Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 01 Nov 2014 09:25

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2622 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 ... 66  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2012 20:39 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 29 Mar 2011 16:01
Posts: 57
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2012 08:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Posts: 8336
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar
^^ 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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2012 09:07 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Posts: 1752
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2012 09:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6348
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2012 10:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Posts: 1914
Location: On board Coobsat. Fanatically chasing MOM.
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2012 21:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 1729
“Siachen Track II Forum” on a treacherous trek
Quote:
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.
:
:
:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Nov 2012 21:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3466
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Ex-Indian general hopeful of resolving disputes
Quote:
“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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Nov 2012 00:31 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 4909
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Nov 2012 04:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2918
Quote:
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"

Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Nov 2012 16:18 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 15183
Location: Chennai
Army should stay put in Siachen: Gen. Bikram Singh
Quote:
Chief of Army Staff General Bikram Singh has said the Army should stay put in the Siachen because of the strategic advantage there.

He was speaking to journalists at the Indian Naval Academy (INA) here on Saturday after reviewing the passing out parade of the naval cadets.

Gen. Singh, responding to a question on the Siachen, however, said that it was for the government to take a decision on the pullout from the glacier. “I feel that we need to stay there because of the strategic advantage and if we have to pull out from there we have to do it very diligently after a great deal of deliberations,” he said.

Any withdrawal of personnel from the Siachen should be from the position of advantage to the nation, he said, adding that the Army had put across its concerns to the government.


It would be nothing short of a treason if a pull-out is made on the lines being discussed elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Nov 2012 16:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1934
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
Quote:
organised by the Institute of Regional Studies


Time to time discharge of BS comes from puki/ISI funded institutes only.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 15:21 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 29 Mar 2011 16:01
Posts: 57
SSridhar wrote:
Army should stay put in Siachen: Gen. Bikram Singh
Quote:
Chief of Army Staff General Bikram Singh has said the Army should stay put in the Siachen because of the strategic advantage there.

He was speaking to journalists at the Indian Naval Academy (INA) here on Saturday after reviewing the passing out parade of the naval cadets.

Gen. Singh, responding to a question on the Siachen, however, said that it was for the government to take a decision on the pullout from the glacier. “I feel that we need to stay there because of the strategic advantage and if we have to pull out from there we have to do it very [b]diligently after a great deal of deliberations,” he said.[/b]

Any withdrawal of personnel from the Siachen should be from the position of advantage to the nation, he said, adding that the Army had put across its concerns to the government.


I would like to know what does the Gen. mean by 'diligently'? Does it mean diligence to the govt. orders or as they say 'due diligence' in the language of corporates? And for what? :eek:.
I thought he should have negated the possibility of vacating Siachen so emphatically(a la gen. V. K. Singh style) that the reporter would have no courage to ask him the obvious supplementary question about the govt. action and decision which in fact is the one that matters the most. Here the reporter seems to have set the gen. up nicely for that.
Also, the whole statement sounds very superfluous for a gen., kind of making right noises for the consumption of 'aam admi', reminds me of the heated debate on this very forum regarding the apparent(real?) purpose behind his appointment in not so normal fashion.
Regards.
Rajendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2012 08:31 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34
Posts: 92
Another Avalanche

Search after Kashmir avalanche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2012 08:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36
Posts: 2915
Manish_P wrote:

Neelum Valley is hundreds of kilometres south of kargil through the LoC. How is this related to Siachen?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2012 10:19 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34
Posts: 92
Expecting the Aman and WKKs types to put use this to put forth a fresh slew of articles on why the withdrawal is necessary...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 08:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3466
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Aman ki Asha: Posting here expecting flak and abuse.
Aman ki Asha seminar to discuss Sir Creek, Siachen
Quote:
Pakistani delegates attending the seminar are National Security Advisor Mahmud Ali Durrani, ex-high commissioners to India Shahid Malik, Aziz Ahmad Khan, journalists Najam Sethi, Cyril Almeida, Ejaz Haider, retired naval officer Hasan M Ansari and Tehreek-e-Insaf's Shafqat Mahmood. Indian experts include ex-foreign secretary Shyam Saran, former high commissioner to Pakistan G Parthasarthy, ex-ambassador to the US Naresh Chandra, Vice Admiral (R) BR Rao, journalist-academic Raja Mohan, academic Radha Kumar, Lt Gen (R) BS Pawar and Srinath Raghavan of New Delhi's Centre for Policy Research.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 08:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2918
Siachen Handout:Bartering India's Security?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 11:23 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 29 Mar 2011 16:01
Posts: 57
Looking at the way in which pieces are falling in place and also, coincidental passing away of the original architect of 'Aman ki Asha/Tamasha', 'WKK' along with 'pappy/zappi'(CBM) doctrine I pray god, now, perpetrators of this madness do not put a spin on it of as they say 'to fulfill the dream/ to carry forward the solemn legacy' of the departed in order to legitimize their fraud on the nation.
Regards.
Rajendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2012 21:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Jun 2010 23:53
Posts: 878
RajD wrote:
Looking at the way in which pieces are falling in place and also, coincidental passing away of the original architect of 'Aman ki Asha/Tamasha', 'WKK' along with 'pappy/zappi'(CBM) doctrine I pray god, now, perpetrators of this madness do not put a spin on it of as they say 'to fulfill the dream/ to carry forward the solemn legacy' of the departed in order to legitimize their fraud on the nation.
Regards.
Rajendra


Such a request has already been made, albeit with a different tone.

Pakistan landslides kill three soldiers, bury rescuers

Quote:
A landslide killed three Pakistani soldiers in mountainous Kashmir Friday, while 18 people sent to rescue them were missing after being buried by a second landslide, officials said.


Quote:
Disputed Kashmir has caused two of the three wars between India and Pakistan since their independence from Britain in 1947.


The Gyan starts..

Quote:
But with separatist violence having dropped sharply since a peace process was started in 2004, the greatest dangers facing soldiers stationed at remote outposts are often landslides and extreme conditions


Its not that separatists have become good men. Our tax money in the form of 'border fencing' in kashmir is producing desirable effect.

Quote:
That tragedy renewed debate about how much sense it made for a country where millions live below the poverty line to maintain outposts in Siachen, dubbed "the world's highest battleground", at immense cost when violence had fallen


Who made the country poor? naah they won't say that.

Quote:
Separatist violence has fallen in Muslim-majority, heavily militarised Kashmir, but occasional gunfights still erupt between militants and the security forces.

India accuses Pakistan of backing Islamist militants on its side of the divided region, a charge Islamabad denies.


You see India is making false accusations only. There are no militants in pakistan.

Quote:
India suspended a full peace dialogue with Pakistan following the 2008 attack by Islamist gunmen on Mumbai that killed 166 people but warily resumed it early last year.


Its 'Islamist gunmen' not terrorists who killed women and children. They weren't worried about the justice for 166 people killed, but they are happy the full peace dialogue resumed 'warily'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 00:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19
Posts: 3659
Location: छिछला पानी में (In shallow waters)
Another out of the box thinking about pappi-jhappi gang is that the leftists and Islamists have contradictions in Kashmir.

So in Kashmir leftists and Islamists fail at making peace with each other. An example is how a Christian school was burnt in Kashmir and leftists, Islamists and Christians were silent over it.

The pappi sessions are therefore essential to give a running facade of deception about how valid each side is, however each side is deceptive and fail anyway.

Ex-army generals got involved in this as jhappi meetings post-retirement.

So the failure then leads to these facades that have to be maintained, but then again leftists and Islamists are involved in this at international level too. So this gives domestic as well as international disadvantage as it gives cover to deceptions.

This overall deception - at domestic and international level - will continue everywhere else too, and make a common cause for every other friction/massacre/etc to mask realities from non-believers/non-followers but are silent everytime there are frictions within each other. Notice how silence is maintained in Godhra yatri massacre over pilgrims murdered and eye witnesses who have deposed in courts as well and contrast it with footage on riots alone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 09:29 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 03 Apr 2011 08:03
Posts: 41
A Bit OT:

A few guys from a Travel Forum (BCM Touring) have visited Siachen Base Camp (SBC) and have posted some pictures and their experience. Posting the relevant page from that forum for more info,

http://www.bcmtouring.com/forum/travelogues-north-india-f61/4-low-world-s-highest-battle-field-siachen-4-high-changthang-t48368-30/

The Infrastructure looks pretty decent and well maintained. Would like to see how the corresponding Pakistani base camp looks like. Also from the thread it looks like there is an air strip which could accommodate il-76 close to the base camp for transporting goods and equipment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 10:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2918
RAPE strutting their Track-II, Siachen nonsense in South Block.

At 9:28 The shameless foreign minister of India giving Green Signal to Pakistanis that they can create more 26/11's and the GOI will continue the Dialogue/Aman Ki Asha nonsense. Hajam Sethi was apprehensive that pakistan will loose out on Indian largesse should another incident happen. Khurshid gave guarantee that it would not be so.
At 13:35, They get an assurance that the Indian Sell-out under Track-II would continue.
At 16:28, Hajam says Pakistan always wanted to take up Kashmir Masla first and it was India which wanted increased trade, More People to People contacts and Liberalized Visa Regime, now that everything has happened as per India wishes when will the wish of pakistan people - Kashmir Issue be taken up? (This is a beauty - after extracting all the concessions of more visa's and denying the obligatory MFN to India by going back on its promise it is claiming India wanted this and has got all the advantages and now India should reciprocate by taking up kashmir!!!!!)
At 19:37 Kamran Khan says that since the present administration Pakistan is going to complete the 5 years term and there is consensus in Pakustan for betetr relationship with India, is India Psychologically prepared for better relations with India and what can pakistan expect in return.

In the post interview analysis:

32: 25 onwards, Najam Sethi :(( that the Indians want to concentrate only on Commerce and the low hanging fruit of Siachen (he used those words)is still not with pakistan. He also says that there are just 1.5 yrs of the Manmohan singh term left and Siachen and Sir Creek not being discussed. Kamran Khan admitting that we in pakistan thought in India whatever the Politicians will say the Military would salute and agree is not true :(( . He literally said that we can pluck the low hanging fruit but have to take the Indian military in confidence (Hence the Sponsored Tarck II tamasha with the Jaichands). Hajam Sethi :(( that Indian Military is now also making chinese factor a part of Siachen issue and giving it a more strategic spinn, Pakistan gave Commerce and People to People contacts to India and india should in return give pakistan Do Cheez (Siachen and Sir Creek)
We have given big concession to India by promoting commerce, Salman Khurshid being Muslim has to be extra cautious or he can be blamed for being partial. Mumbai ab purana kissa hai and India should have come out of it by 2009!!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 16:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53
Posts: 335
'Siachen: India must offer Pak a dignified solution'

Psy-ops in full swing.

Some excerpts

Quote:
Myra MacDonald tells Shivam Vij in an e-mail interview why resolving Siachen without resolving the Jammu and Kashmir dispute may not be easy.


Now who is she?

Quote:
Myra MacDonald is a London-based journalist with Reuters and a long-time observer of South Asia.

She tracks the turning points in Pakistan politics at the Reuters Pakistan blog

..best known for her book on the Siachen conflict, Heights of Madness: One Woman's Journey in Pursuit of a Secret War. Published in 2007, the research for the book took her to both sides of the conflict, :-o on helicopter and on ground.


Some gems

Quote:
There is no strategic advantage in controlling these passes and never has been -- the idea sometimes floated that the Pakistan army could use these to link up with China and threaten India makes no sense when you see how difficult the terrain is.


Now where have we heard this before?

Quote:
Both sides bear some responsibility for the events that led to the outbreak of war in Siachen in April 1984, but on balance India has a greater share of the blame for setting those events in motion.


Eevil yeendus more to blame...but wait there is more

Quote:
The origins of the conflict go back to before 1978, when Pakistan authorised foreign mountaineering expeditions to the Siachen glacier.

This was not unreasonable (but of course not) :roll: -- access to the glacier historically was far easier from the Baltistan side, across the Bilafond-la, the main pass through the Saltoro.

At some point, foreign maps began wrongly to mark Siachen as Pakistani territory, and this was used as an excuse by India to send a military mountaineering expedition to explore the glacier.

As India continued to send military mountaineering expeditions each summer to the glacier, Pakistan in turn became alarmed, sending its own men to investigate, and in the atmosphere of distrust in South Asia, mountaineering expeditions morphed into military patrols.

Reading the protest notes sent at the time, it is clear that Pakistan genuinely believed India was intruding on its territory :roll: -- it is also clear that with dialogue, the problem could have been resolved.

Instead, India decided to send troops in the summer of 1984 to occupy the passes; Pakistan, worried about Indian intentions, prepared its own plan to move in; and India -- by bringing forward its operation to April managed to get there first. :((


Quote:
Before the avalanche at Gyari, there was no practical reason for Pakistan being keener than India for a quick resolution to Siachen.

Since India occupies the higher positions, it has longer supply routes and is more dependent on helicopters for supplies -- it is therefore costlier for India to keep the war going and tougher on its troops.

The reasons for Pakistan wanting the conflict solved are political -- or even emotional -- rather than practical. massive loss of H&D

Pakistan has always seen the Indian occupation of Siachen in 1984 as an act of aggression in breach of the Simla agreement which states that no attempt should be made to change the Line of Control by force.

The LoC had been demarcated only as far as map grid reference point NJ9842, from where it was to continue 'thence north to the glaciers.'

[u]Pakistan believes the LoC should continue to join up with the Karakoram Pass[/u], giving it control of most of Siachen; India says it should follow the natural watershed -- the Saltoro ridge, giving it control of the glacier.[/b]

While it is possible to argue both claims, it is certainly fair to say that by occupying the passes, India did try to change the direction of the LoC by force -- thus making it the guilty party in breaching the Simla accords.

This is important in the context of the mindset of the Pakistan army, which is keen to assert that it is not wrong in seeing India as a threat.

The fact that India moved into Siachen first is also frequently cited by Pakistanis as justification for its subsequent military operation across the Line of Control in Kargil in 1999 -- for which they were internationally, and they say, unfairly, criticised.


Quote:
India has shifted over the years towards a maximalist position of insisting Pakistan recognise its control over Siachen and the passes before any withdrawal.

Were Pakistan to accept this, it would be, in its eyes, acknowledging India's right to change the Line of Control by force and exonerating it from an act of aggression.

For comparison, it is worth looking at draft agreements floated as far back as 1989, under which both sides would agree a withdrawal and the Indian positions marked only in an annex to the main accord -- a diplomatic finesse which would allow both countries to claim victory.

The Indian position is understandable in as much as it does not want to give up hard-won gains; but is not geared towards finding a compromise that would allow Pakistan to withdraw with a modicum of dignity.
H&D only

Quote:
After Kargil, it seems impossible to agree a withdrawal without a framework agreement on the larger J&K dispute.

There are practical reasons for this -- over the years the Siachen battlefield has sprawled outwards, so much so that posts eventually linked up with those in the Kargil sector of the Line of Control.

Any agreement to demilitarise Siachen would now require a similar willingness to demilitarise the LoC.

The 2008 attack on Mumbai has also further reduced Indian readiness to make any territorial concessions.

However, (despite 26/11) some small steps could be taken as a show of goodwill. The most obvious would be for India and Pakistan to run joint scientific expeditions :lol: in Siachen to establish how much the environment has been damaged by the war and by climate change.

The Gyari disaster should be a warning to both sides that their troops are more vulnerable to an unpredictable increase in avalanches.

Joint expeditions would at least get India and Pakistan working together and, perhaps more importantly, provide an important signal that both countries still consider the Siachen region as 'disputed.'

Otherwise, we (who the f is "we"?) are in danger of slipping in Siachen into the same deadlock that prevails over J&K as a whole, which Pakistan says is disputed territory and India says is not disputed.


A pak pasand Brit lady preaching to the choir. What else is new?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 18:15 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Posts: 2187
Location: JPEG-jingostan
She is available on Twitter here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 04:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3466
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
framework to resolve the Sir Creek dispute, which along with Siachen and Kashmir are the three main territorial thorns in bilateral ties between Pakistan and India.

Quote:
A seven-point sequential formula was proposed for the demilitarisation and delineation of the area. The formula called for the setting up of a joint civilian commission to delineate the line beyond the point where it remains unmarked besides a joint military commission to demarcate and authenticate the Actual Ground Position Line on the ground and maps.

The determination of the places to which redeployment will be effected would be jointly agreed, it said, while adding that the disengagement and demilitarisation would occur in accordance with a mutually acceptable time frame to be agreed upon.

The formula called on each side to remove munitions and other military equipment and waste from areas under their control prior to the withdrawal. It said the ongoing cooperative monitoring of all these activities and of the resulting demilitarised zone would be agreed to ensure/ assure transparency.

The experts proposed a joint scientific centre to be established in the area for environmental studies while stressing the need to resolve the issue bilaterally in line with the Shimla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration without any change to the area's status.

Besides this, the experts called for the establishment of a Joint Working Group to recommend detailed re-deployment and oversee implementation of the process with variability in process likely due to changing weather conditions.

It called for force disengagement during summer besides determination of the place(s) to which redeployment will be effected along with the timeframe and mechanism for joint management of the demilitarised zone as recommended by the Joint Working Group.

The formula proposed the primary monitoring and verification mechanisms to be both bilateral and cooperative. "The two essentials will be monitoring and verification during disengagement and thereafter for the Demilitarised Zone to ensure no re-occupation of the glacier."

The participants agreed the in depth Kashmir conference be held to discuss all socio-political, economic aspects on the issue to arrive at major conclusions and practical recommendations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 06:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 May 2012 22:34
Posts: 449
Nothing is going to happen on siachen. IA is firm the only motion will be going forward and taking skardu.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 10:21 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 29 Mar 2011 16:01
Posts: 57
I don't know where to post it, but thought as a continuation to post here. Admins, please shift the post if necessary to an appropriate thread.
From IE http://epaper.indianexpress.com/73179/I ... #page/11/2
OP ED by Sanjay Ruparelia on the legacy of I.K. Gujral.
Goes ga ga over especially diplomacy with Pakis.
And a gem : quote/ Yet one of Gujral's first acts as PM was to suspend all covert activities of RAW in Pakistan. The prudence of the decision which fully came to light following Lashkar-e-Toiba's attack on Mumbai in November 2009, showed risks of such unilateral decisions. None the less, the move accorded with the spirit of his doctrine./unquote.( this has been stated here before also)
Why such an absurd mentality which has caused grave harm to national security be called a doctrine/lasting legacy? Any thoughts, gurus?
Regards.
Rajendra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 17:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 5894
Kashi wrote:
'Siachen: India must offer Pak a dignified solution'



A pak pasand Brit lady preaching to the choir. What else is new?


The question to ask the lady would be, why?

OTOH, She used to have a blog in Reuters by the title, Pakistan, now or never. When she was stationed in TSP. It used to be an extremely depressing read.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2012 17:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6875
Pratyush wrote:
Kashi wrote:
'Siachen: India must offer Pak a dignified solution'



A pak pasand Brit lady preaching to the choir. What else is new?


The question to ask the lady would be, why?

OTOH, She used to have a blog in Reuters by the title, Pakistan, now or never. When she was stationed in TSP. It used to be an extremely depressing read.


If Pakistan offers a dignified solution by withdrawing from POK, giving up its laskars and Army officers to for treatment by the armed relatives terror victims in India.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2012 07:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2918
Pakistan demonstrates its sincereity for an agreement on Siachen.

The Shitistani's cant maintain a ceasefire agreement and here we are are being told to trust them on siachen. we have turncoats and so called Peaceniks aka attention seekers who are selling snake oil to a country governed by an administration which is desperate to implement an insidious agenda.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Dec 2012 16:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6348
Siachen Unmasked



Quote:
Much water has flown under the bridge since 2nd October 2012 when Atlantic Council of Ottawa put out the news bulletin titled “India-Pakistan experts agree on confidence-building measures at Lahore meeting”. The bulletin stated that since November 2011, militaries of both India and Pakistan held several rounds to boost confidence building measures, these meetings having been held in Dubai (20-21 November 2011), Bangkok (23-25 February 2012) and Lahore (23-25 September 2012) and that additionally, working group meetings took place in Chiang Mai (21 April 2012) and Palo Alto (30-31 July 2012).

With respect to Siachen, the bulletin said, “….as a part of the comprehensive resolution of the Siachen dispute, and notwithstanding the claims of each country, both sides should agree to withdraw from the conflict area while retaining the option of punitive action should the other side renege on the commitments”.

Notwithstanding the fact that above means withdrawing from Indian Territory and in effect acquiescing to the absurd Pakistani demand for the LC be to drawn from NJ9842 directly to KK Pass, inclusion of the following paragraphs too are ridiculous to say the least:

What is the logic (read wisdom) of this when Indian posts dominate the crest-line of the Saltoro Range and Pakistanis are sitting much below to the West?
•“Withdrawal from Indian and Pakistani posts within line of sight of each other is to be coordinated so each side can observe the activities of the other”. What is the logic (read wisdom) of this when Indian posts dominate the crest-line of the Saltoro Range and Pakistanis are sitting much below to the West?
• “Both sides should agree not to interfere with the other’s national technical means”. Are we naïve enough to believe that Pakistan would own up if she does indulge in such acts? Has she owned up to 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks beyond recent signals that it was the handiwork of LeT? What about Ajmal Qasab’s statement of having received training from Pakistani Navy? Does Pakistan acknowledge cyber attacks by the Pakistan Hackers Club (PHC) and the G Force under tutelage of the ISI? Has Pakistan owned responsibility for unleashing viruses like ‘Sea Brain’
•“Small-scale intrusions are neither significant nor sustainable”. But what about opening the floodgates for infiltration into Ladakh and unlimited opportunities of establishing staging posts? Has our thinking gone so awry that we can now only think of intrusions of the scale that Pakistan made in Kargil during 1998-1999?
The Atlantic Council of Ottawa bulletin listed out all the names of both sides experts groups (incidentally Pakistan refers it as good as Track 1), chaired by the following:

• General Jehangir Karamat (Pakistan Army, retired) jehangir.karamat@gmail.com
•Air Chief Marshal Shashi Tyagi (Indian Air Force, retired) sptyagi2001@yahoo.com

As the above news bulletin hit the internet, there was plenty discussion in India. While the government remained in the background, a panel consisting of two members of the Track II Team under a former Ambassador made efforts to justify withdrawal from Siachen at India International Centre but received a mouthful from the audience including from a former Army Chief and journalists present. It began to dawn on the public why in the preceding weeks the façade of Siachen having no strategic significance had been so carefully orchestrated in the electronic and print media, particularly obfuscating the strategic importance of the Saltoro Ridge in relation to Gilgit-Baltistan, Northern Areas, Shaksgam and the Wakhan Corridor.

Thereafter, the web vent viral as expected and so did discussions. The good part is that individually the Track II members now admit that Siachen (read Saltoro Range) is indeed of great strategic significance. The Indian Co-Chair also admits privately that the China factor including the cumulative impact of Chinese presence in Aksai Chin, Shaksgam and proposed leasing of Gilgit-Baltistan region to China by Pakistan for 50 years (as reported in both Pakistani and US media) had not been taken into account at all. The bad part is that majority Track II members continue to maintain there was no government missive on Siachen and that they took it ‘upon themselves’ to solve the Siachen ‘tangle’, while few privately admit that there indeed was a missive to work out ‘how’ of the withdrawal without questioning the ‘why’ and ‘when’.

Majority denying any government directive is apparently to continue enjoying such foreign jaunts as coming clean with facts could remove their names from hierarchical good books. This became more obvious when a journo member of the Track II Team with military background made pointed personal attacks on individuals highlighting strategic advantage of Siachen and criticizing withdrawal, saying they were aggrieved for not being part of the Track II and thus denied benefit of foreign trips – as if bending backwards even at the cost of strategic disadvantage to the country is the only way to travel abroad. The bad part also is that while the Co-Chair changed tack from this Track II Team being a “Private Body” to group of “Private Individuals”, another member (army veteran) wrote in Salute magazine, “The uniqueness of the Ottawa dialogue is that this is exclusively military-to-military Track-II process where for once diplomats take a back seat.”
Majority denying any government directive is apparently to continue enjoying such foreign jaunts as coming clean with facts could remove their names from hierarchical good books.
The continuing mystery was that when every Army Chief (including General Bikram Singh) had categorically stated that the Army was not in favour of withdrawal from Siachen (read Saltoro) and a former Army Chief even gave it in writing to the government that post withdrawal, it would not be possible to retake Saltoro Range if re-occupied by enemy, why did this Track II Team (especially the ‘eight’ former Indian Military officers’ including the Co-Chair out of the overall eleven strong Indian experts group) agree to withdrawal, notwithstanding reports that a select two-three members were briefed by the NSA prior to proceeding to Lahore.


Army Post at Siachen
The questions that the Track II Team got bombarded eventually ranged from:

• Why should we withdraw from Indian Territory?
• Are we forsaking all claims to POK including Shaksgam Valley?
• Post withdrawal, will Sub Sector West (SSW) west of Siachen Glacier and Sub Sector North (SSN) east of Siachen Glacier and below KK Pass not become untenable?
•Will defence potential of SSN not be totally degraded with western flank exposed and KK Pass to north?
With the wedge between India and Pakistan (Saltoro Range) abandoned in this sector, how many new Divisions will India need to defend Ladakh, at what cost and what will be the cost of establishing the new defence line;•Will the next line of defence for India perforce not be south of Shyok River?
•Will we abandon Sub Sector Hanif (SSH) also since it’s route of maintenance is along the Shyok River?
•Are we prepared to abandon the population in Nubra and Shyok Valleys?
•Why is the area north of Shyok River (thousands of square kilometers) not viewed in conjunction Gilgi-Baltistan (being leased by Pakistan to China for 50 years), Shaksgam Valley (over 6,000 square kilometers ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963) and the 38,000 square kilometers of Indian territory of Aksai Chin in occupation of China as continued belt and implications this large China-Pakistan meeting ground?
•With our next line of defence on Ladakh Range, will Leh not be within enemy artillery range, as is Kargil town today?
•With the wedge between India and Pakistan (Saltoro Range) abandoned in this sector, how many new Divisions will India need to defend Ladakh, at what cost and what will be the cost of establishing the new defence line; new posts, bunkers, gun positions, helipads, administrative echelons, communications infrastructure with increased quantum of troops, maintenance and recurring expenses.
•What will be the quantum of reserves that India will need including for counter infiltration since Ladakh and Zanskar region will be targeted for terrorism by ISI nurtured groups while Pakistan will say they are ‘out of control’, ISI having been nurturing Shia terrorist outfits since late 1990s?
In 1990’s, Musharraf, much before becoming Army Chief, gave a presentation to Pakistani Defence Ministry that the per capita availability of water in Pakistan from 6000 cusecs of water in 1947 had already come down to 1000 cusecs per capita and this was reason enough for Pakistan to annex J&K. Consequently, Pakistan started claiming the LC from NJ9842 directly to Karakoram Pass so that entire Siachen Glacier becomes Pakistani territory.

Yet, our military heavy Track II Team (8 in overall 11 members) wants India to withdraw from Siachen, which is one of biggest fresh water reserve that India has.
India constitutes 16% of world population but has access to only 4% of the world’s fresh water sources. By 2025, we will be a ‘water starved’ nation if we do not manage water on war footing (of which there are no apparent signs). Yet, our military heavy Track II Team (8 in overall 11 members) wants India to withdraw from Siachen, which is one of biggest fresh water reserve that India has. A major reason why China took over Shaksgam is enormous fresh water sources. Ironically, India gives 80% of waters to Pakistan under the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 – far in excess to global water sharing norms that are dependent on the size of the basin; we should actually give just 50% of what we are giving.


We may not be advanced in stealth technology and Japanese may have developed invisible cars but our archives and files have hidden cuckoo birds since ages. Besides, if Chinese are unsuccessful in capping social media can we? So, it now emerges that during 1992-1993, the Narasimha Rao government, with him also holding the Foreign Minister portfolio, in a moment of weakness gave political signals of possible withdrawal from Siachen. Ignoring military advice has been the bane of India’s blunders, this is not the only misdemeanor / strategic blunder that Narasimha Rao Government did.

keep the Experts Group / Track II Team military heavy so that eventually it gets interpreted as ‘military advice’; keep playing for time with ploys like ceasefire, authentication of ground positions / AGPL and the like; spring the surprise on the nation once the stage is set.
How does one Congress led Government align the public with an arbitrary and strategically disadvantageous decision taken by another Congress led government of the past? It would have been so easy if military advice was sought but that is not the culture in India and the advisory coterie perhaps thought of steps that could pull wool over the eyes of the public: play out Siachen as a wasteland with nil strategic value, costly affair, weather casualties without comparison to Indian Army deployments elsewhere; get a set of gullible military veterans who agree to work out ‘how’ to demilitarize without raising any questions on ‘why’ and ‘when’; keep the Experts Group / Track II Team military heavy so that eventually it gets interpreted as ‘military advice’; keep playing for time with ploys like ceasefire, authentication of ground positions / AGPL and the like; spring the surprise on the nation once the stage is set. If a peace prize comes in the process all the better as that would optimize on capitalizing on the human of the state of mind in which elation has the better of rational judgement.



What actually needs to be done is simple – bend it like Beckham – read imitate your neighbours. Pakistan and even Musharraf are in the forefront championing demilitarization while simultaneously harping on plebiscite in J&K. UN Security Council Resolution of 1948 had asked Pakistan to demilitarize from J&K – remove ‘all’ security forces. Did they? China having got Tibet on a plate has in recent years sprung the surprise of claiming Arunachal Pradesh as “South Tibet”. There numerous other examples besides the million dollar question – on what basis are we rewarding Pakistan at cost of our national interests?

Saying no is so very simple. The circumstances under which whatever political signals were given during 1992-1993 have drastically changed on following major counts: Chinese had not made strategic forays in Pakistan / POK; Pakistani infiltration, terrorist strikes and anti-India terrorist infrastructure was not of that magnitude as it is today; China and Pakistan had not been meddling with insurgents in India’s hinterland (Maoists,n otheast insurgents) as they are doing today.

The government should muster the courage to tell Pakistan (and the US if necessary) that India will not withdraw from Siachen. If considered necessary, Pakistan can be told that we will not roll down the Saltoro Range to attack them, till they behave.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Dec 2012 16:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6348
Demilitarizing Siachen: Trading Strategic Advantage for Brownie Points


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.

Siachen-experienced retired Indian army officers are strongly opposed to demilitarizing Siachen for strategic and tactical reasons.
In 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.

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.
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”.

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
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.

…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.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.

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 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.
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.

References

1. “It’s time to resolve Siachen, says Kayani: Pakistan Army Chief calls for peaceful coexistence with India“; The Hindu; April 19, 2012; <http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article3329118.ece>.

2. Gurmeet Kanwal; “Siachen demilitarisation: A low-risk option to test Pak army’s sincerity”; The Tribune, Chandigarh; June 1, 2012; <http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120601/edit.htm#4>.

3. Gaurav Sawant & Shiv Arur; “Blood politics on Siachen: Siachen demilitarization”; May 4, 2012; <http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/demilitarisation-of-siachen-glacier-indian-army-pakistan/1/187337.htm>.

4. “The Siachen Story: Himalayan Blunder by India’s Government”; India Today Live.com; <http://www.indiatodaylive.com/article/0/4941/The_Siachen_Story%3A_Himalayan_Blunder_by_India%E2%80%99s_Government.html>.

5. Arun Kumar Singh; “Three Steps to SiachenT”; October 9, 2012, New Atlanticist Policy and Analysis Blog; <http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/three-steps-siachen>.

6. E-mail communication between ACM S.P.Tyagi (Retd), formerly India’s air force chief, and Lt Gen P.C.Katoch (Retd); Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:50 PM, shared with e-groups.

7. A.G.Noorani; “Settle the Siachen dispute now“; Edit page, “The Hindu”, June 11, 2012.

8. S.G.Vombatkere, “The Siachen Imbroglio”

# Countercurrents.org; June 11, 2012;

# Mainstream, New Delhi, Vol L No 26, June 16, 2012, p.4-6;

# Indian Defence Review; June 20, 2012;

# Defence Watch, Dehra Dun, Vol XII No 2, October 2012, p.35-39.

9. “Pakistan considering proposal to lease Gilgit-Baltistan to China: US think tank”; The Economic Times; <http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-02-11/news/31050029_1_gilgit-baltistan-chinese-militaries-china-pakistan-strategic-partnership>; February 11, 2012.

10. Gurmeet Kanwal; “Demilitarization of the Siachen Conflict Zone: Challenges and Prospects”; The New Atlanticist Policy and Analysis Blog; April 17, 2012;

<http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/demilitarization-siachen-conflict-zone-challenges-and-prospects>.

11. Atlantic Council website; <http://www.acus.org/about>.

Note 1

The list of Track-II participants at Lahore in September are understood to be (in random order):
India: ACM Shashi Tyagi (Indian Air Force, Retd, Former Air Chief); Rana Banerji (IAS, Retd; Former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat); Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal (Indian Army, Retd); Ambassador Vivek Katju (Indian Foreign Service, Retd); Ambassador Lalit Mansingh (Indian Foreign Service, Retd & Former Foreign Secretary); Lt Gen B.S.Pawar (Indian Army, Retd); Brig Arun Sahgal (Indian Army, Retd); Col Ajai Shukla (Indian Army, Retd & Journalist); VAdm A.K.Singh (Indian Navy, Retd); Lt Gen Aditya Singh (Indian Army, Retd); Lt Gen Arvinder Singh Lamba (Indian Army, Retd).
Pakistan: Gen Jehangir Karamat (Pakistan Army, Retd, Former Army Chief); Lt Gen Sikander Afzal (Pakistan Army, Retd); AVM Shahzad Chaudhry (Pakistan Air Force, Retd); Lt Gen Tariq Ghazi (Pakistan Army, Retd & former Pakistan Defence Secretary); Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi (Pakistan Foreign Service, Retd); Ambassador Aziz Khan (Pakistan Foreign Service, Retd); Admiral Tariq Khan (Pakistan Navy, Retd); Ambassador Riaz Khan (Pakistan Foreign Service, Retd & Former Foreign Secretary); Gen Tariq Majeed (Pakistan Army, Retd); Maj Gen Qasim Qureshi (Pakistan Army, Retd).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Dec 2012 16:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6348
Withdrawal from Siachen – a manifestation of Prithviraj Chauhan syndrome!
Quote:
Siachen is in the news again.Having served at the glacier, one is aware of the ground realities. It is being suggested that ‘demilitarization’ of the glacier will act as a catalyst to foster friendly relations between Indian and Pakistan. To be honest, one has not heard of a more convoluted and outlandish logic.

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

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



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

…it is simply preposterous for Indian strategists to speak in terms of demilitarization and thereby mislead the public
‘Demilitarization of Siachen will assure Pakistan of Indian sincerity in resolving contentious issues and help bring about a reduction in Pakistan’s hostility towards India. Both countries can live peacefully thereafter’ is the commonly touted argument of the Indian advocates of the withdrawal.

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

It is time India learns.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Dec 2012 06:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2918
Even if these Treasonous Basta**S were to admit openly what they are doing everything as per a script/agenda against the larger interests of the country, there would still be self-hating and self-esteem lacking people who would support what they are doing and find excuses to see that the country acts against its strategic interests.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Dec 2012 08:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10
Posts: 3140
PA pulls the strings in Pakistan.

Resolving disputes with India would erode its justification to rule.

Civil society is very weak.

PA has broken many bilateral agreements.

PA has no presence on Siachen.

PA has double crossed the Americans in Afghanistan.

PA has expanded terrorist infrastructure.

PA has increased fissile stockpile.

PA is threatening the economic security of India.

THEREFORE:

Why should INDIA vacate from territory that it solely occupies?

Phuck em.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Dec 2012 08:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2918
Even if the PA had not done all/any of the above, the pertinent question to ask is will any country give up any space which is as strategically/militarily important? If still India wants to or is made to evict, then you know who is screwed!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2012 17:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33
Posts: 645
Avalanche in siachen kills 6 and 1 is missing...!! i am awaiting for candlekissers coming out of the closet...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2012 20:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2918
Pathetic abominations like Muhammed Mian Singh and Mulla Sulaiman Iyer will be leading the pack.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2012 11:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Posts: 4321
Location: Blue dot in a red sea
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? :)


Vivek, was it you that did a post on the tactical/strategic significance of our need for a position on the ridge/glacier itself? Or was it rohitvats? If its either of you, could you please post a link to that one? It was quite a long time back though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2012 21:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17
Posts: 2521
Location: जो हिंदू हित की बात करेगा वही देश पर राज करेगा !!!
Here is the first link of Rohit's posts, its the first post in that series with maps you'll find many more after this one:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2145&start=1400#p1287330


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2622 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 ... 66  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rohitvats, SriniY and 17 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