Siachen News & Discussion

[atreya]

Same question as nachiket ji! But I guess the number of Dhruvs inducted isn't enough to replace the Cheetahs there?

[sudeepj]

On the discussion going on here, I believe that anyone who has taken a cursory glance of the map beyond point NJ9842 and who has been following the Pakistani perfidy and its collaboration with China would not demand withdrawal from Siachen and Saltoro.

That is indeed the conclusion one comes to, when one takes a cursory glance at the map. But any analysis of the terrains involved puts a rest to the notion that offensive movement is possible across those mountains and passes.
Siachen Google Earth Map

Investing the Shaksgam valley via Siachen/Saltoro is impossible, the Chinese have far easier access to the area.

Going across the Saltoro ridge into Baltistan, once again is impossible, the Pakistanis have far easier access to the lower lying areas.

The land link between China and Pakistan cant be threatened from Siachen and a new road link between the two countries via Siachen is impossible.

The area itself is devoid of any 'centers of Gravity', the last populated regions are well to the South of NJ9842.

In fact, the worst case outcome that detractors of a - 'draw a line there, LoC extension, IB whatever, and get out' - plan can come up with is, the Pakistanis will then occupy the Saltoro ridge. But what will be the advantage that they gain by occupying this ridge? This is an answer that is not forthcoming. What is forthcoming is an unrelenting shower of abuse, perhaps betraying the vacuous nature of the argument.

On the Eastern borders, the argument is put forth that DBO and our defense line along the LoAC will be threatened. But DBO and all of our defence posts are well to the west of the Chinese claim line. Aksai Chin is well with in the control of China, and a recovery is militarily close to impossible. In any case, if war breaks out, we will have a tough time sustaining offensive operations in that region because of a lack of roads and terrain that does not permit roads. On the Chinese side, the terrain is flatter and has big roadheads. At best, we can sit on the Eastern ridge along the Siachen and the passes and hold off the Chinese there.

To me, the Siachen battlefield appears as a mirror image, though at a much much smaller scale, of the WW I trench warfare. Neither side has the technological wherewithall to make a breakthrough and subsequent offensive movement in that region possible, troops are sitting there in inhuman conditions and lives are being lost and the treasury being emptied without any outcome possible. The generals know this, and have even invented so called 'gentlemans agreements' - we wont shoot down each others choppers.. Have you heard of any war where the enemies supply/evac links are out of bounds for attack? This shows, that we are not serious about going beyond the points where we already are..

Regardless of any outcome, the generals insist on following the same script, attack after attack, year after year. The only reason this is going on is that being a large country, with lots of centers of waste, we dont notice the drip-drip loss of life and treasury in the Saltoro war.

We have lost sight of the political and strategic goals of the Saltoro occupation and either adopt brittle stances, such as 'All Indian territory is sacred land', 'sui ki noke ke barabar dharti' (will not give up land as small as a needle tip) or get lost into tactical positions that are subunit or barely a unit. Incidentally, these brittle stances box in the military and political leadership into corners that are not easy to get out of and constitute a recipe for political defeat. Independent of the Pakistani perfidy and Islamist notions that the country is riven with, these attitudes on our side will make peace, even with a reconstituted Pakistan, impossible - let alone a disengagement in one sector.

Lastly, the site and the forum being focussed on the armed forces, somehow Raksha of Bharat has come to be defined very narrowly. What does Raksha of mother India mean? Is it solely a territorial defense? How will mother India be served, while her sons die in never ending conflicts on desolate peaks and crags? Will any mother be happy if her son dies defending a square inch of the family estate? When we ask a young man to go and die (and kill) for his country, we are asking from him everything he has, and everything he might ever have. As long as the Generals and politicians can keep up the charade that this is a useful conflict, he will go and do it. But one day, he will turn back and ask - Why? We better have a good answer then.

[MurthyB]

[

To me, the Siachen battlefield appears as a mirror image, though at a much much smaller scale, of the WW I trench warfare. Neither side has the technological wherewithall to make a breakthrough and subsequent offensive movement in that region possible, troops are sitting there in inhuman conditions and lives are being lost and the treasury being emptied without any outcome possible. The generals know this, and have even invented so called 'gentlemans agreements' - we wont shoot down each others choppers.. Have you heard of any war where the enemies supply/evac links are out of bounds for attack? This shows, that we are not serious about going beyond the points where we already are..

Regardless of any outcome, the generals insist on following the same script, attack after attack, year after year. The only reason this is going on is that being a large country, with lots of centers of waste, we dont notice the drip-drip loss of life and treasury in the Saltoro war.

We have lost sight of the political and strategic goals of the Saltoro occupation and either adopt brittle stances, such as 'All Indian territory is sacred land', 'sui ki noke ke barabar dharti' (will not give up land as small as a needle tip) or get lost into tactical positions that are subunit or barely a unit. Incidentally, these brittle stances box in the military and political leadership into corners that are not easy to get out of and constitute a recipe for political defeat. Independent of the Pakistani perfidy and Islamist notions that the country is riven with, these attitudes on our side will make peace, even with a reconstituted Pakistan, impossible - let alone a disengagement in one sector.

Lastly, the site and the forum being focussed on the armed forces, somehow Raksha of Bharat has come to be defined very narrowly. What does Raksha of mother India mean? Is it solely a territorial defense? How will mother India be served, while her sons die in never ending conflicts on desolate peaks and crags? Will any mother be happy if her son dies defending a square inch of the family estate? When we ask a young man to go and die (and kill) for his country, we are asking from him everything he has, and everything he might ever have. As long as the Generals and politicians can keep up the charade that this is a useful conflict, he will go and do it. But one day, he will turn back and ask - Why? We better have a good answer then.

Why the assumption that the costs will remain high and technologically infeasible for ever? The costs to men has gone down quite exponentially in the last 25 years since Meghdoot. In the next 25 years, with improvements in governance, procurements, and technology, costs would go down even further. Plus there may be unmanned drones etc that can be leveraged to reduce physical presence. Withdrawing from your own territory "because not a blade of grass grows there" seems to be the most idiotic reason of all. The Russians must have thought similarly last century when they sold Alaska to the US for a few million dollars.

[eklavya]

Neither side has the technological wherewithall to make a breakthrough and subsequent offensive movement in that region possible, troops are sitting there in inhuman conditions and lives are being lost and the treasury being emptied without any outcome possible.

India is successfully defending her territorial integrity. What outcome are you talking about?

The only reason this is going on is that being a large country, with lots of centers of waste, we dont notice the drip-drip loss of life and treasury in the Saltoro war.

Oh really? Who is "we"? You don't speak for anyone on this board but yourself. The country is very well informed about the significant human and financial cost of defending Siachen, and is prepared to pay that cost. If you think the cost in not bearable and/or that the public is ignorant, please go and educate the public.

We have lost sight of the political and strategic goals of the Saltoro occupation

Other than defending Indian territory I presume. Of course, in your view defending Indian territory is not an important political or strategic goal. What a sorry excuse for a poor joke your arguments have become.

and either adopt brittle stances, such as 'All Indian territory is sacred land', 'sui ki noke ke barabar dharti' (will not give up land as small as a needle tip)

With the greatest possible respect, I find your reasoning and grasp of the Siachen issue to be utterly devoid of basic common sense.

What does Raksha of mother India mean? Is it solely a territorial defense?

Territorial defence is what the Army does. Did you not know that?

How will mother India be served, while her sons die in never ending conflicts on desolate peaks and crags?

What sort of cheap rhetoric is this. Indian Army is doing its job of defending India. Are you suggesting that Mother India is not being served? I am truly disgusted by your viewpoint ....

Will any mother be happy if her son dies defending a square inch of the family estate?

More disgusting rhetoric. No one is happy about losing a loved one for any reason whatsoever. You are suggesting that the loss of life is without meaning, that the defence of Indian territory is not worthwhile. Disgusting, disgusting, disgusting ...

[member_23370]

LoL I am amazed that the so called peaceniks and WKK's (or traitors as I actually think of them) have come down to cheap B-grade movie level dramabazi.
>> What does Raksha of mother India mean? Is it solely a territorial defense?
No not just that. It also involves going abroad and killing the enemies in their homes but territorial defense is a very important aspect.

>> How will mother India be served, while her sons die in never ending conflicts on desolate peaks and crags?
How will mother India be served by handing over these desolate peaks and crags to filthy porki vermins? I would prefer porkis being killed there if they ever try to set foot on our land but for that we need our men on those peaks.

>> Will any mother be happy if her son dies defending a square inch of the family estate?
Are you for real? Were you dropped on your head when you were young? Or are you just one of those brilliant gentlemen with room temp IQ (in Celsius)?
Tell this to the pakis and see if they are ready to vacate unconditionally. After all more porkis are getting killed in Saltoro ridge. As per this logic India should also give up claim on North East and maoist infested areas since there will be no blood shed.

[Yayavar]

Sudeepj: please give it a rest. You were quite blaise about relocating Indian villages if Paki's start firing, or something to the effect of "they will kill a few (of Indian villagers) and then we will kill 4 times more". Would the mother of the villager be happy?

[sudeepj]

The abuse simply shows that there are no arguments, for if there were arguments, they would be put forward in a reasonable manner. As at least some people have tried to do.. But where are the forum moderators in all this? Is it kosher to now label anyone who you disagree with as a traitor/WKK and so on?

[sudeepj]

Sudeepj: please give it a rest. You were quite blaise about relocating Indian villages if Paki's start firing, or something to the effect of "they will kill a few (of Indian villagers) and then we will kill 4 times more". Would the mother of the villager be happy?

You are treating the consequence of a war over Siachen, once the disengagement takes place as a certainty. There is no certainty about that. Further, when I pointed that out, I was simply pointing out the ugly realities of war. That is the way war is and will be for ever.

[Yayavar]

Umm...You were pointing out the realities of war after ignoring the realities of Pakistan by vacating Siachen, Sudeepj? and then stating that if they do take over and kill a few Indians we will kill more Pakis. A very odd strategy. Let us have a coherent proposal without the melodrama.

[sudeepj]

Umm...You were pointing out the realities of war after ignoring the realities of Pakistan by vacating Siachen, Sudeepj? ... Let us have a coherent proposal without the melodrama.

The melodrama is completely on your side of the debate, with people going on and on about sacred land and square inches, and calling people who disagree traitors and pakis and what not. What I pointed out is simply reality and analysis that any half way competent general will need to do, when planning a campaign. Any general who fritters away the lives of his soldiers is not worth the pips on his uniform.

Kargil was a special case, where the IA was hamstrung by the political objectives of the war on our side. No such political objectives exist today. The LoC is well recognized as an international border by the International powers, if not dejure, then defacto, because of the political strategy adopted in the Kargil war. And in any case, the response was beyond the immediate border, in the Sea. Once this political objective has been achieved, its nonsensical to think that we will always fight with this strait jacket on. If the senior brass in the IA thinks so, then I am afraid, there is some miscommunication between the politicians and the generals about our political objectives in future possible conflicts.

The current situation is a chance to extend and demarcate (as opposed to delineate) the LoC all the way to the North, at a time when the geo political situation is favorable to us. And indeed, this is the position of the GoI. Identify the AGPL on the ground, before any disengagement, and btw. we will have our soldiers stationed in your areas for monitoring the disengagement.

and then stating that if they do take over and kill a few Indians we will kill more Pakis. A very odd strategy

But that is the strategy adopted all along the international border.. there are numerous salients and bulges along the IB, where the IA is at a disadvantage. The disadvantage is not reinforced by positioning more troops there in a vulnerable position.. It is taken care of in other sectors. This grim exchange rate is what keeps the peace, not an odd brigade positioned at impossible heights.

[Yayavar]

It is melodrama when you bring in emotion at one end but then are all 'realities' when countering . My "side" is to be pragmatic about the reality of Pakistan before proposing any solution. The melodrama of 'mothers of dead soldiers', or 'meri zameen' etc. is between you and others you feel are calling you a traitor. That has not been my point.

So to reiterate, my 'side' is that one must be recognize Paki perfidy and then make a proposal. Not assume that they will be held back due to the same rational reasoning you are employing - that they dont want their people harmed any more than we want ours. That has not been the case so far. They have been pushing through cannon fodder by the dozens over the years without any rancour. btw, Kargil was at least the second attempt - the earlier attempt causes India to occupy the ridge (in '84).

[sum]

Independent of the Pakistani perfidy and Islamist notions that the country is riven with, these attitudes on our side will make peace, even with a reconstituted Pakistan, impossible - let alone a disengagement in one sector.

Are you saying that Paki perfidy and Islamist notions are a imagination of saffron clad BRFites and that the Pakis are actually pure like the snow?

Can now imagine why JLN behaved the way he did in 47 when we have similar thoughts even after 60 years of relentless Paki warfare on us.

[Prem]

Why do we need peace with Pakistan? Their enemity with us have already half killed them and there is no sensible reason to stop this process.
Sum,
JLN and his yellow blooded ideological followers could not stop Islamists in 47 . Only the retaliation from the Indians did the job. Chacha was afraid of the Indian fury so he planted the psedo secularism amidts us and now we have the full crop destroying the foundation of Indian revival. I wont be surprised soon they come with the option of conversion as many weak lings did adopt the method of reconcliation in Mogul time hoping for peace.

[pralay]

The abuse simply shows that there are no arguments, for if there were arguments, they would be put forward in a reasonable manner. As at least some people have tried to do.. But where are the forum moderators in all this? Is it kosher to now label anyone who you disagree with as a traitor/WKK and so on?

Since Pakistan lost Ghyari post, you are typing same lines with different grammar. Did you get all the enlightenment because of sufferings of your brethren ?
People have blown up your logic line by line, but if you still keep typing same things in somewhat different words, all forums call it "Troll".
If you have concluded that your opinion is realty and pure analysis, then you will not see any logic or reality in others.

[pragnya]

sudeepj,

you have made some good observations as has ShauryaT. i have followed them with interest. well, i am not well versed with topology and army tactics so i can't comment based on that.

point is by doing op meghdoot we were neither the aggressors nor we went against the shimla agreement. infact we followed the very text of the same wrt deliniation of LOC beyond NJ9842 - 'thence north' - this too was done when pakistan was trying to legitimise its own claim (by reneging the shimla agreement) on siachen by sending expeditions as if it was their own territory. the factors you are speaking of were taken into account by the GOI/ARMY before embarking on the same because it was simply a matter of upholding our 'territorial integrity'.

nobody including the army is against demilitarisation but they want AGPL to be authenticated and later deliniated into a 'dejure' border between the 2 countries. strangely pakistan army and their govt are against that even though 'they' are the ones who are crying for the withdrawl (post gyari incident). now knowing their propensity to not 'honour' any agreement/committments made to india (specially) and to the world (in general), how is this going to go forward?? there is an immeasurable 'trust deficit' between the 2 countries which will take generations to heal and the ball is squarely in the pakistan court. they have to prove it which they are not doing even now. many examples have been given already by various posters.

i am no hawk but don't you think pakistan has to prove 'atleat' some sincerity before we can even think of moving forward?? who knows it is one of PA's 'brilliant' tactical plan?? hitting 2 birds with one stone?? 1 - cutting their own costs/lives in the short term and 2 - reoccupying it at a germane time, in the long term ala kargill!!

what would we do if the above happens (which is more likely going by the past history)?? if we have to resort to 'opening' another front or an all out war, what would be the loss we have to incur just to retake which we already have?? which begs the point why leave??

[SSridhar]

The Siachen discussion, going on here, is nothing new to this forum. We have beaten this to pulp on this very forum at least ten years back if my memory serves me right. On the one hand, we have people who say that there is no strategic or even tactical advantage to IA in holding on to these 'desolate peaks and crags'. They would argue, as Sudeep has done here, that precious lives are being lost and money squandered away on these 'desolate peaks and crags'. No roads could be laid there, no large scale invasion is possible from there into India, we are defending territories where not a blade of grass grows and modern-day nation-states cannot be irredentist etc.

Those who have put forth credible counter arguments have countered those by quoting the sale of Alaska or the loss of Aksai Chin. It is simply foolish to talk of defending only verdant valleys as their defence lies *only* in holding towering and forbidding 'desolate peaks and crags' surrounding them. They have also said that what the future will unfold by holding on to those 'desolate peaks and crags' cannot be known today; certainly, it can only bring us benefits and not harm. For this simple reason, modern-day nation-states *are* irredentist. The progression of borders into the high seas from territorial waters to Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to Continental Shelf under UN Convention on Laws of Seas (UNCLOS) is a proof of current thinking of nation-states. They have further argued that Pakistan's perfidy in occupying Indian pickets and salients, vacated in good faith during winter, shall be repeated at Saltoro, Siachen and eastern Karakoram directly threatening Nubra and Shyok valleys. Certain features in the Kargil sector were glaciated too and the IA thought that the PA would not occupy them but we were proven wrong in 1999. As early as c. 1948, Haji Pir was lost similarly and has been a source of never ending misery for us ever since. During Kargil, Pakistan even repudiated agreed and well demarcated LoC.

Therefore, I am even against the withdrawal of the IA from Siachen even after the AGPL until Pakistan has verifiably and convincingly turned around on its enduring hostility with us, which is some three decades into the future if started earnestly today by Pakistan. Technological progress can make matters easier for Pakistan and China to traverse the glaciers in large numbers in the coming years if we vacate. The PA and the PLA are collaborating in Balawaristan and Pakistan has not only ceded large areas there to the PLA but has recently allowed a Chinese PLA team to reconnoiter the Baltoro range and the glacier which is ominous. If it was cartographic aggression with American help (to be followed shortly by real aggression) that prompted India to take Saltoro in 1984, the developing situation is even more dangerous now than ever before. India itself has made use of technology to make living much easier in these 'desolate peaks and crags' and has achieved a near-zero casualty rate. Continuing in the same emotional vein as Sudeep, Mother India cannot be saved or served when an avenue of attack is left open and many more Indian lives will be lost then. It is not that we are callous about Indian lives being lost on these 'desolate peaks and crags', but exactly for reasons opposite. Every inch of our territory need not be defended provided we do not have neighbours (like Pakistan and China) who want to occupy them and creep into us. Nobody thought that a group of terrorists will travel from Karachi by sea and land in Colaba in a dinghy, take taxis casually to different parts and hold Mumbai to ransom for three days killing over 150 people in an unprecedented urban warfare with the State of India. With the prospects of a two-front war looming large, we cannot minimize the importance of this tri-junction between India, China and Pakistan. Today, it may be that WW I trench warfare, where the Pakistanis are unable to climb up the Saltoro and we are unable to climb down it into Baltistan to capture Skardu and beyond which are lawfully ours. But, by vacating the trench (or the igloos) at the Saltoro ridge, we are pre-empting an avenue available to us when the time comes in the future.

We have lost sight of the political and strategic goals of the Saltoro occupation

What were the goals in c. 1984 that we hav lost sight of now ?

Independent of the Pakistani perfidy and Islamist notions that the country is riven with, these attitudes on our side will make peace, even with a reconstituted Pakistan, impossible - let alone a disengagement in one sector.

If peace with India is impossible for Pakistan just because we overtook them and occupied these 'desolate peaks and crags' before they could, how might the same peace be possible for India with Pakistan which is in illegal and forcible occupation of large portions of the state of J&K including Balawaristan and lays claims to Siachen area as well ? How is peace possible with an inimical nation whose sole aim is to destroy India ? All perceptions about Pakistan are increasingly pointing towards more Islamist radicalization and reckless local, regional and global jihad. Why should we appease these barbarians by vacating our lawful land ? What is wrong in defending every inch of our territory against these hoardes ?

As long as the Generals and politicians can keep up the charade that this is a useful conflict, he will go and do it. But one day, he will turn back and ask - Why? We better have a good answer then.

Luckily, the foot soldier does not think like that. Read Captain Bana Singh PVC's interview.

[abhischekcc]

>>Luckily, the foot soldier does not think like that. Read Captain Bana Singh PVC's interview.

Unluckily, the officer class HAS started asking these questions.

[Lalmohan]

one thing that i find quite amazing is the paqui ability to turn their aggression into a sense of victim hood and insecurity, they have managed to play this card for far too long. it looks like in chicago this week, pres ombaba has finally called their bluff
i hope that the rest of us do too

[peter]

The melodrama is completely on your side of the debate, with people going on and on about sacred land and square inches, and calling people who disagree traitors and pakis and what not. What I pointed out is simply reality and analysis that any half way competent general will need to do, when planning a campaign. Any general who fritters away the lives of his soldiers is not worth the pips on his uniform.

Couple of questions: Assume you are the COAS of India and the PM tows your line. What line of the border will you defend in the north, north west and west (focus on Pakistan for the moment)?

How/Why do you think India was attacked repeatedly from north / west?

[ramana]

I think advocating vacating Indian territory with TSP track record of perfidy and creeping expansion is tantamount to treachery. IF TSP was so innocent and such vacating would lead to reducing the tensions its another matter. But TSP is not innocent and has shown repeated intent to occupy Indian territory. Especially after this how can one demand India "show courage" and vacate their own lands which we know TSP has a track record of occupying?

[Lalmohan]

put it this way - the indo-pak border is not the US-Canada border in the Rockies, or the Switzerland-Austria border
there is no element of trust with the pakistanis
that is core issue and the jugular vein

[vishvak]

How can any paki expect about anything in J&K? What right does any paki have in J&K and how?

Is there a single document that gives any right whatsoever to a paki?

[ramana]

How can any paki expect about anything in J&K? What right does any paki have in J&K and how?

Is there a single document that gives any right whatsoever to a paki?

its the Koran. Muslim majority areas are called Dar ul Islam and rest as Dar-ul-harab or kafirstan!
Per the book, Dar ul Islam areas have to be wrested back from the kafirs. Its the idea of Reconquista.
TSP has no claim on J&K except this. The Maharaja acceded to India per the rights vested in him at time of Partition. The TSP tried to coerce him by launching a covert invasion with armed tribals. He made up his mind to join India.
When the Indian Army was busy evicting the invaders JL Nehru agreed to ceasefire and UN monitoring and later 'sportingly" said he should have given Indian armed forces a couple of weeks more.
If the Ind Army was given those few weeks in 1948 to clear up the invaders we wouldn't have this problem. And TSP would have settled down and become a normal state. By festering the Kashmir problem, the TSP Army runs the kabila and promises them to get them Kashmir if they are allowed to rule.
They cant and hence this dramabazi.

Indian forces were stationed on Saltoro ridge to prevent the TSP from occupying further after the Paki nuke test in 1984 in Lop Nor. Air Cde Jasjit Singh the former director of IDSA has written that and no one has refuted him from the 'withdraw from Siachen' brigade.

[MurthyB]

Re: "Not a blade of grass grows there"

I just had a thought that might warm the hearts of the WKK brigade here: global warming is supposed to be occurring, and may be irreversible in the short term. In the next 25 years, Siachen may become tolerable in the summer for non soldiers. In some places in that area, grass might even start to grow. Think then, of the tremendous opportunity we would have of feeding the Pakis fresh grass from Siachen, especially since their state might have failed by then because of our refusal to vacate Siachen and hand it over to an international consortium. So WKKs will be able to have their baichara after all! I think that should be a reasonable compromise in the spirit of give and take.

[svinayak]

put it this way - the indo-pak border is not the US-Canada border in the Rockies, or the Switzerland-Austria border
there is no element of trust with the pakistanis
that is core issue and the jugular vein

Pakistan Army does not have a relationship with the IA except for the border meetings.
All other border military have some relations including the PLA with their border counterpart

[ManuT]

SS ji.

BRF needs to involve people who have come along since.
The debate does that. Facts change and don't change at the same time. But it is worthwhile to investigate if the facts have sufficiently changed. I don't think so. Then why GOI thinks it is important to sit down with this mish-mash of pretenders from TSP for the another round? Whether we like it or not there will be.

Siachen is an issue which can go like the Khalistan way and disappear overnight OR it could remain there as part of the promised 1000 year War. For this Civilisational War on India to fail (of which Siachen is a part of), the watch will have to be kept from one generation to the next, and we need to figure out a way to do so. This is needed so that GOIs actions till then remain under scrutiny.

To give credit to Sudeepj he did seek out Siachen paper here.
A couple of quotes from other posters I that really liked.

i am not well versed with topology and army tactics so i can't comment based on that.

I have been lurker for 4-5 yrs now, this is my first post.
I fully support the peace process.
I am from Bhiwani, Haryana. we have a large chunk of boys from our district in defence services.
When a solider achieve martyrdom, for desh its a jawan which dies but for us its either bhai, beta ya jamai( brother, son or son-in -law)
During Kargil I lost a cousin and one son-in-law of our village. So peace is very essential personally for us.
But I am against the withdrawl of our forces from Siachen, the only reason is we dont know what Pakis would be doing after our withdrawl.
If we have to do a Kargil the human cost will be much more than what it was in Kargil.
We should talk about peace but should not give up our strategic positions.
To us armchair generals it is very easy to say this point has strategic value this one has nothing. We should leave that to Army and let them define what is strategic and what is not.
I have been in contact with pakistanis for 10yrs since I am in Canada. They are same people as we are and there should be more people to people interaction and let the trade flourish between us to a point which makes them dependant on us( like Canada is dependant on US). When we reach at that stage we can think of demilitrization b'cos at that point they wouldnt be that stupid to kill the golden goose but until that happens security should trump everything.
Second point is we should not even think about relaxing our postures untill there is a democratic fully functional civilian government is established there. No concession on defence related matters till the time TSP is calling shots.

And for my friends who think barren cold land has no value, ask Russia what value does that cold barren land(Alaska) had it not been sold US.
Canada is telling America to stay away from Arctic North, that will considered attack on Canadas sovereignty.

[ManuT]

Authenticate and withdraw is not without its own 'other' problems.

Infra has been built. What do you do with it? (You can do only 2 things) (A) Mothball it or (b) Demolish it.
If you mothball it, it potentially makes available resources to the enemy in case they decide to jump it, that will be used against IA.
Or if you demolist it, then again you will have to start from 1984 in case of race to the top.

So staying is not a bad idea either as long as no one forgets that there are boys on top. Yesterday it was snowmobiles (which was sorted out only because of GF), new choppers today, tomorrow it will be something else. Its a constant exercise.

A lot of effort goes in developing instituional knowledge in an organization like IA. But it is not permanen and is a perishable commodity. Where do you put the men in a readiness posture.

Also, not clear to me, that if one can acclamatize on 1000 ft in a day, how much can they really come down? (IMO, For that reason there has to be "monitoring mechanism" after authentication and demarcation)

What I can't imagine is to withdraw without authentication. If India can take POK over time, then that might be the permanent solution.

[PratikDas]

The problem is not the Pakistani people but the Pakistani Army and the ISI. Show us a real plan, complete with verification and repercussion, for dealing with the Pakistani Army.

1) Authentication alone is not sufficient. There needs to be a clear plan for repercussions if trust is violated.

2) Building a CBM with Pakistan alone is not sufficient. The GoI needs to build confidence with Indian citizens as well. There is no confidence after Mumbai. If there was a right to recall, this government would have been thrown out. There will be some trust if there is a well-known guarantee of repercussions. If you're expecting a leap of faith from Indians, you have no ground to stand on for asking that, based on past performance.

3) Diplomatic demarches of the post-Mumbai style have been a joke and Hafiz Saeed is still free. This cannot be allowed to continue. There has to be a physical response. There have to be repercussions of more substance than diplomacy or excuses for impotence like the kind from Rahul Gandhi and Chidambaram. The Hindu: Little Learned from 26/11

4) What will be done when there is another "non-state" terrorist attack? Should we pretend the attack has no impact on Siachen and therefore continue the CBM festival? What would happen to the Confidence part of the CBM?

[Vipul]

Somone on BRF has rightly posted (On the Siachen Poll Thread?) that nowhere in the world but only in India will we have this utterly foolish idea and discussion about handing over its own territory to its its enemy whose reason to exist is only to destroy India.
When the majority of the readers/posters exhibit common sense in trying to criticize this and rightfully use strong words in calling a spade for what it is, the other side then starts crying about people not being civil enough (much like the Porkis claim victimhood after each of its jhapad inducing acts, co-incidence?) of not being cogent/practical enough with counter-arguments (this when their own ideas have been proved to be junk).
Wonders dont cease, do they?

[Prem]

Folks interested in finding the historical causes of conversion in Desh should read the Dhaga.
Indians have met the enemy and its within. Shalya's Kunba thriving and flying high.

[Kanishka]

How difficult is it for someone to pretend to be an Indian on BRF?

[SSridhar]

How difficult is it for someone to pretend to be an Indian on BRF?

Not very difficult, I suppose. But, what is the point you are making ?

[Kanishka]

How difficult is it for someone to pretend to be an Indian on BRF?

Not very difficult, I suppose. But, what is the point you are making ?

SS Ji what I am saying is that it is possible for someone ( say a Pakistani) to use an Indian identity and present Pakistan's POV
and make it appear as an Indian's POV.

[Vipul]

I am not sure if someone is Paki or is actively propagating its POV but one thing is crystal clear:
The nonsensical argument that in the event of a conflict due to pakistani occupation of Siachen after Indian withdrawal, the number of Indian lives lost will be less then those being caused by India's continous reign there and hence india should take the chance and vacate it sounds too much like a smooth talking paki making a pitch for it and hoping that easily taken-in Indians(look at the track record) will fall for it.

[ParGha]

I understand JLN strategy. He gave up POK as a CBM to TSP to keep them happy that they got one third of Kashmir. Instead it made them even more hungry to think they can grab more.

But, Ramana, JLN had seen in close quarters for at least two decades the perfidy of Jinnah, his cohorts and the Muslim League. For him to expect that Pakistan would be satisfied with POK and would venture no further was a first rate failure, especially when the most coveted Vale of Kashmir remained with India. JLN even had to be goaded into action on the eve of October 26, 1947 by Vallabhai Patel as he was procrastinating under one pretext or another. We have none other than FM Manekshaw's account of that. Anyway, that is OT here. On the discussion going on here, I believe that anyone who has taken a cursory glance of the map beyond point NJ9842 and who has been following the Pakistani perfidy and its collaboration with China would not demand withdrawal from Siachen and Saltoro.

A gentle reminder, gentlemen: Nehru and Patel had a political vision of integrating J&K, but neither had any military experience; Indian field commanders like Cariappa, Sen and Timmayya had some lower-operational experience and full commitment to the emerging India, but none of them had higher-operational and strategic planning experience (to put things in perspective, Cariappa, the senior-most Indian officer had only commanded a Brigade in World War II).

And so the C-in-C of the Indian Army at this time was General Lockhart, an Englishman; as were many other senior staff officers in Delhi and Rawalpindi. Strategic planning translates political objectives into military objectives, and this link was totally compromised. The British political objective was to finish their withdrawal as peacefully as possible, and leave back a sort-of-friendly military culture that could be manipulated together to fight the Soviets.

(When Gen Timmayya said he would need three months to push the Pakistanis out of M'bad and clean out POK, he was talking strictly from an operational perspective.)

Both Nehru and Patel realized the deception (which overplayed the logistical difficulties of supplying the field units engaged in mop-up operations, and hence advised a cease-fire to consolidate the initial gains) when the Indian commanders returned. Nehru cut short LTG Bucher's tenure as C-in-C just before Operation Polo and appointed Gen Cariappa as the first Indian COAS to prevent any more meddling in the middle. Nehru wasn't shy about using military force to resolve conflicts - as the liberation of Hyderabad and Goa and integration of the NE states can attest.

IIRC, Premier Chou Enlai expected that after the integration of the NE states in the 1950s, Nehru would turn his eyes back on the northern J&K. The liberation and annexation of Goa was an unexpected surprise for the Chinese. After that the 1962 India-China War became inevitable, because the CCP hardliners started pressuring Mao to move on Macau and Hong Kong "just like Nehru was doing in the West". For Mao these were important back-doors for hard-currency, unofficial diplomacy and technical and political espionage, no way was he going to kill these golden-gooses; the only alternative was to publicly shame Nehru and shock the hardliners into silence.

The 1962 defeat did more to encourage Pakistani (mis-)adventurism - manifested in the 1965 War - than any other event of Nehru Premiership.

[ramana]

interesting take. We need all points of view to get to facts.

[ParGha]

Indian forces were stationed on Saltoro ridge to prevent the TSP from occupying further after the Paki nuke test in 1984 in Lop Nor. Air Cde Jasjit Singh the former director of IDSA has written that and no one has refuted him from the 'withdraw from Siachen' brigade.

AFAIK, the Chinese tested a nuclear weapon for the Pakistanis in 1989/90, in reaction to Exercise Chequerboard and Exercise Brasstacks. The 1987 EX Chequerboard took the Chinese by surprise, no one expected Indians to be able to move so fast. The Chinese ordered the Paks to relieve the pressure on the North-East by pressurizing India in the North-West, but the Paks pleaded helplessness in face of Exercise Brasstacks (1986-87). After the tensions were diffused through political/diplomatic maneuvering, the Chinese and Paks resolved to never let such a situation develop again: That is when the Chinese decided to give the Pakistanis a working nuclear weapon (to defeat EX Brasstracks styled coercion), and made the biggest strategic miscalculation in the modern ages.

Here is how I see Operation Meghdoot fit in:

1979 - Deng launches the Sino-Viet War "Spank Child to Teach Parent", i.e. attack a weaker Vietnam to weaken the Soviets. The Chinese put 1.5 million troops on alert in the Sino-Soviet border, including troops in East Turkestan and Lop Nur (close to Ladakh). The Chinese terminate the 1950 Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance.

1979-84 - The Sino-Viet conflict continues to flare on and off (including the Chinese devastation of the northern provinces of Vietnam), and the Soviets do little/nothing to relieve pressure on the Viets. The Soviets are stuck in the Afghan quagmire, which India had tried to dissuade them from.

Some Indian planners (incl LTG Hoon, I suspect) fear that the Chinese may mistake them as a "Child" next. The Pakistani behavior in northern J&K increasingly looks like the Khmer Rogue behavior in the Cambodia-Vietnam border; the Chinese had been supporting the Khmer Rogue, just like they had been supporting the Pakistanis. A London-based alpine gear vendor informs the Indians of a suspicious 1500 parka orders from the Pakistanis; the Indian official promptly doubles the order and Operation Meghdoot start off in April 1984. Incidentally this was also the month of a major Chinese offensive in Vietnam. The operation is a tactical success, but any larger moves to exploit the tactical gains come to a halt with domestic troubles (co-incidentally the Chinese offensive fails).

1986-87 - PM Indira Gandhi has been assassinated, a lady that Paks and China feared and respected after the 1971 War. The Soviets and their Afghan allies are faring very badly; the Afghan Jihad, supported by the Paks and the Chinese is working out well. India is very unstable domestically (because of the raging Punjab Troubles) and internationally (because the Soviets are weakening). The new PM, Rajiv Gandhi, authorizes a show of strength: Exercises Brasstacks and Chequerboard.

I have noted the significance of those exercises in the Chinese decision to arm the Pakistanis with nuclear weapons. I believe it is the biggest international mistake of Deng's leadership - it went against thousands of years of Chinese strategic tradition of denying bordering barbarians, whether friendly or hostile, the access to sensitive technology. Nuclear weapons today is the iron-smelting technology while the non-weapons states are still stuck in the bronze or stone age.

[Aditya_V]

Pargha- I have some disagreements with the way events which you posted - IG was assasinated on 31/10/84.

The Chinese gave Pakis Nukes because of our self restraint was taken as weakness in ability. Pakis thought that bombing Delhi Mumbai Like Hiroshima/ Nagasaki and we would be forced to Surrender Kashmir and India would disintergrate.

In Fact, once the CIA learnt the India had weaponised in 1990, they sent a urgent warning to GHQ after a Paki F-16 with a loaded Nuke was ready to Bomb Delhi at Chaklala Airbase.

Paki, Chinese and USA perfidy in the period 1988-93 has been completly whitewashed by our Secular Media.

[nachiket]

In Fact, once the CIA learnt the India had weaponised in 1990, they sent a urgent warning to GHQ after a Paki F-16 with a loaded Nuke was ready to Bomb Delhi at Chaklala Airbase.

Where did you read this? I had heard of a supposed paki plan to attack the Tarapur nuclear power station, but Delhi?

[Lalmohan]

if the chinese thought we were weak, why would they arm their modern day "warden of the marches"* - aka pakistan?


* ancient practice of appointing nomad tribes as guardians of the frontier beyond the great wall (against other tribes)