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.
srin
BRFite
Posts: 1815
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby srin » 06 Jan 2013 11:49

Shrinivasan wrote:This whole track two diplomacy stinks all the way to Shitisthan... Khaaa Thooo.


It does ... just look at the really scary part from the above link.

A key to successful Track Two is that the participants be able transfer the ideas developed in such meetings into the official sphere. This is harder than it seems. Officials are instinctively wary of ideas coming from outside the bureaucracy, sometimes with good reason (Track Two can complicate the lives of officials), and sometimes because they fear the loss of control over an issue more than they are prepared to accept ideas that come from outside.

Thus, Track Two often enlists as participants people who have connections to the official world (often retired senior officials). The objective is to have people at the table who have credibility in the official world and are familiar with how things are done there, but who have also the luxury of being able to think “outside the box” as they are no longer officials themselves.


So - the Track two culminates in lobbying the Govt to make changes to the policy because these strategists are of course know more about Siachen than the Army or the Govt. Smacks of intellectual arrogance and the "civilized" western world trying to teach the Asian heathens how to be peaceful !

I'm shocked that there are all these ex-military people in the Siachen Track Two, but they have never even brought in the China factor anywhere there :shock:

We guess we should call these as Tr-Aack-Thoo

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Avarachan » 06 Jan 2013 11:51

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.


Umm, Scandanavian countries are hardly Christian any more.

However, only 20% of Norwegians say that religion occupies an important place in their life (according to a Gallup poll in 2009), the fourth-lowest such percentage in the world (only Estonia, Sweden and Denmark are lower).[123] In the early 1990s, it was estimated that between 4.7% – 5.3% of Norwegians attended church on a weekly basis.[124] This figure has dropped to about 2% – the lowest such percentage in Europe – according to 2009 and 2010 data[125][126]. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Religion>)


Typically, when Christianity dies in a certain region, some distorted form of its ethical vision remains. What typically remains is a "compassion" which lacks prudence (practical wisdom) and humility. That is not Christianity. (At the very least, it's not Orthodox Christianity, which is quite "realist" in its analysis of human nature.) This is Western secular liberalism.

Anyway, this is off-topic. Please do some simple research before you post. Thanks.

Vivek, the reason why small, relatively wealthy countries are getting involved in Track-II diplomacy is because that's all they can do. They lack the military or economic strength to do anything significant on the ground, so they encourage retired officials to get together and talk. In the context of India and Pakistan, they do far more harm than good (in that they assume that both countries are good-faith actors, which is obviously not true with Pakistan). However, if the Indian government is foolish enough to budge on Siachen, shame on it. It's yet another area where India's lack of decisiveness encourages outside meddling. I have yet to hear of Track-II diplomacy between Taiwan and Communist China, for instance.

member_23629
BRFite
Posts: 676
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby member_23629 » 06 Jan 2013 12:07

Umm, Scandanavian countries are hardly Christian any more.


This is a common mistake people make. For this, you have understand the Western concept of secularism which means the state will not interfere in the religious affairs of its own citizens and not take sides among them based on religion. The roots of this lie in the sect warfare that was rampant in Europe till 200 years ago, with governments taking sides in favor of one sect or other. This led to a blood bath and the princes finally got tired of it and said "what our citizens believe in is none of our concern and we will no more provide our soldiers for one sect to fight the other. We will not take any interest in which sect citizens believe in." This is the basis of Western secularism and this is strictly limited to their own Christian citizens. It doesn't apply to their policy about the whole world. It doesn't mean that the European princes (now the governments) will not provide their support and soldiers when Christians are in conflict with non-Christians or when the Xianity has to be spread among the heathens.

So in their relation to other pagan or infidel states, the Scandanavian countries are as Christian fundamentalist as they come. Just because they are secular with respect to their own citizens does not mean that these governments have a obligation to be secular in their dealings with the rest of the world. In fact, the Western elites perfectly understand that the spread of Western civilization and influence across the world is directly related to spread of the church and christianity. So when these countries finance track II diplomacy and seminar circuits in pagan countries, your antennas should be up.

Why do you think these countries and their agencies keep giving money to Christian NGOs to operate in other countries, if they are "hardly Christian any more?"

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Avarachan » 06 Jan 2013 13:06

Varun, this will be my last post on this, as this subject is off-topic for this thread.

varunkumar wrote:It doesn't mean that the European princes (now the governments) will not provide their support and soldiers when Christians are in conflict with non-Christians or when the Xianity has to be spread among the heathens.

So in their relation to other pagan or infidel states, the Scandanavian countries are as Christian fundamentalist as they come.


In the wars between Christian Serbs and Muslim Bosnians in the 1990s, which side were the Scandanavian countries on? Contrast their behavior with that of Russia, which has traditionally understood itself as a Christian state.

Regarding the funding of NGO's, do the governments of Scandanavian countries fund explicitly Christian NGO's? I'd like to see some evidence regarding that. More importantly, please re-read what I wrote about the relationship between Western secular liberalism and Orthodox Christianity.

Regarding the supposed affinity of Indian Christians for Western culture, I would recommend that you study the Coonan Cross Oath of 1653 (Malayalam: Koonan Kurishu Satyam). The Indian Orthodox Church celebrated the 360th anniversary of it a few days ago. It was perhaps the first Indian freedom struggle against Western imperialism (in terms of the Indian Orthodox Church vs. Portuguese Roman Catholicism).

http://www.malankaraorthodox.tv/Coonan_ ... index.html

http://www.malankaraorthodox.tv/Coonan_ ... istory.pdf

As a final note, there are many Christians who serve valiantly in the Indian military who dislike the insinuation that Christianity is somehow anti-Indian, when there is ample evidence to the contrary. Please read those links about the Coonan Cross Oath.

member_23629
BRFite
Posts: 676
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby member_23629 » 06 Jan 2013 15:26

^^ Indian traditional culture is polytheistic and all monothesitic faiths are incompatible with it because they don't recognize the right of polytheism to exist. So there is inbuilt hostility towards India in the shape it exists today, particularly when all the high priests and sacred structures of monotheists are situated outside the borders of India. There has been a talk of Indian Chrisitians indigenizing the church by having its own Pope (like the British have done) but there has not been any progress on this.

kulhari
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 66
Joined: 05 Feb 2010 21:13

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby kulhari » 06 Jan 2013 16:00

++1 varun

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20519
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 06 Jan 2013 16:13

Avarachan wrote:Varun, this will be my last post on this, as this subject is off-topic for this thread.

varunkumar wrote:It doesn't mean that the European princes (now the governments) will not provide their support and soldiers when Christians are in conflict with non-Christians or when the Xianity has to be spread among the heathens.

So in their relation to other pagan or infidel states, the Scandanavian countries are as Christian fundamentalist as they come.


In the wars between Christian Serbs and Muslim Bosnians in the 1990s, which side were the Scandanavian countries on? Contrast their behavior with that of Russia, which has traditionally understood itself as a Christian state.

Regarding the funding of NGO's, do the governments of Scandanavian countries fund explicitly Christian NGO's? I'd like to see some evidence regarding that. More importantly, please re-read what I wrote about the relationship between Western secular liberalism and Orthodox Christianity.

Regarding the supposed affinity of Indian Christians for Western culture, I would recommend that you study the Coonan Cross Oath of 1653 (Malayalam: Koonan Kurishu Satyam). The Indian Orthodox Church celebrated the 360th anniversary of it a few days ago. It was perhaps the first Indian freedom struggle against Western imperialism (in terms of the Indian Orthodox Church vs. Portuguese Roman Catholicism).

http://www.malankaraorthodox.tv/Coonan_ ... index.html

http://www.malankaraorthodox.tv/Coonan_ ... istory.pdf

As a final note, there are many Christians who serve valiantly in the Indian military who dislike the insinuation that Christianity is somehow anti-Indian, when there is ample evidence to the contrary. Please read those links about the Coonan Cross Oath.



I have come across many who also preach actively while in uniform. Always thought that it was inappropriate behavior.

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 913
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Guddu » 06 Jan 2013 19:02

Rohitvats:
Thank you very much for your posts. You are a patriot.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4224
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 08 Jan 2013 19:43

Congratulations to ShauryaT and team, yes we have to trust Suaristan take their word and vacate Siachin:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/pakistan-army-violates-ceasefire-again-kills-two-indian-soldiers-along-loc-in-poonch/articleshow/17941551.cms

JAMMU: In a gruesome attack, Pakistani troops on Tuesday crossed into Indian territory and ambushed an Army patrol party killing two soldiers whose heads were reportedly chopped off.

The attack took place along the Line of Control in Poonch district when Pakistanis came about 100 metres into Indian territory and assaulted the patrol party. Besides killing two Lance Naiks, Hemraj and Sudhakar Singh, they also injured two other soldiers.

During the brutal assault on the patrol party, the Pakistanis are said to have chopped off their heads, one of which they carried with them, informed sources said.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Shrinivasan » 09 Jan 2013 00:45

RIP to these two brave men...

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby RoyG » 09 Jan 2013 02:13

Manish_Sharma wrote:Congratulations to ShauryaT and team, yes we have to trust Suaristan take their word and vacate Siachin:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/pakistan-army-violates-ceasefire-again-kills-two-indian-soldiers-along-loc-in-poonch/articleshow/17941551.cms

JAMMU: In a gruesome attack, Pakistani troops on Tuesday crossed into Indian territory and ambushed an Army patrol party killing two soldiers whose heads were reportedly chopped off.

The attack took place along the Line of Control in Poonch district when Pakistanis came about 100 metres into Indian territory and assaulted the patrol party. Besides killing two Lance Naiks, Hemraj and Sudhakar Singh, they also injured two other soldiers.

During the brutal assault on the patrol party, the Pakistanis are said to have chopped off their heads, one of which they carried with them, informed sources said.


No no piss process must be carried forward. The jihadis next door are a reformed lot onlee.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Shrinivasan » 09 Jan 2013 03:26

RoyG wrote:No no piss process must be carried forward. The jihadis next door are a reformed lot onlee.
Maybe Shitistan is trying to replicate their extortion model perfected with uncle on Desh... maybe they don't know that our WKKs are ready to offer them anything even without asking... RIP to the brave men, condolences to the families... what will micky-mouse singh do next... Kiss Zardari... Kaa Thooo

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

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Vipul » 09 Jan 2013 04:25

Manish_Sharma wrote:Congratulations to ShauryaT and team, yes we have to trust Suaristan take their word and vacate Siachin:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/pakistan-army-violates-ceasefire-again-kills-two-indian-soldiers-along-loc-in-poonch/articleshow/17941551.cms

JAMMU: In a gruesome attack, Pakistani troops on Tuesday crossed into Indian territory and ambushed an Army patrol party killing two soldiers whose heads were reportedly chopped off.

The attack took place along the Line of Control in Poonch district when Pakistanis came about 100 metres into Indian territory and assaulted the patrol party. Besides killing two Lance Naiks, Hemraj and Sudhakar Singh, they also injured two other soldiers.

During the brutal assault on the patrol party, the Pakistanis are said to have chopped off their heads, one of which they carried with them, informed sources said.


You are a Hindu RSS war-monger not to trust Pakistan. Its Indian propoganda, Pakistan has till date not broken any cease-fire, all wars till date have all been initiated by India.For Siachen and in the interest of Aman/Bhaichara and ever increasing sales of candles at border shops Pakistan can and should be trusted.If India doubts Paksitani intent on Siachen then it is because you are not "intellectual enough to see the big-picture".

A Big Ack-Thoo to those who are willing jaichands and propogate India vacating Siachen.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 515
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby pralay » 09 Jan 2013 11:15

Manish_Sharma wrote:Congratulations to ShauryaT and team, yes we have to trust Suaristan take their word and vacate Siachin:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/pakistan-army-violates-ceasefire-again-kills-two-indian-soldiers-along-loc-in-poonch/articleshow/17941551.cms


Manish bhai, you can't wake up those who are pretending to sleep:P
Such people will wake up only when the terrorists kill their loved ones(although I wish it does not happen with any indian)

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7699
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 09 Jan 2013 13:49

Guddu wrote:Rohitvats: Thank you very much for your posts. You are a patriot.


That is what I like to think of myself. But what did I do to deserve the above sobriquet? :P

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4224
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 09 Jan 2013 19:18

rohitvats wrote:
Guddu wrote:Rohitvats: Thank you very much for your posts. You are a patriot.


That is what I like to think of myself. But what did I do to deserve the above sobriquet? :P


Rohit I think he has read all your posts with maps about Siachin issues few pages back:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2145&start=2360#p1377906

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9966
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby sum » 09 Jan 2013 19:28

^^ Waiting to hear the super-herrow of Track2, Brig Kanwal to hold forth on the latest incident and why vacating Siachen will avoid such incidents in future by building more trust with poor TSPA.

skganji
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 93
Joined: 01 Dec 2007 01:21
Location: U.SA/India.

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby skganji » 10 Jan 2013 04:24

No question of vacating siachen. Indian forces have adapted, acclimatized. No question of listening to ill-informed people on this matter. Wonder if Mr. MMS is well-informed on this subject. If acts like another Nehru , people will dispise him.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Victor » 10 Jan 2013 05:09

Since we hold the higher ground in the Siachen area and the pakis are below, hopefully we can encourage an accidental avalanche or three?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 11 Jan 2013 05:04

sum wrote:^^ Waiting to hear the super-herrow of Track2, Brig Kanwal to hold forth on the latest incident and why vacating Siachen will avoid such incidents in future by building more trust with poor TSPA.
Why do you not actually read, what the retd Brigadier has said on the matter, before you resort to slander, innuendo and false propoganda.

Arunkumar
BRFite
Posts: 643
Joined: 05 Apr 2008 17:29

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Arunkumar » 11 Jan 2013 10:15

ShauryaT, are you a fan of Manish Tiwari ?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18653
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 11 Jan 2013 10:18

Its a disgrace that ShauryaT continues to peddle the same vacuous BS and supporting the usual suspects whose agenda he was peddling, without an iota of shame or introspection after what happened to the two soldiers, crocodile tears about their sacrifice and service apart.

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

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Vipul » 11 Jan 2013 20:41

Just to say its a disgrace would be putting it mildly.

Would like to see the DNA of such self haters and apologists of India (Thats is assuming they are Indians) such as Praveen Swami, Arundhoty Roy, Mani Shankar Iyer, Mahesh Bhatt, Rajdeep Sardesai, Kuldip Nayar, Barkha Dutt, and others.

Actually there is a mentality of people who propound BS under the banner of Peace, Bhaichara etc. That is taking a contrarion view brings you instant recognition and visibility.

Such Anti-Nationals have made a career out of their low self-esteem, which brings them direct and indirect gratification from their trans-border masters.

Of Course there have to be someone belonging to the lineage of Jaichand. The Pathetic followers have a role model to live upto.

India has had many unworthy people living on its bhoomi, a few addition of these Kaputra's and Kaputri's is something that we have to live with.

abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby abhijitm » 11 Jan 2013 23:28

ShauryaT wrote:
sum wrote:^^ Waiting to hear the super-herrow of Track2, Brig Kanwal to hold forth on the latest incident and why vacating Siachen will avoid such incidents in future by building more trust with poor TSPA.
Why do you not actually read, what the retd Brigadier has said on the matter, before you resort to slander, innuendo and false propoganda.

Consistency of opinions in the matters of national security is a demonstration of moral and principle of the person. If not then it could indicates malice and deceit, creates doubts in the mind of readers of the real intent of the person. May be Kanwal is trying to take pakis on a ride, but then may be he is not, may be he is sold out and deceiving us, who knows? So to be on the safer side and for the sake of the national interest better to assume latter and be cautious of this person, unless proven otherwise factually. Same is applicable to every other person who advocates demilitarizing Siachen, J&K etc. Got it?

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

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Vipul » 15 Jan 2013 08:43

Lt Gen Katoch nails the lies of Track II Jaichands - Track II Unexplained.

A recent article in a prominent Indian daily last week talked of non-state actors who bring nations closer and the Ottawa Dialogue; the now well known issue of ‘Demilitarization of Siachen’. This has been promptly put on a blog by participants of Track II saying “Track II Explained”. But this can hardly be end of the story. There is plenty that is ‘unexplained’ about this particular Track II.

There is no doubt that Track II processes have their relevance and they do have government level interaction, briefings and debriefings.
Much has happened since the India-Pakistan Track II agreed to a proposal to ‘Demilitarize Siachen’ in September 2012 and the press release by the Atlantic Council of Ottawa hit the web on 02 October 2012. Acquiescence by the Indian members of the Track II to withdraw from Siachen was naturally met with amazement and shock in India. Prior to this agreement of the Track II at Lahore in September last, articles and TV discussions came up portraying that Siachen was strategically irrelevant. The government chose to remain tight lipped and continues with that stance albeit in the aftermath of furore post the Atlantic Council of Ottawa press release, a panel consisting of two members of the Track II Team under a former Ambassador and Secretary MEA (who had nothing to do with the Track II Team but is known to be close to the political hierarchy) made efforts to justify withdrawal from Siachen at India International Centre but were shocked at the unanimous opposition from the audience including from a former Army Chief and journalists. Why this former Ambassador and Secretary MEA tried to justify the proposed withdrawal from Siachen and on whose instructions remains a mystery.

There is no doubt that Track II processes have their relevance and they do have government level interaction, briefings and debriefings. To this end, they do provide significant inputs that facilitate the Track I dialogue while not being binding on the latter. This is an accepted norm. Track II dialogues can also be at multiple levels, even simultaneously. However, this particular Track II agreement raises several questions that require clarifications and transparency.

Interaction with the participants reveals that none of them is aware as to how they were selected, who sponsored them and who the Indian coordinator was. The Co-Chair described the status of the Track II Team as a “Private Body”, later changed to “Group of Private Individuals” over whom he had no control. Significantly, Indian members of the Track II Team comprised eight former Indian Military officers out of the total eleven members. While the meetings were held over a period of months, one member stated in an article that for once the bureaucrat members were in the backseat and the former military members in the forefront. Surprisingly, not one of the former eight military officers had served in Siachen and the team made no effort to visit the area under discussion despite months of parleys. This raises a question mark on the motive of the Indian coordinator who gave these names to Atlantic Council of Ottawa. Was it by design?

Surprisingly, not one of the former eight military officers had served in Siachen and the team made no effort to visit the area under discussion despite months of parleys.
The Indian Co-Chair of the Track II Team maintains that the MEA briefing made no mention of Siachen and no questions were asked by any members with regard to Siachen. The logic being given is that the Track II Team took upon themselves to work out “HOW” Siachen can be demilitarized without going into “WHY” and “WHEN”, which is laughable. Forget net assessment, every young military officers know how a military appreciation is done, what its nuances are and what factors need to be considered to arrive at the logical course of action.

The logic, therefore, can hardly be bought; a body of “Private Individuals” working out without any higher direction whatsoever ‘HOW” Siachen should be demilitarized. Who was the driving force in this body of private individuals on which the Co-Chair admits he had no control and what was the motivation? What are the participants hiding? Why has the Indian Co-Chair clammed up and refusing to take any questions? Additionally, if only “HOW” was being looked at then vital issues like Pakistan sponsored terrorism and the China factor were obviously not discussed or discussed in most perfunctory manner.

The press release by Atlantic Council of Ottawa is totally silent on China. Terrorism is supposedly discussed but was it discussed in relation to Demilitarization of Siachen (Thereby Acquiescing and legitmizing Pakistani Terrorism) – that this will facilitate Pakistan launch Kashmir Valley like proxy war in Ladakh with dire consequences to our national security? It is not without reason that Musharraf had declared “There will be many more Kargils”.

The vehemence with which the participants were articulating that Siachen has no worthwhile strategic significance has blown off with the wind especially after the anger faced during the hurriedly organized panel discussion at the India International Centre in early October 2012. Participants now admit individually that Siachen (read Saltoro Ridge) indeed has great strategic significance, admitting this even in interactions with military wings of political parties post the public furore. What then was the motivation for our Track II Team to ignore the strategic significance of the Saltoro Ridge particularly with China sitting in our territory in Shaksgam Valley and Aksai Chin and Pakistani and US media indicating Pakistan is leasing out Gilgit-Baltistan region to China for 50 years, plus the fact that withdrawal from Saltoro would open the floodgates of infiltration into Ladakh by Pakistan’s state sponsored non-state actors.

Why was the Track II Team ignoring the reality of the strategic significance of Siachen? Why was the advice of every former Army Chief and the present one that India should not withdraw from Siachen ignored?
A former military officer cum journalist participant even as late as 12 April 2012 was passionately vindicating India’s right to hold on to Siachen on national TV; that India should never withdraw from Siachen because of its strategic significance. What happened in just five months to make him do a 180 degrees turn. Why was the Track II Team ignoring the reality of the strategic significance of Siachen? Why was the advice of every former Army Chief and the present one that India should not withdraw from Siachen ignored? What was the role of the Indian coordinator and his mentors in making the Track II Team adopt such stance? What are the participants hiding?

Musharraf admits in his autobiography that India pre-empted the occupation of Saltoro Ridge by Pakistan – Pakistan’s planned move was obviously for strategic reasons and not to establish a winter retreat. The fact that Pakistan launched the Kargil intrusions to cut off and grab Siachen has been pooh-poohed by many in India. Now Lieutenant General, Shahid Aziz, former Corps Commander of Lahore recently wrote about Kargil in his blog saying, “The whole truth about Kargil is yet to be known….. It was a total disaster….. We didn’t pre-empt anything; nothing was on the cards. I was then heading the Analysis Wing of Inter Services Intelligence ……Our clearly expressed intent was to cut the supply line to Siachen and force the Indians to pull out…… There were no mujahideen, only taped wireless messages, which fooled no one. Our soldiers ……… the boys were comforted by their commander’s assessment that no serious response would come…. Cut off and forsaken, our posts started collapsing one after the other, though the General (Musharraf) publicly denied it.”

Here, the fact that the Track II agreement is only a proposal and not binding on Track I is not the issue. That Pakistan considers its high powered Track II Team as good as Track I is also not the issue. The issue is that for eternity, Pakistan will quote this military heavy Indian Track II having agreed to withdraw from Siachen. More significantly, this can also be exploited by the politician-bureaucrat mafia within India that is working at cross purposes to India’s national interests. Why are we calling slimy Musharraf time and again for leadership summits when he is a fugitive in his own country and has been stabbing us repeatedly? Why are the anti-India Hurriyat members given access to the Pakistani Embassy including every time some Pakistani official comes to Delhi? Why is the this bunch given visas to go and meet the mullah-terrorist Hafiz Saeed when India has been exhorting Pakistan to indict him as the mastermind of 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack of 2008? Why is the IB funding the Hurriyat, with what purpose and why without reference to the Army?

It may be recalled that the FBI caught on to Ghulam Mohammed Fai only in 2011 after he had already pumped in some $350 millions funded by the ISI into US over several years for moulding perceptions in Pakistan’s favour with regard to Kashmir.
Why is the Centre mute to anti-India activities in states, one example being total inaction on non-bailable warrants issued against Akbaruddin Owaisi way back in 2009? Why has the government been fooling the public since 2010 saying the Maoist insurgency will be over in two-three years? Coming back to Siachen, why such a decision was taken by the Indian members of the Track II Team and with what motivation remains a question mark.

As per the Atlantic Council of press note, 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). These were followed by the meeting in question in Lahore on 23-25 September 2012. Given the five star culture of such meetings, the expenditure involved would have been enormous. Were the decisions of the participants influenced advertently or inadvertently?

It may be recalled that the FBI caught on to Ghulam Mohammed Fai only in 2011 after he had already pumped in some $350 millions funded by the ISI into US over several years for moulding perceptions in Pakistan’s favour with regard to Kashmir. Obviously, ISI would have transferred such funds through several fronts and not directly. In the instant case of the Track II, an agreement to withdraw from Siachen without any governmental direction to the effect (as maintained by participants) and in direct contrast to military advice not to demilitarize raises serious questions. Silence and lack of transparency only reinforce apprehensions.

What exactly has Pakistan done to deserve this largesse – killing and threatening Panchayat members in J&K, failing to punish perpetrators of 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack, continuing its proxy war to destabilize India, arming Indian Maoists through the LeT, blatantly denying ISI and LeT links despite solid evidence given by David Headley in 2011, what? Hopefully, the recent barbarianism by Pakistan at least should open the eyes of the blind men. Yet, participants of the Track II have been harping that Demilitarization from Siachen is “doable”. Well, so are whole of Jammu and Kashmir, Arunachal Pradesh and much more – all doable if one is prepared to pack up one’s bags, move back and vacate our own territory.

Silence and lack of transparency only reinforce apprehensions.
Coming back to the Track II, a much wider debate on the above issue is definitely warranted. To this end, the United Services Institution of India offered its premises to the sponsors of the Track II for holding a discussion on the issue along with the Track II Team, giving them opportunity to also interact with a wide cross section of scholars, diplomats, military personnel etc. However, this has been declined by the sponsors saying “the process is well established and it would be disruptive to change it now” (The contours of hand-over has already been decided). Strangely, all meeting of this Track II have been held abroad including at Lahore in Pakistan. Was this by design to not let the Indian public get the whiff of what was cooking?

The Indian public deserves answers including whether we have moles in the establishment working for foreign intelligence agencies, which is not new. An open public debate including with the sponsors and the Indian members of the Track II Team is certainly warranted, not on a pliable TV channel but at an autonomous Think Tank like the United Services Institution of India. While the sponsors may shy off the suggestion, what about a wider debate within the county minus the sponsors? Will the government at least speak up now with Pakistan having bared her fangs?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20519
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 15 Jan 2013 08:59

Victor wrote:Since we hold the higher ground in the Siachen area and the pakis are below, hopefully we can encourage an accidental avalanche or three?


We seem to be missing the avalanches the pakis are causing (and will continue to cause) in the Indian DDM and paid media. Can we not see the woods for the trees?? Their PR is nimble and fleet footed unlike our own lumbering and stupefied ways.

Why is our electronic media compelled to host these fakers at prime time TV and give them the free and golden opportunity to spew venom on India?? Are we not tired of self goals??

does our DDM have a deathwish??

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23755
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 15 Jan 2013 09:15

Essentially, TSP has demonstrated yet again, if we needed further proof at all, that it does not care for bilateral agreements. This behaviour of TSP goes all the way back to Partition time. This incident also demonstrates that it has no compunctions in violating international conventions that it is party to. It has also proved yet again that it is completely reckless and that it operates in a close nexus with the so called non-state jihadi terrorists. It has also proved that it does not learn from its past mistakes, that it is obsessed with India and is wooly-headed. It also confirms that there is either absolutely no civilian oversight of the PA or the civilian leadership allows jihadi tactics by its Army or both. It proves in no uncertain terms, for the thousandth time, that TSP is utterly untrustworthy and inimical with enduring hostility for us.

So, Brig (R) Gurmeet Kanwal et al have to show to us how India can be assured that TSP would scrupulously implement the agreement.

member_23629
BRFite
Posts: 676
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby member_23629 » 15 Jan 2013 09:37

TSP has demonstrated yet again, if we needed further proof at all, that it does not care for bilateral agreements.


Their poobah did not care for bilateral agreements either. Read his biography. Pakis are just following in his footsteps and are proud of it.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23755
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 15 Jan 2013 11:18

varunkumar wrote:Their poobah did not care for bilateral agreements either. Read his biography. Pakis are just following in his footsteps and are proud of it.

Obviously. What else can an Army whose motto includes 'Jihad fi sabilillah' do ? Not even the Saudi Land Forces have such a motto.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1815
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby srin » 15 Jan 2013 15:38

Vipul wrote:Lt Gen Katoch nails the lies of Track II Jaichands - Track II Unexplained.
What then was the motivation for our Track II Team to ignore the strategic significance of the Saltoro Ridge particularly with China sitting in our territory in Shaksgam Valley and Aksai Chin and Pakistani and US media indicating Pakistan is leasing out Gilgit-Baltistan region to China for 50 years, plus the fact that withdrawal from Saltoro would open the floodgates of infiltration into Ladakh by Pakistan’s state sponsored non-state actors.


Beautiful read - he has really hammered in his points. Just to emphasize one point - It is a wonder why Siachen is reduced to India-Pak dispute while ignoring the elephant in the room - China ?

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1919
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 15 Jan 2013 21:29

ToI: Political crisis grips Pakistan as SC orders arrest of PM

HT: There can't be business as usual with Pak after barbaric killings at LoC, says PM

Given that there are several flies in the Track II ointment as shown above, one wonders which of the following institutions our esteemed traitors were preparing to sell Siachen to for personal benefit from Haseena Atim Bum:

  • Prime Minister under trial, Gilani
  • Firebrand cleric, Tahir-ul-Qadri and associated Pakiban
  • Pakistan Army and ISI
  • Other "non-state actors", i.e. the same ones responsible for Mumbai 26/11

A glorious list. The traitors are understandably proud of these associations.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1919
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 15 Jan 2013 22:14

HT: Significant Chinese presence in PoK: Lt Gen Parnaik
Asserting that there is a large presence of Chinese troops and workers in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK), northern command chief Lt Gen TK Parnaik on Tuesday said that China would not like to "interfere" in border conflict between India and Pakistan. "There is a large number of People's Liberation Army (PLA) troops and Chinese workers in PoK and we also know that they are involved in construction of infrastructural projects in Gilgit-Baltistan and PoK," Parnaik told reporters after presenting gallantry and distinguished service awards to 44 Army personnel of the Northern Command at the Investure ceremony on 64th Army Day celebration here.

However, no report has been received about their carrying of weapons in PoK and are readying for it, Parnaik said.

"I do not think China will be stakeholder in India and Pakistan on the issue of border skirmishes - it has not interfered and will not do it," he said.

"Siachen is a strategic location - it is an important area which is under our occupation - it is our area - on its east side Akasi Chin and Korakuram ranges fall and on western side there is Pakistan area of Gilgit-Baltistan," he said.

The Army commander claimed that Pakistan had number of times tried to enter into negotiation over it but whenever there are issues of agreement, the country does not comply with it.

"There can be no talks if they do not agree the line (of control) - where till we occupy, the land should be made permanent," he said.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby RoyG » 15 Jan 2013 22:33

It's funny how some on BRF still think demilitarization of Siachen is a good thing and the PA and PLA will just magically mend its ways. Sellout supporters, where art thou?

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby member_22872 » 15 Jan 2013 22:45

PLA presence in PoK could be to prevent any possible Indian action to prevent the building of tunnels and infrastructure? PoK is part of India, and we are allowing them to build tunnels and what not, could be even Nuke silos from being targeted by us.

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

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Vipul » 16 Jan 2013 04:24

RoyG wrote: It's funny how some on BRF still think demilitarization of Siachen is a good thing and the PA and PLA will just magically mend its ways. Sellout supporters, where art thou?


Come on boss you seriously think the planted useful idiots, the cultivated journalist, the compromised defence experts and the favour seeking ex-military personnel believe the bull crap that they profess?
and again what better way to come into attention of Paki and Cheeni masters then spouting BS on India's foremost strategic affairs forum!!!!!!

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 27 Jan 2013 10:04

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/no-mu ... /1065366/2


No mujahideen, only soldiers in Kargil: Pak General

In a candid admission that only regular troops of the Pakistan Army took part in the Kargil conflict with India in 1999 and not mujahideen fighters as claimed by Islamabad, a retired Pakistani Lieutenant General, who was then heading the analysis wing of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), has written that the intrusion was an "unsound military plan based on invalid assumptions" and there was a "cover-up" later by his then chief, General Pervez Musharraf.

In an article published in Pakistan's The Nation newspaper on January 6, Lt Gen Shahid Aziz, who retired in 2005 as commander of the IV Corps in Lahore, presents an account of the Kargil war that rejects many Pakistani claims about the conflict.

"There were no mujahideen, only taped wireless messages, which fooled no one. Our soldiers were made to occupy barren ridges, with hand held weapons and ammunition," Aziz said.



The intrusion was clearly intended to dominate the supply line to Siachen and cut off the glacier for an invasion by Pakistani troops.

"It certainly wasn't a defensive manoeuvre. There were no indications of an Indian attack. We didn't pre-empt anything; nothing was on the cards. I was then heading the Analysis Wing of Inter Services Intelligence and it was my job to know," he wrote.

"To say that occupying empty spaces along the Line of Control was not a violation of any agreement and came under the purview of the local commander is astounding. This area was with the Indians as a result of Shimla Agreement, and there had been no major violation of the Line of Control since 1971.
"

Describing how Pakistan army soldiers died after they were isolated and came under the Indian counter attack, Aziz said assumptions were made by the military leadership that the Indian Army would not be able to dislodge the fighters from the heights.

"The boys were comforted by their commander's assessment that no serious response would come. But it did — wave after wave, supported by massive air bursting artillery and repeated air attacks. The enemy still couldn't manage to capture the peaks, and instead filled in the valleys. Cut off and forsaken, our posts started collapsing one after the other, though the General (Musharraf) publicly denied it," he said.

He criticised the manner in which Pakistani leaders thought that India would have a more subdued reaction to the invasion.


It was a known fact at the time of Kargil War. It was also known that Supply route to Siachen came under attack once Pakis occupied Kargil heights.

Now , it is clear that Pakis want Siachen badly. The reasons are very clear. Yet Pakistan , having failed during Kargil, wanted to exploit sentiments generated by deaths of Paki pigs in Avalanche at Ghyari to manage vacation of Siachen by India.

And there are many in India who want to achieve peace with Pakis at any cost , even by giving land held by India. If peace is to be achieved by giving land to enemies then give whole of J&K and Arunachal etc to get peace with Pakis and Chinis. But can we really depend on the guarantees of Sold interlocutors and track-II Jaichands and their apologists elsewhere?

Be-headings of Indian soldiers on LOC would be grim reminder of true paki intentions.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9966
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby sum » 27 Jan 2013 12:06


"The boys were comforted by their commander's assessment that no serious response would come. But it did — wave after wave, supported by massive air bursting artillery and repeated air attacks. The enemy still couldn't manage to capture the peaks, and instead filled in the valleys. Cut off and forsaken, our posts started collapsing one after the other, though the General (Musharraf) publicly denied it," he said.

Love this scene...
The scum who sat there thinking that the SDREs wont be able to dislodge them deserved this kind of nightmare death where they are abandoned and under 24x7 shellings and explosions around them. Truely got a glimpse of Jahhanum on earth before they met their 72.

Indrajit
BRFite
Posts: 166
Joined: 19 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby Indrajit » 27 Jan 2013 12:57

I've already posted the interview of Late Gen.Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani on Kargil,he says the same thing,can view it on Youtube,part 3 onwards,also Najam Sethi Bares it all.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7699
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 27 Jan 2013 15:04

That article linked by Chaanakya is quite revealing actually.

And to me it answers one very important point which remained unsolved as far as I am concerned - blocking NH 1A with the objective of choking supply lines to Leh and Siachen never made any sense to me. For it is not as if Siachen/Leh garrisons needs to be supplied every day to keep them going. You have the stocking in place plus there are two other means of resupply - the Manali-Leh Road and airlift capability of IAF. Then how were Pakistanis going to make Indian positions in Siachen untenable?

However, now when you read this - "the intrusion was clearly intended to dominate the supply line to Siachen and cut off the glacier for an invasion by Pakistani troops" - things become abundantly clear. This statement actually blows the lid of the bigger plan by PA. And BTW - Siachen here would mean area between Turtok in south (along Shyok) and northern most point of the Siachen.

The whole exercise was a grab at Siachen - they were doing to India what we tried to do to them in 1987 - Operation Brass-tacks. Basically, Operation Brasstacks was to fix the PA in the plains while IA made dash for POK - and that too, in the dead of the winter. The operation to grab POK was called Operation Trident and involved IA airlifting 6 Mountain Division to Leh. Mobilization in the plains would have meant that PA could not expand the conflict as we were ready and waiting.

From a military perspective, the PA plan could have been the following:

(a) Dominate NH-1A. This itself would have multiple implications.

(b) Disrupt movement of Indian troops along the highway and prevent reinforcements from adjoining sectors being rushed into the area. This was important as these troops were acclimatized and best suited to reinforce the sector.

(c) PA was basically, 'fixing' the IA in the Kargil sector while the real hammer fell in the Siachen area. This can explain relatively less amounts of troops being used in Kargil - they would have required troops and reserves for Siachen sector.

(d) If one reads the account of situation as obtained before Kargil was detected, the entire Leh Sector was devoid of any worthwhile reserves. The disposition of troops was as follows:
------------121 (I) Infantry Bde (3 x Infantry Battalions + 1 x BSF Battalion) was responsible for area south of Turtok to Kaobal Gali
------------102 Infantry Bde - 3 x Infantry Battalions - South of Turtok to entire Siachen and DBO Complex.
------------114 Infantry Bde - East Ladakh against China.
------------70 Infantry Bde - 1 x Infantry Battalion - Only Reserve for Ladakh.

PA would have wanted to exploit this situation and create local superiority in troop ratios. NH-1A was the shortest route to induct troops from the Kashmir Valley and PA ensured that by it remained volatile itself. When sufficient troops were sucked into this sector, PA could have launched the piece-de-resistance in Siachen.

IMO, the violent Indian response and pressure from International Community (when they saw India was dead serious) forced the PA hand in localizing the conflict. By this time, PA had already played the Mujaheddin bogey.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Siachen News & Discussion

Postby RoyG » 27 Jan 2013 19:48

What happened to all the pro withdrawal folks? :lol:

That confession by the Lieutenant General is quite an eye opener.

Yet some still can't get this bhai-bhai bullsh*t out of their systems.

What's to stop these jihadis from pulling this again now that they're not under sanctions
and the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

It'll be a lot easier if we aren't on the glacier.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, sgopal and 81 guests