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.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 13 Jun 2012 06:28

ShauryaT: What did you mean by the following statement? Can you elaborate?

Who stopped Harbaksh Singh?

Come on now. Then why was Lt. Gen Harbaksh Singh stopped from taking on Lahore? It was a reflection of his intent based on his judgment of realities and desired outcomes

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23489
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 13 Jun 2012 06:40

Up to a point the discussion on Lt. Gen. Harbaksh Singh is OK. But, it does not add value to this thread any more.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5222
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 13 Jun 2012 10:18

SSridhar wrote:ShauryaT, I do not know with what new lenses, other than those of Islamism and the perfidious Pakistani behaviour, we can look at that wretched country. If anything, only these two behaviours are becoming increasingly prominent in that country. I do not have to repeatedly say, because everyone knows that too, that Pakistan is by no stretch of imagination even a third-rate nation state. We can shape the opinions of only decent nation-states through diplomacy, dialogues, reasonableness, give-and-take and generosity. I do agree that there is no clean satisfactory solution to Pakistan but that does not mean we walk into a minefield with our eyes wide open and with full knowledge of what is in store without trying less dangerous options for a prolonged period to satisfy ourselves that a change is 'uninterruptibly and uninterruptedly' in place there (to borrow from Mani Shankar Ayyar). Siachen cannot be the first step in testing waters with Pakistan. Why this rush ?


SSridhar: I recognize that you are an expert observer of matters TSP. Also, not expecting you or anyone to change your views overnight but will share my perspective.

On Islamism, it is a long term battle, a battle in which we have to strengthen ourselves first, in all aspects of power and ideology. I have always said the solution to the issues of Islamism in the subcontinent goes through the Hindu heart. Without this strengthening, it would be premature to take on the Islamist battle head on. In context, it will be best to recognize the right of TSP to exist as an Islamic state but in practice do everything to promote that goes against the ideology of the Sunni theologians. Only engagement with their society and polity allows for it.

Every time Pakistanis open their mouths, the food they eat, the dresses they wear, the social systems they live in, the political systems they live in, what they do for entertainment, how they celebrate festivals, marriages, the music they dance to, their attitudes on family and relationships, behaviors, everywhere - they were and are far more closer to the Indian cultural milieu than Arabic or even Persian – at least the bulk of Punjabis and Sindhis and certainly Mohajirs, these aspects need to be strengthened.

TSP has been desperately trying to move the populace towards an Arabic cultural milieu since 1947 under the ideological guidance of luminaries starting from Sirhindi, Shah Wali-ullah, Abd al-Wahhab, Sayyid Ahmad Khan and of Iqbal and Jinnah along with the ideas of the Tablighi Jamaat. These ideas of Islamism have to be defeated. Their success is a threat to Indian interests. Cannot do this watching from the side, and no risk taking ability. When it is more profitable and secure enough to be a liberal, Islam can be paid lip service to, bringing them closer to the conditions of Muslims in India and this is achievable only through an engagement.

It was because we lacked enough ideological strength that we have lost in a strategic sense to the Islamism agenda in the subcontinent. It is no surprise that a weak leadership, who lacked core convictions allowed the partition first, then the crippling decisions of 1948 and then the compromise on national security by allowing TSP to acquire a nuclear arsenal, and India knew of ongoing TSP efforts, at least since 1979. I consider the above three events as crippling acts to the power of the Indian state with lasting damage, in order of precedence as listed above.

The continuing failures of our polity to not be able to maximize Indian potential and strengthen our civilization roots has led to a further compromise. The prime compromise for this generation being the non-fulfillment of the 1992 resolution on Kashmir and tolerating an unconventional war, without severe costs on the enemy. The above leads us to adopt a conciliatory posture.

My response to ramana, essentially underscored the point that in order to have meaningful dialogue, Pakistan’s military will have to be marginalized. If not through War then through peace. Both involve risks.

A failed Pakistan is not in Indian interests, IMO, and have not seen much meaningful arguments on how it can be and indeed what does failure mean? So, unless this aspect is articulated by someone, I will not know, how it can possibly serve Indian interests.

On the question why the “rush”? The question is not one of rush but one of being meaningful and doable. If we recognize that PA military concerns are something worth addressing and can work in our larger interests, then the question becomes, what type of military CBM can be worked upon, which is the least risky for India. From PA’s perspective, what is it that becomes a meaningful CBM, which will address their central concern in a meaningful manner. It cannot be Neti-Neti.

I am with Brig Gurmeet Kanwal (retd) on the matter of Siachen. Will not repeat all that has been said on the matter already. The big question for me is, what are we asking for in return. I have a huge laundry list of demands that am not seeing anyone talk about. Hope the defense secretaries did better.

I think it will be helpful, if you can put another military CBM on the table as an alternative to Siachen. I have walked through the length of the LoC, could not find one. There are some other military CBM’s that both should work on but they are not areas of disputes. Another view I have received is go aggressive on the civilian side but do nothing to accommodate the military, but then this is what we did at Lahore. One way or the other we need to be able to start influencing events within the TSP between these groups but the PA holds key cards and hence need to be addressed.

Put yourself in the PA’s shoes, if you are convinced that India is not going to negotiate anything and given the geo-political realities of today or 10 years from today, what are your options? What will you do? They still have viable options to survive and give us more shocks and further detoriate our interests and ambitions, jeopardizing our security and economic interests. If India does not address their concerns, then we better be sure that they have no other option but to negotiate and climb down. I fear they continue to have options, not those that serve them best but nevertheless options.

Co-option is the other lens from which, we can look at Pakistan.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23489
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 13 Jun 2012 10:26

ShauryaT wrote:However begs some questions, is a bloody nose enough? I would think not and if so, a comprehensive defeat (means their military capacity and sovereignty has to be controlled by us) demands, first the will to fight and defeat the enemy and then deal with its aftermath. I do not think, there is any political dispensation ready to prepare at that scale and deal with all its risks. There is no intent to do so and hence our capacities reflect that intent. If there was any possibility for the case, ABV would not have gone to Pakistan and the UPA would not keep spending levels on defense so low for so many years.

ShauryaT, a 'comprehensive defeat' of the enemy (whatever that may mean or howsoever that may be defined) on the scale of what happened in 1971 on the eastern front is not within the realm of possibility immediately. India is not focussed on such an eventuality either, now at least. Pakistan is now a nuclear power with a very low threshold, even if it bluffs on its threshold triggers. However, we have to deal with the aftermath of Pakistan's ill-conceived decisions both in its domestic and external fronts because both of them affect us and us only. I hold the view that the cost to India from a teetering Pakistan is much more than that of a failed Pakistan.

On ABV's good intent trip to Lahore, the PA thought that it was our continuing perfidy of meaningless political platitudes to shove real issues under the table (just stating what they thought). The three service chiefs refused to accord a proper salute to Vajpayee at the border, as protocol demanded. It was quite clear that the PA did not endorse the Lahore process. It was an expensive mistake by us to presume that dealing with Pakistan political authority is enough and addressing its military concerns can be done through political intent and signals. What the PA is looking for is military CBM's for it is our military, that in their view threatens their state.

There is evidence that PM Nawaz Sharif was briefed ahead of ABV's trip about Kargil operation and Nawaz is not blameless as he piously claims. All Pakistanis are together in 'Project India', in my humble opinion. The articulation that the PA feels threatened and therefore needs military-level CBMs to calm them down is hollow, again IMHO. All the wars, skirmishes, nuclear threats and terrorism have come from that 'threatened' PA against a much larger India. Nowadays, the PA no longer talks of 'Indian threats'. It speaks of 'Indian capabilities' that need to be addressed effectively. There is no end to this drama. Ayesha Jalal calls Pakistan "Paranoidistan' caught in a mindset ‘heavily influenced by fear of India’ and consequently ‘conspiracy theories’. However, these conspiracy theories have been used to justify atrocities within their own country. It is no paranoia. Pakistan creates a facade of paranoia in order to conduct its nefarious design on India, which is the only immutable idea of Pakistan.

There is one measure of the capability of a nation, the Composite Index of National Capability (CINC). The overall CIN Capability has been consistently at a 4:1 ratio in favour of India at a minimum and even reaching a 7:1 ratio at times and yet India was unable to translate such a superiority into a tangible resolution of its conflict. The status quo power, India, has generally tended to allow the revisionist power Pakistan to set the agenda for the conflict and has been satisfied with being merely reactive, thus defying the generally accepted principles of conflict resolution. Pakistan has always mistaken such an Indian attitude as cowardly and has launched misadventures that generally brought it only misery. But, the people of Pakistan have wholeheartedly accepted the 'misery' as a necessary condition to defeat the kafir eventually.

On their Perfidies, for how long does a mouse think it can beat an elephant and play its games? They miscalculated Indian reaction to Kargil spectacularly. Have no hope in hell to get the valley. Lost competing strategically with India in 1971. Recognized that India can withstand the proxy war. They have been dumped by their foreign masters - three times by now. Their own Islamic agenda is firing back at them big time. At some point of time, the mouse has to look itself in the mirror and see the result of trying to compete and oppose an Elephant. This mirror is shining bright and many are beginning to see the futility of it all.

The mouse continues to think either it is bigger than the elephant next door or it is clever enough to gnaw its way to the elephant's brain through its ear and destroy it or it is capable of both. Its responses are conditioned by history that shows that whenever it was in the dumps, somehow something happened and it was able to recover, barely though, and fight India another day. Such hardened understanding of history will only be helped if we engage with them on Siachen on the lines you and a few others have suggested.

Also on Kargil, what I would have liked is for India to put the heads of the Gang of 4 on the table as a negotiating item that these 4 men at the very least have to be forsaken and cursed forever, if we do not have the heft yet, to ask for their prosecution.
But, we gave recognition to Musharraf when he was shunned by the whole wide world by inviting him to Agra. We engaged the COAS of the PA if that was not a CBM directed at the PA. And, what was the result ?

Anyway, we will limit ourselves here to the Pakistani behaviour that may have a bearing on the proposed Siachen action rather than discuss other issues irrelevant to this thread.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1917
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 13 Jun 2012 11:21

ShauryaT every single argument of yours is from the point of view of a loser wanting to leave a legacy before one becomes irrelevant.

You have embraced GoI-demonstrated weakness as a given.

On the question why the “rush”? The question is not one of rush but one of being meaningful and doable. If we recognize that PA military concerns are something worth addressing and can work in our larger interests, then the question becomes, what type of military CBM can be worked upon, which is the least risky for India. From PA’s perspective, what is it that becomes a meaningful CBM, which will address their central concern in a meaningful manner. It cannot be Neti-Neti.

^^^ Is this epicentre of your argument? That's it? And you hold your arguments in a vaunted position compared to those wanting to slap TSPA left and right for Kargil and Mumbai? I quoted the whole paragraph just to give the logorrhoea the chance to shine.

The USA made the Soviet Union spend itself into oblivion, ending the Cold War, and everything is fine today. No nukes exploded left right and centre. The very same approach will work for India as well.

I reject your points of view from the very foundation. In fact, we are at the precipice of an opportunity to capitalise, with TSPA being weaker than it has ever been since the nuclear tests. Sacking V. K. Singh at this critical juncture is testimony to the true intent of this GoI.

member_20296
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby member_20296 » 13 Jun 2012 12:00

There is absolutely no need to talk Siachen. Need not waste a dime on it.

I seriously doubt GOI acceptance to talk on Siachen, issue to be discussed is Paki troupe withdrawal from POK that solves Siachen.

I have seen Pakis succeeding in talking issues that they want and have seen GOI failing to correct the topic of talks.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1917
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 13 Jun 2012 12:26

  • A broken Pakistan will have no strategic depth for any nuclear weapons that it might retain.
  • A broken Pakistan will want Indian economic CBMs. Actually, they will need the economic CBMs. Holding business hostage to military or political appeasement will no longer be a luxury they can afford.
  • TSPA will not succeed in suppressing the needs of the masses then. It would be akin to Marie Antoinette asking the hungry to eat cake for the lack of bread. We know how that ended up. They are due an internal revolution. I'm willing to wait for that.
  • A broken Pakistan will benefit Indian industry. They won't have a viable industry of their own save for basmati rice and cotton bedsheets and towels.
  • They won't have the funds to buy American. China will be unwilling to bankroll a number of disparate, broken entities. They might not even have the funds to buy Chinese. In every economic aspect, India can play Santa Claus to a collapsed TSP whilst benefiting Indian industry.

As for the peace chattering class, one can take a camel to water but one can't make it drink. If you choose not to see the benefits of a broken TSP, perhaps due to some malady, at least don't inflict the malady upon the rest.

Samapt.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10691
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 13 Jun 2012 13:09

A broken Pakistan will above all else will loose its nuisance value for the 3.5 friends with respect to India, especially if we have strong well fenced and well protected border with shoot at sight orders and each province will have to behave like a normal civilised country with its neighbours

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23489
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 13 Jun 2012 14:57

Siachen Dispute - DAWN Editorial
The fact that the Indian Army has blocked a return to the pre-Siachen conflict status of that uninhabitable region is by now recognised by one and all. The first step towards ending the senseless conflict — although a ceasefire for much of the last decade has meant at least the direct fighting has ended — must therefore be taken by the Indian side.

Even before India assumes a pre-1984 position in Siachen, Pakistan has to assume a pre October 26, 1947 position in the entire Kashmir, hand over the entire state (including what it calls GB as well as Shaksgam which it handed over to China) to India, and allow India to establish peace first. Once that happens, the Siachen issue would be naturally superfluous.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh may have been weakened by scandals at home but it is known that he cherishes the idea of normalising relations with Pakistan. There is still a narrow window of opportunity for Mr Singh to visit Pakistan later this year and perhaps solidify the gains in the Pak-India relationship that 2012 has offered
He is Pakistan's hope especially if he has a one-on-one meeting with Gilani. It must be ensured somehow that Shri Man Mohan Singh never gets to meet Gilani without other Indian delegation members being present.
The blood and treasure lost over Siachen hurts India and Pakistan and neither side has anything more to gain than bragging rights, satisfying military egos to take uncalled-for risks. India should lead the way.
Oh yes, India must be generous, India must lead the way, India is the big brother yada, yada. India has lead the way in many other things. What has Pakistan learnt or how it has reciprocated ? Why not Pakistan lead the way for a change now ?

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13271
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Lalmohan » 13 Jun 2012 16:16

much is ascribed to MMS, however i have never seen any direct quotes from him on bhai-chara concessions, so i wonder how much of this is actually true and how much is pak-propaganda to try to split indian opinion?

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby pragnya » 13 Jun 2012 18:53

media keeps harping that IA has 'hardened' its stand wrt siachen. has it??

it remains the same - AGPL being delineated, authenticated and demarcated both on maps and on the ground. ok, it may not be as flexible as may be in 1992 but what one expects post KARGILL?? it is squarely in pakistan's court to show some sincerity and honour the bilateral agreements which will go a long way in building the 'trust' - sorely being missed - which btw was the reason GOI went back in 1992 (if The Hindu article is true)!!! how true it turned out.

OTOH i feel Pakistan Army post Gyari - is simply in 'no position' to resupply their frontlines besides the bigger problem of 'cost' and 'time' required to rebuild the base - to be in any position to thwart an 'imagined' indian threat to role up the defenceless PA and mop the area clean!! hence this PA 'sweet talk' to ward of 'any' such plan being devised by the IA.

actually this is a masterstroke by the PA and it is working which is not a surprise.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9902
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby sum » 13 Jun 2012 19:37

it remains the same - AGPL being delineated, authenticated and demarcated both on maps and on the ground. ok, it may not be as flexible as may be in 1992 but what one expects post KARGILL?? it is squarely in pakistan's court to show some sincerity and honour the bilateral agreements which will go a long way in building the 'trust' - sorely being missed - which btw was the reason GOI went back in 1992 (if The Hindu article is true)!!! how true it turned out.

Exactly the same point i always wonder about. Why does it always seem that India has to show generosity and show "sincierity" while TSP can keep hitting us again and again and then sit back and wait for India to show trust again.

M.J.Akbar mentions the same in Tinderbox where he says that Zia masterfully utilised all his charm and "people-to-people", cricket diplomacy etc drama while planning for various ways to cut India to size

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1917
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 13 Jun 2012 19:43

Lalmohan wrote:much is ascribed to MMS, however i have never seen any direct quotes from him on bhai-chara concessions, so i wonder how much of this is actually true and how much is pak-propaganda to try to split indian opinion?

Lalmohan ji, with sincerity let me put it to you like this. We have never seen any direct quotes from MMS on most things.

If we have a PM, it is because we see him in photos with other living people, therefore he must be alive.

How I wish we had a PM who was a better communicator and one that actually used Doordarshan and AIR once in a while to let us know his stand on the issues that matter.

For the lack of signal, all we have is a cacophony of noise from NDTV, CNN-IBN, and the famous Barkha Dutt. She is an institution in treachery in herself.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5222
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 13 Jun 2012 20:02

SSridhar wrote:But, we gave recognition to Musharraf when he was shunned by the whole wide world by inviting him to Agra. We engaged the COAS of the PA if that was not a CBM directed at the PA. And, what was the result ?
The CFA of Nov 2003. How this came about is testimony to the fact on how this feeling of deep mistrust (not unjustified) stopped us from realizing the gains of such a CFA. The IA was opposed to signing such a CFA, citing the reason that if signed and if PA violates in a local area, IA will be duty bound to still honor it and be reduced to sending dossiers. Pakistan unilaterally declared the CFA and India followed a few days later and agreed to adhere to it. The CFA to date is not signed but has been largely upheld. The results are there for all to see. Terrorism related deaths in J&K are down to below 200, I think last year from 4 digit figures in 2002. Infiltrations are way down. No matter how imperfect or what we think the real motivations were and how did these come about, the fact of the matter is the CFA has served Indian interests. It would be these type of half way measures that would be the only way forward with TSP.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23489
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 13 Jun 2012 20:03

PratikDas wrote: We have never seen any direct quotes from MMS on most things.

PratikDas, we have seen him do the unthinkable at Sharm-el-Sheikh when he met Gilani. We transpose such a behaviour to other situations and start worrying, especially when he meets his Pakistani counterpart one-on-one. That is the worry.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23489
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 13 Jun 2012 20:07

ShauryaT wrote:
SSridhar wrote: And, what was the result ?
The CFA of Nov 2003.

What can I say if you want to miss out other things. The Cease Fire came out for entirely different reasons.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1917
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 13 Jun 2012 20:10

SSridhar wrote:
PratikDas wrote: We have never seen any direct quotes from MMS on most things.

PratikDas, we have seen him do the unthinkable at Sharm-el-Sheikh when he met Gilani. We transpose such a behaviour to other situations and start worrying, especially when he meets his Pakistani counterpart one-on-one. That is the worry.

You've hit the nail on the head.

There is still time for the one-on-one meeting and the possible capitulation. We haven't seen the last of this Confidence Eroding Measure.
Last edited by PratikDas on 13 Jun 2012 20:26, edited 1 time in total.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5222
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 13 Jun 2012 20:15

SSridhar wrote:What can I say if you want to miss out other things. The Cease Fire came out for entirely different reasons.
I recognize the multitude of reasons and do not mean to say, it was a result of Agra only, but it is something which is a result of dealing with the PA is the key point.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Sanku » 13 Jun 2012 20:17

On Manmohan and his statement: also Havana, and the Thimpu spirit.

Some more here
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani has said that he reciprocated the sentiments for peace expressed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his address to the Lok Sabha on Wednesday.

Mr. Gilani said:

“At Sharm-el-Sheikh, we had useful talks and a good meeting of minds. We had agreed that terrorism was a common threat. We also agreed that dialogue is the only way forward.

“The Indian Prime Minister has rightly emphasised the importance of honourable settlement of the outstanding issues between India and Pakistan.

“I commend Dr. Manmohan Singh for his bold vision of peace and prosperity in South Asia and the statesmanship that he has demonstrated.”


and here

http://www.indiaworldfoundation.org/New ... x?NewsID=2

He also defended the government's move on resuming talks with Pakistan, saying, "There is no other way of moving forward unless you want war." Clarifying government's stand on the Indo-Pak joint statement, the Prime Minister said it does not say talks with Pakistan despite terror attacks. He maintained that it is impossible to go forward with talks till Pakistan stops terror.


Some more peace, harmony and other such wonderful ideas by Manmohan.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 622010.ece

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3728
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Vipul » 13 Jun 2012 20:54

ShauryaT wrote:The CFA of Nov 2003. How this came about is testimony to the fact on how this feeling of deep mistrust (not unjustified) stopped us from realizing the gains of such a CFA.


You have one example to show the intent of PA. Of course it is honoured in the much vaunted Paki style.

ShauryaT wrote: The IA was opposed to signing such a CFA, citing the reason that if signed and if PA violates in a local area, IA will be duty bound to still honor it and be reduced to sending dossiers.

The IA knows the Shitistani's and rightfully had its reservations.

ShauryaT wrote:The CFA to date is not signed but has been largely upheld. The results are there for all to see.

Unless anybody is brain-dead or has an agenda to wilfully propogate lies and push for a viewpoint which is more favourable to the other side, i see the result with 12 vilolations just this year.
Comprehension problems anybody?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7619
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 13 Jun 2012 21:50

Gentlemen, my apologies for being extremely stupid and short-sighted in my earlier appreciation of Pakistan claim line in Siachen and implications thereof. It just hit me as I was reading on the boundary issue between India and China in Northern/Ladakh Sector.

Before we proceed, the portion of China-Pakistan Boundary Agreement of 1963 which deals with area of interest to us is as follows:

Thence, the boundary line, running generally southward and then eastward, strictly follows the Karakoram Range main watershed which separates the Tarim River drainage system from the Indus River drainage system, passing through the East Mustagh Pass (Muztagh Pass), the top of the Chogri Peak (K2), the top of the Broad Peak, the top of the Gasherbrum Mountain (8068) Indirakoli Pass (named on the Chinese map only) and the top of the Teram Kangri Peak, and reaches its southeastern extremity at the Karakoram Pass.


Please read the bold party carefully. Now, have a look at the map of POK-Siachen-Aksai Chin below:

Image

The line marked as "no defined boundary" going straight in north-easterly direction corresponds to Pakistan claim line from NJ9842 to KK Pass. BTW, this map in Wikipedia is from Texan University Library and was prepared by one of the US Government department.

From the text quoted above and the map, two things stand out:

(a) Pakistan had demarcated its boundary in 1963 up to a point in East along Karakorum Range that it did not control - but it claimed as belonging to Pakistan. Please remember, that by this time the ADIZ Maps of US Defense Mapping Agency had started showing the exact same claim line as border and area covering Siachen and up to KK Pass as belonging to Pakistan. The actual boundary controlled by Pakistan in 1963 was well west of the Saltoro Ridge, forget being anywhere near Karakoram Pass.

(b) There is no mention of the the boundary of KASHMIR east of Karakoram Pass covering the Aksai Chin Area in the agreement.The 1962 Sino-Indian war had already taken place and PLA had established the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Now, the LAC runs a bit short of the actual Chinese claim line.

By not mentioning anything about Aksai-Chin, Pakistan accepted the Chinese claim to the Aksai-Chin; this much abused part of Indian geography was sacrificed by the British for their expediency - it was again sacrificed by the Pakistan in 1963 for its interests.

By agreeing to any agreement which throws open the question about the ownership of Siachen and gives Pakistan foot in the door, we run the risk of making Pakistan a party to any settlement between Indian and China on LAC in the Ladakh Sector. And this can unleash its own set of dynamics inimical to Indian interests. For example - if we accept the "disputed" nature of the Siachen and Pakistan claim line till Karakoram Pass, tomorrow in any settlement with China, China may well ask for opinion on Pakistan on the subject.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1917
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 13 Jun 2012 22:44

rohitvats wrote:By agreeing to any agreement which throws open the question about the ownership of Siachen and gives Pakistan foot in the door, we run the risk of making Pakistan a party to any settlement between Indian and China on LAC in the Ladakh Sector. And this can unleash its own set of dynamics inimical to Indian interests. For example - if we accept the "disputed" nature of the Siachen and Pakistan claim line till Karakoram Pass, tomorrow in any settlement with China, China may well ask for opinion on Pakistan on the subject.

A situation wherein Pakistan provides a proxy vote for China while China chairs the meeting with its UNSC credentials.

Great observation, Rohit ji. You might just have let the cat out of the bag.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21030
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Prem » 14 Jun 2012 03:47

Siachen dispute
http://dawn.com/2012/06/13/siachen-dispute/

TO no one’s surprise, the talks between the Pakistani and Indian secretaries of defence on the Siachen dispute have concluded without any forward movement. The boilerplate joint statement promising to “make serious, sustained and result-oriented efforts for seeking an amicable resolution of Siachen” offers little consolation because those are precisely the kind of efforts that are missing from the equation. Since the tragedy in Gayari in April, the madness of the Siachen conflict has been fully exposed — yet again. But so has the stubbornness on both sides. The fact that the Indian Army has blocked a return to the pre-Siachen conflict status of that uninhabitable region is by now recognised by one and all. The first step towards ending the senseless conflict — although a ceasefire for much of the last decade has meant at least the direct fighting has ended — must therefore be taken by the Indian side. However, as Ahmed Mukhtar hinted after he left the defence portfolio, the overall fault lies on both sides. There is so much mistrust between the old military adversaries — exemplified by the recklessness that was Kargil in 1999 — that to convince one side that the other will abide by a written agreement and will not try to take advantage of a withdrawal is
simply too difficult.There is still a narrow window of opportunity for Mr Singh to visit Pakistan later this year and perhaps solidify the gains in the Pak-India relationship that 2012 has offered. While it is difficult for a political leadership to overcome its army high command in even the most democratic dispensations of the world — the Obama administration’s struggles with its military on the way forward in Afghanistan being one example; the Siachen veto wielded by the Indian Army being another — ultimately statesmanship is about grasping the nettle. The blood and treasure lost over Siachen hurts India and Pakistan and neither side has anything more to gain than bragging rights, satisfying military egos to take uncalled-for risks. India should lead the way.Over here in Pakistan, the focus on Siachen should not detract from other areas where potential gains are being frittered away.A markedly improved visa regime between the two countries had only to be signed by the Pakistani side last month but somehow that didn’t happen. Similarly, movement on trade is being gummed up with new objections and concerns. Pakistani policymakers need to get their act together soon.

ManuT
BRFite
Posts: 597
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby ManuT » 14 Jun 2012 08:55

ShauryaT ji

A failed Pakistan is not in Indian interests

This is where, I would say, you differ, and that is the source of the rest of it, I guess.

A lot of folks on this forum, (including me) think otherwise.
There are other shades in that opinion but the bogey that a failed Pakistan will pose a bigger threat than the Terroist State of Pakistan is incorrect.

India already faces whatever threat a failed Pakistan has to offer, whether you realise it or not.

(In fact, TSP does not seems to be bothered about what exact kind of threat a failed India will offer to TSP. In fact, that is taken as a right.)

...These ideas of Islamism have to be defeated

On the contrary, these ideas have WON in TSP, again, you can choose to ignore it.

Even in 'tribes' where NOWHERE they have it in their Indian side an oral or written tradition which matches to it, have started saying that their ancestors came from CAR, you might have seen some evidence of that in the TSP dhaga.

Nobody in TSP has reached a point to say that Pakistan was a false premise of a false prophet. Things have not reached that point to say that "To divide the sub-continent on the basis of religion was wrong. Doesn't matter who did it."

In the physical space of what constitutes TSP today, what kind of Pakistan can co-exist with the ethos of Indian subcontinent? Whatever it is, it is certainly not an Islamic republic. If it takes it to be republics for that to happen, so be it, and that should be direction for India, of making it an "un-islamic" ;) republic.

On your other views, yes, it is correct that India lost the plot after 1971. Hardly any gain remains today of that war. Kargil and 26/11 are evidence of that.

The only hope we really have is to get along with each other, but timing is everything. Sometimes the best outcome of talks is failure. It is not time yet, IMO.
Last edited by ManuT on 14 Jun 2012 18:32, edited 1 time in total.

Dilbu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6304
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:53
Location: Deep in the badlands of BRFATA

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Dilbu » 14 Jun 2012 17:49

Jhujar wrote:Siachen dispute
http://dawn.com/2012/06/13/siachen-dispute/
There is still a narrow window of opportunity for Mr Singh to visit Pakistan later this year and perhaps solidify the gains in the Pak-India relationship that 2012 has offered. While it is difficult for a political leadership to overcome its army high command in even the most democratic dispensations of the world — the Obama administration’s struggles with its military on the way forward in Afghanistan being one example; the Siachen veto wielded by the Indian Army being another — ultimately statesmanship is about grasping the nettle. The blood and treasure lost over Siachen hurts India and Pakistan and neither side has anything more to gain than bragging rights, satisfying military egos to take uncalled-for risks. India should lead the way.

Pakis know fumbling MMS is their best bet to get some concession out of India. Misphortunately even MMS, whose days seems to be numbered, cannot help them when it comes to Siachen. IA will and should have the final say in this matter.


Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10691
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 14 Jun 2012 19:23

ShauryaT wrote:
SSridhar wrote:But, we gave recognition to Musharraf when he was shunned by the whole wide world by inviting him to Agra. We engaged the COAS of the PA if that was not a CBM directed at the PA. And, what was the result ?
The CFA of Nov 2003. How this came about is testimony to the fact on how this feeling of deep mistrust (not unjustified) stopped us from realizing the gains of such a CFA. The IA was opposed to signing such a CFA, citing the reason that if signed and if PA violates in a local area, IA will be duty bound to still honor it and be reduced to sending dossiers. Pakistan unilaterally declared the CFA and India followed a few days later and agreed to adhere to it. The CFA to date is not signed but has been largely upheld. The results are there for all to see. Terrorism related deaths in J&K are down to below 200, I think last year from 4 digit figures in 2002. Infiltrations are way down. No matter how imperfect or what we think the real motivations were and how did these come about, the fact of the matter is the CFA has served Indian interests. It would be these type of half way measures that would be the only way forward with TSP.


But that CFA did not come until the Huge offensive artillery by IA in Operation parakram

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23489
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 14 Jun 2012 20:02

Aditya_V wrote:But that CFA did not come until the Huge offensive artillery by IA in Operation parakram

Before the Ceasefire, we have to understand why there was a need for that. The need arose because the PA mounted a terrorism attack on the symbol of statehood, the Parliament, following a dry run on the state assembly, the first suicide attack, in J&K. Earlier, the unilateral ceasefire by Atal Behari Vajpayee invited the Red Fort fidayeen attack. Of course, we have had a series of coordinated multi-city bombings, attacks on commuter trains, urban guerrilla warfare. bombings of places of worship and so on and so forth. We may forget everything and propose to withdraw from Saltoro and Siachen but then we must be the most foolish, most generous, the softest and the timidest nation ever to have existed on Planet Earth.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5222
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 14 Jun 2012 20:30

Aditya_V wrote:But that CFA did not come until the Huge offensive artillery by IA in Operation parakram
There were many reasons, including Parakram, engaging with PA (Agra), American involvement (Nancy Powell is on record for a cease fire since Jan 2003), recognition of PA that Kashmir is going nowhere, PA's needs to focus on its west and get a buffer. The point of the CFA regardless of how it came and its imperfections are the following

1. It has resulted in meaningful results, that has served Indian Interests
2. At this point of time engaging with the PA is likely to provide the biggest bang for the buck with TSP and hence issues such as Siachen can be additional CBM's

The Siachen CBM should be looked upon in a similar manner. Can it further Indian interests? Can we manage its risks?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5222
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 14 Jun 2012 20:32

ManuT: I will respond to you later, as it relates less with Siachen but more on perceptions, ideas, goals and objectives regards Pakistan.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 14 Jun 2012 20:40

Cease Fire Agreement is an agreement to not fire provocatively. One still has the guns and can fire as needed.

Withdrawing from Siachen is to give up/vacate own territory which will be promptly occupied. Clearing the occupation will be awful not to mention tremendous international pressure from usual suspects. Kargil showed us despite rhetoric India did not cross the IB or LOC at places of advantage and was stuck clearing up the occupation in Kargil.

Similarly any potential occupation of Siachen will lead to combat ops in Siachen area only. Forget all those dash to Skardu or Pindi type paper exercises. We have seen the track record. It will lead to tremendous costs:monetary, lives of troops, diplomatic capital, bogey of nuclear flash points etc. Why invite all these costs?



Think of a CBM like the CFA which does not involve potential occupation of Indian lands.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1779
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby eklavya » 14 Jun 2012 20:49

ShauryaT wrote:Put yourself in the PA’s shoes, if you are convinced that India is not going to negotiate anything and given the geo-political realities of today or 10 years from today, what are your options? What will you do? They still have viable options to survive and give us more shocks and further detoriate our interests and ambitions, jeopardizing our security and economic interests. If India does not address their concerns, then we better be sure that they have no other option but to negotiate and climb down. I fear they continue to have options, not those that serve them best but nevertheless options.


Please do put yourself in PA's shoes and expand further on what options you think they have if India refuses to budge from "authenticate, delineate and demarcate".

Please also explain why India cannot deal with their "options" and why the best thing to do is to withdraw from our own territory.

For inspiration, please may I refer you to the master of your line of thinking ("peace for our time"):

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history ... lprs36.htm

Siachen is Sudeten and the PA is the German Chancellor

Wake up ...

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9516
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 14 Jun 2012 21:12

ShauryaT wrote:

The Siachen CBM should be looked upon in a similar manner. Can it further Indian interests? Can we manage its risks?


Can it further Indian interests?? You have not yet shown how it can further indian interests.

Can we manage its risks?? Yes we can but the cost would not justify taking the risk ab initio. Period.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9516
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 14 Jun 2012 21:13

^^
Pakistanis are dead in Ghyari and they want India to withdraw from indian territory? To what end? Are we anywhere near J&K solution? Not then what trade and economy. Thanks but we are doing fine without them. Then what? Less defence expenditure. We are doing much less than what China or some other countries are spending. We dont need to reduce it. Remember we presume to be aspiring power to be.

What interests does it serve.... then
.. wanted men hiding in Pakistan. Hand over to use we would bring Justice to them

Well you cant decide in decades and cant even hang them Why keep those bious pigs . It would attract more hijackings. Would hurt yndia more. Soorry cant hand over to India for your sake?

What about stopping terror strike... oh they are non state actors and we have no control over them. And yes we have read your Dossaiers send by Chiddu. Its not worth the paper written on. Poor indlish, bad grammatical mistakes and no evidence. We need more evidence. Oh many dies in several attacks, not the least 26/11. But for Kasab all the rest are yindoo conspirators amar sinh. See they had Kalavaa.

The problem is you dont trust us. Just withdraw and we would have confidence. It is CBM so we would have plenty if you withdraw.

Oh What would you do with that new found confidence...asks MMS
Kiya nahi..See we would like to kick your a$$ sometime soon once you yindoo are out of siachen.

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

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby member_23370 » 14 Jun 2012 21:56

chaanakya wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:

The Siachen CBM should be looked upon in a similar manner. Can it further Indian interests? Can we manage its risks?


Can it further Indian interests?? You have not yet shown how it can further indian interests.

Can we manage its risks?? Yes we can but the cost would not justify taking the risk ab initio. Period.


People who are blinded to the truth or simply unwilling to see it cannot be reasoned with. A person who is really blind can still be made to see but one who is unwilling to see despite having eyes has no cure.

It is porkis who will vacate POK peacefully or under the pain of death. It is porki economy that is going under so they should take the risks to prevent turning into somalia not India.

member_19648
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby member_19648 » 14 Jun 2012 22:48

The Pakis are a long way from becoming Somalia, as a starter, Somalia doesn't maintain a huge nuclear capable force and threaten the world with nuclear catastrophe. The Pakis are a rare breed by themselves and no Somalia comes any close. As the tea-biscuit sessions get over with the Pakis gaining nothing, they are growing increasingly desperate and are showing their true colors. The frustration has led them to violate the ceasefire and kill Indian troops, and they say peace is the best way to go with the Pakis!!! Everything is based on cause/effect and let it be known that Peace with the Pakis will be unfair to all those who have sacrificed themselves to maintain the sanctity of Indian land, and that would backfire upon India herself.

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

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby member_23370 » 15 Jun 2012 02:29

True but economically pakistan can be turned into somalia. With each corpse commander and Tellibunny leader playing the role of warlord.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5222
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 15 Jun 2012 02:41

ramana wrote:Kargil showed us despite rhetoric India did not cross the IB or LOC at places of advantage and was stuck clearing up the occupation in Kargil.

Similarly any potential occupation of Siachen will lead to combat ops in Siachen area only. Forget all those dash to Skardu or Pindi type paper exercises. We have seen the track record. It will lead to tremendous costs:monetary, lives of troops, diplomatic capital, bogey of nuclear flash points etc. Why invite all these costs?
I am presuming following suppositions made for the above:

1. Joint Monitoring of DMZ fails
2. PA Shall occupy the Saltoro ridges
3. GoI will restrict operations to local areas only and shall be restricted to taking back the ridges only, like in 1999.

on 1 - Why will this joint monitoring fail? This is not about glitches for a day or two.

on 2 - why? to what end? and at what risk to itself? If your answer is because it is in their nature, as you have written in the past, then the only thing left to do is squash them? Do not dispute what is their cherished desire, driven by its Islamist ideology. However if wishes were horses, India would be Islamic after 1000+ years right? You gave the example of the Ottoman defeat at Vienna of 1683 but the opposing forces were also ideologically united, in the form of the Holy Roman Empire and it Christian allies. We do not have those conditions of an ideologically committed nation, that is willing to commit the loss of millions and years of sweat on the line to achieve such a goal. I do not preclude such an event but it does require, that we have this ideological commitment, first. Without such an ideological commitment, it is futile to talk of war with anoher ideology. Parakram's BIGGEST issue was this lack of an objective for the war. There is enough to do within our current borders to establish this ideological commitment first. As of today, even the mention of anything that seeks to look into our past to guide our future will label even the best of minds as communal and thrown out from the market place that control ideas.

on 3 - Understand the inhibitions but we do have 1965 as another example where we did not follow that script. Do not think the nuclear card is so strong that no other front can be opened. There were many things to the Kargil decision, chief amonst them was a lack of a plan. I am quite critical of the LoC restriction. This is more of an internal fear, on which IA needs to work with GoI. GoI should be very clear, that if we have to take Saltoro back by force, LoC shall be crossed.

But, 2020 is not like 1999. Our capabilities are changing dramatically. The right lessons from Kargil will have to be learned or we did be stupid.

Think of a CBM like the CFA which does not involve potential occupation of Indian lands.
It has to be something that both sides want. On the LoC as of today, Siachen is the best bet. It is so because it is least risky (UZ is possible and so is the CZ, with sparse populations) among available options (will not use the word strategic as that word means anything to anyone these days). A CBM on the LoC, can be a future template for all of the LoC, if it works, in stages. Siachen is important from PA’s perspective. In their view, we aggressed and broke 1972 agreement through force. (yes, I know our counters and reasons for doing so but we have to deal with their views on it) Siachen, negates the PA’s view that the only way to deal with India is through force. For many such reasons, Siachen is important to address.

Apart from the LoC, it will come down to things such as reduction of forces in the area, location of forces and assets, elimination/reduction of short range missiles, etc. The issue with these other military CBM’s is unless PA threat perceptions are not addressed; it becomes difficult to take these other simple actions.

One thing that is and should be off the table is a capability centered CBM. But why not a land based CBM, who is threatening whom? The land based CBM should be the most doable for us given our increasing strength and asymmetries of power. I think yours and part of IA’s fears are not about PA and its intentions but many do not trust GoI to do what is right or probably both.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6808
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 15 Jun 2012 02:49

ShauryaT wrote: The right lessons from Kargil will have to be learned or we did be stupid.

Please follow your own advice. The biggest lesson from Kargil is "Prevention is better than cure". If we don't give any opportunity to the PA to occupy any more of our territory, we won't have to fight a war to win it back.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5222
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 15 Jun 2012 03:06

nachiket wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: The right lessons from Kargil will have to be learned or we did be stupid.

Please follow your own advice. The biggest lesson from Kargil is "Prevention is better than cure". If we don't give any opportunity to the PA to occupy any more of our territory, we won't have to fight a war to win it back.
That statement's context was totally different. It was about our reaction. Anyways, the Siachen CBM is premised on joint monitoring, not blind trust like in Kargil. So, the lesson you want learnt is being done.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chiru and 59 guests