Siachen News & Discussion

[vishvak]

Is there any legitimacy to any napaki agreements on Shaksgam valley? If it is completely illegitimate is it not bound to be ignored?

[ShauryaT]

Is there any legitimacy to any napaki agreements on Shaksgam valley? If it is completely illegitimate is it not bound to be ignored?

The legitimacy of any agreement is ultimately bound by the force one is willing to bring to bear for its enforcement.

[RamaY]

^
Why would someone want to let go a region under their firm control and then commit sufficient force to regain if things go south?

Can you please give some example where other nations followed such strategy and what outcomes it brought?

TIA

[Kanishka]

Yes, GoI wants Siachen negotiations as part of larger Kashmir settlement and yes they do want demilitarization of whole of Kashmir (not just Siachen) as part of negotiations. If it does happen it will be in a phased manner. Is that a problem or a conspiracy? I also said we are miles away from seeing a settlement in Siachen.

Siachen demilitarization will not happen unless we have the security/surveillance in place to ensure it is not going to be taken over and face a Kargil like situation. There is nothing further to add. The link with afghanistan is that Siachen negotiations is not going to be moving any time soon but today we are escalating in Afghanistan and are in a cold war with TSP. Dont you see that jihadi's are busy up north in Afghanistan hence why we are not seeing much effect in J&K - Indian lives are being saved. It is in our interests to escalate there to keep J&K safe.If we win in Afghanistan, TSP will be under huge pressure.

Better trade deal from the EU/US and others. As you might be aware we are in the middle of negotiation of an FTA with the EU who are imposing conditions such as indo-pak peace - and negotiations moved forward because we have said we are negotiating with TSP. This whole peace thing is just for show.

Trade with pakistan is another subject.

Cooperation or conflict means if pak refuses to cooperate on peace it means conflict.

Shyamd Ji,
I am assuming your post was in response to mine.

No problem for me if GOI links entire Kashmir settlement with Siachen demilitarization. However if there is no settlement of entire Kashmir issue and India agrees to unilaterally withdraw from Siachen as CBM, (irrespective of the withdrawal being in phases) it would be considered as as a surrender and/or failure of Indian diplomacy.

Not heard in recent months of any pressure on India or India reaping any trade benifit from EU/US due to "peace moves" with Pakistan, especially when Paki duplicity in WOT has been thoroughly exposed. Please do provide links/data if you are aware of any.

India's presence in Siachen and our efforts in Afghanistan are two entirely different issues. I am surprised you raised this issue on Siachen thread and linked up the two. It is a bad idea for obvious reasons. Next you may hear US putting pressure on India for Siachen settlement in order to have an easier time in Afghanistan.

[shyamoo]

Is there any legitimacy to any napaki agreements on Shaksgam valley? If it is completely illegitimate is it not bound to be ignored?

The legitimacy of any agreement is ultimately bound by the force one is willing to bring to bear for its enforcement.

Isn't this always the problem with our politicians? If TSP reneges on any agreement, do you think our politicians will use force to enforce the agreement. Even if our politicians do plan on doing so, do you think the WKK brigade will sit idle and allow them to do so?

[sum]

Another prime example of how we always have to walk the extra mile ( or the kilometer in this case). We erect a fence 1 k.m. within our own land so that poor Pakis shouldnt feel bad if the fence was right at the LoC and might eat away a few inches of their claimed land:
Wrong’ fence, a psychological barrier for Karnah residents

Though fencing along the Line of Control (LoC) erected in 2004 as part of the counter-infiltration measures has proven vital in the Army’s efforts to check infiltration, at least five thousand people of this remote north Kashmir tehsil, 180 km from Srinagar, are suffering immensely due to the “wrong positioning” of the fence.

As construction of the barrier started in early 2000s when the shelling across the LoC was a routine affair, Indian Army was forced to erect the fence inside one kilometre of its territory leaving at least 12 Indian villages on the other side of the fence.

Official sources identified Indian villages which fall on the other side of the fence as Kadhama, Semari, Teetwal, Byari, Amroie, Hind Chatkari, Forward Sodpura, Jabadi, Bijaldara, Gasla and Prenai.

“These villages have a population of about five thousand. During the day time they can cross the fence through special gates after proving their identity, but the gates are closed during the night,” they added.

The fence has created psychological barrier for the residents living on the other side of the barrier.

“We are Indians during day and after evening we are no longer part of our country. Our village has population of more than 400 and we have been living like prisoners for the last eight years since the fencing was complete,” Mohammad Iqbal Lone, a resident of Forward Sodpura told Deccan Herald.

The residents living on the other side of the fence have to inform the Army incase a guest visits them. “We have to informed about every movement we make and guests have to be registered first before they enter the fence gate,” he added.

[SSridhar]

Why did the IA have to occupy the Saltoro & Siachen ? Because of Pakistani perfidy. If we had not acted in time, the PA would have occupied them in a matter of a few days later. Pakistan has acted in the same perfidious fashion both before and after Op. Meghdoot, not only in Siachen but every aspect of India-Pakistan relationship. The Pakistani perfidy is in full flow nowadays against their biggest benefactor, backer and the sole country that has helped them to survive the last 50 years, namely the US. It is also behaving in the same way against the NATO and Afghanistan. It is protecting and encouraging the barbaric Taliban on its lands and wants them to take over in Afgahnistan after 2013/2014. As Karzai asked meaningfully, why should a country wish for its neighbour to be ruled by an extremist, barbaric and oppressive medieval bunch of people that it does not wish for itself ? This same COAS Kayani, who suddenly wishes for a 'peaceful coexistence' with India after the Giyari incident, has conducted suicide and fidayeen attacks on both India and Afghanistan not long back. Why is Pakistan accelerating the accumulation of both Uranium & Pu-based nukes and is the only country refusing to sign the FMCT ? Why is Pakistan willing to go on a limb and kick out its largest backer even when it is in most serious economic situation ever of its existence ? Kayani has frequently acknowledged the India centeredness of the PA and its doctrines. There has been no change in the doctrinal aspects of the PA as all the above Pakistani approaches show. The PA has added 'the issue of water' to its pre-condition for settlement of disputes with India and the PA's mouthpiece, Professor Hafiz Saeed, rants about India's water terrorism amd how his fidayeen would blast India's dams etc. He also talks incessantly of recovering Hyderabad, Junagadh, Bhopal, Lucknow etc. The PA's India project is not based on irredentism. Irredentism is a facade that they fabricated in order to get support from their 'powerful friends' because Pakistan feared that they would not have supported it otherwise with the same gusto. Pakistan's 'Project India' is far more fundamental than irredentism. That is why, Siachen etc would matter little in the overall scheme of things vis-a-vis Pakistan. The Pakistani situation is going to be far worse (for India) after the 2013 election which is almost sure to bring into power an open Talibani supporter. Why should we even discuss CBMs at this stage with a country that does not honour its international committments even at the best of times ?

[Prasad]

CBM = Confidence building measure. Realistically speaking, having been on the receiving end of perfidious behaviour from pukistan, it is our confidence that must be built by measures from the opposite side. As simple as that. Changing our position on siachen is exactly opposite of that. I hope our esteemed members get that little bit of understanding of our position to avoid talking about saltoro ridge disarmament.

[vishvak]

Is there any legitimacy to any napaki agreements on Shaksgam valley? If it is completely illegitimate is it not bound to be ignored?

The legitimacy of any agreement is ultimately bound by the force one is willing to bring to bear for its enforcement.

So whats the point of negotiations? All napaki agreements have to be dealt with such neighbors who 'insist', as right of civilized neighbors, on CBMs and what not.

Also regardless of anything else, India will have to increase strength and machinery.

It is strange how this withdrawal idea changes for Shaksgam valley and Siachen, each of which belongs to India. There is absolute silence on Shaksgam valley by people who think of CBMs on Siachen.

[Lalmohan]

negotiations, or talks, serve as a means of checking the pulse of the enemy - gain a sense of what are they thinking. i.e. hear it from them directly, even if it is lies and subterfuge, than having to figure it out. it also serves the purpose of saying to 3rd party pressurisers - look we are talking to them

[shyamd]

Kanishka ji, They have said there will be no unilateral withdrawal or anything of that sort unless army feels comfortable.

I am sorry you haven't heard but just give it a google and see what you find and this has been going on for years not just in recent months. If you notice a lot of countries keep talking about india's commitment to the peace process etc... This is reality and you need to realise that other nations put conditions on us. We on BR make out peace process was started by UPA, even NDA had the same policy.

Linking of Afghanistan to siachen is that siachen is no where near a settlement but we are at war with pak in Afghanistan and people are so fixated on this issue.

[Sanku]

I am sorry, I do not understand, your questions then. So cannot answer.

All right, let me try again.

India is ceding something which is removal of forces from a position of strategic advantage.

What is the quid pro quo from Pakistan -- in real concrete terms (not good will etc) : Are they

1) Handing over Hafiz Saeed as a gesture to prove that they will not immediately dash to occupy the areas we vacated?
2) Ask for Chinese troops to leave from entire PoK and offer us a mechanic to check that the Chinese have left.
3) Offer us a corridor from J&K all the way to Afghanistan?

What is on the table from Pakistani side, or according to you what should be the payment from Pakistan?

[Manish_Sharma]

How can the same govt. which is afraid of below ever think of removing army from Siachin? :

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/postin ... f=3&t=2145

Came across this snipper in a article on Pranab:
Why Pranab Mukherjee is NOT an ungenerous man

This happened as recently as December 2008. An angry Congress president, Sonia Gandhi, had convened a meeting of the Congress Working Committee after terrorists had attacked Mumbai killing more than 170 people, to send a strong message and also pave the way to sack some ministers.

Gandhi didn't lose her temper but let principal troubleshooter Pranab Mukherjee do as he liked. One after another, senior members of the CWC got up to demand that India launch an attack on Pakistan to teach that country a lesson.

Finally, when veteran Kashmir leader Karan Singh demanded the same, Mukherjee erupted: "Do you understand what you are all saying? If we do that (attack Pakistan), foreign forces will enter Kashmir the next day. We have kept them out of Kashmir all these years. And now you want us to invite them in?"

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh quickly intervened to support Mukherjee and defuse the tension. Meanwhile, some members quietly ascertained that the reporters waiting outside hadn't heard what Mukherjee was saying -- he was speaking so loudly.

What foreign forces is he talking about?

[Kanishka]

India, Pakistan still talking on troop pullout from Siachen: Naveed

HYDERABAD: Defence Minister Syed Naveed Qamar Sunday revealed that negotiations between Pakistan and India were currently in progress for the withdrawal of troops from Siachen, adding that an improved strategy was being formulated in this regard.
The minister was addressing media persons at Tando Muhammad Khan after inaugurating various road and village electric supply schemes.Syed Naveed Qamar said Siachen possessed the unique status of being the world’s highest border, while having no population in the area.

Secretary-level deliberations were recently held and it was hoped that both countries would succeed in formulating a comprehensive strategy for the withdrawal of troops from the area, he added.

[Varoon Shekhar]

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... ndoff?bn=1

Pretty lousy article about Siachen, typical of the stuff the Toronto Star publishes on the subject, including Kashmir.

[chaanakya]

Thunderous silence of Mr Shaurya T to My Laundry list is deafening. I hope in his opinion these reciprocal measures ( or those proposed by others) would constitute an acceptable proposition to begin with CBM.

[chaanakya]

Pak fires crisis along the border
Meanwhile CBM shredded on LOC by Paki pigs

The tension started on Monday when Pakistani forces violated the ceasefire at Krishna Ghati sub-sector of Poonch sector in which a BSF jawan was injured. He succumbed to wounds on Wednesday night.

Pakistan forces on Wednesday afternoon, however, upped the ante and opened indiscriminate firing on Indian positions causing injuries to two soldiers, one of whom later succumbed.

The Indian Army immediately reached the Pakistani army through the hotline asking for restraint to de-escalate the situation. “Instead of responding to the Indian message, Pakistanis repeated the firing, injuring another jawan. Seemingly unsatisfied with Indian restraint, Pakistan continued to fire (on Indian posts).On the night of June 15 our posts again came under small arms fire from the Pakistan side,” Col Palta said.

The Indian Army regretted that all attempts towards de-escalation of the situation and the resumption of routine life for civilians in the area, have received a negative response.

Around 102 ceasefire violations along the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir have taken place since 2010. Around 44 cases of ceasefire violations along the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir were registered in 2010. Around 51 cases of ceasefire violations were reported in 2011.

India and Pakistan declared cease-fire on all the three borders -- 772Km LoC, 192 Km International border and 122 Km Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL) in Siachen – in 2003.

[Lalmohan]

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... ndoff?bn=1

Pretty lousy article about Siachen, typical of the stuff the Toronto Star publishes on the subject, including Kashmir.

if i am not mistaken, this article was previously published in an american news site and is being 'reprinted' here

[Yayavar]

When India does not respond to 26/11 or other such acts, or offers more sacrifice (take Siachen now, we will talk later), it build Paki confidence more. That is the real CBM unfortunately.

[PratikDas]

When India does not respond to 26/11 or other such acts, or offers more sacrifice (take Siachen now, we will talk later), it build Paki confidence more. That is the real CBM unfortunately.

+1

[ShauryaT]

All right, let me try again.

India is ceding something which is removal of forces from a position of strategic advantage.

What is the quid pro quo from Pakistan -- in real concrete terms (not good will etc) : Are they

1) Handing over Hafiz Saeed as a gesture to prove that they will not immediately dash to occupy the areas we vacated?
2) Ask for Chinese troops to leave from entire PoK and offer us a mechanic to check that the Chinese have left.
3) Offer us a corridor from J&K all the way to Afghanistan?

What is on the table from Pakistani side, or according to you what should be the payment from Pakistan?

All good questions, which I hope the secretaries consider. What they are actually doing, who knows? I do not look at Siachen as a transaction to be made. So it is not like, it is worth it IF we get this in return. It does not mean, there is nothing to ask for and potentially get.

A CBM is a building block, where trust is broken. What I would ask for is additional CBM's, if we think we have leverage, that concerns us the most. They would be in the areas of terrorism and related infrastructure, prosecute its leadership - even if they have some issues. One thing on the table, that is big for me is the education curriculum reform. I would ask for education institutions to be linked with Indian one's and educators from both to get open access to the other. This interaction at the social plane is very important to build trust. It will allows us to influence the minds of the populace and get a say in what they teach to their country men. I would ask for greater freedoms to the media of each other nations to operate more freely.

But, there are many other things too at all levels (economic, political, regional, global, etc), but in context of CBM's that will make a difference, the above I feel are important. But, then be ready, that even they might ask for more CBM's as they see them. Somewhere, there is a weight limit, on how much can you stack up.

[Vipul]

Cross posting what Aditya G has posted in the BSF/CRPF thread.

IN RECENT years, two other key developments have taken place with regard to Sir Creek. In 2007, naval hydrography units from India and Pakistan together tested the channel for navigability. They found it was entirely navigable. Admirals from both sides initialled the findings.

This evidence of navigability bolstered India’s case. It confirmed the Sindh chief commissioner’s declaration of 1914 that Sir Creek was navigable most of the year. It brought into application the Thalweg principle, which is used to draw up international water boundaries and holds that a navigable waterway must be divided midchannel. For instance, this is the principle used to identify American and Canadian interests in the Saint Lawrence river.

In 2008, Pakistan reneged on the findings, denied the initials of their admiral and said navigability had not been established. This rejection of an agreed benchmark and empirical evidence has led to sections of the Indian military and the foreign ministry wondering if there is any value to a Pakistani signature, and to any final agreement that country may sign.

The second development was a critical concession by India(Ofcourse that is not a CBM, only a wholesale surrender of Indian territory is). The navigable channel of the Creek comes down (southwards) from the head and then veers sharply westwards, towards Sindhi land. If the navigable channel is divided equally, it will move the Indian boundary much closer to Sindh than Pakistan may be comfortable with.(So India gives up on something which is its right as per international law to ensure Shitistani comfort (of course that is also not a CBM, and what does India get for this unprecedented gesture?

As such, India proposed ignoring the westward lunge of the channel — and notionally accepting that the channel actually descended straight, north to south. At this point, at the mouth of the Creek, India and Pakistan would accept a principle of equidistance and divide the waterway.

This was a reasonable offer, officials say, and meant both nations would climb down from their maximalist positions. When India suggests Sir Creek is “doable”, it essentially means Pakistan should accept this Indian formula. “This is the most we can do,” says a negotiator, “it’s our bottom line.”

[sum]

In 2008, Pakistan reneged on the findings, denied the initials of their admiral and said navigability had not been established. This rejection of an agreed benchmark and empirical evidence has led to sections of the Indian military and the foreign ministry wondering if there is any value to a Pakistani signature, and to any final agreement that country may sign.

The second development was a critical concession by India(Ofcourse that is not a CBM, only a wholesale surrender of Indian territory is). The navigable channel of the Creek comes down (southwards) from the head and then veers sharply westwards, towards Sindhi land. If the navigable channel is divided equally, it will move the Indian boundary much closer to Sindh than Pakistan may be comfortable with.(So India gives up on something which is its right as per international law to ensure Shitistani comfort (of course that is also not a CBM, and what does India get for this unprecedented gesture?

Pathetic...
And we have people pushing to have "agreements" with these loons?

Mwanwhile, was reading in todays paper that TSP has stalled trade talks saying they will move on this only after it is linked to Siachen/Sir Creek resolution. Time for India to quickly close this deal then ( even if it means ceding some land to smaller, innocent brother) so that critical confidence can be built with chotu long lost brother.

[Sanku]

What is on the table from Pakistani side, or according to you what should be the payment from Pakistan?

All good questions, which I hope the secretaries consider. What they are actually doing, who knows? I do not look at Siachen as a transaction to be made. So it is not like, it is worth it IF we get this in return. It does not mean, there is nothing to ask for and potentially get.
[/quote]

Thats the whole point, right now, Pakis have shown themselves completely and utterly untrustable with every action in the past. I along with others consider that this is their DNA. They are born liars, and have backstabbing as a growing up ritual.

Now you say you want India to have trust in them -- surely we need to ask of ways in means that such people at least show themselves able to submit to mechanisms through which even with their basic nature -- some firm commitments are not completely out of scope of discussion.

What are Paki's going to do to tell us that they can keep their basic nature under check of reality of their situation of having to work with India?

[Aditya_V]

What should be on the table on the Pakistani side.

1) Handover of all core commanaders to an Indian Army controlled or Terror victims as judges to judge if they are involved in HRV with death penatly or amputation
2) Same for Jihadi leaders.
3) declaration that any Chinese involvement in any area of Kashmir including Askai Chin, Shamskam Valley is illegal.
4) To discuss Kashmir as a peace park by withdrawing all Paki troops to pre 1947 position

[Lalmohan]

i understand what pakistan wants strategically in siachen, i do not understand the (military) strategic compulsion for sir creek
anyone elaborate?

[ManuT]

^ Lalmohan ji
I thought it was promising gas reserves, where not a fish flies.

[Gus]

it is about the extension to the sea line - for drilling at the sea. SS had a good post, IIRC.

[member_19648]

First is the Paki ego, based on some false claims they have, and second is the region has good economic value, from WIKI:

Though the creek has little military value, it holds immense economic gain. Much of the region is rich in oil and gas below the sea bed, and control over the creek would have a huge bearing on the energy potential of each nation. Also once the boundaries are defined, it would help in the determination of the maritime boundaries which are drawn as an extension of onshore reference points. Maritime boundaries also help in determining the limits of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and continental shelves. EEZs extend to 200 nautical miles (370 km) and can be subjected to commercial exploitation.

[SSridhar]

^ Lalmohan ji
I thought it was promising gas reserves, where not a fish flies.

Apart from gas reserves, the contours of the Sir Creek Boundary determine the Continental Shelf and the benefits from it.

[Lalmohan]

thanks - i get it now

[ShauryaT]

ShauryaT, if they are so scared of Indian escalation, then why should they provoke India at all especially when India is not an aggressor and is a status-quoist pacific power just happy with retaining whatever it has and is unwilling to be revisionist ?

A clarification is needed here. What I alluded to for 65, 71 as examples is the threat of a conventional escalation, this is what I said is the fear of the PA.

Everything since 71, points to this direction. Their increasing reliance on nuclear assets. The Kargil plan or similar one’s are something apparently discussed in TSP since Zia days, who dismissed them fearing an escalation. What the Gang of 4, were gung ho upon is that since a nuclear threshold exists the space for conventional escalation is over. Another event that points to this fear of escalation is the effect of Parakram. I believe Parakram sent a message that space for conventional conflict exists even under threat of an unclear nuclear line.

They provoke because it is only through provoking India they keep themselves in business and the threat alive. They see Kashmir as an unresolved issue of partition based on the communal principle, and see Indian hold on it as a sheer act of force without moral conviction or right. The provocation in their mind is justified due to this unfinished agenda, as they see it.

I do not think the PA is scared of India. It has never been, IMHO. In the early days it developed alliances to offset the huge asymmetry in power structure between itself and its arch enemy and it stood it in good stead until the Cold War ended. The end of the Cold War dramatically altered equations and new relationships emerged that were detrimental to Pakistan. For example, India and the US came closer while Pakistan could not strike a similar relationship with Russia. Though the US-Pakistan relationship became more transcational and the tight-fisted Chinese were not of a great help either after the 90s, yet, Pakistan has been able to maintain jihad against India for the most part of the last two decades. So, PA is not scared of India because they are convinced that a status-quo wielding democracy with a long civilizational record to boot would not go to war easily and has therefore tried to bleed us under a sub-war threshold.

Having accepted at some level that they cannot win against India in a conventional war, they resort to sub conventional tactics. Jihad, pre 9/11 was not a dirty word globally. Indeed, in the 80’s the mighty US of A, itself encouraged it against USSR in Afghanistan.

A government infested with termites (GoI) has been unable to respond effectively to this two decade old sub conventional threat from Pakistan. So, I have no disagreement with the above assessment of yours but do think, the GoI could have responded in a far, far more effective manner than they have to this sub-conventional threat – without a full blown escalation.

I would like to correct you by saying that Pakistan going nuclear was not due to 1971 or even the Smiling Buddha of 1974. … So, the Pakistani efforts predate the "Smiling Buddha" by a decade. PAEC chief Dr. Munir Akram recalls FM Ayub Khan saying in late 1965 that ‘ . . . if needed, Pakistan could get it from China’, referring to the nuclear weapons.

I have no particular disagreement, with what you have posted on Pakistani intent or when their quest started and have read similar accounts.


However, it is also a fact that the plutonium route being pursued by Munir Khan, the PAEC head was going nowhere. Pakistan was seeking to import the plutonium reprocessing plants from France, which were stuck because of suspicions of their nuclear program. While the west and US were focused on stopping Pakistan from acquiring these, even going to the extent of threatening to cut the $162 mil aid package, they were oblivious to the AQK led efforts based on the Uranium route, started post Pokhran.

Stolen western (G2, CNOR) technology, PRC supplied bomb and missile designs, PRC supplied industrial infrastructure assistance and petro dollars from gulf states helped them build the bomb. All of this came together after Pokhran with AQK’s Uranium route, under Bhuttos patronage. This is something that he carried to his grave, except for a brief notes stolen from his jail cell, that fell into the hands of our diplomats in London in 1979, after Bhutto’s execution. It was Pokhran that prompted AQK to contact Bhutto and the subsequent events are history.

Regarding Op. Meghdoot, I am surprised that you think they could do nothing because of their 'fear of escalation'. No, it was simply because they were late by a few days and there are enough evidences to that. The IA pre-empted them while they were waiting for the weather to improve. And, once the heights and passes were occupied, it became an impossible uphill task (pun intended) for them. As simple as that.

They could do nothing is in context of any conventional escalation somewhere else, in reaction to Op Meghdoot. Like what India did in reaction to Gibraltar or the attack on Parliament through Parakram. If they had the strength to escalate, they would have, to such a serious move as op. Meghdoot but were scrambling to respond to India’s initiative in the glaciers.

You are not the only one to hold such a view. A few Indian WKKs and all Pakistanis, well almost all, have a similar view. IMHO, this is a facade that has been carefully cultivated by the PA for ensuring their interests. So, they will continue to raise other bogeys once one of them is eliminated.

I appreciate your view, seriously for I think it is something that comes from careful study. But, it does pose a question. If almost all Pakistanis believe, along with some of the world and some in India and it is a façade, as you say, then you have to give it to them, for pulling one off in such a grand manner, for such a long time with nuclear weapons to boot. It leads to some other questions, if all is a façade then what is real? How do you know, it is real?

I think there are parts of truth mixed with falsehoods to create this threat perception. All of PA Initiated wars have been in Kashmir only, is a fact. They have been consistent in their demands that Kashmir is the core issue to be solved. Their threat perceptions from the Indian military is rooted in fact due to the command postures of the IA. It is the reason they give for their geo-stratagems with external powers and use the same threats to garner state resources through pressure or outright force. They hold a veto on ALL decisions regards India as being deemed the best guarantor of TSP security. Their largest sub conventional focus has been on Kashmir. They have been unwilling to convert the LoC to an IB and have sought to keep the issue alive, even after knowing fully well that they shall never be able to wrest the 2500 sq km of prime territory of the valley they seek, through force. ALL the back channel talks, since 60’s onwards focus on this one single issue of Kashmir as the key issue, including some with the Americans all the way back to the 60’s and the JFK era.

Please do not think, I am absolving them of all their crimes or do not think there is anything else but Kashmir, because of the above but I do not think it is all a façade too. Kashmir remains a core issue based on the communal idea of the partition. If the next question is will solving Kashmir solve all issues, from a practical perspective, Kashmir cannot be solved and should be left in abeyance. If both can accept this and more forward, well and good or else Kashmir will continue to be at the heart of the conflict.

My question has been and remains, what next ? What other fears that India will have to exorcise from Pakistani minds ? You call such a question as non-sequitur. Do you believe that once Saltoro and Siachen are evacuated by the IA, the PA will develop complete trust with India and there would be no more paranoia among the PA ?

Let us get a few easy things out of the way. Anyone who claims do this one thing and then PA will develop complete trust is a chimera, IMO.

The question you pose is valid. Let us assume, it is not all façade and only half is façade and half of the fear is real. What next? has to be a set of calibrated steps, where for every such military CBM that India agrees to, the PA makes corresponding CBM’s and starts transitioning from a paranoid, dysfunctional and failing state to a more normal looking one. Both sides recognize that we have to meet half way and what cannot be solved, such as Kashmir, is best left pending for future generations to resolve.

In the meanwhile, what can both do make this region a more secure place and let the promise of SAARC and SAFTA come to a reality.

As, mentioned in other posts, many things that we want but my 2-3 top ones are Geo-political access and Social reform. We on our side will have to continue to work on CBM’s across the LoC, in stages and provide additional military CBM’s. Some examples are a reduction and/or orientation of strike forces, reduction/elimination of short range missiles (Prithvi), move forces and assets away from LoC/IB. Each one of the military CBM’s has corresponding reductions for PA too, so they are not unilateral.

Please do not read the above as a reduction in the quantity or quality of overall assets / forces for our military. I would rather reduce our Pakistan centric three strike forces and fund the MSC, for which funds are in question now.

There are some things, which are non-negotiable. For TSP, we cannot expect TSP to stop being an Islamic state. TSP cannot expect India to not have an overwhelming superiority in all domains of power. What we can work towards is to ensure that this power is not used against the core interests of their state.

In all of this, there will be thousands of ifs and buts and various commas debated for many agreements. It will require a determined and tough leadership to achieve this elusive peace in the neighborhood. It is guaranteed to not be perfect, it will be full of hiccups and disappointments. But somewhere along the way, the hope is we shall learn to work with each other and trust each other enough to live as congenial neighbors, if not as related cousins, is my hope.

They dug their own grave through their obsession with an unachievable aim.

Clearly. The thrust of my message was not to justify their actions, but to understand them based on how they see their interests. My point was I see a pattern and they can justify their actions based on how they see their interests. IOW: A rational way for them even if it is completely irrational from our perspective.

This type of an approach, can help us determine, for example, if we fail to execute and read their facades, perfidies and real concerns correctly and fail to reach agreement, what are their likely responses based on how THEY see their their interests.

No, it is not a Paki idiot's feverish imagination uttered in delirium. The PA wants to look holistically at India's capabilities and match them. They have clearly said that they didn't care about India's intent but are worried about India's capabilities. But, you dismiss my conclusion as non-sequitur. What else can I say ?

Did not mean to offend but still see it is a feverish imagination in Pakistan by some. Expect a military man like Kayani to be concerned about Indian capability. Do not expect PA to try to match them. So, concern is not equal to an intent to match. However, they will continue to seek to defend and upgrade and use increasing indian capability as a rationale to increase their own. This thing will continue till the time a polity inside TSP is strong enough to deny the PA this excuse anymore. This can happen only if the CBM’s are allowed to run its course.

This political control over the military in TSP would be a significant milestone to measure, to what degree has the paranoia subsided.

A mere political plattitude shown to an enemy country that has killed and maimed thousands of us mercilessly for sixty years and promises to do so in the future too ? If we are not fools, then we should have known that PA would have correctly read such SeS concessions as worthless.

The only thought, I will end this with is, our ways of managing have not worked for 60 long years. India continues to be an island and outright Islamism at our door step cannot be in our interests. Something has to change, if we desire the next 60 years to be not more of the same or worse.

I do not wish to go back and forth and thank you for your response. As stated earlier, you have been a keen observer and respect your many observations.

Also, thanks for doing your bit as forum admin, to create a civil space for a discussion on a sensitive issue.

[PratikDas]

The lecture is over. Thank you all for attending.

[RoyG]

The PA needs to be in constant conflict with India to justify its hold over the country. If Kashmir is "solved" they will simply point to something else. Civil society in Pakistan after 60 years is still splintered and relatively weak and Islamic fundamentalism has consumed the country. Coupled with the 2014 pullout from Afghanistan, the Taliban will take aim at India. Instead of giving them an easy avenue for entry into the country through Kashmir we should be fostering closer relations with groups that oppose domination from Punjab and have been traditionally been more pluralistic in their outlook.

[Varoon Shekhar]

^^^
Well said RoyG. Indian diplomatic spokesmen and Indian journalists at the BBC, NY Times and Washington Post, as well as AP, AFP and Reuters, should make this statement assuredly and forcefully. Instead of the nonsense of 'core issue', "India and Pakistan have fought 4 wars over.." , "disputed province", "subcontinental arch rivals" blah, blah, blah.

[ManuT]

A matter of clarification

 All of PA Initiated wars have been in Kashmir only, is a fact.

To the credit of Pakistan, Op Chengiz Khan started the hostilities in 1971.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chengiz_Khan

[ShauryaT]

A matter of clarification

 All of PA Initiated wars have been in Kashmir only, is a fact.

To the credit of Pakistan, Op Chengiz Khan started the hostilities in 1971.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chengiz_Khan

If you deem the first bullet fired as "initiated" then you are correct. However, I was not using that word in that sense.

[eklavya]

They see Kashmir as an unresolved issue of partition based on the communal principle, and see Indian hold on it as a sheer act of force without moral conviction or right. The provocation in their mind is justified due to this unfinished agenda, as they see it.

Their hatred of India goes far beyond Kashmir. Withdrawing from Siachen does nothing to addres this basic mindset in Pakistan, regarding Kashmir or their other issues with India.

If they had the strength to escalate, they would have, to such a serious move as op. Meghdoot but were scrambling to respond to India’s initiative in the glaciers.

India pre-empted their initiative by just a few days. Since then they have tried MIGHTY HARD to win Siachen on the battlefield and have failed. Now they want to talk India into withdrawing from our own territory.

There is no civil word for anyone in India who would contemplate or propose such a withdrawal on Pakistani terms.

They have been consistent in their demands that Kashmir is the core issue to be solved.

When you know that they want ALL of J&K, and will go to any lengths to get it (including destroying their own country), why do you want to talk to them about Siachen? You want to give away J&K piece by piece?

Their threat perceptions from the Indian military is rooted in fact due to the command postures of the IA.

If the Pakistan Army was not contemplating, planning and carrying out terrorist attacks in India, the command posture of the Indian Army would be irrelevant. You want the Pakistan Army to be able to commit terrorism in India and not feel the threat from our armed forces?

where for every such military CBM that India agrees to, the PA makes corresponding CBM’s and starts transitioning from a paranoid, dysfunctional and failing state to a more normal looking one.

Where is the logic or sense in such a statement? In return for India withdrawing from our own territory, the Pakistanis promise to "act normal"? Is that why you want to give up Siachen? Becase you HOPE that the Pakis will begin to "act normal". Where is the guarantee?

Today Siachen, tomorrow J&K, then Punjab, then Delhi ... every time they throw a tantrum, you will throw them a piece of Indian territory to make them "act normal".

Both sides recognize that we have to meet half way and what cannot be solved, such as Kashmir, is best left pending for future generations to resolve.
In the meanwhile, what can both do make this region a more secure place and let the promise of SAARC and SAFTA come to a reality.

All this will happen because of Siachen CBM? When for 65 years they have shown a single-minded focus on Kashmir, you think India withdrawal from Siachen will make them forget Kashmir. I'm sorry, I don't see any logic or sense in this type of thinking.

We on our side will have to continue to work on CBM’s across the LoC, in stages and provide additional military CBM’s. Some examples are a reduction and/or orientation of strike forces, reduction/elimination of short range missiles (Prithvi), move forces and assets away from LoC/IB. Each one of the military CBM’s has corresponding reductions for PA too, so they are not unilateral.Please do not read the above as a reduction in the quantity or quality of overall assets / forces for our military. I would rather reduce our Pakistan centric three strike forces and fund the MSC, for which funds are in question now.

Your suggestions makes no sense. India should build up our forces further and make the posture as threatening as possible: it is the threat of punishment that will help to deter terrorism.

Also, the more we spend, the more they will have to spend. The more they spend, the quicker they go bankrupt. Let them eat grass ... as long as it is not my grass.

[Manish_Sharma]

The lecture is over. Thank you all for attending.

First he didn't understand Sanku's questions so--- no answer!

When question was rephrased ----- he slithered out of it by "hope your good questions are considered by secretaries".

This time there was no excuse of people not using civilized language, since he was asked in the most polite language. So like last time couldn't say "because of uncivil posts, I'm leaving and until they're cleaned I'm not coming back."

Right such an esteemed poster who moves in such exalted circle of "people in power, or those near the people in power" can't be asked such secretary level of questions.

[ramana]

negotiations, or talks, serve as a means of checking the pulse of the enemy - gain a sense of what are they thinking. i.e. hear it from them directly, even if it is lies and subterfuge, than having to figure it out. it also serves the purpose of saying to 3rd party pressurisers - look we are talking to them

One should always talk to the challenger to get a feel for the thought process. What they discuss and don't discuss gives a snapshot into their mind. And as smaller powers keeps the hounds (Wastern powers) at bay.