Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 03 Sep 2014 11:46

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2606 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 ... 66  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 01 Nov 2012 21:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Posts: 8307
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar
Prem Kumar wrote:
This is what Ajai Shukla wrote about Siachen earlier this year

http://www.ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/06/facts-on-frozen-ground.html

I am surprised to see his name in the list of delegates

Well, to be fair to few of the names there, Gen Katoch did mention that 3-4 of the delegates did put in their objection on the final draft but were overruled. Maybe Col. Shukla was one of those who objected.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Nov 2012 13:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Posts: 692
Location: Invention is evolution, explosion is destruction.
Quick google revealed ... but I agree not many are publishing it ... As far I can make it out, it has blessing of GoI and proposal is submitted to PM. If PM approves and stamp it then he will go to Pak.

Three steps to Siachen
Quote:
October 8, 2012

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 this year. Smaller “sub-group” meetings in Chiang Mai (Thailand) and Palo Alto (California) have also featured in the Track 2 process. A number of issues — among them Siachen, Sir Creek, confidence-building measures — were discussed at the meetings, where my participation as part of the Indian delegation brings me to share my take on the issue of demilitarisation of Siachen.

There are three aspects to the Siachen issue. The first, in my opinion, needs transparent action at the government level. The first aspect is why should India, in the first place, agree to any demilitarisation of Siachen when it holds the dominating high ground on Saltoro Ridge and can command the strategic region, thus preventing a China-Pakistan link up in the region? Why should India vacate Siachen when Indian Parliament has passed a resolution that the entire Jammu & Kashmir (including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) is Indian territory?

Why should India repeat the case of returning Haji Pir Pass when there is a strong possibility that the Pakistan Army will reoccupy the Saltoro Ridge and we will never be able to take it back again? India has lost a total of 814 soldiers in Siachen since 1984, but now due to superior facilities and a better economy, we can remain there indefinitely. So why should the sacrifices of our soldiers be forgotten, and why should we vacate Saltoro Ridge when we hold all the cards? Why should India not link Siachen to other issues like Pakistan-sponsored terrorism? Given its sensitive and emotive nature, I feel that the Indian government would need to answer the question why.

The second aspect is when should India agree to demilitarisation of Siachen? Here also the Track 2 discussed the political instability and the possibility of early elections looming in India and Pakistan. This question of when can only be dealt with by the next government at the Centre.

The third aspect, which Track 2 discussed and finally agreed to a proposal, is how to demilitarise Siachen?

The official Indian stand on delineation and authentication is well known, and the Track 2 proposal has covered these aspects. The Pakistani team were worried that if they agreed to authentication of the AGPL (Actual Ground Position Line), India may stop further discussions on Siachen, once the authentication had been carried out. Hence, an “integrated” approach was agreed to.

The Track 2 proposals for “how to demilitarise Siachen” are “part of the comprehensive resolution of the Siachen dispute, and both sides should agree to withdraw from the conflict area while retaining the option of punitive action should the other side renege on the commitments”. The Track 2, Lahore “Siachen Proposal” of September 25, 2012, says “the following clear package of integrated and interlinked stipulations were laid down for the demilitarisation of the area and delineation of the line”:

* Setting up a joint commission to delineate the line beyond NJ 9842, consistent with existing arrangements
* The present ground positions would be jointly recorded and the records exchanged
* The determination of the places to which redeployment would be affected would be jointly agreed
* Disengagement and demilitarisation would occur in accordance with a mutually acceptable timeframe. (Esta-blishment of a joint working group has been proposed, in a separate annexure.)
* Prior to withdrawal, each side will undertake to remove munitions and other military equipment and waste from its area of control
* Ongoing cooperative monitoring of these activities and the resulting demilitarised zone would be agreed to for ensuring transparency.

The concluding paragraph of the Track 2 proposal reads: “In keeping with the Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration, both sides should undertake that resolution of this issue is a bilateral matter and that there will be no change in the status of the area, and also that no personnel of any third country will be permitted within it, unless cleared by the two countries jointly.”

I have written earlier that Track 2 is not a magic wand, which can solve complicated problems between India and Pakistan. It can only provide some possible solutions for the consideration of Track 1 discussions. The proposals on how to demilitarise Siachen are doable, provided the Indian government answers the questions of why and when.

The Track 2 teams of both countries have done their job, and now it is up to the two governments to make the next move.

The writer, a former vice-admiral, retired as Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam

Track II finds a path to Siachen solution
Quote:
1 October 2012, New Delhi, Pinaki Bhattacharya

The proposal suggested by a joint committee will be presented to India and Pakistan for further action. A Track II proposal on dealing with the Siachen problem has been suggested by an Indo-Pak joint committee recently in Lahore. The committee was jointly chaired by retired Gen Jahangir Karamat, a former Army chief of Pakistan and retired Air Chief Marshal, SP Tyagi, of the Indian Air Force. The meetings took place last week in Pakistan.

The proposal will now be presented to respective governments in Islamabad and New Delhi for further action.

The proposal suggests that both the sides, as a part of the comprehensive resolution of the ‘Siachen dispute,’ and ‘notwithstanding the claims of each country,’ should agree to withdraw from the conflict area while retaining the ‘option of punitive action should the other side renege on the commitments.’

The committee stipulated that the two State-parties - set up a joint commission to delineate the line beyond NJ 9842, consistent with existing agreements.

The present ground positions would be jointly recorded and the record exchanged. The determination of the places to which redeployment will be affected would be jointly agreed.

Disengagement and demilitarisation would occur in accordance with a mutually acceptable time frame to be agreed.

And finally, Prior to withdrawal, each side will undertake to remove ammunitions and other military equipment and waste from areas of its control. and finally, the ongoing cooperative monitoring of these activities and the resulting demilitarised zone would be agreed to ensure/assure transparency.


No need to demilitarise Siachen Glacier

Quote:
Oct 26, 2012 New Delhi: Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy today urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh not to accept any proposal to demilitarise the Siachen Glacier.

In a letter to Singh, he said Track 2 teams comprising military officers from India and Pakistan are learnt to have recommended to the Government to demilitarise Siachen Glacier area where "814 soldiers have died so far".

"I expect you will not agree to such an abject surrender of a strategic area," Swamy wrote.

The Janata Party chief also met Defence Minister A K Antony to raise the issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Nov 2012 13:48 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 5897
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
I think the stratagem in this round of Track II seems to be something like this:

1. Facilitate ex-military and ex-foreign/Intel services to get together and form a group. On the face of it, this will seem to be a private initiative of concerned and experienced professionals. This gives it legitimacy and an air of neutrality (from political perspective).

2. However, ensure that the group consists of the right type of people who can steer the discussion and agenda in a particular direction. Again, on the face of it, these 'insiders' would carry credibility with the larger audience comprising of general public and media.

3. So, while the group takes the views of everyone, the 'core group' ensures that the agreement is as per the 'advise' of the political leadership.

4. Once this paper is prepared, 'present' it to the GOI as an assessment of a group of independent and professional people who integrity and motives cannot be doubted.

5. What this does is, it facilitates the GOI and MMS cabal to implement their Siachen Peace Park Plan without being seen as riding roughshod against military advice - the GOI can be seen as agreeing with a group of prominent and eminent ex-military professionals.

6. The only stumbling block can be the COAS - and we are yet to see how this card is played. Also, the crooks in the media can be used to play the Army versus ex-Army angle and show how there is lack of clarity and consensus within the professionals and hence, Army's case is not water tight. This gives leeway for the politicians to put a foot in the door.

This is a very clearly thought out and well gamed strategy being implemented by the MMS coterie. Look at the some of the pointers:

- Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal is part of the dialogue process and from what I understand, part of the 'Core Group' which drafted the parameters of agreement. His position on the Siachen issue is well known and we have already seen his proposal on the structure.

- The Siachen proposal is nothing but rehash of the original proposal presented by Kanwal along with an ex-PA Brigadier in 2007. So, what has been 'agreed' in 2012 was already formulated in 2007.

- The above is not a mere coincidence - the deep state on PA side and 'powers-that-be' on India's side would have already agreed in advance on this. The meetings and workings of the group are simply a ploy to give formal shape to what has been agreed.

- On top of it, they have used an ex-CAS to be leader of the Indian delegation.

- The Group was briefed by the people in GOI and they in turn briefed 'Very Senior' people in GOI. Also, it would require some help to cobble such a group together. Who paid for their travel and stay? Who facilitated the entire process?

We need to watch out for the developments. The usual suspects will start crawling out of their worm holes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Nov 2012 17:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19
Posts: 3351
Location: छिछला पानी में (In shallow waters)
Just pointing out that not one meeting is held by educated establishment for any confidence building measures after it is clear that it was the paki army that was behind kargil invasion. Measures could include withdrawal of paki forces from pak occupied regions to International boundary, safe flying zone enforced by Indian Air Force over pak occupied Indian territory and so on amongst many more.

Not one reason made visible on requirement of confidence building measures post kargil war by educated establishment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 10:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6053
Received by email

Quote:
Dear Air Marshall Tyagi,



I have read the communications between you and Lt. Gen Katoch and have also received several emails on the subject. I am afraid your response to Gen Katoch is unsatisfactory and in fact confirms our worst fears. Your contention: “We were not appointed by any Government Agency nor do we have anything do with the Govt of India” does not make any sense whatsoever. Since when territories of sovereign India have become ‘real estates’ for private individuals belonging to two different countries to trade, negotiate and arbitrate upon?



Your adverse reference to Gen Katoch and Kunal Verma cannot be countenanced. While the former was Siachen Brigade Commander the latter has written a fine, well-researched and illustrated Book on Siachen which I have read from cover to cover. Besides being patriotic citizens, they are also emotionally attached to the Siachen Glacier.



Be that as it may, in order to clean up the air and provide an opportunity for you and your Track II colleagues to explain things, I herewith pose 12 Questions which I would like you to respond ASAP:



i. Who appointed the Track II Team, who are the members and what are their credentials and what is their service record in the Siachen area?

ii. Who briefed the Track II Team – NSA, Defence Secretary, MoD, MEA?

iii. Did the Track II Team visit Siachen before inking the agreement?

iv. Was the decision of Track II Team unanimous? If not on what authority the dissent was suppressed-PMO, NSA, Defence Secretary?

v. Decision to demilitarize Siachen has grave military consequences. Were the three Service Chiefs consulted on this? If not why not?

vi. This issue has serious strategic, deployment, logistics, demographic, displacement, cost and time implications for the Army. Were they consulted and the matter discussed with the Northern Army Commander? If not why not?

vii. After ‘demilitarisation’ what measures will be required to check terrorist infiltration (including Taliban) and how effective will it be as compared to our defences and counter infiltration forces in Kashmir Valley?

viii. Is it merely a Track II initiative? If so why were the members briefed by Government officials before the Lahore meet? Were they not told that this team is “as good as Track I”? Does it not make it official?

ix. NSA is stated to have briefed the leader of the Track II Team and one/two members separately? If so why? To firm up a secret deal?

x. The whole process, particularly signing of the Track II agreement was kept under wraps and one came to know of it only through the Website of a foreign agency. Why this secrecy?

xi. On whose orders did some select members of Track II Team along with Ambassador KC Singh, justify the agreement at a meeting in India International Centre on 3rd October?

xii. Most importantly, why was such a major decision not discussed in Parliament and in Public? Has the President of India been kept informed?

Awaiting an early response. I am copying this mail to Gen Katoch and Kunal



M.G.Devasahayam IAS (Retd)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 10:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6053
Received by email. Looks like lots of folk are agitated.



Code:
I just cannot believe it…please read on

 

Army

 

I just cannot believe that General Deepak Kapoor was known to be a fraud as a Major and still made it to Army Chief.

 

I just cannot believe that Lt Gen Tejinder Singh was the military intelligence czar (DIA Chief) and that he met Abhishek Verma once or twice though he had no working relationship with him.

 

I just cannot believe that Lt Gen Thamburaj sold Army land to a private developer and he feels that he is being singled out (which means there are bigger fish involved).

 

I just cannot believe that Lt Gen Avdesh Kumar met Mr. Dilip Agarwal (a developer) and does not remember who the other General was with him at that time.

 

I just cannot believe that Lt Gen Jatinder Singh could train the country’s best youth and still make a fast buck while hiring Clerks, Cooks and Dhobis.

 

I just cannot believe that Karan Thapar believes that Gen VK Singh is the worst army Chief, even much worse than his own father (Gen PN Thapar) who lost a simple war in modern history.

 

Navy

 

I just cannot believe that Admiral Madhvendra Singh was one of the finest CNS the Navy had till he was allotted an Adarsh Flat.

 

I just cannot believe that two Admirals were sent as Ambassadors for delaying INS Vikramaditya instead of being court-martialed for wasting tax payer’s money

 

I just cannot believe that Admiral Arun Prakash whose close relation is on the run (in the Navy War Room case) talks about the impropriety of Gen VK Singh talking too much after retirement.

 

Air Force

I just cannot believe that ACM NAK Browne stated that the result of the 62 war would have been different had the Air Force been deployed. What he didn’t state was which Air Force – The IAF or the USAF.

 

I just cannot believe that the Air Force was above all these scams in the last two years and then like magic comes along a VVIP Helicopter scam ensnaring one of their Chiefs.

 

Siachen Diplomacy

I just cannot believe that Indian Track 2 diplomats for all their competence had not visited the strategic area they were going to discuss with their hard core Pakistani counterparts.

 

I just cannot believe that the Siachen Group actually had a submariner (VADM AK Singh) even though no ice navigation is taught in any of the navy schools in India.

 

I just cannot believe that the Siachen Group also had a journalist (Col Ajai Shukla of Wake up Generals Fame) and that he chose to sleep over it till the whole Group was exposed by Katoch / Kunal / Devasahayam

 

And finally:

 

I just cannot believe that Gen VK Singh was offered an Ambassadorship and he said NO WAY. That’s what Generals are made of. You make us proud Sir.

 


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 14:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6053
Quote:
AN E-MAIL FROM LT. GEN.(RETD) P.C. KATOCH IN A VETERANS' GROUP :

Dear All,

I had occasion to discuss the Siachen De-militarization Issue with Air Chief Marshal Tyagi (Retd) today during a break in the National Security Seminar at the USI. ACM Tyagi as you know was the Co-Chair of the Track II Team whose agreement with their Pakistani counterparts at Lahore to demilitarize Siachen was put on the net first by Atlantic Council of Ottawa that broke the news to the world, particularly Indians. Given below is the gist of our conversation.

1). To my query as to how the Track II Team was selected, he said that each and every member was individually selected by Atlantic Council of Ottawa and not by GoI. He has no idea how Atlantic Council of Ottawa got these names.

2). 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.

3). I then asked him which government officers briefed the Track II Team and what exactly was the content of such briefings? He said that it is the Track II Team that asked for briefing from MEA and the Military. The MEA briefing was largely about the visit of our Foreign Minister to Pakistan and this briefing had NO mention of Siachen, and the Track II Team also asked NO questions about Siachen (rather strange !). In the briefing by the Military, the Military categorically stated they did not want demilitarization from Siachen.

4). I further asked when the MEA did not give any directions for demilitarization and the Military was categorically against it, why did our Track II Team agree to demilitarization? He responded that this was their individual view. I expressed astonishment why such an agreement was signed in the first place. To this, he said no one affixed their signatures and it was not an agreement but really an account of what was discussed. I pointed out that the document talks of 'agreement' and not 'record of discussion' but he insisted there was no agreement.

5). I asked him what the de-briefings were after the various meetings. He said there were no de-briefings but a report was sent by the Track II Team to the Raksha Mantra, MEA, NSA and Service Chiefs (some other members maintain that after each visit the Track II Team did get in touch with MEA and Military representatives).

6). I asked him why the Indian public has been kept in the dark and why not put out a statement in the media. He said that my article had already done that.

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.


You may draw your own conclusions from the above including examining why an organization like Atlantic Council of Ottawa funded by the Pakistani Military /ISI would spend millions to hold conferences in different exotic locales and with what aim. It is not without reason that the Supreme Court of Pakistan recently ordered the Pakistani Government to take legal action against General Mirza Aslam Beg and General Asad Durrani for distributing millions of rupees among politicians to rig the 1999 general elections while both held the appointments of Pakistani Army Chief and Director General ISI respectively. There is definitely more to this murky affair than meets the eye.

I am sending this e-mail to you as you have been keenly watching this development and so would your friends in your own groups, many of whom have joined the debate on the net.

Warm regards.

Prakash.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 14:52 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Posts: 1825
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 15:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30
Posts: 6710
chetak wrote:
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.
[/quote]

Well Kashmir interlocutors were also gracious guests of Fai funded by ISI . How deep ISI has penetrated Indian establishment?


Last edited by chaanakya on 03 Nov 2012 22:51, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 15:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2492
kaun hai tyagi to negotiate here ? this is not his jaagir to negotiate


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 15:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Posts: 1862
Location: On board Coobsat. Fanatically chasing MOM.
chetak wrote:
Quote:
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 16:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6675
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 16:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6053
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 16:31 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2884
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.

Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 16:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6053
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.

Quote:
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:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 17:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2884
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 17:15 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 5617
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 17:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6053
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??

Quote:
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 :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 18:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Posts: 8307
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar
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!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 19:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4601
chetak

thanks for posting that


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 20:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6053
Surya wrote:
chetak

thanks for posting that


:)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2012 23:42 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31
Posts: 1652
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2012 04:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47
Posts: 1937
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)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2012 16:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Posts: 578
Location: Gods own country
Atlantic council has nothing to do with Pakistan Army, its part of NATO

http://www.acus.org/press/india-pakistan-experts-agree-confidence-building-measures-lahore-meeting


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2012 19:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6053
symontk wrote:
Atlantic council has nothing to do with Pakistan Army, its part of NATO

http://www.acus.org/press/india-pakistan-experts-agree-confidence-building-measures-lahore-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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2012 19:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4601
Tyagi is already compromised with the Augusta helo deal

lame statements of not knowing what his relation was upto - not withstanding


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2012 21:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10802
Location: Illini Nation
symontk wrote:
Atlantic council has nothing to do with Pakistan Army, its part of NATO

http://www.acus.org/press/india-pakistan-experts-agree-confidence-building-measures-lahore-meeting


Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2012 21:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2884
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2012 21:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4601
to take uncles chestnuts out of the afghan fire in the best way possible - all else be damned??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 08:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2884
Pakistan refuses flag meeting with India.

Quote:
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 08:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2884
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 20:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jun 2009 07:28
Posts: 872
Siachen: What is the strategic or diplomatic rationale for demilitarization?
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 21:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Posts: 1251
Location: Pindi
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 23:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6053
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 23:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 9852
Location: In between wars in our time
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2012 23:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Posts: 2225
Location: Bharathavarshey Bharathakhandey Jumbudweepey Kaveryaha Uttare Teerey
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 00:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6053
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 00:14 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 5897
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 04:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2884
So what is MMS's excuse for his moment of glory at S-e-S?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 08:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Posts: 1862
Location: On board Coobsat. Fanatically chasing MOM.
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.
Quote:
Some body please make list of people who are propagating this issue.

for what purpose?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2606 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 ... 66  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kapio, P Chitkara and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group