Siachen News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4041
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by suryag »

kaun hai tyagi to negotiate here ? this is not his jaagir to negotiate
abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by abhijitm »

chetak wrote:
AN E-MAIL FROM LT. GEN.(RETD) P.C. KATOCH IN A VETERANS' GROUP :
7). He then asked me whether I still consider their actions as “treason”? I replied I was more convinced now that without any directions by MEA towards demilitarization and our Military firm on NO demilitarization, this “Private Body”, as stated in his e-mail, had still gone ahead to discuss and agree to withdraw from Indian Territory in violation of both the Constitution of India and the 1994 Parliament Resolution reiterating that entire J&K is part of India. He then said he had erroneously mentioned “Private Body”. Actually, they were “individuals” in their own private capacity. When I pointed out that he was the Co-Chair, he said he had acted in his individual capacity and had absolutely “no control” over the other Track II Members. Their conversation was akin to the discussion he was having with me. I said I do not agree as the two are hardly comparable when a strategic issue like withdrawal from territory is being discussed at international level with a military heavy Pakistani body. His response was that I was welcome to my views and he would not like to continue the discussion any further. At that juncture he also said the he had received some questions by someone called Devasahayam but he was not going to respond to any questions from any quarter. I had other questions but the conversation had ended abruptly.
what a load of BS ACM Tyagi is throwing here!
There are two aspects here 1) demilitarization of Indian base 2) agreeing on an action of Indian military walking over Indian land as punitive. The second part means India has officially given up the claim of their own land. It is a surrender of the sovereign land and hence it is a bright day noon clear treason.
Last edited by abhijitm on 03 Nov 2012 16:01, edited 1 time in total.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

Paul wrote:ACM Tyagi is a well connected person. IIRC It was on his intervention after retirement that the Akash orders for the IAF were cut down to the present number.
What was the proposed and actual orders
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by chetak »

How many track II's are there?

Their's, our's, tyagi's, atlantic council's, Fai's, ISI's, mms's and now salman kurshid's ??

Don't for a moment imagine that kurshid's entry at this stage is a fluke onlee.

Where exactly does the GOI fit in :evil: in this miasma of treacherous gravy trains??

Sounds like a load of bull.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Vipul »

chetak wrote: Don't for a moment imagine that kurshid's entry at this stage is a fluke onlee.
Where exactly does the GOI fit in in this miasma of treacherous gravy trains??
MMS orchestrating the great betrayal.
As he moved into his new office in New Delhi, Khurshid made clear that he would get straight to work and said he had been briefed by Manmohan Singh to bring fresh thinking to his post.

“I have a lot of homework to do... as I want to take India’s foreign policy ahead,” he told reporters shortly after he was officially elevated from his post law minister. “In the last few years, foreign policy has vastly changed... We have to do out of box thinking and go beyond theology.
This Funds embezzeler aka NGO funds chor is only too happy to oblige Murkh Mouse Singh.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by chetak »

Vipul wrote:
chetak wrote: Don't for a moment imagine that kurshid's entry at this stage is a fluke onlee.
Where exactly does the GOI fit in in this miasma of treacherous gravy trains??
MMS orchestrating the great betrayal.
As he moved into his new office in New Delhi, Khurshid made clear that he would get straight to work and said he had been briefed by Manmohan Singh to bring fresh thinking to his post.

“I have a lot of homework to do... as I want to take India’s foreign policy ahead,” he told reporters shortly after he was officially elevated from his post law minister. “In the last few years, foreign policy has vastly changed... We have to do out of box thinking and go beyond theology.
This Funds embezzeler aka NGO funds chor is only too happy to oblige Murkh Mouse Singh.

Here's hoping that the "box" kurshid is talking about is not about to turn into a coffin for India :evil:

and with hina khar the birkin babe, beyond theology is onlee biology :wink:
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Vipul »

we can now only hope, all the pieces have been arranged with solid planning.Forcing V K Singh's exit, getting corrupt scam tainted ex military personnel and other aspirants of govt posts and sundry five star hotel/air ticket seeking jaichands on the track II team is all towards MMS wanting his name written in gobar in what will be analysed later as one of the greatest strategic follies ever.

The assh**e former air chief when it is brought to his attention that the track - II teams host body is funded by the Pak Army/ISI says so what? Post-Fai episode this cousin of Julie Tyagi is well aware of what the connotations of his admission are. This in your face defiance is a clear challenge to the common people of India that things will only move as per the Track II/MMS plan.
How much more obvious can facts be?
Last edited by Vipul on 03 Nov 2012 17:30, edited 1 time in total.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Guys,

Enough of this R&D. This govt has no mandate to make any territorial concessions to any one. It is chai pani only. Besides, what cannot be won on the battle field, is never gained on the negotiating table. That too, one that has no official standing, what so ever.

What this whole episode is showing is the whose who of Indians who are willing to compromise on vital national interests.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by chetak »

Pratyush wrote:Guys,

Enough of this R&D. This govt has no mandate to make any territorial concessions to any one. It is chai pani only. Besides, what cannot be won on the battle field, is never gained on the negotiating table. That too, one that has no official standing, what so ever.

What this whole episode is showing is the whose who of Indians who are willing to compromise on vital national interests.
Exactly why then are so many, even beyond BRF so worried and agitated??
Besides, what cannot be won on the battle field, is never gained on the negotiating table
and how quickly one forgets simla and the shenanigans of snake oil sales man bhutto and our own "tough" Indira Gandhi :)
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10195
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by sum »

Reading the book "Escape to Nowehere" and remembering the quote by the counter-intel chief when his deputy asks him if ISI might be handling Rabinder Singh. The chief says : ISI has anyways penetrated virtually all layers of our society and would hardly require to bother trying to snap up a lowly mid level RAW officer when they have access to info from all strata of society!!
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Surya »

chetak

thanks for posting that
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by chetak »

Surya wrote:chetak

thanks for posting that
:)
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3866
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Kakkaji »

Why have so many of our senior serving and retired officers recently been found to be involved in so many shenanigans? :-?

The pay and pension structure for our armed forces must be abysmal. IIRC Brig. RayC had mentioned it once on the forum that his pension is less than what his daughter makes as a new employee of an MNC. :( This when they are retired at an age when their family responsibilities are the highest. No wonder so many of them are tempted.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by johneeG »

My post on 4 Jun, 2009.
johneeG wrote:
CRamS wrote: If talks make no difference, why is TSP begging for them? The reason is that it gives TSP elite legitimacy in the eyes of its people. We cowered India and brought it to the negotiating table is the message. Plus, any talks would mean India making all the concessions because by entering into the talks, India has conceeded the point, advanced by USA, that TSP has legitimate grievances against India that must be addressed, and terror is the result of TSP's frustration in the face of Indian obduracy.

Actually, I was confused about the same. Apparantly talks make no difference but still TSP and US keeps putting pressure on us to talk. Why?

I am not convinced with your assessment that by talking to us, TSP elites earn legitimacy in the eyes of their ppl. Their ppl actually dont like them talking to us either, they just want the TFTA PA to finish off the kaffir yindia.
As for India conceding to the point advanced by the US, it doesnt make differences.
My main worry is are these talks going to dilute our stand on Kashmir. There was a talk that India and TSP had reached to some kind of agreement before 26/11 happened and derailed it. So, I'm not worried if we talk or not, as long as our leaders dont trade kashmir for 'peace'.
IF India is firm on its stand about kashmir(integral part of India), then talk or no-talk makes no difference, unless no-talk also means cutting off all kinds of diplomatic, cultural and other ties......
Since, our leaders didnt have the guts to cut off those ties anyway, we may as well talk.
Fears have come true... :x

It seems to me that Manly Singh is trying to complete all his pet projects before the end of his term.
a) Kashmir-Siachen
b) FDI-US Companies
c) economic stagnation of India through inflation, price rise, ...etc.(In this regard, I consider him an economic hired hitman)
symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by symontk »

Atlantic council has nothing to do with Pakistan Army, its part of NATO

http://www.acus.org/press/india-pakista ... re-meeting
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by chetak »

symontk wrote:Atlantic council has nothing to do with Pakistan Army, its part of NATO

http://www.acus.org/press/india-pakista ... re-meeting

Points discussed were favorable only to the pakis.

It was a only collection of individuals as per tyagi's belated and lame explanation.

Why then did the meeting take place at all?

Who picked the participants and why??

What role does tyagi play as a private individual in the India paki situation?

Lastly who the fack is he in the larger scheme of things??

NATO is not particulary India friendly.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Surya »

Tyagi is already compromised with the Augusta helo deal

lame statements of not knowing what his relation was upto - not withstanding
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

symontk wrote:Atlantic council has nothing to do with Pakistan Army, its part of NATO

http://www.acus.org/press/india-pakista ... re-meeting
These discussions are undertaken as part of a project on conventional confidence-building, which is jointly organized by the University of Ottawa and the South Asia Centre at the Atlantic Council. The project is supported by the Near East and South Asia Centre for Strategic Studies at the National Defence University and the United States Institute of Peace, with additional support from Stanford University. The participants in this process have decided to continue their work on these matters, and have accordingly asked the organizers to prepare a new round of meetings.
Wonder what and why so many entities all at the same time.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Vipul »

Queried about the source of funding, his response was that the complete expenses at various locales including in Pakistan were borne by Atlantic Council of Ottawa (implying travel, stay, meetings, the works which obviously would be five star). I then asked him if he knew that both the Atlantic Council of Ottawa and Atlantic Council of US are actually extensions of Pakistani Army and funds would obviously be coming from the Pakistani Military / ISI. He said “so be it” but their job was only dialogue.
"So be it" meaning i dont care, as i have a pre-determined agenda to fulfill. Why should the cousin of Julie Tyagi really care? He is himself in trouble in the VVIP helicopter deal and is trying to do anything to escape prosecution.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Surya »

to take uncles chestnuts out of the afghan fire in the best way possible - all else be damned??
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Vipul »

Pakistan refuses flag meeting with India.
Major General Bipin Rawat, general officer commanding (GOC) of the 19 Mountain Division, said that Pakistani troops had violated the ceasefire in Uri sector last month and then refused Indian’s request of a flag meeting.
They even denied having violated the ceasefire
. Yesterday (Monday) also, Pakistan Rangers violated the ceasefire in the Uri sector,” the GOC was quoted as saying.
Of Course the Track II Bunch of Morons on the Indian side and their ring leader Murkh Mouse Singh still wants to evict Siachen.
Last edited by Vipul on 07 Nov 2012 08:21, edited 1 time in total.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Vipul »

Withdrawal from Siachen – a manifestation of Prithviraj Chauhan syndrome!

Siachen is in the news again.Having served at the glacier, one is aware of the ground realities. It is being suggested that ‘demilitarization’ of the glacier will act as a catalyst to foster friendly relations between Indian and Pakistan. To be honest, one has not heard of a more convoluted and outlandish logic.

Demilitarization of an area implies withdrawal of the opposing military forces from the designated area with an agreement that neither side would undertake any military activity till the resolution of the conflicting territorial claims. Thus, demilitarization necessarily entails withdrawal by both the sides from the disputed area. The area becomes a de facto frontier between the two nations.

In the case of Siachen, Pakistan has no presence on the glacier – not even a toehold. Their positions are well west of the Saltoro Ridge. If they are not present on the glacier, the question of Pakistani withdrawal just does not arise. Therefore, demilitarization of Siachen means unilateral withdrawal by India and nothing more.

It is understandable for the Pakistani military to use the term demilitarization as it wants to continue deceiving its countrymen that it is occupying part of the glacier. However, it is simply preposterous for Indian strategists to speak in terms of demilitarization and thereby mislead the public. They should be honest and refer to the proposal as ‘unilateral vacation of Siachen by India’.

Demilitarization of Siachen will assure Pakistan of Indian sincerity in resolving contentious issues and help bring about a reduction in Pakistan’s hostility towards India. Both countries can live peacefully thereafter’ is the commonly touted argument of the Indian advocates of the withdrawal.

The above logic is absurd and farcical. It is based on three phony contentions. One, it is for India to convince Pakistan of its good intentions and not the vice versa. Two, a placated Pakistan will shed its enmity and be a good neighbour. And three, Pakistan should be trusted to honour its commitment.

Over the last six decades India has tried various measures to convince Pakistan of its sincerity to develop a rancor-free relationship. India has never coveted Pakistani territory. It stopped short of re-conquering the whole of Jammu and Kashmir and went to the Security Council. It gave back the strategic Haji Pir Pass as a goodwill gesture in 1965 and returned 96,000 Pakistani Prisoners of War after the war in 1971. It has never trained and sent terrorists into Pakistan to create mayhem.

As a matter of fact, India’s over-indulgence and conciliatory gestures has emboldened Pakistan into considering India to be a soft state and increased its intransigence and hardened its anti-India attitude. While the Indian leadership was trying to break ice through ‘bus diplomacy’ in 1998-99, Pakistani military was busy planning the notorious Kargil incursion.

As regards the second issue of changing Pakistan’s mindset, it is nothing but self-delusion. Pakistan’s shedding of hostility towards India and adoption of a friendly stance would amount to the negation of the two-nation theory, the raison d’être for its very existence. A nation born out of hatred needs hatred to feed itself on for continued sustenance and to justify its existence.

Issues like Kashmir and Siachen are merely a manifestation of Pakistan’s infinite hostility towards India. Were India to hand over Kashmir to it on a platter and withdraw from Siachen, Pakistan will invent newer issues to keep the pot boiling. Pakistan cannot afford to shed its antagonism towards India as that would amount to questioning the logic of its very creation.

Coming to the third premise, can Pakistan be trusted not to undertake clandestine operations to occupy the Siachen heights vacated by trusting Indians? Who can guarantee that? Remember, deceit is a part of Pakistan’s state policy.

Independent Pakistan started its track record with treachery. Despite having signed a ‘stand-still agreement’ with the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan unleashed Pashtun marauders on the hapless Kashmir valley with the active participation of Pak army. Breaching undertakings given to the US, it surreptitiously used American equipment to launch a surprise attack on Kutch in April 1965.

Even before the ink had dried on the Kutch agreement, Pakistan was back to its perfidious ways. Covertly, it infiltrated its forces into Kashmir, expecting a local uprising against India. Under the Tashkent agreement, Pakistan promised to abjure the use of force to settle mutual disputes and adherence to the principles of non-interference. However, Pakistan continued its proxy war through its notorious secret agencies. Sanctuaries and safe passage were provided to underground elements of North-Eastern India.

Under the Shimla Agreement, Bhutto had given a solemn verbal undertaking to accept LOC as the de facto border. Instead, true to its perfidious nature, Pakistan redoubled its efforts to create turmoil in India. In addition to regular terrorist attacks, it never misses an opportunity to embarrass India in every world forum.

Finally, India has been repeatedly duped and cheated by Pakistan. What has Pakistan done in the recent past to earn another chance to be trusted? Has it arrested and deported all terrorists? They are roaming free in Pakistan spewing venom against India. Pakistan is colluding with China by bartering away territory in Gilgit-Baltistan. One is not aware of a single step taken by Pakistan to assuage Indian feelings and earn its trust.

Pakistan is adept at achieving through negotiations what it loses in war. The current dialogue on Siachen is an extension of the same subterfuge. Indian soldiers shed blood to gain military ascendency, only to see their hard fought gains being lost through the misplaced zeal of some self-proclaimed advocates of peace.

…any Indian who suggests vacation of Siachen should be treated as an anti-national element and tried for high treason

We should never forget that deceit, betrayal, duplicity and perfidy are synonym with Pakistan. Therefore, any Indian who suggests vacation of Siachen should be treated as an anti-national element and tried for high treason. Enough of Prithviraj Chauhan syndrome. He repeatedly trusted Ghori and set him free; only to be captured and blinded later on. Pakistani text books portray Ghori as an ideal leader whose exploits should be followed.

It is time India learns.
kenop
BRFite
Posts: 1335
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 07:28

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by kenop »

Siachen: What is the strategic or diplomatic rationale for demilitarization?
The government hasn’t spoken about it. The opposition seems to be oblivious to the goings on. The print and electronic media have chosen to remain silent. But the Atlantic Council, a US-based think tank in its Press release on 02 Oct 2012 announced that a group of retired senior officials, military officers and diplomats of India and Pakistan “have agreed on a proposal regarding the demilitarization of the Siachen area”. The project it appears had been “jointly organized by the University of Ottawa and the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council”.
No one seems to know if this Track 2 effort had been undertaken at the behest of Government of India, Pakistan or some other third party. However one of the team members has confirmed that the team had received briefings in New Delhi from Government officials. It appears that India and Pakistan have been engaged in military-level Track 2 talks for the past 12 months, with the delegates of the two sides meeting in Dubai, Bangkok and finally in Lahore in September. Smaller “sub-group” meetings in Chiang Mai (Thailand) and Palo Alto (California) have also featured in the Track 2 process. All these meetings, the move of both the teams back and forth would have cost some money. Who footed the bill? Was it India, Pakistan, Atlantic Council, or the University of Ottawa? What was the interest?

Is it a normal practice in diplomacy for a foreign think tank sponsored Track 2 team consisting of individuals selected by the sponsoring agency to be briefed by Government officials? Is it appropriate for the team to go to an inimical foreign country and agree on demilitarization or to agree on the modalities for demilitarization of an area which it had been holding for years without the Government deciding on the very basic question whether to withdraw from the position or not? Or has the Government taken a decision to withdraw from Siachen without taking the Parliament or the opposition into confidence? Which of these are true? The people of this country have a right to know the truth.

Three countries have interest in areas in and around Siachen. This aspect will have a major bearing on the strategic importance of Siachen and India’s decision to demilitarize the area (See map). The areas concerned are the Northern Area, Gilgit, Baltisatan, Saltoro, Shaksgam Valley and Aksai Chin. The Gilgit and Baltistan located to the immediate west of Saltoro is a part of Pakistan with majority Shia population. Pakistan is actively considering a proposal to lease the region to Beijing for 50 years. The Sakshgam valey immediately to the North of Saltoro has already been ceded to China by Pakistan illegally. Xinjiang lies to the immediate North of Sakshgam. Aksai Chin which is occupied by China lies to the South East of Sakshgam Valley.

The Nurba Valley and Ladakh leading to J&K are hemmed in on three sides by Baltistan, Sakshgam Valley and Aksai Chin. If the proposal to lease the Gilgit – Baltistan area goes through and India withdraws from Siachen, all the three areas right up to Xinjiang will be under Chinese control.

The Karakoram Highway which runs through these areas connects China's Xinjiang region with Pakistan's Northern Areas across the Karakoram mountain range, through the Khunjerab Pass. China and Pakistan are also planning to link the Karakoram Highway to the southern port of Gwadar in Balochistan through the Chinese-aided Gwadar-Dalbandin railway, which extends up to Rawalpindi. The Karakoram Highway passes through an area where China, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan come as close to each other as 250 kms and has its own strategic importance and significance to India.

Looking at the map in the context of the above, does anyone have any doubt as to which of the three countries would benefit the most by vacating Saltoro? Is Pakistan trying to help their all-weather friend to be able to dominate the entire area to the North of our areas of interest? Saltoro ridge acts as a separator between Pakistan (Baltistan – Gilgit) and China. Do we want them to link up by demilitarizing the area? Doesn’t vacating Saltoro threaten the security of Nubra Valley?

The entire country believes that the Military is occupying Siachen because it belongs to it and rightly so. The 1972 Shimla Agreement clearly stated that from the NJ9842 the boundary would proceed "thence north to the glaciers." This implies that Saltoro ridge is well within Indian Territory. Is it necessary for a country to go and sign an agreement with a neighboring country for unilaterally withdrawing its forces from its own territory? What are the compulsions warranting India to concede to Pakistan’s demand for withdrawing from Saltoro ridge? Even assuming that the agreement provides adequate safeguards against Pakistan occupying Saltoro ridge after India’s withdrawal, does the agreement provide any guarantee against China occupying the Saltoro ridge and threatening India especially after the Baltistan – Gilgit areas have been leased to it by Pakistan? Would we not run into another mess should China choose to say that it has nothing to do with the agreement signed between India and Pakistan?

Withdrawal from Saltoro and Siachen would threaten Ladakh and will expose important mountain passes that are gateways to Ladakh and onto Kashmir to the aggressor including terrorists. Will that not require establishing a fresh defence line along the Ladakh Range to successfully defend our areas of interest? What will be the requirement of troops for such a venture and at what cost? Has an appraisal of the military requirement in the event of demilitarization of Siachen been obtained from the Army Chief? How will such a withdrawal impact our security in relation to the Karakoram Highway?

As experienced in the past, aren’t issues such as cross border terrorism in J &K, terrorist training camps across, funding and arming terrorists in J&K to destabilize the country much more serious than Sir Creek or Siachen? Why then are we being soft on Pakistan by agreeing to unilaterally withdraw from Siachen while Pakistan continues to aid and abet terrorism right inside our country? Has Pakistan done anything in the past to exhibit its sincerity or to be able to trust them? Have we sought any guarantees or quid pro quo in the other major areas of our concern?

Is the Government of India prepared to give a guarantee that the Indian Army would not be required to recapture Saltoro ridge should Pakistan or China occupy the position after India vacates it or if Indian soil is threatened? If not, would the soldiers of the Indian Army be forced to shed blood for a mess up by the arm chair politicians and bureaucrats who are least concerned with war fighting or its cost to human life and to the country?

Lack of strategic culture and the worth of a non-professional generalist bureaucracy is showing up once again. Were the Service Chiefs parts of the decision making process in whatever role that the Government had played in the Track 2 diplomacy? Isn’t the military a concerned party? Why then are they not part of the decision making process?

It only goes to prove that our bureaucrats and politicians would never hesitate to shed your blood for their stupidities and ambitions.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

Not a single inch will be vacated. It is not joke. We are democracy. We can talk about anything but GOI is NOT GOP. Guys stop wasting time on this thread. Benis dhaga is 400% better the this.........at least we have fun with real thing. Stop browning your dhotis over an imaginary event. It is a very sophisticated operation aimed at 1) demoralizing army
2) setting a precedent which can be used by Pakis at some future negotiations (it is done very often in diplomacy).
Wait for two years and we will be reading things like " India almost gave Siachin......."you kno the rest.

Some body please make list of people who are propagating this issue.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by chetak »

rsingh wrote:Not a single inch will be vacated. It is not joke. We are democracy. We can talk about anything but GOI is NOT GOP. Guys stop wasting time on this thread. Benis dhaga is 400% better the this.........at least we have fun with real thing. Stop browning your dhotis over an imaginary event. It is a very sophisticated operation aimed at 1) demoralizing army
2) setting a precedent which can be used by Pakis at some future negotiations (it is done very often in diplomacy).
Wait for two years and we will be reading things like " India almost gave Siachin......."you kno the rest.

Some body please make list of people who are propagating this issue.
My name should head the list :D

With great Indian goodwill, I note how "democratic" Indira Gandhi was when she gave away all that the IA had gained on the battlefield without consulting anybody.
We also noted how MMS behaved at sharm el sheik, again it was very democratic of him , no doubt.

uncle vadra was right, we are mango people in a banna republic onlee and you should be heading THAT list.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Lalmohan »

indira gandhi had her hands tied over 71 war
she got away with as much as possible without precipitating a major US-USSR showdown with China waiting in the wings
she had a very delicate strategic balance to make - and not lose soviet support
her arms were twisted as much by moscow as washington
Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Yogi_G »

If Siachen is given up on a platter we need to have a BRF occupy parliament movement and gherao them. Land won after spilling of lot of blood of Indian kshatriyas should not be granted to the Turushkas in any circumstance.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by chetak »

Lalmohan wrote:indira gandhi had her hands tied over 71 war
she got away with as much as possible without precipitating a major US-USSR showdown with China waiting in the wings
she had a very delicate strategic balance to make - and not lose soviet support
her arms were twisted as much by moscow as washington

Sirjee,

I agree with you only partially.

The people did not have a voice in those days. With the net and other things, the situation is very different now.

We were / are at the mercy of cretins. Not very different these days too but aam janta has a voice that can be heard and they want it to be heard.

nobel driven mms is not trustworthy to safeguard the nation, specially after his solo destructive antics at sharm el sheik revealed a mean streak of national disregard and pig headed belief that he has the "vision"

A highly developed babu sense of self preservation as well as a lifetime of babudom has given him a scarred mentality and left him severely handicapped. He is very worried about how history is going to look at him and his legacy. Like every mediocre babu he seeks imortality. May be we could get him to inagurate a shopping mall or two. :wink:

Look how fiercely he reacted when the nuke deal got done. He really thought that he was making history and the nobel was already in his grubby sherwani pocket. After all, if Arafat got one courtsey the amrekis why not him?? Mediocre babus always look for a precident and operate in the shadow of their masters while it is the politician who usually blazes a new trail.
Last edited by chetak on 08 Nov 2012 00:27, edited 1 time in total.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

Lalmohan wrote:indira gandhi had her hands tied over 71 war
she got away with as much as possible without precipitating a major US-USSR showdown with China waiting in the wings
she had a very delicate strategic balance to make - and not lose soviet support
her arms were twisted as much by moscow as washington
Lalbrof.....agree every what of it.

People just need to read the declassified documents from that era (there is also a book on the subject) to see the level of hatred Kissinger-Nixon had for Indira and India.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Vipul »

So what is MMS's excuse for his moment of glory at S-e-S?
abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by abhijitm »

rsingh wrote:Not a single inch will be vacated. It is not joke. We are democracy. We can talk about anything but GOI is NOT GOP. Guys stop wasting time on this thread. Benis dhaga is 400% better the this.........at least we have fun with real thing. Stop browning your dhotis over an imaginary event. It is a very sophisticated operation aimed at 1) demoralizing army
2) setting a precedent which can be used by Pakis at some future negotiations (it is done very often in diplomacy).
Wait for two years and we will be reading things like " India almost gave Siachin......."you kno the rest.
if we dont give up Siachen then that would be credit to all people who stood between the country's sovereignity and someone's personal gain. if there is no one speaking agaist what is happening, the perfidious attemps being made, then Siachen could be long gone. Learn to thank all those patriots.
Some body please make list of people who are propagating this issue.
for what purpose?
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by chetak »

rsingh wrote:Not a single inch will be vacated. It is not joke. We are democracy. We can talk about anything but GOI is NOT GOP. Guys stop wasting time on this thread. Benis dhaga is 400% better the this.........at least we have fun with real thing. Stop browning your dhotis over an imaginary event. It is a very sophisticated operation aimed at 1) demoralizing army
2) setting a precedent which can be used by Pakis at some future negotiations (it is done very often in diplomacy).
Wait for two years and we will be reading things like " India almost gave Siachin......."you kno the rest.

Some body please make list of people who are propagating this issue.
The nobel is hanging over India like the sword of Damocles!! There are enough foolish people in India to make a grab for it. Both of the (only) two contenders were not born in India. One wears a saree and the other looks like he is wearing a saree. Go figure.

Why India cannot afford to give up Siachen

Following the avalanche in Skardu which killed 150 Pakistani soldiers, there seems to be renewed talk that India should withdraw from the heights attained with so much sacrifice and at great cost to the nation. Siachen has recently been sneeringly described as 'A struggle of two bald men over a comb' or 'an ego problem between the two armies' and has elsewhere been described by some journalists as a futile war. Let it be said here that no war over one's own territory that is futile.

It is certainly less futile than the US campaign in Iraq. The United States, unable to solve its own problems in the region or for that matter anywhere else, and seeking an early exit from Afghanistan by obliging Pakistan, has offered to assist India and Pakistan in a dialogue. There are reports that the two defence secretaries will meet shortly to discuss Siachen and Sir Creek.

It seems that there is some great urgency to strike a deal and this is more than the usual periodic urge to concede something to Pakistan to look good. There are some Indian commentators who have even argued that India should now forget 26/11 and move forward. Nations that do not remember their past can have no future.

One of the arguments being given is that the cost of retaining Siachen/Saltoro is prohibitive. This is rubbish. At approximately Rs two crores a day it means only Rs 730 crores annually out of a budget that is in the range of Rs 80,000 crores. Even if it were more than this, is there a fixed price for security and freedom? The loss of soldiers to harsh conditions has become minimal for the last many years and the hot war has long been over.

An agreement might have been possible but Pakistani refusal to sign the Agreed Ground Position Line on a specious argument only leads to the suspicion that they would want to alter the position at first dawn. General Pervez Musharraf's [ Images ] Kargil adventure in 1999 was Pakistan's last attempt to change the ground position militarily and politically and also to negate the advantage of Saltoro with India.

The continuing mindset is depicted not only in the rants of Lashkar-e-Tayiba [ Images ] chief Hafiz Saeed [ Images ] but also by what appears in the English press in Pakistan, which include songs in praise of The Hafiz. The Nation in an editorial on March 12 said "We must never lose sight of the fact that Kashmir is a left over issue of the Partition, gifted to us by the British. Unless it is settled in accordance with the Partition Plan, neither the division of India would be complete, nor would the state of Pakistan be complete."

There has not been any evidence of a change of heart in the Pakistan Army -- the institution that calls the shots in Pakistan especially on issues relating to India. Everyone knows that. Thus withdrawal from these strategic heights without any iron clad guarantees that do not extend beyond declarations of intent would be the height of folly. This strategic advantage in Siachen should not be given up for apparent short-term political gains.

The China factor cannot be ignored in this cockpit of the world. It was not so evident in 1984 although the Karakoram Highway had been built by the Chinese by then and Pakistan had illegally ceded a portion of the territory under their control, Shaksgam to them. Today, the Chinese footprint is much larger. In its own strategic interests in the region, China would be interested in greater Pakistani control over Gilgit and Baltistan.

It has been investing $150 million (abour Rs 750 crore) for widening the KKH from 10 metres to 30 metres, to be used by all weather heavy vehicles, the kind that brought strategic material for Pakistan through the Khunjerab.

A rail link was also planned, to be connected with Pakistan's main rail grid, and fiber optic cables were being laid in 2007. If China had a port in Gwadar that they could use, this would cut down the distance from Xinjiang to the Arabian Sea to merely 2,500 km. Today Xinjiang is 4,500 km away from the east coast of China. Gas and oil pipelines through from Gwadar and Xinjiang make sense only if Gilgit and Baltistan is secured. It is not a question of a glacier in the Himalayan heights; it is a question of India's security.

The nation cannot afford to repeat the strategic mistakes of the past -- like halting our advance at Uri in 1948 or not capturing Skardu; or giving up Haji Pir in 1966; or returning 93,000 troops and territory in 1972.

Giving up Siachen as a gesture of friendship would also mean that its recapture would be extremely expensive to India in men and material. Today, as the other side continues to arm itself with newer nuclear weapons, has not called off its jehadi hordes and the only 'concession' it can offer us is an MFN at a future date or lunch at Lahore [ Images ] and dinner at Islamabad [ Images ].

Pakistani hospitality is legendary but beware of the poisoned chalice.
wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2162
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by wig »

Siachen: What is the strategic or diplomatic rationale for demilitarization?

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... tarization

worth reading in full = excerpts
The government hasn’t spoken about it. The opposition seems to be oblivious to the goings on. The print and electronic media have chosen to remain silent. But the Atlantic Council, a US-based think tank in its Press release on 02 Oct 2012 announced that a group of retired senior officials, military officers and diplomats of India and Pakistan “have agreed on a proposal regarding the demilitarization of the Siachen area”. The project it appears had been “jointly organized by the University of Ottawa and the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council”.

No one seems to know if this Track 2 effort had been undertaken at the behest of Government of India, Pakistan or some other third party. However one of the team members has confirmed that the team had received briefings in New Delhi from Government officials. It appears that India and Pakistan have been engaged in military-level Track 2 talks for the past 12 months, with the delegates of the two sides meeting in Dubai, Bangkok and finally in Lahore in September. Smaller “sub-group” meetings in Chiang Mai (Thailand) and Palo Alto (California) have also featured in the Track 2 process. All these meetings, the move of both the teams back and forth would have cost some money. Who footed the bill? Was it India, Pakistan, Atlantic Council, or the University of Ottawa? What was the interest?

It only goes to prove that our bureaucrats and politicians would never hesitate to shed your blood for their stupidities and ambitions.
Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3512
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Rony »

A Siachen Resolution: Why Now?
There is a buzz in the strategic community that something is afoot on the Siachen issue. While no one really knows, it seems that when most analysts were busy remembering the 1962 war with China, some ‘do-gooders’ were busy throwing a lifeline to Kayani. Track II experts are apparently close to resolving the Siachen issue. Two questions arise: What is the real issue? What has Pakistan done in the recent past that justifies India’s generous offer to ‘demilitarise’ Siachen? What calamity has suddenly befallen the Indian military for this urgency?

Although it actually began in April 1984, the Siachen confrontation is part of the legacy of Partition and Pakistani aggression. In 1984, India took pre-emptive action by sending its troops to these glacial heights because it feared that: (a) Pakistan was trying to occupy the Saltoro Ridge and violating the basic principle on which the old Cease Fire Line (CFL) was demarcated; (b) If unchecked, it would allow Pakistan to creep eastwards; (c) Improve its access for mischief in Ladakh; (d) Make it easier to team up with China should the need arise; and, (e) Finally, allow Pakistan to further extend its control over the illegally occupied territories of Jammu & Kashmir. These considerations also briefly explain the strategic value of Siachen. If left unattended, there continues to be the possibility of our neighbour(s) slowly swallowing more and more territories in the region.

Two other points need to be noted. First, Siachen and all of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) is Indian Territory—72495 sq. km of POK and 13528 sq. km of the so-called Azad Kashmir—plus some 5000 square km of Shaksgam Valley that Pakistan illegally ceded to China in March 1963. Second, the Pakistan Army does not really occupy the Saltoro Ridge in Siachen but is only on the lower reaches west of the Saltoro Ridge. If Pakistan wishes to now withdraw its troops from this area because it tragically lost some 120 men in an avalanche in early 2012, it is welcome to do that.

Under the Karachi Agreement of 19 July 1949, signed by senior army officers of India and Pakistan, the CFL, which is now known as the Line of Control (LoC), was demarcated up to the point NJ 9842 and was to run ‘due North’ to the glaciers. In fact, the LOC, in its last lap, actually runs 16 km ‘exactly’ due north. Pakistan interpreted this as going towards the Karakoram Pass, which in effect means that the un-demarcated line runs north-eastwards. It is this false contention that gave rise to the confrontation in Siachen. Demilitarising Siachen is thus incorrect terminology since Pakistan cannot be allowed to dictate where and how India deploys its troops on its territory.

Earlier this year when India agreed to open a composite dialogue with Pakistan despite the latter showing no inclination to resolve the 26/11 issue, there were media reports that Pakistan wanted to resolve Siachen first before addressing the Sir Creek issue since the former was more amenable to an easy solution. It seems, India, against its better judgement, agreed. The reasons why Pakistan was more interested in Siachen probably were: first to effectively remove the Indian Army’s presence and hence pressure on Pakistan’s north-eastern borders; and second, to persuade India to withdraw its troops from an area in close proximity to China’s claims in Aksai Chin so that this so-called demilitarisation would leave the field open for any future Pakistani mischief possibly in collusion with China. Having achieved this double objective, it would be easier for Pakistan to deploy its troops on its Western borders with Afghanistan where things might get increasingly more difficult as the date for US/ISAF withdrawal nears. Why else would General Kayani suddenly begin talking about the urgent need for peace with India?

While reducing border tensions is a laudable objective, it is not clear why India bends over backwards every time Pakistan appears to offer an olive branch. The Indian Army has been well established in Siachen for over two decades and with experience the casualties due to inclement weather and frostbites have reduced considerably. Operations at these high altitudes are undoubtedly extremely dangerous and demanding but not so difficult that India should throw away the strategic gains made at such high costs in human life. The Indian Air Force (IAF) has also air-maintained Indian troops without much difficulty and in any case routinely undertakes air maintenance tasks along the entire Himalayan frontier. Withdrawing a brigade from Siachen would thus not make a major difference to the overall effort of the Indian military.

Coming to the second and perhaps more important question of Pakistan’s record, Pakistan has done precious little to deserve this Indian munificence. As brought out before, Pakistan shows no signs of any seriousness in bringing the masterminds of the 26/11 Mumbai outrage to justice. It does not even show the slightest remorse. For the present, General Kayani might have temporarily closed the local terror taps but there is no guarantee that these would not be reopened in the future. Pakistan has only announced that it would accord India the MFN status (which in reality means little) but has not actually done so. In fact, Pakistani businessmen might be enthusiastic about establishing two-way trade relations with India, but its Army shows little interest in this enterprise. One of Pakistan’s popular newspapers recently called Dr. Manmohan Singh a ‘lame duck octogenarian Prime Minister’. Pakistan, it is evident, wants to derive the maximum advantage from a genuinely friendly if weak Indian Government without giving anything in return. Home Minister Sushil Shinde has recently said that there is no let-up in Pakistan’s attempts to aid infiltration across the LoC in Jammu & Kashmir. Although generally underplayed by the government, there were also reports that Khalistani separatists based in Pakistan are once again being encouraged to renew their anti-India activities.

As is only too well known, Pakistan’s record of the past 65 years does not evoke any trust. Since 1947-48 through the 1951 Refugee Crisis, the 1965 Kutch and later massive infiltration into Jammu & Kashmir, the 03 December 1971 pre-emptive air strikes on Indian airfields, fanning the flames of hatred, the 1999 Kargil intrusions within days of the Indian Prime Minister signing the Lahore Declaration, and a long string of terror strikes and proxy war in Jammu & Kashmir, Pakistan has not lost a single opportunity to destabilise India and attempt to disrupt its progress. Why then should India reward this implacable neighbour? India as usual does not seem to learn from history. Is it the fear of an imminent collapse of Pakistan? Is India worried that Pakistani nuclear weapons might fall in the hands of Jihadi terrorists? Why then are the Indian Track II experts so keen to release the pressure on Pakistan? Pakistan’s proclivity to flatly deny earlier agreements is legendary. In July 1972, the famous Simla Summit was about to end in failure. When the prospects of Bhutto returning with empty hands looked very bright, Bhutto has been quoted by Mr. Dhar as having said, “aap mujh par bharosa keejiye” (please trust me). Against her better judgement a sceptical Indira Gandhi accepted Bhutto’s pleas. Soon after this article appeared in the Indian press, in an article in Pakistani press, Humayun Gohar, while praising Bhutto’s ‘diplomatic artistry’, wrote: “Face it Mr Dhar, even if we accept what you say, Mr Bhutto fooled your prime minister”. No one should be surprised if the same thing happens again. In any case, why should India throw away the Siachen trump card? Many would say that the India-Pakistan relationship need not be seen in such stark zero-sum terms but India cannot wish away the reality. As suggested by Air Cmde. Jasjit Singh, India must tell its citizens where its troops presently are and explain the pros and cons of leaving Siachen before coming to any decision.

India should put Pakistan on parole and watch its behaviour for 20 years before even beginning to think of any concessions in Siachen or elsewhere. What is in it for India? What is the hurry? India must learn from its other neighbour China, which knows how to keep India under pressure: hold regular border talks but give little.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

Let me to explain my previous post. It is going to be long and it is not for fainthearted.

First Lt. General Katoch:
Retd army personnel could be devided in three categories
-Very disciplined and patriotic. All Jawans and JCOs fall under this category.
- Laid back, hooked to clubs. They tend to be entrepreneurs (poultry farms,farm houses,cold storages, security firms and personality coaching etc). Captains,Majors and Colonels.
-In third category are Gens. They are used to be pampered. They meet politicians, interact with foreign diginitories and they think they know how to run the country in a better way. Some of them write books and articles and that's it. Some think all politicians are useless fellows and country could be run by army.

Now it is up to politicians and civil administration to check these guys (before and after retirement). If they do not check then you have Pakistan.

IMO Lt. General Katoch is used as useful idiot by by some self appointed mediators who want to bring the issue to limelight. He was right candidate; he is all over the press criticizing everybody and everything on slightest pretext.

With due respect to the decorated officers, I am in no way diminishing the value of their sacrifices for home land......but country is to be governed by elected politicians.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280384

http://www.spsmai.com/military/?id=1749 ... -the-fires

http://livefist.blogspot.be/2008/04/who ... rdwaj.html

http://www.theweekendleader.com/Culture ... s-ire.html

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280385

http://twitter.com/iSaakshi/statuses/198407302989099008

http://www.outlookindia.com/peoplehome3.aspx?pid=14004

Next part soon
satya
BRFite
Posts: 718
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 03:09

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by satya »

Singh Saab ,

Dhanyavad .Thinking on similar terms but felt otherwise on posting. Kindly keep up .
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Surya »

I am going to count to 10 on Katoch being called a useful idiot. But i suspect others are not going to be kind :twisted:

With due respect to the decorated officers, I am in no way diminishing the value of their sacrifices for home land......but country is to be governed by elected politicians.
you just did exactly that (not to mention the governing has been so bloody fantastic !!!)

and if elected officials and babus are the sole folks to decide everything - why the crying over 62 etc

Fine move on -

Except if Siachen is to be reclaimed guess whose sons will among the Pandeys and others who will die for it.

Not elected officials and babus.




as for the rahul gandhiesque statement
Now it is up to politicians and civil administration to check these guys (before and after retirement). If they do not check then you have Pakistan.
:eek:
one can only wonder why in trying to prove a point we end up scoring own goals so many times
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by ShauryaT »

rsingh wrote: IMO Lt. General Katoch is used as useful idiot by by some self appointed mediators who want to bring the issue to limelight. He was right candidate; he is all over the press criticizing everybody and everything on slightest pretext.

With due respect to the decorated officers, I am in no way diminishing the value of their sacrifices for home land......but country is to be governed by elected politicians.
This is harsh to Lt. Gen PC Katoch. I think the Lt. Gen is plainly wrong on some material counts in his opposing arguments on the Siachen matter. However, his central question of why Siachen and why now has to be explained by the government. The opposition to a deal such as this is should exist and is welcome. Another matter that I personally am convinced on the feasibility of a Siachen demilitarization plan. So put my name on that list you are compiling :|
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by srin »

The key issue here is China-Pakistan linkup. That should be India's main concern. And having read through all the snake oil of peace being advertised from TSP, nobody ever mentions China. Interesting, isn't it ?

Is it hope that Pakistan and China will never linkup ? And why isn't China a party in these Track-II discussions ? They hold the Shaksgam valley, don't they ?
abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by abhijitm »

rsingh wrote:With due respect to the decorated officers, I am in no way diminishing the value of their sacrifices for home land......but country is to be governed by elected politicians.
You are quite cautiously diminishing their values. We have other poster here sing similar rants "i respect army, I am proud of their sacrifice, my heart bleed for them. but they are @ssh0les because they don't always agree with politicians...yada yada yada". Looks like you guys live in your own version of constitution where meaning of democracy means army must always keep shut. baki desh gaya bhad mein.

Calling jawan disciplined and patriot and generals potential dictator! What kind of lawhori logic is this? Your post only shows deep contempt towards Indian military.
Post Reply