopposed* or could even provide aid$$ if they don’t go fundamentalist way and if they totally give up the claim on J&K.

Our's is the land of Buddha and Gandhi and we don’t need people preacing us “peaceful coexistence”. We taught that to the world. Deal or no deal?

[ShauryaT]

Its not about whether they want to do or not - you said among other factors, "demography" of the area was a problem for Chinese leasing.

Amongst many reasons, demography is one reason, they would not want to have this area. PRC is not looking to acquire new muslim populations. They have already settled that part of their border with TSP. I do not have any reason to believe they have a geo-political desire for direct control of the area. Their interest in the area comes from TSP ability to use that as something to fight over with India, achieving their goal of boxing India within south asia.

[ManuT]

I know the result. Do not trust Pakistan wins, hands down!

I thought it was to stay or not to stay or (like Kiyani's smoking a puff-puff here, a puff-puff there) not stay but authenticate. But anyways.


Please don't take offence as I say this in jest, but that looks like you are down with WKK-itis.
I couldn't help but notice the signs all over. In your words sir...
Pakistan will also adjust to reality.
The reality is they cannot compete with India.
They can never dream of taking the Valley from us, through force or any stratagem.
If they do not adjust to reality, then they will never be a chance to be a "normal" country.
I am NOT advocating merger. TSP continues to exist as a separate Islamic state.
Over time, in steps, I believe so but the GoI and IA will have to take steps too to address their fears.
I have always believed that it is imperative to reduce the strategic value of TSP. In order to do that, TSP's geographical lock on Indian access to the Asian land mass has to be opened up. {now we are talking }
India will always have an ideological opposition to TSP but can accept TSP as a separate state.
Choosing war or peace are tools for the objective. I advocate a peace effort because the Indian state has made too many mistakes, is ideologically and structurally weak and is unprepared to subdue and enforce its will on Pakistan within acceptable time and resources through war.
We have lost time and cannot afford to loose more.
The risk/reward ratio does not favor war. {CBA}

CBA are AKA Cheap B'tards Association.

[brihaspati]

Its not about whether they want to do or not - you said among other factors, "demography" of the area was a problem for Chinese leasing.

Amongst many reasons, demography is one reason, they would not want to have this area. PRC is not looking to acquire new muslim populations. They have already settled that part of their border with TSP. I do not have any reason to believe they have a geo-political desire for direct control of the area. Their interest in the area comes from TSP ability to use that as something to fight over with India, achieving their goal of boxing India within south asia.

I would request you to discreetly search for data on Chinese presence in Gilgit-Baltistan. This will not necessarily be available on the net. Its a combined industrial/mining/military model. Most of NA is poised for PLA deployment, and for very concrete military calculations, overtly being justified as sanitization of the infiltration zone into Uyghuristan. Even though the real bases are across the border in Tajikistan, that this deployment is taking place implies a deceptive move and formal excuses are just that - excuses.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

What should have India done? Instead of occupying the Saltoro passes, Indian troops should have occupied territory west of the Saltoro Range, which then was lightly held by Pakistan. Dansum, which after the launch of Operation Meghdoot became Pakistan’s 323 brigade headquarters, at an average height of 10,000 feet, was an ideal location. This would have helped an Indian occupation in six ways:

·One, Dansum is a relatively flat area at lower heights and is ideal for heliborne operations and troops build-up.

·Two, the three major passes on the Saltoro Range — Sia La, Bilafond La and Gyong La — meet at Dansum. This makes Dansum an excellent base to defend the Saltoro ridge and the glacier itself.

·Three, an Indian occupation of Dansum would have threatened Khapalu, which is Pakistan’s heavy brigade size garrison.

·Four, Indian casualties due to weather on the Saltoro ridge and the glacier would have been minimal.

·Five, the benefit of occupying Dansum was to be in negotiations with Pakistan as India would have been in a strong bargaining position to trade ‘land for peace’.

·And six, Dansum provides an easy link-up with Sub-Sector West, area west of map point NJ 9842 which is the most sensitive and fighting prone area in Siachen <SNIP>

how come we never fail to implement such logical , simple and brilliant strategies ......

[svinayak]

·Three, an Indian occupation of Dansum would have threatened Khapalu, which is Pakistan’s heavy brigade size garrison.

·And six, Dansum provides an easy link-up with Sub-Sector West, area west of map point NJ 9842 which is the most sensitive and fighting prone area in Siachen <SNIP>

How would India defend a artillary barrage on the Dansum camp. Is there any other logistics trail other than air.

[sudeepj]

rohit,

Its one thing to fight over an uninhabited, undemarcated (as opposed to undelineated, as mentioned by B G Verghese in the NDTV program) border and its quite another to take over administered and populated areas. To take Dansum, you would have had to advance another 30 kms into NA along Shyok, and then to protect Shyok valley road, youd have had to take the opposing ridge. Where does it end? We'd have had a major war on our hands, with a Pak army that had landed on its feet and after using a few of its lives in Bangladesh, with US completely on the side of Pak and Indias pacifict, democratic, secular credentials quite shaky. (The emergency was not yet a decade old..) We never kept 'limited engagements' limited, if it was to our suiting, we expanded them. Even for Kargil, we were prepared to use force over the high seas and in the air as well.. Why expect the Paks to not do the same? And all this for what?..*

Indira Gandhi and the generals took a reasonable decision based on available facts and threats, and in the fog of war.

*A dear friend who is a history professor tells of a story thats sadly missing from most of our history books.. One of the delhi emperors picked up a needless fight with a rajput kingdom and then won a Pyrrhic victory. The emperor, who escaped with his life, regrets in his diary - "I nearly lost the throne of Delhi, and for what? a fistful of millet (bajra)"

[nachiket]

We'd have had a major war on our hands, with a Pak army that had landed on its feet and after using a few of its lives in Bangladesh, with US completely on the side of Pak and Indias pacifict, democratic, secular credentials quite shaky. (The emergency was not yet a decade old..)

How does a war with Pak impact India's democratic and Secular credentials?

[rohitvats]

rohit,

Its one thing to fight over an uninhabited, undemarcated (as opposed to undelineated, as mentioned by B G Verghese in the NDTV program) border and its quite another to take over administered and populated areas. To take Dansum, you would have had to advance another 30 kms into NA along Shyok, and then to protect Shyok valley road, youd have had to take the opposing ridge. Where does it end?

Good point. Now apply the same principle and reasoning to the Saltoro Range and the pressure to hold the highest ground. That is why a simple linear approach does not work. And that is why all this fanciful talk of having options to hit Pakistan in case of them taking heights in Siachen is, well, just fanciful.

By the way, from what I've read, the plan was to take Skardu and be finished with the entire problem. As for population, well, population has changed hands in the area before - most notably in 1971. Such issues cannot be used to hold back national objectives if the same are of over-riding importance. Just imagine, with Skardu under our control, Siachen would not have happened as would have Kargil. And 1984-2012 is a bloody long time to turn around the population.

We'd have had a major war on our hands, with a Pak army that had landed on its feet and after using a few of its lives in Bangladesh, with US completely on the side of Pak and Indias pacifict, democratic, secular credentials quite shaky. (The emergency was not yet a decade old..) We never kept 'limited engagements' limited, if it was to our suiting, we expanded them. Even for Kargil, we were prepared to use force over the high seas and in the air as well.. Why expect the Paks to not do the same? And all this for what?..*

Indira Gandhi and the generals took a reasonable decision based on available facts and threats, and in the fog of war.

Not in my opinion. We would have reaped some long term benefits and the POK integration with India would have been that much closer (save for the scums in Muzaffarabad). BTW, all the above applies even now with the added equation of nuclear weapons.

[tsarkar]

what is ithe strategic value of this godforsaken glacier

The value is a concept called defence in depth. The same reason why we have compound walls in buildings and walls in houses rather than sleep in a bed next to the road. The depth allows space to defend and sufficient reaction time in the event a robber or rapist has malafide intentions against us.

1. 17.6 kms is through the IFG and the LFG like high performance guns. Those cant be disassembled for mule pack. The barrel alone will be 300-500 kgs.

Heavier parts by helicopter, lighter parts and most importantly ammo by mule packs. Pakistan has US M198 155 mm howitzers in Siachen. We have Bofors.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... ewoor.html

The biggest chopper than Pakistanis have is Mi17v5, with a service ceiling of 6kms and height hover ceiling of 4kms or so. Helicopters payload varies greatly with height and the passes we are talking about are all 5.5+kms high, with the turkestan la at 5800 meters. Even if they do this, how many sorties are we talking about per battery?

Helicopters can be stripped down to improve performance. Indian and Pakistani Mi-17s are regularly ferrying arty to that region. http://indianairforce.nic.in/show_unit.php?ch=52

The unit did a commendable job by airlifting 393 tons of load within just nine days.

Basically, anything that the Paks/Chinese can get into the Siachen, we can get more/better of, because we have a road, they dont.

Grossly incorrect assumption. Offensive in the highest mountains can be rapid, and both Indian and Pakistani armies are the world’s best mountain armies. On the other hand, intelligence, like monsoon/earthquake/tsunami forecasts, by its very nature, can never be fully accurate or timely. While planned offensive can be rapid, unplanned and unprepared deployment can be haphazard. Like the IA’s reinforcements during 1962 that arrived to find the front already collapsed. The benefit of surprise always lies with the attacker. The defender can never be eternally vigilant.

Let’s say two men stand next to each other. One has a stated and previously demonstrated intent and ability to slap the other. The defender is vigilant. But he needs to take a nature’s call or have lunch, and will have to lower his guard at that point that the attacker will take advantage of.

The max weight of weapons deployable by foot, or hoof, is constrained by this.

Yes, but mules come in numbers. While the initial deployment can be by helicopter, resupply can be infinite via mules. That is why Soviets could not stop the weapons flow from Pakistan to Afghanistan despite their massive airpower of Mi-25/35 and Su-25.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... t-infantry
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4354440.stm
http://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/AWPRevie ... 75&rnd=482

A "lease" of "Gilgit-Baltistan" - I mean crazy is the word for China to consider it. The person who suggested this, has never looked at a map or assumed that others will not. We cry for Shaksgam a desolate valley, ceded illegally to China have not done anything about it, so someone now tried to gauge our reaction to this lease report. Demographics, topology would not favor such a move for China. China is NOT interested in acquiring more trouble. They are happy, with the buffers they have with Tibet and Xinjiang largely in their control.

You need to look beyond the region.

China needs resources to grow more than what is internally available. It can come from 1. Russia 2. South East Asia 3. Africa & Middle East.

Russia and China are natural enemies ever since the Russians captured South East Siberia from China in 17th, 18th and 19th centuries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amur_Annexation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian-Ma ... _conflicts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Aigun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Beijing

China has antagonized all countries in East and South Asia – Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Philippines & India. Malaysia and Indonesia are neutral but supplies are not assured.

The largest source of resources for China are Middle East oil and African minerals. Building a route from Gwadar to Khunjerab pass will avoid the sea route and provide a much shorter line of communication to its resource base. That is why China financed building the Karakoram Highway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakoram_Highway

Shaksgam, Gilgit, Baltistan and Siachen will protect the flanks of this supply route.

The material costs of Siachen does not bother me, the human costs do. Even after learning for nearly three decades now, we are still loosing 15-20 soldiers per year with another 100 or so injured due to non-combat related tolls.

That is a incredibly myopic view. The cost of re-occupation in manpower terms will be phenomenally higher, with no guarantee of success.

Most importantly, holding high ground will deter any misadventure. That is why Pakistan agreed to the 2003 ceasefire. Because it knew it could achieve zilch against well entrenched Indians. So my friend, it’s the wall and manning the wall that is saving casualties. If we don’t hold the wall, we never know when rapists and molesters will have their hormonal imbalances, spill over and rape at will. Today, the wall defends us against any unforeseen hormonal imbalances. Refer my earlier example of two men, reaction can never be as fast and as responsive as action.

The ability of TSPA to occupy the ridges and come down from there is slim to none.

We also thought Kargil heights could not be occupied in winter and they proved us wrong. 1948-9 We thought Haji Pir could not be held because of the snow and they proved us wrong. Heliborne initial assault followed by conventional supply lines are occupy and maintain the territory.

The maximum TSPA can do is occupy the ridges and threaten the valleys and the glacier itself, but then India should be smart enough to provide a disproportionate response.

It is more economical to hold the wall and grossly uneconomical to maintain a 24x7 disproportionate response. Any response, if not timely, is ineffective even if it is disproportionate.

Holding it the way we hold it provides little strategic value.

I am surprised after all this discussion, you fail to see reason why Siachen is essential for India.

It is a CBM to build trust to address more contentious issues to be solved at the LoC. If there is a demilitarized way to manage the area, it a low risk option to explore. These risks can be managed and if managed, trust is built. Verifiable Trust.

By this logic, I should reform robbers and rapists by tearing down my building compound wall and house walls and having my mother and wife and daughter sleep in the open. And I will extract a promise from the rapist that he will not touch my family members even if he has his hormonal imbalances. And I shall not eat, drink, take a nature’s call or get a job, but rather stand watch next to my mother/wife/daughter’s bed.

That is the basic reason why walls were built and heights were occupied, my friend. So that the nation could safely devote its energies on economically fruitful work, rather than spend time verifying a rapist’s trust.

These risks can be managed and if managed, trust is built. Verifiable Trust.

Before we progress further my friend, take into consideration Op Gibralter, Op Grand Slam, 1971 incursion into Longewala and Op Badr in Kargil, where well demarcated LoC was violated. We returned vital areas like Haji Pir in 1965 and 1971 in exchange for hollow commitments. Did Pakistan honour Tashkent and Shimla Agreements?

Why should the onus of CBM’s be on India? Let Pakistan dismantle the terror infrastructure. Bring IC814 perpetrators living there to justice. Do you remember Saurabh Kalia or Ripen Katiyal who bled to death?

http://kamalji.sulekha.com/blog/post/20 ... part-1.htm

Between Amritsar and Lahore, they told the 15 youngsters, that since the Govt is not listening to their demands, they will kill of them to make the point.At this, Rupen Katyal blurted out,Don’t kill me, I am the only child of my parents.At this they said, that is even better, u will be the first one to be killed. They put a knife on his neck, and pushed it in, and twisted it in such a way, that all his veins were cut, and he started to bleed profusely. At Lahore the pilot asked for first aid for Rupen, which was refused, and by the time they reached Dubai,Rupen had bled to death in front of the other passengers at the front of the plane.

So ShauryaT, how do you “Verifiably Trust” Pakistan? How do you verify and how to you trust?

[harbans]

Excellent post Sarkar Da! What i want to add, with a little more investments in the next decades, cable car routes to higher bases can take care of a lot of logistic transport issues. Blasting 5-10 km tunnels through mountains also is no big deal. Thats why i mention one must not look solely through the mule pack, minimalistic low investment defense we have followed till now for the glaciers. If we withdraw and China-Pak link up, spending 3 billion USD for China, creating tunnels, cable cars will be no issue at all. If INdia holds till the next decade, we can too. Tourism to Siachen and the glaciers can sustain Ladhaki's for generations and develop that region.

[krisna]

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1279893

Because it serves our interests of co-existence with Pakistan. It is a CBM to build trust to address more contentious issues to be solved at the LoC. Holding it the way we hold it provides little strategic value. If there is a demilitarized way to manage the area, it a low risk option to explore. These risks can be managed and if managed, trust is built. Verifiable Trust.

Honestly the trust should come from TSP and pandaland and not from India.




Since, Economy and lives are crap to you, I do not know, what else is more important than security. Economy would rank just below it. I guess, things like SAFTA, access to CA and middle east over land, people and relatives being able to meet more easily and the potential for the next generation to not base their future on the animosities of the past would be below crap?

The access to safta, access to CA and middle east can be done without this siachen involved-which is meaningless and self defeating.



They could potentially loose TSP as a state that they can use to box India in south asia.

It is always potential for tsp and pandaland but concrete and specific for India. Are you seriously reading the mind of pandaland. How confident are you about this. you are "economical with the truth".

India as a potential partner for security in the ME, in the long term and as a hedge against China.

what makes you think so? again potential is the operative word here.are you spokesperson of uncle.

Yes, but do not let, seeming near term losses to endanger future profits. These near term losses are investments that can pay off, no guarantees and always has risks.

Interestingly you use near term loss for siachen demilitarisation- you concede we lose it for nothing but pay heavy price. You are not sure if it will pay off in the long term.
when you dont win small victories how do you plan for big ones. it is ridiculous and stupid. you are playing with lives and economy of India for vermins.



The right word is demilitarization not withdraw, as both sides withdraw not just India. Forget the PRC and the US from the picture as far as this specific Siachen proposal is concerned. As written earlier, it is a CBM, that is all.

please explain the words demilitarisation and not withdrawal. I do not understand it.
My understanding is - there is no pakis on the said region. India controls it.
cbm is very specific for india but very vague for others.

overall patently stupid ones.

(no offence to you ShauryaT personally)

[krisna]

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1279899

Nation-Sates evolve and adjust. India adjusted to a post cold war world. India adjusted to an economic crisis. Pakistan will also adjust to reality. The reality is they cannot compete with India. They can never dream of taking the Valley from us, through force or any stratagem. If they do not adjust to reality, then they will never be a chance to be a "normal" country. I am NOT advocating merger. TSP continues to exist as a separate Islamic state.

Pakistan will adjust to reality. again the operative word is potential for TSP.
You are giving reasons why TSP cannot win J&K.

you are speaking for TSP. are you tsp spokesperson and guarantee that tsp will honor its committments.

Despite 60 + years of tsp formation and 1000s of Indians killed and miamed you still want India to intiate cbms.

despite pandaland and uncle propping up tsp and backstabbing India repeatedly you want us to do cbms.
pandaland is holding our land illegally, you want us to do cbms.



Over time, in steps, I believe so but the GoI and IA will have to take steps too to address their fears

again you believe but not 100% guaranteed. India should do withdraw but none for others. (very specific for India)
Better will be --tsp pandaland should address specific fears of India and overtime India will respond appropriately..

I have always believed that it is imperative to reduce the strategic value of TSP. In order to do that, TSP's geographical lock on Indian access to the Asian land mass has to be opened up.

you always believe about tsp and pandaland and uncle but wants India to do everything.

India will always have an ideological opposition to TSP but can accept TSP as a separate state. Choosing war or peace are tools for the objective. I advocate a peace effort because the Indian state has made too many mistakes, is ideologically and structurally weak and is unprepared to subdue and enforce its will on Pakistan within acceptable time and resources through war. We have lost time and cannot afford to loose more. The risk/reward ratio does not favor war.

you have lost it mentally. you are admitting defeat. hence you want india to give away everything it has.

same thing can be more appropriate-- I advocate a peace effort because the Pakistan state has made too many mistakes, is ideologically and structurally weak and is unprepared to subdue and enforce its will on India within acceptable time and resources through war. We have lost time and cannot afford to loose more. The risk/reward ratio does not favor war.

In the first part of your post you said--

The reality is they cannot compete with India. They can never dream of taking the Valley from us, through force or any stratagem

and the last part of the post you said--

]I advocate a peace effort because the Indian state has made too many mistakes, is ideologically and structurally weak and is unprepared to subdue and enforce its will on Pakistan within acceptable time and resources through war. We have lost time and cannot afford to loose more. The risk/reward ratio does not favor wa

shauryaT you are very selective in stating things--

You and sudeepj are adept in changing your views at the drop of a hat.
One thing is very clear in both of your posts running into many pages.
India should unconditionally withdraw which is very specific.
But never make any specific proposals for tsp pandaland.
History is clear that India is the aggreived party. others should make overtures to India for cbms.
Realityis India has the potential to lift tsp out of its misery. Hence tsp should make concessions to India.


.

[krisna]

tsp and pandaland and uncle should make cbms to ensure that India's fears are taken into account--

TSP--
1) voluntarily withdraw from J&K completely and unconditionally.
In return India will open up the LOC and make visa free travel to whole J&K. India will guard the borders of J&K. it is India's solemn committment to work for the welfare of whole J&K and make it a propserous state of India with special status. It will guarantee the freedom and aspirations of its people without any discrimination as enshrined in Indian constituion.
It will give prefrence to trade and commerce with tsp. help in making tsp a great nation.
siachen will be considered as solved problem.

pandaland--
1) withdraw from shaksgam valley and aksai chin voluntarily.
India will respond appropriately with increased trade and commerce to the benefit of chinese people.
India will guarantee that roads and railways and airports will be built in J&K to help in the movements of people between xinjiang and India. there will be greater contacts with people. this will help the region develop better.

uncle--
1) non interference with Indian subcontinent.
India is a key and upcoming player in the world today. it has huge market. it will help uncle overcome its sluggish economy. India will buy good and excellent weapons from uncle , with no bells and whistles. there should be no tech denial. we gurantee that India will not sell the weapons or proliferate them. india will not copy or steal their technology.

these are the true and workable cbms which wil correct a lot of things gone wrong is the last 60 odd years.
it will make wars useless and prosperity the key operative for over 50% of world population in a short span of time.