Siachen News & Discussion

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 03 Jun 2012 06:26

viv wrote:What did you want to do with 93K prisoners? The country was partitioned. In view of some, in hindsight, she erred in allowing greater leniency than she should have, but it is nothing like what is being proposed now.

Should have converted the LOC into an international border and finished the problem by not leaving wiggle room for the pakis.

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 03 Jun 2012 07:08

^
LOC was converted to the border on private assurances and sercet clauses of Shimla agreement so that abduls don't get the idea.

In return of 90,000 POWs at least Pakistan should have released the few hundred Indian POWs, or rather India should have ensured that they were released. That did not happen with honesty.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 03 Jun 2012 07:27

I don't know how people can call the 'demilitarization' of Siachen the 'low-hanging fruit' in building CBMs with Pakistan.

If anything is the low-hanging fruit, it is trade. Even there, before we go whole hog, let us see if the Pakis can keep to the terms they agree on in simple commercial agreements. Will they make payments in time as contracted? Will they supply the goods as contracted, or will they mix 'mice schitt' in rice?

From what I have heard from people, the Pakis are not known for keeping to their agreements in business. Watch their conduct on the trade front for 5 years at least, and then we should talk about other things including Siachen.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 03 Jun 2012 08:47

chetak wrote:
viv wrote:What did you want to do with 93K prisoners? The country was partitioned. In view of some, in hindsight, she erred in allowing greater leniency than she should have, but it is nothing like what is being proposed now.
Should have converted the LOC into an international border and finished the problem by not leaving wiggle room for the pakis.

Did you look at the eastern border before and after? And 7th fleet in the ocean and laksh of regugees? Yes, one can argue more could have been done but it is not the same as now. It is no 'slippery slope' for MMS to slip on. That is his own.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jun 2012 09:31

sanjaykumar wrote:Geneva Convention

Article 75 covers release at the end of hostilities. The release of prisoners should form part of the armistice. If this is not possible then repatriation of prisoners shall be effected with the least possible delay after the conclusion of peace.

sanjaykumar, Tell that to the Pakis. They still have Indian POWs from that war.

Veer Zara was not just a movie.

kittoo · Post by **kittoo** » 03 Jun 2012 14:42

ramana wrote:
sanjaykumar wrote:Geneva Convention

Article 75 covers release at the end of hostilities. The release of prisoners should form part of the armistice. If this is not possible then repatriation of prisoners shall be effected with the least possible delay after the conclusion of peace.

sanjaykumar, Tell that to the Pakis. They still have Indian POWs from that war.

Veer Zara was not just a movie.

This reminds me, most of the people didnt register this absolutely amazing movie, titled 1971, which deals with the same thing. Every BRFite must must watch this movie. One of the best patriotic movies made in India, ever.

http://www.flipkart.com/1971-movie/p/it ... e7c72ccefe

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0983990/

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 03 Jun 2012 17:36

Gentlemen, with all this focus on Siachen,what happened to the broader PoK dispute? Has the incompetent babus let it go?

atreya · Post by **atreya** » 03 Jun 2012 17:45

Kittoo is right, 1971 is a very realistic movie. Must watch!

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 03 Jun 2012 22:47

atreya wrote:Kittoo is right, 1971 is a very realistic movie. Must watch!

Found it on youtube here

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 04 Jun 2012 04:45

Indian & Paki Armies biggest hurdle in resolving Siachen: Paki Minister

Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, who was the defence minister till yesterday and has now been given the water and power portfolio in a minor Cabinet reshuffle, said India and Pakistan both stand to benefit from resolving the Siachen issue. The Pakistani minister claimed that the biggest hurdle in resolving the military standoff on the Siachen glacier are the armies of Pakistan and India.. . .In response to a question, Mukhtar claimed Siachen was Pakistani territory and Pakistan had "responded" when India claimed the glacier.. . .Asked how the Defence Minister, who is placed higher than the army chief, would allow a subordinate to take a decision, Mukhtar said that "Kayani would offer guidance (and) support, just as the government cooperates and supports the army."

Responding to a question why Pakistan is not making the first move of unilaterally withdrawing its troops to resolve the Siachen issue, Mukhtar contended that India was a big country and Pakistan expects it to demonstrate magnanimity by making the first move.

In response to another question, he said Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh want to resolve the Siachen issue through dialogue.

sukhish · Post by **sukhish** » 04 Jun 2012 05:06

"India was a big country and Pakistan expects it to demonstrate magnanimity"
I'm sick of this non sense, I'm big or small we are in no hurry in showing magnanimity. India should declare the
whole pakistan as a disputed teritorry

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 04 Jun 2012 05:11

The best part is the peace chattering classes will agree with him too on the highlighted parts too. Textbook peace chattering that.

Those against Indian capitulation have to be grateful that Pakistan continues to demonstrate its calibre with admirable consistency.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 04 Jun 2012 06:35

chetak wrote:
Should have converted the LOC into an international border and finished the problem by not leaving wiggle room for the pakis.

Also, would have meant leaving out the wiggle room for us, another concern on IG's mind at the time to not push this. Anyways, I am opposed to this conversion, it would be a huge strategic defeat to accept the LoC as the final border.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 04 Jun 2012 06:49

ShauryaT wrote:
chetak wrote:
Should have converted the LOC into an international border and finished the problem by not leaving wiggle room for the pakis.
Also, would have meant leaving out the wiggle room for us, another concern on IG's mind at the time to not push this. Anyways, I am opposed to this conversion, it would be a huge strategic defeat to accept the LoC as the final border.

and you are willing to give away Siachen to them, i.e. more than the LoC itself.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 04 Jun 2012 07:13

The reason I posted the Paki Defence Minister's views on Siachen was to highlight the Pakistani claims on that area even while demanding a 'big and generous India' to vacate the place. It is simple common sense to expect what would happen next once India vacates the heights and passes. Forget about the clear-cut 1949 Karachi agreement. Nobody draws a border with a straight line in a place such as Saltoro/Siachen without following the ridgelines, watersheds etc. and yet that is what Pakistan demands and we have a constituency that dithers and believes in the 'pious' protestations of the jihadi terrorists. The proposition of a DMZ, Uninhabited Zone and a Civilian Zone is all humbug and will not work with a determined Pakistan which is in deep collusion with China especially in this area. Chaudhry Mukhtar is also seen massaging the ego of the Indian PM by claiming that he would work out a deal with Gilani. Time is running out for Gilani (and MMS too) and Gilani may even threaten MMS with a far worse Imran Khan waiting in the wings to become the PM next year suggesting therefore to MMS to finish the deal now itself. India must be the timidest and most foolish country ever to vacate Siachen believing all the nonsense and taqiyya.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 04 Jun 2012 09:08

ramana wrote:
sanjaykumar, Tell that to the Pakis. They still have Indian POWs from that war.

Veer Zara was not just a movie.

Ramana, which POWs are you referring to? Not the list of 54 that is put out everywhere which unfortunately has too many holes.

( i have a bad habit of looking at historical evidence before taking a "POW list" at its face value..)

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 04 Jun 2012 09:08

atreya wrote:Kittoo is right, 1971 is a very realistic movie. Must watch!

I hope you guys are being sarcastic..
(in hyderabad, the movie would have been rated ..bandal

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 04 Jun 2012 09:12

SSridhar wrote:Indian & Paki Armies biggest hurdle in resolving Siachen: Paki Minister
Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, who was the defence minister till yesterday and has now been given the water and power portfolio in a minor Cabinet reshuffle, said India and Pakistan both stand to benefit from resolving the Siachen issue. The Pakistani minister claimed that the biggest hurdle in resolving the military standoff on the Siachen glacier are the armies of Pakistan and India.. . .In response to a question, Mukhtar claimed Siachen was Pakistani territory and Pakistan had "responded" when India claimed the glacier.. . .Asked how the Defence Minister, who is placed higher than the army chief, would allow a subordinate to take a decision, Mukhtar said that "Kayani would offer guidance (and) support, just as the government cooperates and supports the army."

Responding to a question why Pakistan is not making the first move of unilaterally withdrawing its troops to resolve the Siachen issue, Mukhtar contended that India was a big country and Pakistan expects it to demonstrate magnanimity by making the first move.

In response to another question, he said Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh want to resolve the Siachen issue through dialogue.

When the paki minister says "Indian & Paki Armies biggest hurdle in resolving Siachen" he is actually doing equal equal with Paki army and Indian army as if they are equal.
Someone should remind that moron that the Paki army is the most indisciplined and corrupt army in the world.
Indisciplined to the core and the orchastrator of endless number of coups and plots, this Paki army is an international paraiah, a threat to mankind and a shame to humanity.
To mention Indian army and the Paki army in the same vein is an insult to India, its people and the Indian Army.

I blame MMS and his chamchas for this situation. They have given this impression that they are ready and willing to accommodate every Paki demand and the only hindrance is the Indian Army.
MMS is certainly a great economist but without a doubt the worst PM India ever had. Absolutely disgusting..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2012 09:36

Jagan wrote:
ramana wrote:
sanjaykumar, Tell that to the Pakis. They still have Indian POWs from that war.

Veer Zara was not just a movie.
Ramana, which POWs are you referring to? Not the list of 54 that is put out everywhere which unfortunately has too many holes.

( i have a bad habit of looking at historical evidence before taking a "POW list" at its face value..)

Jagan, There is moving biography of an Indian soldier who was a POW and finally repatriated after ~20 years in the Indian Army History thread. Do read it.

Dont know how many more are there.

Joe's Story

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 04 Jun 2012 09:39

Jagan wrote:
atreya wrote:Kittoo is right, 1971 is a very realistic movie. Must watch!
I hope you guys are being sarcastic..
(in hyderabad, the movie would have been rated ..bandal

I'm curious as to which part - that they attempt to escape and what happens, or the concept of their being Indian PoW's itself?

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 04 Jun 2012 09:46

wrt above discussion: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/paki ... 85589.html

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 04 Jun 2012 21:36

Does Siachen have Major Strategic Significance?

By Gurmeet Kanwal

Defence Minister A K Antony visited Siachen Glacier on May 5, 2007 and reiterated the official position on demilitarizing the zone of conflict by saying: "India is ready for a solution. But from the very beginning, our position has been very clear. Before any forward movement, both sides must agree to authenticate the actual troop positions, both on the map and on the ground." With Pakistan refusing to do so, negotiations have floundered.

The key question that must be asked is whether Siachen has major strategic significance that justifies prolonged occupation, or are the two nations fighting over an icy wasteland merely for jingoistic and chauvinistic reasons? In his book Siachen: Conflict Without End, Lt Gen V. R. Raghavan (Retd.), a former DGMO, has written: "The (Siachen) theatre of conflict, as is now widely accepted, did not offer strategic advantages… It is clear that neither India nor Pakistan wished the Siachen conflict to assume its lasting and expensive dimensions." To justify a prolonged conflict, a piece of land must provide significant military advantage and open up options for seeking major military gains. It should either deny the adversary an avenue to launch strategic-level offensive operations to capture sensitive territory or resources, or offer the home side a launch pad for such a purpose.

Alternatively, for a land mass to be considered strategically significant, it must be politically or economically important. The neighbouring cities of Amritsar and Lahore are politically important for India and Pakistan, respectively. The provinces of Alsace and Lorraine were economically important to France and Germany due to the huge iron ore reserves that these provinces had and several wars were fought to gain control over them. Siachen does not qualify as an area of strategic importance on any of these grounds though it has now become a politically sensitive issue.

Many Indian analysts have made militarily unsustainable projections about the possibility of a China-Pak pincer movement over the Karakoram Range and the Saltoro Ridgeline into northern Ladakh with a view to capturing Leh. Such exaggerated apprehensions are truly amazing as these fail to take into account the lack of a road axis to mount and sustain a major offensive logistically. Thousands of tons of ammunition, fuel, oil and lubricants, and other supplies, including rations, clothing items for the extreme climatic conditions prevailing at Siachen and spares and batteries for radio sets and other telecom equipment, would need to be dumped over two to three summer seasons before a worthwhile military offensive could be launched. Since a major road cannot be built over a moving sheet of ice in what is perhaps the most treacherous mountainous terrain in the world, all logistics preparations by the adversaries would have to be undertaken by employing large transport helicopters. These slow-moving monsters would be sitting ducks for the fighter jets of the Indian Air Force.

Even if one were to grant the possibility of a joint China-Pak offensive into Ladakh, however remote the probability is in the new geo-political environment, better options are available to both the countries to plan and execute their offensives such that the Indian army is unbalanced at the operational level. China could develop its operations using the Demchok road along the Indus River as well as along the Chushul axis and Pakistan could plan to advance along the relatively less difficult Chalunka-Thoise approach from Skardu while simultaneously attacking into the Kargil sector to cut off Ladakh. If operations along this approach to Thoise, astride the Shyok River, could be successfully conducted by Pakistan, the Siachen area would be automatically cut off. Hence, it is more important to defend this axis in the Turtok sector rather than fight at Siachen itself.

Both the governments must make a dispassionate politico-military assessment of the advantages of defending Siachen and the costs of the conflict in terms of human lives and material resources. Dr. Stephen Cohen, a well-known and respected Washington-based South Asia analyst, has described the Siachen conflict as a fight between two bald men over a comb. In his view, "Siachen… is not militarily important… They (Indian and Pakistani armies) are there for purely psychological reasons, testing each other’s 'will'."

It is strategically unwise to continue to maintain a brigade group of almost 5,000 men at Siachen in treacherous terrain and harsh climatic conditions. The Siachen area should be accepted as a jointly controlled peace park for the scientific study of glacial belts and the effects of super high altitude on flora and fauna – a “mountain of peace” as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had called it during a visit in June 2005. Demilitarisation of the Siachen conflict zone will be a confidence building measure of enormous significance for Indo-Pak relations.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 04 Jun 2012 22:04

Gurmeet Kanwal article should be titled

How to sell your motherland to your Enemy when he is down and out.

What a disgrace.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Jun 2012 22:23

The ultimate tragedy of that article is that it needs to rely on the Stephen Cohen to buttress its line of argument....real sad day indeed. Having said that, what is the need to regurgitate articles which have already been rubbished here? GK talks of PA threat along Chalunka-Turtok-Thoise axis but fails to mention that PA has been desperately trying to outflank and unhinge the IA in the Turtok-Chalunka Sector or Sub Sector West as the IA calls it. Somehow, the pakees feel it is all right to fight for this "barren and useless" piece of land but Indian commentators never hesitate to make this claim and argument. Last time someone made this argument, we ended up with problem for centuries carry on our shoulders.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2012 22:35

Maybe he suffers from Gurez incident during Operation Parakram

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 04 Jun 2012 22:38

If we were to extend this to a logical end this joker will suggest that we leave the supplies so that the Pakis can occupy more easily and feel grateful for the big gesture India has made. Once this is done they can happily start one more reign of terror to then get the rest of J&K and from there the rest of the desh. We have to admire the Pakis for their consistence - they have not wavered an inch from their stated objective of dismembering india by a thousand cuts. When will the people in power ever learn?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 04 Jun 2012 22:39

These slow-moving monsters would be sitting ducks for the fighter jets of the Indian Air Force.

Amazing logic being propogated by the WKK's, they are ready to prepare for a future war if India vacates Siachen but not ready to actually prevent it by maintaining the status quo.

Alternatively, for a land mass to be considered strategically significant, it must be politically or economically important.

Ahh the "cost-benefit" analysis logic on the same lines of "Not a blade of grass grows there". We are already familiar with the consequences of such logic.

Mukhtar contended that India was a big country and Pakistan expects it to demonstrate magnanimity by making the first move.

Helluuu we have already shown our magnanimity by taking Siachen now pakistan can show it's magnanimity by kissing IA's ass and stopping to claim it.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 04 Jun 2012 22:42

ShauryaT wrote:Does Siachen have Major Strategic Significance?

By Gurmeet Kanwal

Defence Minister A K Antony visited Siachen Glacier on May 5, 2007 and reiterated the official position on demilitarizing the zone of conflict by saying: "India is ready for a solution. But from the very beginning, our position has been very clear. Before any forward movement, both sides must agree to authenticate the actual troop positions, both on the map and on the ground." With Pakistan refusing to do so, negotiations have floundered.

The key question that must be asked is whether Siachen has major strategic significance that justifies prolonged occupation, or are the two nations fighting over an icy wasteland merely for jingoistic and chauvinistic reasons? In his book Siachen: Conflict Without End, Lt Gen V. R. Raghavan (Retd.), a former DGMO, has written: "The (Siachen) theatre of conflict, as is now widely accepted, did not offer strategic advantages… It is clear that neither India nor Pakistan wished the Siachen conflict to assume its lasting and expensive dimensions." To justify a prolonged conflict, a piece of land must provide significant military advantage and open up options for seeking major military gains. It should either deny the adversary an avenue to launch strategic-level offensive operations to capture sensitive territory or resources, or offer the home side a launch pad for such a purpose.

Alternatively, for a land mass to be considered strategically significant, it must be politically or economically important. The neighbouring cities of Amritsar and Lahore are politically important for India and Pakistan, respectively. The provinces of Alsace and Lorraine were economically important to France and Germany due to the huge iron ore reserves that these provinces had and several wars were fought to gain control over them. Siachen does not qualify as an area of strategic importance on any of these grounds though it has now become a politically sensitive issue.

Many Indian analysts have made militarily unsustainable projections about the possibility of a China-Pak pincer movement over the Karakoram Range and the Saltoro Ridgeline into northern Ladakh with a view to capturing Leh. Such exaggerated apprehensions are truly amazing as these fail to take into account the lack of a road axis to mount and sustain a major offensive logistically. Thousands of tons of ammunition, fuel, oil and lubricants, and other supplies, including rations, clothing items for the extreme climatic conditions prevailing at Siachen and spares and batteries for radio sets and other telecom equipment, would need to be dumped over two to three summer seasons before a worthwhile military offensive could be launched. Since a major road cannot be built over a moving sheet of ice in what is perhaps the most treacherous mountainous terrain in the world, all logistics preparations by the adversaries would have to be undertaken by employing large transport helicopters. These slow-moving monsters would be sitting ducks for the fighter jets of the Indian Air Force.

Even if one were to grant the possibility of a joint China-Pak offensive into Ladakh, however remote the probability is in the new geo-political environment, better options are available to both the countries to plan and execute their offensives such that the Indian army is unbalanced at the operational level. China could develop its operations using the Demchok road along the Indus River as well as along the Chushul axis and Pakistan could plan to advance along the relatively less difficult Chalunka-Thoise approach from Skardu while simultaneously attacking into the Kargil sector to cut off Ladakh. If operations along this approach to Thoise, astride the Shyok River, could be successfully conducted by Pakistan, the Siachen area would be automatically cut off. Hence, it is more important to defend this axis in the Turtok sector rather than fight at Siachen itself.

Both the governments must make a dispassionate politico-military assessment of the advantages of defending Siachen and the costs of the conflict in terms of human lives and material resources. Dr. Stephen Cohen, a well-known and respected Washington-based South Asia analyst, has described the Siachen conflict as a fight between two bald men over a comb. In his view, "Siachen… is not militarily important… They (Indian and Pakistani armies) are there for purely psychological reasons, testing each other’s 'will'."

It is strategically unwise to continue to maintain a brigade group of almost 5,000 men at Siachen in treacherous terrain and harsh climatic conditions. The Siachen area should be accepted as a jointly controlled peace park for the scientific study of glacial belts and the effects of super high altitude on flora and fauna – a “mountain of peace” as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had called it during a visit in June 2005. Demilitarisation of the Siachen conflict zone will be a confidence building measure of enormous significance for Indo-Pak relations.

Now compare the statement of General Shri V.K. Singh's statement on Siachin from the video in the link:
http://www.timesnow.tv/General-VK-Singh ... 402930.cms

General: I have seen Siachin since 13th of April, 1984 when we went out there. I've seen a number of lives lost out there. Today we are sitting on dominating heights which cannot be given away. I am sorry. Who is going to look after them? Today your infrastructure is pretty well advanced, we perfectly ok out there. There are a few enviornmental casualities out there, yes we had a helicopter going down there yesterday.

Arnab: General Kayani seems very concerned about pollution and the environment there, some people find it funny. (Look at General's facial expressions at that. )

General: He's not even on Siachin Glacier he is sitting on the other side of Siachin. They are talking of Siachin glacier but they're not on Siachin. They are west of Saltoro ridge, they've been fooling their people by saying we're on Siachin.
So I think let it....(laughs) let it go, these are all gimmicks from the establishment of Pakistan, which keep coming from time to time, and we would be fools if we follow it.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 04 Jun 2012 23:29

During Fight , my enemy discovered that he has gangrene. To solve his problem he wants me to amputate my legs. I would be fools to accept his demand, onlee. Some dont think in this way.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Jun 2012 23:32

I hereby declare chaanakya as fascists, racist, communal and hondootvadi and saffron terror for asking to do logical things onleeeee....

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 04 Jun 2012 23:38

hmmm since Shukla is pro siachen

he should see the Gurmeet kanwal, MMS and BKS etc and see caste communal angle???

Jokes aside I am not sure why Kanwal is proceeding on this line - must be the new masters.

Need to check with my sources

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 04 Jun 2012 23:46

Brig. Gurmeet Kanwal wrote this article in May 2007, some 18 months before the Pakistan Army terrorist attack on Mumbai.

Let's wait and see if his views on appropriate Confidence Building Measures have evolved since them.

I am not a particularly religious person, but I think the mountain Gods were sending the Pakistanis a message with that avalanche ... "you are not wanted, you do not belong here, go away, don't come back".

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 05 Jun 2012 00:02

eklavya wrote:Brig. Gurmeet Kanwal wrote this article in May 2007, some 18 months before the Pakistan Army terrorist attack on Mumbai.

Let's wait and see if his views on appropriate Confidence Building Measures have evolved since them.

You can trace his stand on the issue to 2005.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 05 Jun 2012 00:07

ShauryaT wrote:
eklavya wrote:Brig. Gurmeet Kanwal wrote this article in May 2007, some 18 months before the Pakistan Army terrorist attack on Mumbai.

Let's wait and see if his views on appropriate Confidence Building Measures have evolved since them.
You can trace his stand on the issue to 2005.

I am interested in his views of appropriate CBMs post

(i) the Pakistan Army attack on Mumbai in Nov 2008.
(ii) the Pakistan Army attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul in July 2008.

In case anyone needs reminding, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani took over as Chief of the Army Staff of the Pakistan Army in November 2007.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 05 Jun 2012 01:19

eklavya wrote: I am interested in his views of appropriate CBMs post

(i) the Pakistan Army attack on Mumbai in Nov 2008.
(ii) the Pakistan Army attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul in July 2008.

In case anyone needs reminding, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani took over as Chief of the Army Staff of the Pakistan Army in November 2007.

I see. Do trace, what the GoI says about the role of ISI post 26/11.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 05 Jun 2012 01:26

ShauryaT wrote:
eklavya wrote: I am interested in his views of appropriate CBMs post

(i) the Pakistan Army attack on Mumbai in Nov 2008.
(ii) the Pakistan Army attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul in July 2008.

In case anyone needs reminding, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani took over as Chief of the Army Staff of the Pakistan Army in November 2007.
I see. Do trace, what the GoI says about the role of ISI post 26/11.

What do you see?

You agree or disagree that CBMs need to be assessed in light of the Kabul and Mumbai attacks on India planned and launched by the Pakistani Army under its current leadership?

No, you trace. Why are you hiding behind a cryptic statement? Please tell us your heartfelt views about the ISI.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 05 Jun 2012 07:03

ramana wrote: Ther r who was a POW and finally repatriated after ~20 years in the Indian Army History thread. Do read it.

Dont know how many more are there.

Joe's Story

Ah.. Joe's story .. Written by Wg Cdr Unni Kartha aka Cyclic. Dont get me wrong, I love Wg Cdr Kartha's writings. He has a flair for writing that is unmatched and many of the stories literally put you in the cockpit seat. .. But there are issues with that story..

Two years went by. Everyone including me forgot about Joe Swittens. Joe had no idea that the war was over, that there was a Shimla accord and that 98,000 Paki POWs had been returned to Pak and in reciprocity all known or publicly acknowledged Indian POWs had been sent back to India.

2nd Lt AGJ Swittens walked through the Wagha border into the waiting arms of Indian military police (MP) sometime Sep Oct 1973. He was the last POW to be exchanged after 71 war. Promptly, as soon as he set foot in India, he was arrested and incarcerated in Red Fort in Delhi. He was accused of being a spy, that he voluntarily stayed back in Pak and that he was brain washed.

When the article was circulated.. this is what another veteran - who was a POW Officer at that time wrote:

It is indeed wonderfully written; by someone who is undoubtedly a great wordsmith, very adept at churning up emotions.

However I have very big serious reservations about the truth quotient. Joe Swittens was well known to me. We shared the POW camp in LLyalpur, so he was definitely a declared POW all thru 1972. He was also repatriated along with all of us Dec 72.

He was indeed a delightful character, very lively, cheerful & positive. He was promptly rechristened "Mouse" by us AF guys, due to his physical resemblance to our own 'Mouse'Massey. He resented it greatly until I drew him aside and told him it is really an endearment and how 'Mouse' Massey was such a popular figure in the IAF. I met him a few times in Pune and am really saddened at his death. He had had quite a miserable life but struggled thru it manfully; indeed cheerfully.

May his soul rest in peace.

It is a great yarn, no doubt.. but is it a coincidence that since the above comments were circulated the original story has been pulled from the cyclic blog..?

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 05 Jun 2012 08:52

Jagan: did Joe indeed get arrested? and is the rest of the story true?

Any info/idea about Surjit singh (see the India today link above) story being true or manufactured? It seems odd that there is not much progress if it is true

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 05 Jun 2012 09:16

I have no idea about that part - viv. where is the india-today link? We can take this discussion to the history thread fwiw

Bishwa · Post by **Bishwa** » 07 Jun 2012 03:42

Does anyone know the speed of the Siachen Glacier?

In the case of Greenlands's Jakobshavn Isbræ (Kalaallisut: Sermeq Kujalleq) it is 20-30 meters per day
and for the Byrd Glacier (largest in Antartica) it is 2–3 m per day (from wikipedia).

If anybody has this information and can post it, it will be much appreciated.