Siachen News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by SSridhar »

Army should stay put in Siachen: Gen. Bikram Singh
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.
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Sagar G »

organised by the Institute of Regional Studies
Time to time discharge of BS comes from puki/ISI funded institutes only.
RajD
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 29 Mar 2011 16:01

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by RajD »

SSridhar wrote:Army should stay put in Siachen: Gen. Bikram Singh
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.
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
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5414
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Virupaksha »

Manish_P wrote:Another Avalanche

Search after Kashmir avalanche
Neelum Valley is hundreds of kilometres south of kargil through the LoC. How is this related to Siachen?
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5414
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

Expecting the Aman and WKKs types to put use this to put forth a fresh slew of articles on why the withdrawal is necessary...
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by ShauryaT »

Aman ki Asha: Posting here expecting flak and abuse.
Aman ki Asha seminar to discuss Sir Creek, Siachen
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.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Vipul »

RajD
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 29 Mar 2011 16:01

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by RajD »

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
kish
BRFite
Posts: 960
Joined: 07 Jun 2010 23:53

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by kish »

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
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.
Disputed Kashmir has caused two of the three wars between India and Pakistan since their independence from Britain in 1947.
The Gyan starts..
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.
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.
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.
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'.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by vishvak »

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.
vivek_v
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 84
Joined: 03 Apr 2011 08:03

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by vivek_v »

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/travelo ... 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.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Vipul »

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!!!!!
Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3671
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Kashi »

'Siachen: India must offer Pak a dignified solution'

Psy-ops in full swing.

Some excerpts
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?
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
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?
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
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. :((
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.'

Pakistan believes the LoC should continue to join up with the Karakoram Pass, 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.
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
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?
JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by JaiS »

She is available on Twitter here.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by ShauryaT »

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.
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.
member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by member_23370 »

Nothing is going to happen on siachen. IA is firm the only motion will be going forward and taking skardu.
RajD
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 29 Mar 2011 16:01

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by RajD »

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
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

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.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

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.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Vipul »

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.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32282
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by chetak »

Siachen Unmasked


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.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32282
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by chetak »

Demilitarizing Siachen: Trading Strategic Advantage for Brownie Points

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/internatio ... 329118.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/demi ... 187337.htm>.

4. “The Siachen Story: Himalayan Blunder by India’s Government”; India Today Live.com; <http://www.indiatodaylive.com/article/0 ... nment.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.indiatime ... artnership>; 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/dem ... -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).
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32282
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by chetak »

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

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

In the case of Siachen, Pakistan has no presence on the glacier – not even a toehold.
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.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Vipul »

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.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by RoyG »

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.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Vipul »

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!!
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by manjgu »

Avalanche in siachen kills 6 and 1 is missing...!! i am awaiting for candlekissers coming out of the closet...
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Vipul »

Pathetic abominations like Muhammed Mian Singh and Mulla Sulaiman Iyer will be leading the pack.
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Prasad »

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.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Manish_Sharma »

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/viewto ... 0#p1287330
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Prasad »

Manish_Sharma wrote: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/viewto ... 0#p1287330
Thanks! Bookmarked!
Sachin
Webmaster BR
Posts: 8965
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Undisclosed

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Sachin »

manjgu wrote:Avalanche in siachen kills 6 and 1 is missing...!! i am awaiting for candlekissers coming out of the closet...
So a couple of posts in Facebook. Off course it was as a tribute to the brave jawans, but it also had a write up on how Siachen is a waste land and Pakistan and India debating on demilitarisation of the whole area. The tone was as if "poor soldiers are getting killed in a useless area, and by the inaction of India (and Pakistan) these people had to die". Where ever possible I have countered this negative propoganda.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10195
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by sum »

X-post:
sum wrote:Finally, the Ottawa council, which is "helping" TSP and India to make love esp in Siachen and of which Brig.Kanwal is a big fan, writes a Op-ed in Hindu. Look at the Cheeky title:

Non-state actors who bring nations closer
Track Two encourages new thinking and develops cadres of credible people who advocate new ideas for governments to consider

A controversy erupted recently over Track Two discussions regarding the Siachen issue. “Track Two Diplomacy” is a term with which much mythology is associated. Some proponents believe that it can cut through the red tape of conventional diplomacy and resolve intractable problems. Critics argue that it is both a useless waste of time and a sinister plot to induce guileless Indians to sell out national interests — often the critics make these contradictory arguments in the same breath. { For you BRF internet hindus onlee}
Track Two processes have been highly active, with mixed results, from the Oslo process in the Middle East, to the informal talks which helped break the impasse in Northern Ireland, to the first contacts between the African National Congress and the former government of South Africa. A scan of the literature reveals a number of terms including: “Controlled Communication;” “Inter-active Conflict Resolution;” “Circum-negotiation;” “Multi-track Diplomacy;” “Inter-active Problem Solving” and many others. Each has its subtle nuances.

These concepts, and others, tend to share characteristics which define Track Two in practice:

• they emphasise small, informal dialogues, which the literature refers to as “Problem Solving Workshops,” between people from the various sides of a conflict, which are often facilitated by an impartial “Third Party;”

• though the dialogues are unofficial, it is generally expected that the participants will be able to influence the development of thinking in their societies on the conflict;

• the dialogues are not meant to debate the current positions of the sides, but rather are workshops where the participants step back from official positions to explore the underlying causes of the dispute in the hope of jointly developing alternative ideas;

• the dialogues are ongoing processes, rather than “one-off” workshops; and

• while not exactly secret, the dialogues are conducted quietly and the “Chatham House Rule” is applied to create an atmosphere where “outside-the-box” thinking can flourish and participants are not afraid to propose and explore ideas that could not be entertained by an official process or one in which exchanges might be repeated in the press. Such processes, if successful, can lead to a number of results.
Another critical issue is funding. Though the sums involved are small, support for airfares and other meeting costs is required. Traditionally, Track Two has been funded by major foundations and by some governments, such as the Scandinavians and the Americans. This sometimes leads to concerns that undue influence is being exerted. At the end of the day, the integrity of the Third Party depends on not accepting support if the funder demands conditions, and on being scrupulously open and honest about who is funding the exercise. It must be made clear to the funders by the Third Party that support will only be accepted if the process will be organised in ways which meet with the approval of the regional participants. Third Parties who act as agents of others quickly gain a reputation for untrustworthiness and are unable to continue. This is sometimes one of the most difficult things for critics of Track Two to grasp, but the process cannot work any other way.
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by Shrinivasan »

This whole track two diplomacy stinks all the way to Shitisthan... Khaaa Thooo.
member_23629
BRFite
Posts: 676
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by member_23629 »

The Scandanavian countries are Christian fundamentalists in their foreign policy, and are taking too much interest in India and its neighbourhood for comfort. They are poodles of the US and generally act as its proxy. They are doing a lot of mischief against us, especially Denmark, Norway and Netherlands.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by vishvak »

These Scandinavian countries don't talk about terrorism, drug trade or even giving up a single item of interest from porkie side. But latch onto strategic interests such as Siachen like locusts and leeches. Have these countries warned even once about covert porkie support to cross border infiltration since 1947?

What kind of morons are those people who keep on prodding one side to give away concessions in bits while remaining completely silent on those who blackmail with terrorism. These individuals have no standards.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32282
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by chetak »

varunkumar wrote:The Scandanavian countries are Christian fundamentalists in their foreign policy, and are taking too much interest in India and its neighbourhood for comfort. They are poodles of the US and generally act as its proxy. They are doing a lot of mischief against us, especially Denmark, Norway and Netherlands.
Not to forget their rabid support for the LTTE and their two faced engagement with the srilankan government much to the detriment of the whole security scenario of the region.

They are currently meddling in the Kudankulam mess too.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Maybe I am being naive here, bu why do these itsy bitsy "scandinavian" countries even matter?

What clout are they carrying behind the scenes that allows them to meddle in "south asia" at all?

Surely they have little to no historical background here compared to the other big players?
member_23629
BRFite
Posts: 676
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Post by member_23629 »

^^^ The Scandanavian countries are pumping in money to NGOs in India (which then promote their agenda), they are organising protests in India against the Indian government, they are sending missionaries by plane loads to Indian tribal areas (most of these White missionaries have planted themselves in inaccessible Maoist areas such as the Andhra-Orissa border), they are appointing themselves as mediators in conflict resolution in the region (LTTE), and they are carrying propaganda against India in the UN through information that their NGO officials collect inside India).

What more do we need in terms of mischief? Physical size of countries has no bearing on their mischief-making capacity.

India to curb visas for Scandinavians

Posted on 02 August 2012

Reports indicate that India will soon limit the number of visas awarded to Scandinavians unless those countries treat Indians the same as Western passport holders.

Indian newspaper The Telegraph reported this week that the move comes as Indian immigration authorities are becoming frustrated with how Indian citizens are being treated different to Westerners by immigration officials Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

The Telegraph cites high-up sources in the South Asian nation, claiming that, “One immediate provocation has been Denmark’s continued refusal to step up efforts to extradite Purulia arms-drop accused Kim Davy, the sources said. But the larger issue is the failure of the Scandinavians and some other EU countries to treat Indian requests “on a par” with those from developed nations.”

The report adds that, “The visa curbs, yet to be announced officially, have come into effect at the Indian embassies in Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm. Officials have been asked to refuse or delay visa applications from tourists, business people, NGO workers and officials —that is, nearly everybody who wants to visit India.”

The paper also said that India may soon ask Scandinavians working with NGOs that are deemed to be against national interests to leave the country.

The report comes amid rising tensions between Denmark and India. Earlier in the year, Danish officials refused to allow the children of an Indian couple residing in Denmark to leave foster care and return to their home country.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120722/jsp/nation/story_15757809.jsp#.UOkZ03eAEa8[/googlevideo]]Scan on foreign NGOs over rights dataNISHIT DHOLABHAI

New Delhi, July 21: India is watching three Dutch and Danish non-government organisations that have allegedly “cultivated” voluntary organisations in the Northeast to gather data for anti-India reports to be presented to the United Nations.

Officials of these foreign agencies may face visa restrictions too.

Reports prepared by voluntary organisations on human rights violations by the security forces in India’s northeastern states, particularly Manipur, have become “base material” for reports to the UN that are damaging to India, sources said.

The Danish Institute of Human Rights (DIHR) and Dutch Catholic Organisation for Relief and Development (Cordaid) are the two major organisations put under watch.

The Danish International Development Agency (Danida) has been on the Union home ministry’s watch-list since December 29 last year. Danida is known to be the primary donor to the DIHR.

New Delhi’s prime concern is the UN General Assembly, where reports from Special Rapporteurs may show the Indian government in a poor light over its human rights record.

Special Rapporteurs are people working on behalf of the UN with a mandate to “examine, monitor, advise and publicly report” on human rights problems.

“Reports presented by these activists were used as base material for reports of the UN Special Rapporteurs on Extra-Judicial Executions (EJE) and Human Rights Defenders (HRD) to the OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) and would be the basis for reports to the UN General Assembly in March 2013,” says a government document accessed by The Telegraph.

Senior officials of Cordaid — Ben Hayes, Rick van der Woud and Stephanie Joubert — may find it difficult to get a visa to India again. These officials have not only regularly visited India but are also known to have accompanied Indian activists to New York and Bangkok, sources said.

India’s move is part of a larger policy of visa curbs on the three Scandinavian countries — Denmark, Norway and Sweden — besides nations seen to be fomenting trouble here.

Denmark recently rejected India’s request for the extradition of Purulia arms-drop accused Kim Peter Davy citing poor jail conditions in India. Nor do Danish NGOs mince words in describing the Indian state.

The DIHR is understood to be funding NGOs not registered under the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act, through some registered groups. Some five agencies in the Northeast are said to receive funds from European NGOs.

Babloo Loitongbam of Human Rights Alert in Manipur felt that more restrictions on foreign donors would severely affect the cash-strapped regional NGOs and hit humanitarian efforts in the Northeast. “There is little help from Indian donors,” he said.
Last edited by member_23629 on 06 Jan 2013 12:02, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply