Who stopped Harbaksh Singh?
Come on now. Then why was Lt. Gen Harbaksh Singh stopped from taking on Lahore? It was a reflection of his intent based on his judgment of realities and desired outcomes
Come on now. Then why was Lt. Gen Harbaksh Singh stopped from taking on Lahore? It was a reflection of his intent based on his judgment of realities and desired outcomes
SSridhar: I recognize that you are an expert observer of matters TSP. Also, not expecting you or anyone to change your views overnight but will share my perspective.SSridhar wrote: ShauryaT, I do not know with what new lenses, other than those of Islamism and the perfidious Pakistani behaviour, we can look at that wretched country. If anything, only these two behaviours are becoming increasingly prominent in that country. I do not have to repeatedly say, because everyone knows that too, that Pakistan is by no stretch of imagination even a third-rate nation state. We can shape the opinions of only decent nation-states through diplomacy, dialogues, reasonableness, give-and-take and generosity. I do agree that there is no clean satisfactory solution to Pakistan but that does not mean we walk into a minefield with our eyes wide open and with full knowledge of what is in store without trying less dangerous options for a prolonged period to satisfy ourselves that a change is 'uninterruptibly and uninterruptedly' in place there (to borrow from Mani Shankar Ayyar). Siachen cannot be the first step in testing waters with Pakistan. Why this rush ?
ShauryaT, a 'comprehensive defeat' of the enemy (whatever that may mean or howsoever that may be defined) on the scale of what happened in 1971 on the eastern front is not within the realm of possibility immediately. India is not focussed on such an eventuality either, now at least. Pakistan is now a nuclear power with a very low threshold, even if it bluffs on its threshold triggers. However, we have to deal with the aftermath of Pakistan's ill-conceived decisions both in its domestic and external fronts because both of them affect us and us only. I hold the view that the cost to India from a teetering Pakistan is much more than that of a failed Pakistan.ShauryaT wrote:However begs some questions, is a bloody nose enough? I would think not and if so, a comprehensive defeat (means their military capacity and sovereignty has to be controlled by us) demands, first the will to fight and defeat the enemy and then deal with its aftermath. I do not think, there is any political dispensation ready to prepare at that scale and deal with all its risks. There is no intent to do so and hence our capacities reflect that intent. If there was any possibility for the case, ABV would not have gone to Pakistan and the UPA would not keep spending levels on defense so low for so many years.
There is evidence that PM Nawaz Sharif was briefed ahead of ABV's trip about Kargil operation and Nawaz is not blameless as he piously claims. All Pakistanis are together in 'Project India', in my humble opinion. The articulation that the PA feels threatened and therefore needs military-level CBMs to calm them down is hollow, again IMHO. All the wars, skirmishes, nuclear threats and terrorism have come from that 'threatened' PA against a much larger India. Nowadays, the PA no longer talks of 'Indian threats'. It speaks of 'Indian capabilities' that need to be addressed effectively. There is no end to this drama. Ayesha Jalal calls Pakistan "Paranoidistan' caught in a mindset ‘heavily influenced by fear of India’ and consequently ‘conspiracy theories’. However, these conspiracy theories have been used to justify atrocities within their own country. It is no paranoia. Pakistan creates a facade of paranoia in order to conduct its nefarious design on India, which is the only immutable idea of Pakistan.On ABV's good intent trip to Lahore, the PA thought that it was our continuing perfidy of meaningless political platitudes to shove real issues under the table (just stating what they thought). The three service chiefs refused to accord a proper salute to Vajpayee at the border, as protocol demanded. It was quite clear that the PA did not endorse the Lahore process. It was an expensive mistake by us to presume that dealing with Pakistan political authority is enough and addressing its military concerns can be done through political intent and signals. What the PA is looking for is military CBM's for it is our military, that in their view threatens their state.
The mouse continues to think either it is bigger than the elephant next door or it is clever enough to gnaw its way to the elephant's brain through its ear and destroy it or it is capable of both. Its responses are conditioned by history that shows that whenever it was in the dumps, somehow something happened and it was able to recover, barely though, and fight India another day. Such hardened understanding of history will only be helped if we engage with them on Siachen on the lines you and a few others have suggested.On their Perfidies, for how long does a mouse think it can beat an elephant and play its games? They miscalculated Indian reaction to Kargil spectacularly. Have no hope in hell to get the valley. Lost competing strategically with India in 1971. Recognized that India can withstand the proxy war. They have been dumped by their foreign masters - three times by now. Their own Islamic agenda is firing back at them big time. At some point of time, the mouse has to look itself in the mirror and see the result of trying to compete and oppose an Elephant. This mirror is shining bright and many are beginning to see the futility of it all.
But, we gave recognition to Musharraf when he was shunned by the whole wide world by inviting him to Agra. We engaged the COAS of the PA if that was not a CBM directed at the PA. And, what was the result ?Also on Kargil, what I would have liked is for India to put the heads of the Gang of 4 on the table as a negotiating item that these 4 men at the very least have to be forsaken and cursed forever, if we do not have the heft yet, to ask for their prosecution.
^^^ Is this epicentre of your argument? That's it? And you hold your arguments in a vaunted position compared to those wanting to slap TSPA left and right for Kargil and Mumbai? I quoted the whole paragraph just to give the logorrhoea the chance to shine.On the question why the “rush”? The question is not one of rush but one of being meaningful and doable. If we recognize that PA military concerns are something worth addressing and can work in our larger interests, then the question becomes, what type of military CBM can be worked upon, which is the least risky for India. From PA’s perspective, what is it that becomes a meaningful CBM, which will address their central concern in a meaningful manner. It cannot be Neti-Neti.
Even before India assumes a pre-1984 position in Siachen, Pakistan has to assume a pre October 26, 1947 position in the entire Kashmir, hand over the entire state (including what it calls GB as well as Shaksgam which it handed over to China) to India, and allow India to establish peace first. Once that happens, the Siachen issue would be naturally superfluous.The fact that the Indian Army has blocked a return to the pre-Siachen conflict status of that uninhabitable region is by now recognised by one and all. The first step towards ending the senseless conflict — although a ceasefire for much of the last decade has meant at least the direct fighting has ended — must therefore be taken by the Indian side.
He is Pakistan's hope especially if he has a one-on-one meeting with Gilani. It must be ensured somehow that Shri Man Mohan Singh never gets to meet Gilani without other Indian delegation members being present.Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh may have been weakened by scandals at home but it is known that he cherishes the idea of normalising relations with Pakistan. There is still a narrow window of opportunity for Mr Singh to visit Pakistan later this year and perhaps solidify the gains in the Pak-India relationship that 2012 has offered
Oh yes, India must be generous, India must lead the way, India is the big brother yada, yada. India has lead the way in many other things. What has Pakistan learnt or how it has reciprocated ? Why not Pakistan lead the way for a change now ?The blood and treasure lost over Siachen hurts India and Pakistan and neither side has anything more to gain than bragging rights, satisfying military egos to take uncalled-for risks. India should lead the way.
Exactly the same point i always wonder about. Why does it always seem that India has to show generosity and show "sincierity" while TSP can keep hitting us again and again and then sit back and wait for India to show trust again.it remains the same - AGPL being delineated, authenticated and demarcated both on maps and on the ground. ok, it may not be as flexible as may be in 1992 but what one expects post KARGILL?? it is squarely in pakistan's court to show some sincerity and honour the bilateral agreements which will go a long way in building the 'trust' - sorely being missed - which btw was the reason GOI went back in 1992 (if The Hindu article is true)!!! how true it turned out.
Lalmohan ji, with sincerity let me put it to you like this. We have never seen any direct quotes from MMS on most things.Lalmohan wrote:much is ascribed to MMS, however i have never seen any direct quotes from him on bhai-chara concessions, so i wonder how much of this is actually true and how much is pak-propaganda to try to split indian opinion?
The CFA of Nov 2003. How this came about is testimony to the fact on how this feeling of deep mistrust (not unjustified) stopped us from realizing the gains of such a CFA. The IA was opposed to signing such a CFA, citing the reason that if signed and if PA violates in a local area, IA will be duty bound to still honor it and be reduced to sending dossiers. Pakistan unilaterally declared the CFA and India followed a few days later and agreed to adhere to it. The CFA to date is not signed but has been largely upheld. The results are there for all to see. Terrorism related deaths in J&K are down to below 200, I think last year from 4 digit figures in 2002. Infiltrations are way down. No matter how imperfect or what we think the real motivations were and how did these come about, the fact of the matter is the CFA has served Indian interests. It would be these type of half way measures that would be the only way forward with TSP.SSridhar wrote:But, we gave recognition to Musharraf when he was shunned by the whole wide world by inviting him to Agra. We engaged the COAS of the PA if that was not a CBM directed at the PA. And, what was the result ?
PratikDas, we have seen him do the unthinkable at Sharm-el-Sheikh when he met Gilani. We transpose such a behaviour to other situations and start worrying, especially when he meets his Pakistani counterpart one-on-one. That is the worry.PratikDas wrote: We have never seen any direct quotes from MMS on most things.
What can I say if you want to miss out other things. The Cease Fire came out for entirely different reasons.ShauryaT wrote:The CFA of Nov 2003.SSridhar wrote: And, what was the result ?
You've hit the nail on the head.SSridhar wrote:PratikDas, we have seen him do the unthinkable at Sharm-el-Sheikh when he met Gilani. We transpose such a behaviour to other situations and start worrying, especially when he meets his Pakistani counterpart one-on-one. That is the worry.PratikDas wrote: We have never seen any direct quotes from MMS on most things.
I recognize the multitude of reasons and do not mean to say, it was a result of Agra only, but it is something which is a result of dealing with the PA is the key point.SSridhar wrote: What can I say if you want to miss out other things. The Cease Fire came out for entirely different reasons.
and hereISLAMABAD: Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani has said that he reciprocated the sentiments for peace expressed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his address to the Lok Sabha on Wednesday.
Mr. Gilani said:
“At Sharm-el-Sheikh, we had useful talks and a good meeting of minds. We had agreed that terrorism was a common threat. We also agreed that dialogue is the only way forward.
“The Indian Prime Minister has rightly emphasised the importance of honourable settlement of the outstanding issues between India and Pakistan.
“I commend Dr. Manmohan Singh for his bold vision of peace and prosperity in South Asia and the statesmanship that he has demonstrated.”
Some more peace, harmony and other such wonderful ideas by Manmohan.He also defended the government's move on resuming talks with Pakistan, saying, "There is no other way of moving forward unless you want war." Clarifying government's stand on the Indo-Pak joint statement, the Prime Minister said it does not say talks with Pakistan despite terror attacks. He maintained that it is impossible to go forward with talks till Pakistan stops terror.
You have one example to show the intent of PA. Of course it is honoured in the much vaunted Paki style.ShauryaT wrote:The CFA of Nov 2003. How this came about is testimony to the fact on how this feeling of deep mistrust (not unjustified) stopped us from realizing the gains of such a CFA.
The IA knows the Shitistani's and rightfully had its reservations.ShauryaT wrote: The IA was opposed to signing such a CFA, citing the reason that if signed and if PA violates in a local area, IA will be duty bound to still honor it and be reduced to sending dossiers.
Unless anybody is brain-dead or has an agenda to wilfully propogate lies and push for a viewpoint which is more favourable to the other side, i see the result with 12 vilolations just this year.ShauryaT wrote:The CFA to date is not signed but has been largely upheld. The results are there for all to see.
Please read the bold party carefully. Now, have a look at the map of POK-Siachen-Aksai Chin below:Thence, the boundary line, running generally southward and then eastward, strictly follows the Karakoram Range main watershed which separates the Tarim River drainage system from the Indus River drainage system, passing through the East Mustagh Pass (Muztagh Pass), the top of the Chogri Peak (K2), the top of the Broad Peak, the top of the Gasherbrum Mountain (8068) Indirakoli Pass (named on the Chinese map only) and the top of the Teram Kangri Peak, and reaches its southeastern extremity at the Karakoram Pass.
A situation wherein Pakistan provides a proxy vote for China while China chairs the meeting with its UNSC credentials.rohitvats wrote:By agreeing to any agreement which throws open the question about the ownership of Siachen and gives Pakistan foot in the door, we run the risk of making Pakistan a party to any settlement between Indian and China on LAC in the Ladakh Sector. And this can unleash its own set of dynamics inimical to Indian interests. For example - if we accept the "disputed" nature of the Siachen and Pakistan claim line till Karakoram Pass, tomorrow in any settlement with China, China may well ask for opinion on Pakistan on the subject.
TO no one’s surprise, the talks between the Pakistani and Indian secretaries of defence on the Siachen dispute have concluded without any forward movement. The boilerplate joint statement promising to “make serious, sustained and result-oriented efforts for seeking an amicable resolution of Siachen” offers little consolation because those are precisely the kind of efforts that are missing from the equation. Since the tragedy in Gayari in April, the madness of the Siachen conflict has been fully exposed — yet again. But so has the stubbornness on both sides. The fact that the Indian Army has blocked a return to the pre-Siachen conflict status of that uninhabitable region is by now recognised by one and all. The first step towards ending the senseless conflict — although a ceasefire for much of the last decade has meant at least the direct fighting has ended — must therefore be taken by the Indian side. However, as Ahmed Mukhtar hinted after he left the defence portfolio, the overall fault lies on both sides. There is so much mistrust between the old military adversaries — exemplified by the recklessness that was Kargil in 1999 — that to convince one side that the other will abide by a written agreement and will not try to take advantage of a withdrawal is
simply too difficult.There is still a narrow window of opportunity for Mr Singh to visit Pakistan later this year and perhaps solidify the gains in the Pak-India relationship that 2012 has offered. While it is difficult for a political leadership to overcome its army high command in even the most democratic dispensations of the world — the Obama administration’s struggles with its military on the way forward in Afghanistan being one example; the Siachen veto wielded by the Indian Army being another — ultimately statesmanship is about grasping the nettle. The blood and treasure lost over Siachen hurts India and Pakistan and neither side has anything more to gain than bragging rights, satisfying military egos to take uncalled-for risks. India should lead the way.Over here in Pakistan, the focus on Siachen should not detract from other areas where potential gains are being frittered away.A markedly improved visa regime between the two countries had only to be signed by the Pakistani side last month but somehow that didn’t happen. Similarly, movement on trade is being gummed up with new objections and concerns. Pakistani policymakers need to get their act together soon.
This is where, I would say, you differ, and that is the source of the rest of it, I guess.A failed Pakistan is not in Indian interests
On the contrary, these ideas have WON in TSP, again, you can choose to ignore it....These ideas of Islamism have to be defeated
Pakis know fumbling MMS is their best bet to get some concession out of India. Misphortunately even MMS, whose days seems to be numbered, cannot help them when it comes to Siachen. IA will and should have the final say in this matter.Jhujar wrote:Siachen dispute
http://dawn.com/2012/06/13/siachen-dispute/There is still a narrow window of opportunity for Mr Singh to visit Pakistan later this year and perhaps solidify the gains in the Pak-India relationship that 2012 has offered. While it is difficult for a political leadership to overcome its army high command in even the most democratic dispensations of the world — the Obama administration’s struggles with its military on the way forward in Afghanistan being one example; the Siachen veto wielded by the Indian Army being another — ultimately statesmanship is about grasping the nettle. The blood and treasure lost over Siachen hurts India and Pakistan and neither side has anything more to gain than bragging rights, satisfying military egos to take uncalled-for risks. India should lead the way.
But that CFA did not come until the Huge offensive artillery by IA in Operation parakramShauryaT wrote:The CFA of Nov 2003. How this came about is testimony to the fact on how this feeling of deep mistrust (not unjustified) stopped us from realizing the gains of such a CFA. The IA was opposed to signing such a CFA, citing the reason that if signed and if PA violates in a local area, IA will be duty bound to still honor it and be reduced to sending dossiers. Pakistan unilaterally declared the CFA and India followed a few days later and agreed to adhere to it. The CFA to date is not signed but has been largely upheld. The results are there for all to see. Terrorism related deaths in J&K are down to below 200, I think last year from 4 digit figures in 2002. Infiltrations are way down. No matter how imperfect or what we think the real motivations were and how did these come about, the fact of the matter is the CFA has served Indian interests. It would be these type of half way measures that would be the only way forward with TSP.SSridhar wrote:But, we gave recognition to Musharraf when he was shunned by the whole wide world by inviting him to Agra. We engaged the COAS of the PA if that was not a CBM directed at the PA. And, what was the result ?
Before the Ceasefire, we have to understand why there was a need for that. The need arose because the PA mounted a terrorism attack on the symbol of statehood, the Parliament, following a dry run on the state assembly, the first suicide attack, in J&K. Earlier, the unilateral ceasefire by Atal Behari Vajpayee invited the Red Fort fidayeen attack. Of course, we have had a series of coordinated multi-city bombings, attacks on commuter trains, urban guerrilla warfare. bombings of places of worship and so on and so forth. We may forget everything and propose to withdraw from Saltoro and Siachen but then we must be the most foolish, most generous, the softest and the timidest nation ever to have existed on Planet Earth.Aditya_V wrote:But that CFA did not come until the Huge offensive artillery by IA in Operation parakram
There were many reasons, including Parakram, engaging with PA (Agra), American involvement (Nancy Powell is on record for a cease fire since Jan 2003), recognition of PA that Kashmir is going nowhere, PA's needs to focus on its west and get a buffer. The point of the CFA regardless of how it came and its imperfections are the followingAditya_V wrote: But that CFA did not come until the Huge offensive artillery by IA in Operation parakram
Please do put yourself in PA's shoes and expand further on what options you think they have if India refuses to budge from "authenticate, delineate and demarcate".ShauryaT wrote:Put yourself in the PA’s shoes, if you are convinced that India is not going to negotiate anything and given the geo-political realities of today or 10 years from today, what are your options? What will you do? They still have viable options to survive and give us more shocks and further detoriate our interests and ambitions, jeopardizing our security and economic interests. If India does not address their concerns, then we better be sure that they have no other option but to negotiate and climb down. I fear they continue to have options, not those that serve them best but nevertheless options.
Can it further Indian interests?? You have not yet shown how it can further indian interests.ShauryaT wrote:
The Siachen CBM should be looked upon in a similar manner. Can it further Indian interests? Can we manage its risks?
People who are blinded to the truth or simply unwilling to see it cannot be reasoned with. A person who is really blind can still be made to see but one who is unwilling to see despite having eyes has no cure.chaanakya wrote:Can it further Indian interests?? You have not yet shown how it can further indian interests.ShauryaT wrote:
The Siachen CBM should be looked upon in a similar manner. Can it further Indian interests? Can we manage its risks?
Can we manage its risks?? Yes we can but the cost would not justify taking the risk ab initio. Period.
I am presuming following suppositions made for the above:ramana wrote:Kargil showed us despite rhetoric India did not cross the IB or LOC at places of advantage and was stuck clearing up the occupation in Kargil.
Similarly any potential occupation of Siachen will lead to combat ops in Siachen area only. Forget all those dash to Skardu or Pindi type paper exercises. We have seen the track record. It will lead to tremendous costs:monetary, lives of troops, diplomatic capital, bogey of nuclear flash points etc. Why invite all these costs?
It has to be something that both sides want. On the LoC as of today, Siachen is the best bet. It is so because it is least risky (UZ is possible and so is the CZ, with sparse populations) among available options (will not use the word strategic as that word means anything to anyone these days). A CBM on the LoC, can be a future template for all of the LoC, if it works, in stages. Siachen is important from PA’s perspective. In their view, we aggressed and broke 1972 agreement through force. (yes, I know our counters and reasons for doing so but we have to deal with their views on it) Siachen, negates the PA’s view that the only way to deal with India is through force. For many such reasons, Siachen is important to address.Think of a CBM like the CFA which does not involve potential occupation of Indian lands.
Please follow your own advice. The biggest lesson from Kargil is "Prevention is better than cure". If we don't give any opportunity to the PA to occupy any more of our territory, we won't have to fight a war to win it back.ShauryaT wrote: The right lessons from Kargil will have to be learned or we did be stupid.
That statement's context was totally different. It was about our reaction. Anyways, the Siachen CBM is premised on joint monitoring, not blind trust like in Kargil. So, the lesson you want learnt is being done.nachiket wrote:Please follow your own advice. The biggest lesson from Kargil is "Prevention is better than cure". If we don't give any opportunity to the PA to occupy any more of our territory, we won't have to fight a war to win it back.ShauryaT wrote: The right lessons from Kargil will have to be learned or we did be stupid.