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
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

^^
No I have not.

You check how many countries flowerished under military rule and then we talk. As of Siachin......do not forget is was politicians gave the task to occupy the hights in first place.

Added later/ I am not compiling any list. BR jingos has no influence on this issue anyway. I am talking about the journalists (blogers ets) who are giving credibility to this issue.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

abhijitm wrote:
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.
My Grandfather was Doc in army during WW2. Father saw action in Junagarh. I did CDS interview at Alahabad before choosing west. There is a close relative of mine who got special Haryana govt prize for having 5 sons in Army. I know what I am saying.
abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by abhijitm »

rsingh wrote: You check how many countries flowerished under military rule and then we talk.
who is disagreeing here? Blood boils when you compare indian generals with the likes of zias, musharrafs, gaddafis, saddams.
As of Siachin......do not forget is was politicians gave the task to occupy the hights in first place.
Who is forgetting? What is your point? Are you comparing IG with MMS here? Because one politician created history tomorrow another politician wittingly/unwittingly tries to sell his country do you want people including common man, army, judges, media to keep quiet? Or you want just army to keep quiet?
Last edited by abhijitm on 08 Nov 2012 22:18, edited 2 times in total.
abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by abhijitm »

rsingh wrote:My Grandfather was Doc in army during WW2. Father saw action in Junagarh. I did CDS interview at Alahabad before choosing west. There is a close relative of mine who got special Haryana govt prize for having 5 sons in Army. I know what I am saying.
I dont know how that spins the argument in your favor. But boy you are carrying some kind of grudge against the indian generals.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

Surya wrote: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
You are funny guy. You know it is true but do do not have courage to admit......log kya kahenge :mrgreen:
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Surya »

thats the best you could come up??

its better to be funny than to make Rahul gandhi like statements


oh boy now we are potentially military dictatorship

with friends like this...
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

abhijitm wrote:
rsingh wrote: You check how many countries flowerished under military rule and then we talk.
who is disagreeing here? Blood boils when you compare indian generals with the likes of zias, musharrafs, gaddafis, saddams.

As of Siachin......do not forget is was politicians gave the task to occupy the hights in first place.
Who is forgetting? What is your point? Are you comparing IG with MMS here? Because one politician created history tomorrow another politician wittingly/unwittingly tries to sell his country do you want people including common man, army, judges, media to keep quiet? Or you want just army to keep quiet?
Oh make no mistake here. Musharraf took power to save pakistan and he is a patriotic Pakistani. All military men are patriots and that is why the take reins of their country (whenever possible) to guide it towards better future. They know language of power from barrel and you can not run country with that power. Do you know what IG asked Manekshaw before Bangladesh war?
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

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


Yes, your post needs to be reserved for the loony bin category. Because that is what exactly you are showing yourself to be by writing this nonsense - and no, I'm not saying this because you called Lt. General Katoch an 'useful idiot'. It is because you're unable to understand the gravity of the situation - and this, inspite of ample amount of information available on the subject on BRF as well internet.

I will address the comment on Katoch later.
In third category are Gens. They are used to be pampered. They meet politicians, interact with foreign dignitaries 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.
Can you please tell me how does Katoch fall in this category or which General/Senior officer from the Services has shown the proclivity to meet foreign dignitaries and try and set an agenda inimical to national interest - without the Government of the day wanting them to set a particular agenda - as is the case of Atlanta Council Track-II CBM on Siachen?
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.
Check these guys? Check who? When these guys (the Track-2 team) have been set up by the GOI in the first place, who will check them? If after all the current debate on the topic of Siachen CBM and articles by various authors opposing the CBM, you cannot fathom even this, then you have not right to pen any post on the topic. And yet, you feel confident to pass judgement and call name(s) to some one like Katoch....
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.
Do you even have any idea of why Katoch raised the red flag? Do you even understand the damage to Indian interest which the CBM document does? That this document copies in toto one such earlier proposal presented in 2007 by Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal and ex-PA Brigadier - and that too, at SANDIA COrporation? Go here (http://www.sandia.gov/) and read about what SANDIA Corporation is - and BTW, don't forget to type Siachen in search area - you'll get interesting links.


Did you bother to read up on what is Atlanta Council? And why the fvck they are bothered about Siachen? Damn you, man....you display so much ignorance and nonsense in one post that it is difficult to even decide where to start....go play with lego blocks or something more natural to your IQ level.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

Uh guys, please don't feed the troll. It is already trying to derail the thread by bringing in dictators and military rule, which have nothing whatsoever to do with Siachen or the current Track II pefidy.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

You can call me whatever you want. Yes logo is for everybody and I do play as I used to play during MBA Strategy planning classes.
Now to the point. WTF you give importance to Atlantic whatever ? You are taking this as a proven fact. That in nonsense. Keep this post for ever and remember NOT A SINGLE INCH OF SIACHIN WILL EVER BE VACATED OR GIVEN BY GOI. Going to rest now will post after.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

rsingh wrote:You can call me whatever you want. Yes logo is for everybody and I do play as I used to play during MBA Strategy planning classes.


Hmmm.....so, are we to believe that you also have upper hand in such cases??? :mrgreen: :P :mrgreen:

Now to the point. WTF you give importance to Atlantic whatever ? You are taking this as a proven fact. That in nonsense. Keep this post for ever and remember NOT A SINGLE INCH OF SIACHIN WILL EVER BE VACATED OR GIVEN BY GOI. Going to rest now will post after.
Where is the head-banging button when you need one.. :P
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Damn. Quality of discussion taking a nosedive over here now. How about everybody takes a deep breath and refocuses so that us lurkers can learn something? :)
Rupesh
BRFite
Posts: 967
Joined: 05 Jul 2008 19:14
Location: Somewhere in South Central India

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Rupesh »

I won't be surprised if the Strategy expert is a purelander.So lets stop responding to the troll.
Last edited by Rupesh on 09 Nov 2012 00:14, 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 »

vivek_ahuja wrote:Damn. Quality of discussion taking a nosedive over here now. How about everybody takes a deep breath and refocuses so that us lurkers can learn something? :)
Quality of discussion? Now, what is that? Something which requires I go and read something and then, form an opinion - let alone air it? That I put my thoughts together in a structured manner and elucidate my POV? Nah....too much hard work, bro...too much.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by vivek_ahuja »

rohitvats wrote:
vivek_ahuja wrote:Damn. Quality of discussion taking a nosedive over here now. How about everybody takes a deep breath and refocuses so that us lurkers can learn something? :)
Quality of discussion? Now, what is that? Something which requires I go and read something and then, form an opinion - let alone air it? That I put my thoughts together in a structured manner and elucidate my POV? Nah....too much hard work, bro...too much.
Indeed. :D
MN Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 393
Joined: 27 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by MN Kumar »

rsingh wrote: Oh make no mistake here. Musharraf took power to save pakistan and he is a patriotic Pakistani. All military men are patriots and that is why the take reins of their country (whenever possible) to guide it towards better future. They know language of power from barrel and you can not run country with that power. Do you know what IG asked Manekshaw before Bangladesh war?
Thats a gem of a post. Mushy a patriot who took power to save his country or go on a suicide dive. What bulls***it?
Is there any general in this country who tried a coup?
What IG asked Manekshaw and what was his reply to her? Care to educate us.

Added later: So Gen Mushy who seized power with a coup is a patriot and Lt Gen Katoch who's trying to bring into light a possible selloff is an idiot. This selloff was a hard earned victory by the same jawans who by your own logic are patriots.
member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by member_22906 »

Don't feed the troll...

Interestingly he has mentioned pindi as his location... That explains his lahori logic :rotfl:
abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by abhijitm »

rsingh wrote: Oh make no mistake here. Musharraf took power to save pakistan and he is a patriotic Pakistani. All military men are patriots and that is why the take reins of their country (whenever possible) to guide it towards better future. They know language of power from barrel and you can not run country with that power. Do you know what IG asked Manekshaw before Bangladesh war?
why the fk I should care about how patriot mushaaff is? and he took power to save pakistan!! please stop dropping logics from your musharraf.

This is an Indian forum and we are discussing indian military in the context of Siachen. You are still not desisting from comparing indian generals with musharrafs.
pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 524
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by pralay »

Ajay Sharma wrote:Don't feed the troll...
Interestingly he has mentioned pindi as his location... That explains his lahori logic :rotfl:
Good work bro! You have spotted the RAA agent :rotfl: :rotfl:
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

^^^

The fears expressed by Gen Katoch, while alarming have a place in the spectrum of public opinion. Having said so, I think that it is pre-emptive strike from the general in order to prevent any compromise on Siachen. By making a so called pvt agreement public. At the same time educating the Indian public of the whose who of those who are open to compromising Indian interests.

As such they are most timely.

PS; one thing that I have never understood on this forum is, why do many believe the professional Indian politician / babu to be a baba in the woods. The socio-political background he comes from ought to make him the most ut throat, blood thirsty creature out there. So why expect him to be deceived. Is having an R&D fest worthwhile :(( :(( :P
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

Totally agree with Partyush-> when MMS signs a Sharm El Sheik declaration, he is doing as per his orders and agreement with Indian elites. These are deliberate decesions taken based on interests.

Similarly with JNU on Kashmir in 1948.

People should understand not all our Elites are rooted in India or want to see India as strong or independant, thier personal interests may superced national interests. It is just a spin it is a personal Interest.

The only way GOI can enter into a Siachen Agreement is if Indian Nation is distracted by an Election/ Protests or Gujarat type communal riots so that the Public cannot focus on such an agreement. Without a distraction such an agreement cannot be entered into.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by ShauryaT »

Military to Military CBMs
General

Military to military CBMs were held in Lahore from 23 – 25 September 2012. They were attended by the following : -

(a) India
• Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Shashi Tyagi.
• Lieutenant General (Retd) Aditya Singh.
• Lieutenant General (Retd) Arvinder Singh Lamba.
• Lieutenant General (Retd) BS Pawar.
• Vice Admiral (Retd) A.K. Singh.
• Brigadier (Retd) Arun Sahgal.
• Brigadier (Retd) Gurmeet Kanwal.
• Ambassador (Retd) Lalit Mansingh (former Foreign Secretary of India).
• Ambassador (Retd) Vivek Katju.
• Mr Rana Banerji (former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, India).
• Mr Ajai Shukla (Journalist).

(b) Pakistan
• General (Retd) Jehangir Karamat.
• General (Retd) Tariq Majid.
• Admiral (Retd) Tariq Khan.
• Lieutenant General (Retd) Tariq Ghazi (former Defense Secretary of Pakistan).
• Lieutenant General (Retd) Sikander Afzal.
• Air Vice Marshal (Retd) Shahzad Chaudhry.
• Ambassador (Retd) Riaz Khan (former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan)
• Ambassador (Retd) Maleeha Lodhi.
• Ambassador (Retd) Aziz Khan.
• Major General (Retd) Qasim Qureshi.

Subsequent to the above, a Round-Table discussion was held at CLAWS on 15 Oct 2012 wherein Lt Gen (Retd) BS Pawar, Brig (Retd) Gurmeet Kanwal and Capt (IN) Alok Bansal, Senior Felow CLAWS presented their views on the Track II Dialogue process in Lahore. Capt (IN) Alok Bansal was not part of the military to military CBMs but took part thereafter in a track II meeting discussing CBMs over the Indus Water Treaty.

The discussion at CLAWS was attended by select officers from the Army and members of the CLAWS faculty.

Lt Gen BS Pawar, PVSM, AVSM (Retd)

The third round of the Track II process between retired military officers of India and Pakistan was held at Lahore recently with the previous two rounds being held at Dubai and Bangkok respectively. The two sides have reached an agreement on resolving the Sir Creek and Siachen disputes. The proposals are doable and are awaiting the government’s approval. It appears that the Track II process has the blessings of the Pakistan Army. On Siachen, the Pakistan Army is conscious of the fact that the Indian Army enjoys a tactical advantage and can dictate terms.

Brig Gurmeet Kanwal (Retd)

Track II efforts are nothing new and hundreds of such initiatives have been undertaken ever since the conclusion of the Second World War. A recent example was the Norwegian mission in Sri Lanka. The India-Pakistan Track II has held several discussions of the general situation, both in the region and bilaterally, and how this affects the prospects for progress on the CBM file. It was reported that the relationship between the two countries is going through a relatively positive phase. Diplomatic and business contacts are improving across a range of issues. At the same time, suspicions remain concerning each side’s view of the other’s objectives and alleged actions in Afghanistan, and in the area of military doctrines and deployments. There has been another round of Track 1 discussions on both conventional and nuclear CBMs, but both sides found it disappointing. The 2007 accord “Reducing Risk Relating to Nuclear Weapons” has been renewed for another five years. However, there was no progress on other proposals to develop new CBMs. In contrast, some participants pointed to lower profile examples of confidence-building measures at work between the two countries. For example, when there was an inadvertent helicopter crossing of the LC into Pakistan, the matter was managed quickly and effectively.

The project reviewed the status of existing CBMs between the two countries. Based onpresentations from the two sides, it was agreed that the main existing military CBMs are:

• DGMO Hotline
• Non-attack on nuclear facilities (1988)
• Advance notice of military exercises and maneuvers (1991)
• Informal ceasefire along LOC/AGPL (2003)

It was by and large agreed that most of the above CBMs were working well.

The following CBMs could be further strengthened:-

• Prevention of Airspace Violations (1991)
• Link between the Indian Coast Guard and the Pakistan Maritime Security Agency (2005)
• Joint patrolling along the international border and periodic flag meetings. Non
development of new posts
• Biannual meeting between Indian border security forces and Pakistani Rangers (2004)
• Advance notice of Ballistic Missile tests (2005)

Several CBMs which have been proposed between the two sides, but not yet agreed, were identified. These are:

• A Prevention of Incidents at Sea Agreement
• The development of a Pakistan Air Force-Indian Air Force Communications link and of a Communications link between the two navies;
• Exchange of military delegations and also participation of senior military officers in
Seminars.
• Mil-to-mil exchanges and “cultural” activities (such as: exchanges of guest speakers;
visits by military bands; sports teams and adventure activities)
• Quarterly flag meetings between sector commanders along the LOC; and
• Speedy return of inadvertent line crossers.

On Sir Creek, Pakistan is willing to forego its claim on the southern line and the dispute is ripe for resolution.

The following clear package of integrated and inter-linked stipulations were laid down for the demilitarisation of Siachen and delineation of the AGPL.

• 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 records 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;
• Prior to withdrawal, each side will undertake to remove munitions and other military equipment and waste from areas of its control; and
• Ongoing cooperative monitoring of these activities and the resulting demilitarised zone would be agreed to ensure/assure transparency.

It was agreed upon to hold further discussions on crisis stability and terrorism. Beyond military CBMs, it was recognised that intelligence-sharing is a key issue. It should be noted that information is being shared on lists of terror groups which both sides wish to see stopped but cooperation on investigations regarding these groups should be more intensive and transparent.

Capt (IN) Alok Bansal

The dialogue on water issues between India and Pakistan was organised by the Atlantic Council, USA and Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. This was the first Track II dialogue on the subject and was more of an effort towards breaking the ice. The Indus Water Treaty (IWT) is a perfect mechanism which has withstood the test of time. Yet, public perception in Pakistan on water issues is quite mis-guided and ill-informed. The common man is not aware of the principles of the IWT and perceives India to be deliberately trying to curtail the flow of water into Pakistan. In recent years, Pakistan has seen a tremendous increase in its population and this is an important factor which has led to hardening of stand on the water issue. The mis-management of canals in Pakistan has added to the problem of water management.

The IWT lays downs conditions for use of river waters for consumptive use, agriculture and for building run of the river hydroelectric power projects. The IWT does not limit use of water for domestic consumption. There is a perception in the Kashmir valley that excessive exploitation of the rivers is leading to the receding of glaciers thereby creating environmental issues. Over the years, land area under horticulture in the valley has increased while that under agriculture has come down. Pakistan’s major concern against India is that the latter does not share information on damming projects on the Indus and its tributaries. On the other hand, India feels that sharing information with Pakistan has led to troubles and delays in implementation of projects on the river waters. For instance, the re-designing of the Salal hydel project on the river Chenab led to silting which rendered the dam useless. The Pakistani objection to the Kishanganga project is on the ground that India is diverting waters of one tributary of the Indus to another – river Jhelum. The Pakistani aim is to prevent the building of hydro-electric projects to stall the economic development of J&K.

Discussion

• The argument that Siachen must be demilitarised because of the high costs involved in maintenance of troops and to minimise casualties is flawed. India has to defend its borders and there are other areas also which present a challenge similar to the one experienced in Siachen. It would be setting a wrong precedent if troops are to be withdrawn on such frivolous grounds.

• Building confidence and trust between the two countries is necessary if India- Pakistan relations are to improve. However, Siachen cannot be a start point for the above process. Withdrawal from the Glacier will not lead to any improvement in ties bewtween the two countries. What can improve the environment is for Pakistan to stop sending terroists into India and to close the 42 terrorist training camps which are supported by state patronage. Unless Pakistan is prepared to give up its policy on supporting terrorist organisations which they maintain as their strategic assets against India, no improvement in relations can take place. Better confidence building can be done by stopping the hostility displayed by the police forces of both countries at Wagah, and by exchanging prisoners, thousands of whom are rotting in each others jails.

• The resolution of the Sir Creek issue is doable and should be de-linked from having an agreement on Siachen first.
abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by abhijitm »

Demilitarizing Siachen: Trading Strategic Advantage for Brownie Points
By
Maj Gen S G Vombatkere
The troubled India-Pakistan relationship has been punctuated by four military conflicts and decades-long military face-off across the IB and LOC, the most recent starting in 1984 on Siachen glacier in Ladakh. The illegal ceding of areas of north Ladakh by Pakistan to China, and China’s occupation of the Aksai Chin area in east Ladakh make Siachen glacier a regional strategic flash-point.

While over the past few months, the Siachen glacier (hereinafter referred to as “Siachen”) has been in the news, recently there has been a flurry of correspondence within the Indian strategic community on its demilitarization, some arguing for and others against it. There is a lobby favouring demilitarization, especially of Siachen, and meetings to discuss it have been held by an India-Pakistan group, the so-called Track-II team, comprising retired military officers and retired diplomats of both countries. Siachen-experienced retired Indian army officers are strongly opposed to demilitarizing Siachen for strategic and tactical reasons. There are no two opinions within Pakistan on this issue, because Pakistan only gains politically, economically and militarily by demilitarizing Siachen. This article examines demilitarization of Siachen without prejudice to demilitarization elsewhere or CBMs between the two countries.

a recent diplomatically-savvy initiative, Pakistan army chief General A.P.Kayani “advocated peaceful coexistence with India, adding that the civil and military leaderships of the two countries should discuss ways to resolve the issue” [of] “demilitarisation of the Siachen glacier” [Ref.1]. This initiative, triggered by the loss of 139 Pakistani soldiers killed in an avalanche at Gayari in April, is said to be driven by the need to cover up the long-standing lie sold to the Pakistani public that their soldiers were dying on Siachen facing Indian troops. The fact is that Gayari is in the Siachen region and not on Siachen itself, and there are no Pakistani troops on Siachen because Indian troops occupy Siachen and its commanding heights.

“Peaceful co-existence” is a strange phrase coming from a Pakistan army chief. Peaceful co-existence can very easily be achieved if the General would order his troops not to violate the ceasefire as is continually occurring, not violate the LOC as Pakistan did stealthily in 1999 around Kargil, and stop training and infiltrating terrorists across the LOC. But what is beyond being strange is that some eminent Indians took up the cue and recommended immediately settling the Siachen dispute by demilitarization. Such a recommendation is innocent of the fact that demilitarizing Siachen clearly involves India losing both strategic and tactical advantage, while for Pakistan it is a definite strategic gain traded off against an insignificant tactical loss. The strangeness does not end there. A former Indian army brigadier even suggested that demilitarizing Siachen was “a low-risk option to test [the] Pak[istan] army’s sincerity” [Ref.2]. The wisdom of taking the “low-risk option” of giving the key of one’s house to a thief to test his self-professed honesty, if at all it is an option, is questionable. Nor would it be an unduly harsh reflection on the Pakistani establishment, sometimes civilian, sometimes military, but always with antipathy towards India. This officer is part of the Track-II team that has agreed upon the modalities of demilitarizing Siachen.

India has consistently maintained in international fora that Jammu & Kashmir, including Siachen, is a part of India. Hence Indian troops abandoning their posts on and around Siachen and vacating Indian territory to satisfy “peace” initiatives by Pakistan, amounts to India surrendering its sovereignty over Jammu & Kashmir, with repercussions on other parts of the LOC.

Besides, successive army chiefs including the present incumbent Gen Bikram Singh, have spoken strongly against demilitarizing Siachen because it would be strategic and tactical folly of the highest order. Notwithstanding, on April 30, 2012, Defence Minister A.K. Antony informed Parliament that government was holding meaningful dialogue with Pakistan to demilitarize Siachen [Ref.3]. Did Government of India (GoI) respond with unseemly alacrity to the Pakistan army chief’s call to demilitarize Siachen, even going through the procedural formality of informing Parliament? It is a fair bet that most MPs do not know where Siachen is, or what are the national sovereignty and security implications of its demilitarization. Perhaps GoI considers that informing Parliament is concurrence to proceed with talks, even demilitarization.

In early 2005, Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh was preparing for strategic cooperation with USA starting with the Framework Agreement on civilian nuclear energy and the Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture. International agreements are always finalized with wide-ranging preparatory discussions between the governments that are entering into agreement. Thus, it can safely be surmised that geopolitical strategic matters would have been discussed between USA and India in the preparatory stages. Perhaps demilitarizing Siachen was discussed at that time, because on June 13, 2005, the Prime Minister told troops at Siachen Base Camp that Siachen would be “converted from a point of conflict to a zone of peace”.

When governments negotiate, officials of both sides, with clear instructions from their respective governments, meet to work on the nitty-gritty of the negotiations, while the decision makers handle the policy and macro aspects. However, the media reports [Ref.4] that GoI has permitted Track-II negotiations on demilitarizing Siachen “through questionable intermediaries with close ties to Pakistan”. The “questionable intermediaries” are the retired Indian military officers and diplomats who formed the Indian side of the so-called Track-II discussions held in September 2012 at Lahore [Note 1]. The Indian side could not have operated without the knowledge of the Indian government, but it did so without mandate, even signing an agreement regarding the “how” of demilitarizing Siachen without the Indian government’s “whether” and “when” of demilitarization [Ref.5]. Obviously the Pakistani establishment has no trouble at all on “whether”, and “when” is clearly ASAP.

The mainstream print media has brought out articles that press for demilitarizing Siachen, some even arguing for it “now”, notably by A.G.Noorani [Ref.7]. An immediate riposte to it was not published by any newspaper, but fortunately did get published in niche journals, including one the same day [Ref.8]. This perhaps substantiates the view that “National dailies have refused to publish articles highlighting the enormous strategic disadvantage of withdrawing from Siachen. Similarly, this issue has not been debated on national television. There are rumors that the media is muffling any discussion on Siachen on the instructions of the government” [Ref.4].

One wonders why the Indian government would want the public to read about the “advantages” of demilitarizing Siachen, without allowing arguments that it may not be in the national interest. This, particularly when demilitarizing Siachen is against the advice of India’s army chief and such an issue of national importance with long-term strategic repercussions has not been discussed in Parliament. This undemocratic and politically devious approach by Government of India has surely set the rumour mills in motion, including one concerning a Nobel Peace Prize

Government of India is already engaged in dialogue with Pakistan on demilitarizing Siachen. If the decision to demilitarize Siachen has already been secretly taken, the present dialogue is to decide when to demilitarize. Pulling back troops from Siachen can only commence after written orders are issued by the Cabinet to the army chief. Actually pulling back troops depends upon the military situation, the time of year, preparation of positions to which to pull back, surveillance arrangements, and other operational and logistic arrangements. Only the Indian army can work out the modalities of demilitarization. Therefore the agenda of the Track-II team is meaningless and ACM Tyagi’s statement that the Track-II team has worked out a way to demilitarize Siachen “should the two sides ever agree to demilitarize”, is hollow. Indeed, it leads one to wonder whether the Track-II initiative is meant to force the hand of legitimate decision makers.

Those who oppose demilitarizing Siachen have questioned the competence of the Indian Track-II members to discuss demilitarization because of not having even visited Siachen. There are also conjectures of personal gain for its members. Words like “treasonable” have been used. Even if true, none of these can be proved at present, and probably never. Therefore it is best to confine the discussion to examining the arguments concerning demilitarization of Siachen in terms of regional and global geopolitics, noting that India’s over-riding considerations regarding Siachen are military and not civilian.

According to media reports, Pakistan is negotiating or has already negotiated leasing the Gilgit-Baltistan region, which is part of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK), to China for 50 years [Ref.9]. This includes the area Pakistani troops now occupy, facing Indian defensive positions on Siachen. If Indian troops pull out of Siachen, Pakistani or Chinese troops can easily defeat surveillance, as any soldier who has experienced Siachen will confirm, and infiltrate into tactically superior former Indian posts to gain strategic advantage. Re-occupation of these posts by Indian forces will be almost impossible. Chinese presence in Baltistan sets Siachen as a new frontier and possible flashpoint for hostilities between India and China. In the context of China having deployed missile units in Tibet within easy strike range of New Delhi. In this changed geopolitical situation, India pulling back from Siachen would be monumental strategic folly.

Strategist Gurmeet Kanwal, a member of the Track-II team, suggested an India-Pakistan Siachen demilitarization agreement including a clause that allows either side to take military action in case of violation by the other side [Ref.10]. If Pakistan or its Lessee, China, infiltrates into the demilitarized zone, India will “be at liberty” to take military action to vacate the encroachment. Thus, the “peace” agreement envisages violation, but suggests the remedy of re-opening armed hostilities that end peace! The inescapable fact is that demilitarizing Siachen will gift huge strategic advantage to Pakistan and China at India’s strategic cost, make a strategic coup for Pakistan. Would India consider demilitarizing disputed areas of Arunachal Pradesh to China for the sake of peace?

India’s strategic alignment with USA following the India-US nuclear deal signed between Indian Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh and U.S President George W. Bush dates back to 2005. The 123-Agreement was over-shadowed by the provisions of the U.S Hyde Act which is India-specific, and visualizes India adopting foreign policy “congruent with” USA’s.

NATO, a U.S-dominated military alliance, concerns the North Atlantic, but it has spread its area of policy and military influence into Afghanistan and Pakistan. NATO is now influencing policy further eastward. Simultaneously, the Atlantic Council, a non-profit policy organization headquartered in USA and founded in 1961 to encourage cooperation between North America and Europe, has expanded its area of interest into the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Although it has close connections to influential policy makers within USA it is, by charter, independent of USA as well as NATO. But its activities include consideration of “global challenges [including] NATO’s future” [Ref.11]. Its South Asia Center “provides a forum for countries in greater South Asia to engage with one another on sustainable stability and economic growth in our quest to “wage peace” in the region, and develop links and better understanding among them and members of the Atlantic community”.

The Track-II talks on demilitarizing Siachen were sponsored and funded by the Atlantic Council. Thus, the Atlantic Council, which has reach to and is influenced by the policy-making mandarins of NATO (including the Pentagon) and the U.S administration, chose the Indian and Pakistani Track-II team members. The averment that the Indian Track-II members have nothing to do with the Indian government raises the question whether Pakistan’s initiative for demilitarizing Siachen has USA’s backing through the Atlantic Council, to persuade India to acquiesce against its national strategic best interests. That could explain the Indian government’s apparent eagerness to demilitarize Siachen and earn brownie points with its senior strategic partner, thus scoring a self-goal with unacceptable and irretrievable strategic costs.

Article 73 of the Constitution of India empowers the Prime Minister, as the country’s chief executive, to enter into a treaty or agreement with a foreign power. Thus, in 2005, the government went ahead with signing a strategic agreement with USA, without prior discussion in Parliament. Apprehensions that the present government, beset by accusations of weakness, indecisiveness and monumental corruption, may sign an agreement with Pakistan to demilitarize Siachen to divert public attention, may not be unfounded.

While diplomatic engagement for peace with Pakistan is necessary, compromising national sovereignty and security or territorial integrity is unacceptable. Therefore, it is vital that Parliamentarians carefully consider arguments for and against demilitarizing Siachen without prejudice to CBMs or demilitarization in any other sector, and ensure discussion on the matter before any agreement is signed. If Indian troops are ordered to vacate posts on Saltoro ridge and Siachen that were won at the cost of the lives and limbs of many soldiers, it would amount to devaluing their sacrifices and their families’ pain and suffering, besides being strategic folly.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by chaanakya »

Art 73 does not empower the Govt to alter boundary or cede areas . That power lies with Parliament, meaning the People.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by ShauryaT »

abhijitm wrote:Demilitarizing Siachen: Trading Strategic Advantage for Brownie Points
By
Maj Gen S G Vombatkere
Siachen-experienced retired Indian army officers are strongly opposed to demilitarizing Siachen for strategic and tactical reasons.[/b]
Not completely true. Ex DGMO Lt. Gen V.R. Raghavan had command of Siachen and has an authoritative book on the subject. He is open to the demilitarization plan. Lt. Gen Chibber who headed the Northern Command in 1984 has subsequently called Siachen a mistake with comments on the lines of "We stumbled into Siachen".
RKumar

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by RKumar »

Need to build capacity in research institutes: Antony

Directly coming from defense minister .... that MoD and GoI gave their blessing to Track-II
Defence Minister A.K. Antony Saturday said that the country needs to build capacity in research institutions working in key areas like defence which will help in enhancing strategic planning for the future.

“India will have to build and invest judiciously in its research institutions, as strategic thinking is crucial for planning for the future,” Antony said in his address at the 48th foundation day of Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA) here.

“Today, think-tanks are playing an increasingly important role the world over, in creating more awareness about the changing geopolitical environment and generating alternate policy options,” he said.

According to Antony, research institutes working in the key areas like defence studies also provides a platform to discuss the emerging trends and exchange of views on the current policy.

Through Track II dialogue, reports, research articles, high profile conferences and seminars, think tanks can enrich and inform policy debate,” he said.

Antony further said that the world in present times is interested in knowing India’s views on emerging challenges and for this purpose it is important to develop and maintain key institutes like IDSA.

“The external world would like to know about what we think, what our policies are and how we propose to meet with the growing challenges on the political, economic and security front,” Antony added.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Vipul »

Ah the Gobarment wants to institutionalize the concept of some think tanks, so that ex military and serving military folks who toe their line can be accomadated with fancy titles and privileges.
What a bunch of fraudsters, this govt is only too keen to accept the recommendations of a hand picked committee while the National security enhancing recommendations of the Kargil Committee has been consigned to the dust-bin.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2982
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by VinodTK »

Is Congress slyly selling out on Siachen?
Growing murmurs of disapproval are rising in Indian military and diplomatic circles over the recent Track II diplomacy over the Siachen glacier. Sources say that military veterans are adamant that a settlement can give no advantage to India and would only enhance the bruised status of the Pakistan army within that nation’s public life.

Moreover, given the China-Pakistan nexus and Chinese presence in the Shaksgam Valley north of Siachen and in Aksai Chin to its east, plus the ISI’s continuing links with terrorist networks in India, there is simply no merit in a retreat from the glacier. Yet it is undeniable that Islamabad has successfully suborned the national consensus on this strategic issue.

The disquiet relates to the recent military-to-military (actually retired officers) confidence building measures in Lahore from September 23-25, 2012. This was followed by a round table discussion in Delhi on October 15, 2012, where both the Lahore dialogue and the Indus Water Treaty were discussed. Select officers from the Army and members of the CLAWS faculty were present at the Delhi conclave.

The Lahore Track II meeting was the third such conclave (previous ones having being held in Dubai and Bangkok), wherein both sides reportedly reached an ‘agreement’ on resolving the Sir Creek and Siachen disputes. The apprehension among nationalists is whether the shaky UPA regime is covertly agreeing to American pressure to surrender Indian interests in this strategic sector without taking the Indian public in confidence.

In a political environment in which citizens and retired veterans alike are demanding unveiling of the true facts behind the military debacles of 1947 and 1962, and public protests over the secret diplomacy that led India to unilaterally surrender the gains of military action in 1965 and 1971 are growing, it is amazing that such furtive manoeuvres persist.

With American troops slated to leave Afghanistan soon, and Islamabad determined to give New Delhi no space in what it considers its backyard, how can Siachen be discussed in isolation to larger developments in the region? It is admitted that official talks regarding conventional and nuclear CBMs have failed. What can Track II achieve that official talks cannot?

Military veterans are aghast that the Atlantic Council of Ottawa which broke the news of the Track II accord, had actually sponsored the dialogue, no doubt with the blessings of the American, Canadian and British global policemen who are determined to demilitarise the glacier. A veteran present at the Lahore talks privately told to an interlocutor that the Track II Team was handpicked by the Atlantic Council of Ottawa and not the Government of India! The complete expenses of travel and stay were also borne by the Council.

As senior retired military and diplomatic officers, surely the participants would have known that the Atlantic Council of Ottawa and Atlantic Council of US are extensions of the Pakistani Army which would obviously be funding this so-called diplomacy. So despite the Ghulam Nabi Fai debacle, our people are determined to learn nothing from history, so desperate is the craving for foreign trips in five star comfort. We need to know more about the covert official backing for such talks, if any, in the light of the experience that persons who availed of the dubious hospitality of Ghulam Nabi Fai were appointed by the Union Home Ministry as interlocutors on Jammu & Kashmir.

Worse, though the Track II groups (that is, individuals selected by the Atlantic Council for unknown qualities) informed the Ministry of External Affairs and the military brass about their meeting and sought some inputs. Some MEA officials did meet them but did not even mention Siachen, nor did the team ask questions on the subject.

The Military, however, was adamant that it did not favour any demilitarisation. General VK Singh when approached reportedly retorted, “What bloody demilitarisation? Don’t let the @#$%$#@S discuss this. There is nothing to discuss with Pakistan over Siachen”. The new Army Chief General Bikram Singh was equally explicit, “Tell the $##s (in Punjabi) to first stop exporting terrorism. No question of discussing any demilitarisation”.

So why did the Government of India let this handpicked group of retired military and diplomatic officers including a self-righteous journalist, go to Lahore and discuss and even agree to demilitarisation? What is the legal standing of this group? It would be in the fitness of things for the Government of India to quickly take an official view on this Ottawa-funded jamboree from the account reportedly furnished to the Ministries of Defence, External Affairs, the NSA and the Service Chiefs. There is need to crack down of such potentially harmful ‘private initiatives’.

It is scandalous that a bunch of individuals selected by a foreign body most likely funded by the Pakistan Army / ISI, with no authority to discuss geo-strategic matters, went and in violation of the Indian constitution and the 1994 Parliament Resolution reiterating claim over the entire J&K State as acceded to India by Maharaja Hari Singh in October 1947, agreed to demilitarise the Siachen glacier. This, despite being told by the outgoing and current Army Chief, that the matter was non-negotiable.

According to the gist of the Lahore discussions, Pakistan is reportedly willing to forego its claim on Sir Creek and the dispute can be resolved. Both sides reportedly agreed to set up a joint commission to delineate the line beyond NJ 9842, consistent with existing Agreements; that present ground positions would be jointly recorded and records exchanged; the determination of places to which redeployment will be affected would be jointly agreed; disengagement and demilitarisation would occur in accordance with a mutually acceptable timeframe; prior to withdrawal, each side will undertake to remove munitions and other military equipment and waste from areas of its control; and ongoing cooperative monitoring of these activities and the resulting demilitarised zone would be agreed to ensure/assure transparency.

Military veterans aver that India cannot surrender such a strategic height in such a sensitive sector.
Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Gurneesh »

FWIW

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121111/main1.htm#2
Antony: No hasty decision on revoking AFSPA in J&K

Defence Minister AK Antony today reiterated that there would be no “hasty decision” on revoking the much-debated Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) from Jammu and Kashmir.

“The violence level in Jammu and Kashmir has come down, but at the same time, infiltration attempts are on the rise and it’s a matter of concern,” the Defence Minister said on the sidelines of a function to mark the 48th foundation day of the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA). “As I have said earlier, we cannot take a decision on AFSPA in a hasty manner,” he said.

On being asked if there were efforts being made through track-II dialogue on demilitarisation of the Siachen glacier, Antony said: “No, we are not for that. Our stand on Siachen is very clear and there is no change in our stand”.

India wants authentication of the present positions. New Delhi has always insisted it will pull back troops only after joint “authentication” of the frontline along the 109-km Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL) — the name of the de facto border on the glacier. The AGPL has never been marked on the ground or on any document accepted by both sides.


If Pakistan violates a de-militarisation treaty, it would enjoy easier access to Siachen, leaving India at a disadvantage. New Delhi wants international guarantee against any violation. Pakistan resists “authentication” as a pre-requisite to de-militarisation.

On corruption in the deal to buy 12 VVIP copters, Antony said: “We are probing the issue and have sought details. The Ministry of External Affairs has been told to gather more facts. If foul play is revealed, we will act.”
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by eklavya »

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/corru ... /1029937/0
India had sig-ned a deal with AgustaWestland to procure the 12 VVIP helicopters in 2010. As brought out by a series of reports in The Indian Express, an Italian probe into international corruption charges had zeroed in on the Rs 3,546-crore deal. An investigation report filed in a Naples court suggests that 51 million euros was paid as commission to swing the deal. It also names Indians as well as middlemen allegedly involved in the deal.
I think these choppers should be dedicated for the exclusive purpose of maintaining the Siachen Brigade (who are VVIP and then some). All Track II participants must surely approve.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10195
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by sum »

The Military, however, was adamant that it did not favour any demilitarisation. General VK Singh when approached reportedly retorted, “What bloody demilitarisation? Don’t let the @#$%$#@S discuss this. There is nothing to discuss with Pakistan over Siachen”. The new Army Chief General Bikram Singh was equally explicit, “Tell the $##s (in Punjabi) to first stop exporting terrorism. No question of discussing any demilitarisation”.
:lol: :lol:

Typical BRF style reactions!
RajD
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 29 Mar 2011 16:01

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by RajD »

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/curren ... 83354.html
Quoting from the link:
No Pak visit as India is unhappy with 26/11 probe: Srcs
Ahead of the fourth anniversary of the Mumbai attacks, the government has linked the 26/11 probe with a Prime Ministerial visit to Pakistan. Highly-placed sources in the ministry of external affairs (MEA) have virtually ruled out Manmohan Singh's visit to Pakistan pointing out that Pakistan was yet to fulfill India's expectations on 26/11.
Can this be posted here in the context of purported sell out on Siachen.
Also, does it give full stop to all speculations or is it just another tactical diversion by the slimy brigade?
Regards.
Rajendra
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10195
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by sum »

^^ Well, read the entire article and notice the kind of tone of GoI where they are sorry that the trip couldnt happen because of the "narrow window" of TSP polls and not any other reason. He also mentions that GoI is only looking for a very small token/fig-leaf from TSP and we will then go the extra mile.

So, honestly, GoI TSP policy scares me more after reading this article.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

Do we have a list of members of this gang?
VinodTK wrote:So why did the Government of India let this handpicked group of retired military and diplomatic officers including a self-righteous journalist, go to Lahore and discuss and even agree to demilitarisation? What is the legal standing of this group? It would be in the fitness of things for the Government of India to quickly take an official view on this Ottawa-funded jamboree from the account reportedly furnished to the Ministries of Defence, External Affairs, the NSA and the Service Chiefs. There is need to crack down of such potentially harmful ‘private initiatives’.

It is scandalous that a bunch of individuals selected by a foreign body most likely funded by the Pakistan Army / ISI, with no authority to discuss geo-strategic matters, went and in violation of the Indian constitution and the 1994 Parliament Resolution reiterating claim over the entire J&K State as acceded to India by Maharaja Hari Singh in October 1947, agreed to demilitarise the Siachen glacier. This, despite being told by the outgoing and current Army Chief, that the matter was non-negotiable.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32282
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by chetak »

Aditya G wrote:Do we have a list of members of this gang?
VinodTK wrote:So why did the Government of India let this handpicked group of retired military and diplomatic officers including a self-righteous journalist, go to Lahore and discuss and even agree to demilitarisation? What is the legal standing of this group? It would be in the fitness of things for the Government of India to quickly take an official view on this Ottawa-funded jamboree from the account reportedly furnished to the Ministries of Defence, External Affairs, the NSA and the Service Chiefs. There is need to crack down of such potentially harmful ‘private initiatives’.

It is scandalous that a bunch of individuals selected by a foreign body most likely funded by the Pakistan Army / ISI, with no authority to discuss geo-strategic matters, went and in violation of the Indian constitution and the 1994 Parliament Resolution reiterating claim over the entire J&K State as acceded to India by Maharaja Hari Singh in October 1947, agreed to demilitarise the Siachen glacier. This, despite being told by the outgoing and current Army Chief, that the matter was non-negotiable.
Go back in this thread. The list is already there.
abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by abhijitm »

Siachen is not a mere matter between two stae politicians. It is equally, if not more importantly, between the two militaries. Politicians cannot unilaterally appoint a private body and take decision on such a sensitive military matter. Well, constitution give them right to do so but exercising it means abusing of trust and power. This is a democracy and not dictatorship. A democracy demands better understanding and collaboration between various pillars of the government. If few politicians think they can abuse the power and undermine very concept of democracy where preamble starts with "We, the people..." and not "We, the politicians" then it is time to show them their place we call aukaat.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2982
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by VinodTK »

“Siachen Track II Forum” on a treacherous trek
The Track II strategy is a conspiracy hatched by Pakistan to make its sinister scheme appear transparent, non-partisan and credible, to evict Indian troops from Siachen which Pakistan desperately needs but cannot snatch it from India by force

Having suffered several defeats and dismemberment at India’s hands, Pakistan should seek peace more eagerly than India. Ironically and illogically, however, it is India that has always been at the receiving end while Pakistan has been getting away with her audacious mischiefs, outright anti-India tirade and perpetrating attacks deep inside India through proxy squads of terrorists trained, equipped and financed under a well organised military system. At last count, over 42 training academies—more mildly called ‘Camps’—are currently running in Pakistan and POK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) even when, in a grotesque development, some of India’s very own revered strategists including a former Air Force chief have been easily convinced by their Pakistani counterparts to coax the Indian Army to depart from Siachen as a step towards peace. Called “Track II Forum”, they are a group of retired military brass from Pakistan and India seeking ‘demilitarisation’ of the Siachen Glacier, the world’s highest battlefield, held by Indian troops since 1984. Ever since, the Pakistan Army has tried to dislodge the Indian troops and capture Siachen but in vain.
:
:
:
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by ShauryaT »

Ex-Indian general hopeful of resolving disputes
“While Kashmir is a complex issue, I am confident that Siachen, Sir Creek and water dispute will be resolved soon,” said Gen. (retd) Moti Dhar, former vice chief of Indian army on Thursday. He was speaking at a roundtable organised by the Institute of Regional Studies with India Pakistan Soldiers Initiative for Peace (IPSIP), said a press release.

Gen. Dhar, who was heading the IPSIP delegation, stressed on developing an understanding over the water dispute. He said people in both countries need to realise that water resources are dwindling and they will have to devise a mechanism to utilise the existing resources efficiently.

Speaking on Siachen, Colonel (retd) Gautam Das said Pakistan could unilaterally withdraw its forces if it is finding it difficult to sustain the conflict. He claimed the presence of Indian troops on the Saltoro ridgeline wouldn’t pose any threat to Pakistan.
However, Prof. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal of Quaid-i-Azam University (QAU) termed unilateral withdrawal “impractical”. Citing the Sino-Indian border disengagement as an example, he said there are better ways of military disengagement in Siachen.

Another delegation member, Colonel (retd) A R Khan, said Siachen is a “futile war” and courageous thinking from both countries is needed to resolve the conflict.

Dr Tahir Amin of QAU said Pakistan has always wanted to take a top-down approach in dialogue with India, while India always wanted a bottom-up approach. Most of the issues, he said, exacerbated when Pakistan would agree to the Indian approach and still see no progress.
Agreeing with him, Lt Gen. (retd) Talat Masood said India shouldn’t hide behind excuses such as its domestic politics or overall political and security situation in Pakistan. He said that a fundamental shift in strategic thinking has already taken place in Pakistan and the ball is in the Indian court.

Gen. Dhar argued that a stable and friendly Pakistan is in India’s interest. He said the new generation in India is concerned about a better life, and the governments can no longer ignore popular calls.

He termed the perception of Indian involvement in Balochistan as completely baseless. He added India wants a peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan, as it is a trade route to Central Asia.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

Speaking on Siachen, Colonel (retd) Gautam Das said Pakistan could unilaterally withdraw its forces if it is finding it difficult to sustain the conflict. He claimed the presence of Indian troops on the Saltoro ridgeline wouldn’t pose any threat to Pakistan.
Absolutely. The pakis should practice what they preach.
However, Prof. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal of Quaid-i-Azam University (QAU) termed unilateral withdrawal “impractical”. Citing the Sino-Indian border disengagement as an example, he said there are better ways of military disengagement in Siachen.
Ah, so they want us to do what they themselves aren't ready to.
Agreeing with him, Lt Gen. (retd) Talat Masood said India shouldn’t hide behind excuses such as its domestic politics or overall political and security situation in Pakistan. He said that a fundamental shift in strategic thinking has already taken place in Pakistan and the ball is in the Indian court.
The only "fundamental shift in strategic thinking" I can see, is that after having failed to dislodge Indian troops from Siachen by force, pakis are asking us to withdraw them voluntarily.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Vipul »

However, Prof. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal of Quaid-i-Azam University (QAU) termed unilateral withdrawal “impractical”. Citing the Sino-Indian border disengagement as an example, he said there are better ways of military disengagement in Siachen.
He is right since it is Indian army alone that is on the Siachen Glacier (Pakistani army is on the Solotoro ridge) any call for asking india to evict is nothing but unilateral withdrawal which is "IMPRACTICAL"
Agreeing with him, Lt Gen. (retd) Talat Masood said India shouldn’t hide behind excuses such as its domestic politics or overall political and security situation in Pakistan. He said that a fundamental shift in strategic thinking has already taken place in Pakistan and the ball is in the Indian court.
And pray what is this fundamental shift in "strategic thinking"?

That they should try to "cultivate" Indian Jaichands and win over territory on the table that they could not win in an armed conflict?
Right the ball is in the Indian court and Indians should simply grab it and rightfully refuse to play.

For all the trusting peaceniks/pappi jhappi folks/wannabe candle kisses aka IQ challenged folks who are so trusting of the BS peddling Shitistanis, i only ask you to view some of the pakistani current affairs talk shows and see what the various analysts (including all the Track II members from the Pakistani side) and includes Talat Masood and Prof Nawaz have to say on various Strategic/Security issues in the region.
I have for the last 4 years been actively watching these programs on the Net and have followed each and every of the experts on the pakistani side (again this includes most of the Track IIers )am simply amazed at how blatantly they continue to mouth lies and blame everything under the sun on everybody else while of course they expect the rest of the world to adjust their stance to accomadate Pakistan at every level.

All the people who advocate India to unilaterally withdraw from Siachen (this is what the chai/samosa's is all about) and all those who act on/ and implement it should be tried for Treason. Absolutely if there has to be hope for the future prospects of Bharat Varsha.
Post Reply