Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 22 Dec 2014 13:58

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2624 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 ... 66  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 10:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6614
rsingh wrote:
Not a single inch will be vacated. It is not joke. We are democracy. We can talk about anything but GOI is NOT GOP. Guys stop wasting time on this thread. Benis dhaga is 400% better the this.........at least we have fun with real thing. Stop browning your dhotis over an imaginary event. It is a very sophisticated operation aimed at 1) demoralizing army
2) setting a precedent which can be used by Pakis at some future negotiations (it is done very often in diplomacy).
Wait for two years and we will be reading things like " India almost gave Siachin......."you kno the rest.

Some body please make list of people who are propagating this issue.


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

Why India cannot afford to give up Siachen


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pakistani hospitality is legendary but beware of the poisoned chalice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 17:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58
Posts: 914
Siachen: What is the strategic or diplomatic rationale for demilitarization?

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

worth reading in full = excerpts
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?


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: 08 Nov 2012 20:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29
Posts: 2043
A Siachen Resolution: Why Now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India should put Pakistan on parole and watch its behaviour for 20 years before even beginning to think of any concessions in Siachen or elsewhere. What is in it for India? What is the hurry? India must learn from its other neighbour China, which knows how to keep India under pressure: hold regular border talks but give little.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 20:42 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Posts: 1410
Location: Pindi
Let me to explain my previous post. It is going to be long and it is not for fainthearted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://livefist.blogspot.be/2008/04/who-is-lt-gen-pc-bhardwaj.html

http://www.theweekendleader.com/Culture/1062/a-soldier%E2%80%99s-ire.html

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

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

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

Next part soon


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 21:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Jan 2005 03:09
Posts: 654
Singh Saab ,

Dhanyavad .Thinking on similar terms but felt otherwise on posting. Kindly keep up .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 21:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4667
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:


Quote:
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

Quote:
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 21:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3535
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
rsingh wrote:
IMO Lt. General Katoch is used as useful idiot by by some self appointed mediators who want to bring the issue to limelight. He was right candidate; he is all over the press criticizing everybody and everything on slightest pretext.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 21:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Sep 2011 07:22
Posts: 514
The key issue here is China-Pakistan linkup. That should be India's main concern. And having read through all the snake oil of peace being advertised from TSP, nobody ever mentions China. Interesting, isn't it ?

Is it hope that Pakistan and China will never linkup ? And why isn't China a party in these Track-II discussions ? They hold the Shaksgam valley, don't they ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 21:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Posts: 1923
Location: On board Coobsat. Fanatically chasing MOM.
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 22:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Posts: 1410
Location: Pindi
^^
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 22:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Posts: 1410
Location: Pindi
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 22:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Posts: 1923
Location: On board Coobsat. Fanatically chasing MOM.
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.
Quote:
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 22:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Posts: 1923
Location: On board Coobsat. Fanatically chasing MOM.
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 22:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Posts: 1410
Location: Pindi
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:


Quote:
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

Quote:
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:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 22:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4667
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...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 22:37 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Posts: 1410
Location: Pindi
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.
Quote:

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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 23:01 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 6119
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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....

Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 23:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 5046
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 23:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Posts: 1410
Location: Pindi
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 23:26 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 6119
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
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:


Quote:
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 23:37 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1991
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? :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 23:46 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Jul 2008 19:14
Posts: 767
Location: Joined 01 Jan 1970. Peearefff Oldie
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 23:49 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 6119
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Nov 2012 23:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1991
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 00:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 27 Jan 2002 12:31
Posts: 354
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 00:16 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Feb 2012 15:54
Posts: 297
Don't feed the troll...

Interestingly he has mentioned pindi as his location... That explains his lahori logic :rotfl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 08:37 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Posts: 1923
Location: On board Coobsat. Fanatically chasing MOM.
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 08:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Posts: 345
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:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 09:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 6039
^^^

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2012 10:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 7105
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 05:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3535
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Military to Military CBMs

Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 13:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Posts: 1923
Location: On board Coobsat. Fanatically chasing MOM.
Demilitarizing Siachen: Trading Strategic Advantage for Brownie Points
By
Maj Gen S G Vombatkere
Quote:
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[b]

[b]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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 14:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30
Posts: 7369
Art 73 does not empower the Govt to alter boundary or cede areas . That power lies with Parliament, meaning the People.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2012 19:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3535
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
abhijitm wrote:
Demilitarizing Siachen: Trading Strategic Advantage for Brownie Points
By
Maj Gen S G Vombatkere
Quote:
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".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2012 14:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Posts: 709
Location: Invention is evolution, explosion is destruction.
Need to build capacity in research institutes: Antony

Directly coming from defense minister .... that MoD and GoI gave their blessing to Track-II

Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2012 18:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2929
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2012 20:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 1760
Is Congress slyly selling out on Siachen?
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2012 21:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Posts: 464
Location: Troposphere
FWIW

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121111/main1.htm#2

Quote:
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.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 01:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57
Posts: 1277
Quote:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/corruption-in-chopper-deal-antony-vows-strong-action/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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 08:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Posts: 8354
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar
Quote:
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2624 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 ... 66  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], GopiN, Kartik, Kritavarman, Sridhar and 19 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