Siachen News & Discussion

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 15 Jun 2012 03:23

Just thinking out loud. Is it possible to bury remote controlled bombs (even sub kiloton nukes) on the climb to the glacier that can be triggered by proximity fuse or some other way if porkis try to climb up? Natural avalanche polished off a hundred of them this way we can help a lending hand to mother nature.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 15 Jun 2012 03:36

A Peace Park cannot have sub-kt nukes with proximity fuses. The grand idea is that tourists are going to run around crazy happy.

Solution: Ditch the peace park.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 15 Jun 2012 03:59

ShauryaT wrote: That statement's context was totally different. It was about our reaction.

I know. But Kargil provided us with many lessons. Foremost among them was the one I mentioned.

Anyways, the Siachen CBM is premised on joint monitoring, not blind trust like in Kargil. So, the lesson you want learnt is being done.

Please understand that when you agree to joint-monitoring, you are legitimizing Pakistan's claim on that territory or at the least bolstering it. This would be different if we each controlled half and there were regular firing incidents that needed to be stopped. As things stand we control all of it and there are no regular clashes reported. Withdrawing and agreeing to joint monitoring serves absolutely no purpose and is actually counter-productive.

It is another thing that Joint monitoring and the like are particularly bad ideas when your adversary is a known double-crosser and back-stabber and you yourself have a very vocal population of peaceniks (with too much representation in the media) willing to give away an arm and a leg in the hopes that it will satisfy your enemy.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 15 Jun 2012 04:12

nachiket wrote: Please understand that when you agree to joint-monitoring, you are legitimizing Pakistan's claim on that territory or at the least bolstering it. This would be different if we each controlled half and there were regular firing incidents that needed to be stopped. As things stand we control all of it and there are no regular clashes reported. Withdrawing and agreeing to joint monitoring serves absolutely no purpose and is actually counter-productive.

It is another thing that Joint monitoring and the like are particularly bad ideas when your adversary is a known double-crosser and back-stabber and you yourself have a very vocal population of peaceniks willing to give away an arm and a leg in the hopes that it will satisfy your enemy.

Please understand, the claim exists since Oct 26, 1947 and is accepted as an issue to talk about. Our self denial does not make it go away. We control all of what and to what end and how? What I want to control is not in control and what should be a control of last resort, I do at great expense and blood and animosity generated. Is this the type of physical control we want? It serves the purpose of a CBM if you want peace with Pakistan, if you do not desire peace then it does not. Go to the other side, and see what they say about us on Siachen. The remarks are identical by some. Now, being an Indian, I can say, Pakis are wrong, I am right, end of story, yada , yada. But, does not make the problem go away. On our peaceniks, there is no doubt that much is desired from the current administration. But it is in exactly the opposite way in which you did think, I am saying the above. ABV was far more courageous to pursue the peace template and actually got things done.

If you do not like either parties, you did have to invent a new Indian. Now, that will take some time.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 15 Jun 2012 04:24

The suggestion is that the problem will go away with CBMs. This is a fallacy. The problem will grow.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 15 Jun 2012 04:27

ShauryaT wrote: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.

Pakistan knows only too well that India's operation in 1984 pre-empted their own operation.

Pakistan Army needs enemity with India to maintain its position, power and wealth in Pakistan. If not Siachen, they will find a 1000 other reasons to stoke up hostility with India.

Your "thought process" regarding Siachen and "CBMs" is frankly a bit pitiful.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 15 Jun 2012 04:30

ShauryaT wrote:It serves the purpose of a CBM if you want peace with Pakistan, if you do not desire peace then it does not.

What if Pakistan Army does not desire peace with India?

Then all your "CBM" theories go down the toilet, right?

Evidence of last 65 years is that Pakistan Army does not desire peace with India.

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 15 Jun 2012 05:29

Giving away land for peace is a non starter. India gave away Haji Pir to pakistan in 1965 only to regret it later.
I have not seen a more one sided debate, not just in terms of numbers, for and against, but also in terms of points discussed. In the end it appears to me that some of us are running around in circles.

To assume that the Pakistani Army will change its attitude and/or methods, if we give up this or that is a fallacy. PA in its own interest will continue to raise issues, one after another, if it is not Siachen it will be water issue or some other issue will be added to the list of "core issues".
I do not believe that India has any role to play in strengthening so called "democracy " in Pakistan. It is up to Pakistani people. Pakistani army is for them and is their burden, not our's. We should not be asked to sacrifice our territory for it.
Any discussion on Siachen actually strengthens PA. The mango abdul is made to believe that it is because of PA that India is at the negotiating table, which is why Siachen should not be on the table in the first place.
As regards what PA thinks about Indian presence in Siachen, I could not care less. Pakistan tried to grab Siachen in 1984 and failed and thereafter tried to dislodge us from the heights many times, each attempt ending in failure. Having tried and failed many times militarily, the effort now is to achieve their goal using political means.
WRT strategic importance of Siachen, many posters including Rohit Vats ji have described in great detail why India needs to hold the heights.
I strongly agree with those opinion.

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 15 Jun 2012 05:35

I partly agree with Shaurya's thoughts. I think India should grow out of its Pak centric strategy and look to start thinking as a world-power. It has to start thinking strategically than tactically.

Tactical thinking would say hold on to Siachen, do not go with CBMs, etc. Strategic thinking is to look at how, by making peace with Pakistan, India can have a less-hindered growth economically and strategically. Neither now, or 10/20 years hence, Pak would not be much of a military threat one-on-one. India's focus should be to keep peace and keep Pak from being an irritant with its progress economically and geo-politically.

Now how do we keep Pak out is to be debated. War is not a solution, unless it is brought upon India - it will put India behind US and China again by a couple of decades at-least. That would be unsavory and we would have lost a golden opportunity to play a leadership role. It may take us another 50 years to re-gain that. Neither do we have the capability to manage another 500 mil Pakis, once India wins the war militarily (Yes, loss of confidence in GoI on that front).

We need a strategic ("Chanikyan") victory - where India keeps Pak at bay, they do not irritate us and they do not implode, as well. The solutions can be varied, but as an end result this is what India wants. If that happens to include reclaiming PoK, it would be sweeter

.

As an aside thought, what would have the US, Russia or China done in a similar situation (California purchase, Alaska, Tibet, Mongolia)? It would be interesting to hear what these countries would have done...

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 15 Jun 2012 07:10

^^A world power doesn't concede its territory as 'CBM'. It just doesnt square up.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 15 Jun 2012 07:34

Are we trying solve a problem that has no easy answers in its current state b'cas of its similarity to game theory type problem known as Prisoner's Dilemma?

The prisoner's dilemma is a canonical example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interest to do so

For example, if there were no Chinese in the mix, would any proposal on Siachen or Kasmir move forward? No doubt, it would move somewhere. Everytime we get into any discussion about Siachen or Kashmir, we are not sure about how PA, PA and PLA, or PLA in absence of PA would respond to ground adjustment. So, when we we say no to PA, we are actually responding to multiple possibilities. So, why is it wrong to blame those, who say that the lack of confidence and past behavior of PA, a primary reason why GoI should stay put in the commanding heights in Siachen? But, without certain degree of trust things wont move forward with PA either. So, those who suggest backing from Siachen as a CBM are not wrong either. Would people support a CBM where DMZ is observed only after TSP completely disassociates itself from PLA from northern areas?

And why would TSP support such an idea? Apart from its simplicity, there is no doubt that a healthy Pakistan, in spite of unresolved Kasmir (or Siachen for that matter) has every single incentive in making good with India, with which it can share or exchange everything water, tech, agri, electricity, trade, culture etc etc; more than it can do with Chinese. There is very little TSP can offer to Chinese in terms of trade, instead be at risk of cheap imports and have its domestic economy killed. Can this type of relationship have dual effects? Kick the Chinese from PoK and solve the border dispute? There was a time to kill the TSP cancer plaguing India, and that time is long gone...Just a thought....

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 15 Jun 2012 07:58

viv wrote:^^A world power doesn't concede its territory as 'CBM'. It just doesnt square up.

We were starting to think like a world power until "leaders" with a municipal corporation mentality showed up and took charge in the name of "coalition dharma" rajmata, raja and the whole pathetic and poisonous dmk brood , kalmadi, mms, et al, just to name few.

"Accommodating" the PA must end once and for all. Our politicians have no business engaging their army, such negotiations lack legitimacy. The IA is quite right in articulating it's views, after all it is they who must face the brunt of stupid CBMs conceded by self serving politicos.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 15 Jun 2012 08:06

The only way to have peace with pakistan is to do what chanakya did...wage a covert war. forge alliances with the sindhis, balochis, etc and crush the punjabi military elite. ofcourse chai biskoot, bollywood, dharmic thinking etc should be promoted as well.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 15 Jun 2012 08:24

chanakyaa,

it is NOT a prisoners dilemma. It is a staged one. In a prisoner's dilemma, each of them have to take decisions without knowing what the other is taking. In this proposed WKK hyper idiotic brain waves, there is no initial Pak action. It is India and India alone which takes action. Then after India's action, Pak gets to decide what to do. So the present payoff matrix is completely different from what the payoffs are after going through WKK route.

In Siachen, in military factors.

the current situation of three players
India -
advantages: strategically decent, prevents link up of china&Pak at karakoram pass instead of further west at khunjerab pass, leh is threatened only by china
disadvantages: relatively minor economic and human costs
risk: minimal
oppurtunities: easy ones null
Pakistan - discomfort
oppurtunities: easy ones nill
China - relatively neutral

Remember in the WKK situation it is only India which has changed its position
India -
advantages: minor economic and human cost reduction
disadvantages: strategically imbalanced
risk: very very High. leh is threatened with a link up at karakoram pass which is tankable. the shyok valley is under threat. Recapturing it can be ruled out in the nuclearized environment.
Pak -
advantages: batalik sector is unthreatened.
Opportunities: occupying siachen gives a huge leg up, In a nuclearized enviroment without going to a full scale war, localized conflict in siachen ala 1999 is comparatively easier. Can link up over the shyok valley threatening leh
risk: none
China -
oppurtunities: leh can now threatened by Pak as well

With such a worse payoff matrix for India how the hell are the WKKs trying to spin as advantageous, I have no idea.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 15 Jun 2012 08:24

ShauryaT wrote:Siachen, negates the PA’s view that the only way to deal with India is through force.

ShauryaT, many other things we have debated and I though there was nothing more left, but this one caught my eye. If PA has not learnt that 'force is not way to deal with India' after so many wars, battles and skirmishes, especially after one of the most comprehensive defeats in the entire history of war-making, Siachen is the last thing that is going to change their opinion. Don't you agree ?

Besides, the PA should know pretty well who started wars and who nurtures enduring hostility with whom. If they think it is India, then nothing we do, short of giving away the whole of India to them, would satisfy them. In the fog of enmity, sometimes facts may be clouded and there could be only a thin line separating the two parties in war. However, in the India-Pakistan case, there is no fog; it is bright as a tropical daylight in the middle of a summer as to who is right and who is wrong. The 60 years (and if one includes the modern Indian Islamist thought process, then a 100 years) of enduring hostility emanates from only one side and a 2000 Sq Km of glaciated land is not going to alter the psyche even if India gifts away that land. I am amazed that we even think along these lines.

After Siachen, the PA will demand that the IA cannot acquire modern weapons, missiles, FGFA etc because these capabilities threaten the PA. Then, how will we negate that view ? There is no end to this chain of appeasement.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 15 Jun 2012 08:45

SSridhar wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:Siachen, negates the PA’s view that the only way to deal with India is through force.
ShauryaT, many other things we have debated and I though there was nothing more left, but this one caught my eye. If PA has not learnt that 'force is not way to deal with India' after so many wars, battles and skirmishes, especially after one of the most comprehensive defeats in the entire history of war-making, Siachen is the last thing that is going to change their opinion. Don't you agree ?

Besides, the PA should know pretty well who started wars and who nurtures enduring hostility with whom. If they think it is India, then nothing we do, short of giving away the whole of India to them, would satisfy them. In the fog of enmity, sometimes facts may be clouded and there could be only a thin line separating the two parties in war. However, in the India-Pakistan case, there is no fog; it is bright as a tropical daylight in the middle of a summer as to who is right and who is wrong. The 60 years (an if one includes the modern Indian Islamist thought process, then a 100 years) of enduring hostility emanates from only one side and a 2000 Sq Km of glaciated land is not going to alter the psyche even if India gifts away that land. I am amazed that we even think along these lines.

After Siachen, the PA will demand that the IA cannot acquire modern weapons, missiles, FGFA etc because these capabilities threaten the PA. Then, how will we negate that view ? There is no end to this chain of appeasement.

The pakis have triumphed every military disaster they have ever been in by finagling the generosity of their foolish "enemies".

Are we to fall for this gambit yet again?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 15 Jun 2012 16:40

Xposting from jk thread

The peace loving Pakistan army sends its love by killing two of our soldiers as an advance gift in exchange of Siachen.

http://chhindits.blogspot.com/2012/06/p ... 5-div.html

Meanwhile Omar Abdullah saab talks of treating Siachen not as a different issue. He also was seen complaining in twitter about killing of a NC worker - couldnt find news about it.

http://www.kashmirobserver.net/index.ph ... s&Itemid=2

@abdullah_omar

I suppose because Abdul Rehman Ganai was a NC activist his killing today is not worthy of the outrage we often see here in Twitteristan.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 15 Jun 2012 18:04

yantra wrote:I partly agree with Shaurya's thoughts. I think India should grow out of its Pak centric strategy and look to start thinking as a world-power. It has to start thinking strategically than tactically.

Tactical thinking would say hold on to Siachen, do not go with CBMs, etc. Strategic thinking is to look at how, by making peace with Pakistan, India can have a less-hindered growth economically and strategically. Neither now, or 10/20 years hence, Pak would not be much of a military threat one-on-one. India's focus should be to keep peace and keep Pak from being an irritant with its progress economically and geo-politically.

Now how do we keep Pak out is to be debated. War is not a solution, unless it is brought upon India - it will put India behind US and China again by a couple of decades at-least. That would be unsavory and we would have lost a golden opportunity to play a leadership role. It may take us another 50 years to re-gain that. Neither do we have the capability to manage another 500 mil Pakis, once India wins the war militarily (Yes, loss of confidence in GoI on that front).

We need a strategic ("Chanikyan") victory - where India keeps Pak at bay, they do not irritate us and they do not implode, as well. The solutions can be varied, but as an end result this is what India wants. If that happens to include reclaiming PoK, it would be sweeter .

As an aside thought, what would have the US, Russia or China done in a similar situation (California purchase, Alaska, Tibet, Mongolia)? It would be interesting to hear what these countries would have done...

Looks like a copy pasted TOI Op-Ed. Siachen is not a deterrent to economic and developmental advances by India. In another 20 years even TSP as a whole will not be a deterrent but will have nuisance value.

Kudos to those who are debating the same points over and over again like a broken record with ShauryaT. Hats off to your patience.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 15 Jun 2012 18:35

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19054

Pakistan waging ‘war’ on Line of Control

Official sources say the Pakistani army is targeting the Indian posts with rockets, mortars and automatic weapons in the Krishna Ghati sector for over 24 hours. The Pakistani troopers have ignored messages sent across through a hotline, seeking de-escalation of the situation along the LoC.

In a season of 'cosmetic' Indo-Pakistan diplomatic bonhomie, the security situation along the Line of Control (LoC) in frontier Poonch district is tense.

Official sources say the Pakistani army is targeting the Indian posts with rockets, mortars and automatic weapons in the Krishna Ghati sector for over 24 hours. The Pakistani troopers have ignored messages sent across through a hotline, seeking de-escalation of the situation along the LoC.

The ceasefire breach comes in the backdrop of new Army chief General Bikram Singh's two-day visit to Jammu & Kashmir from Friday.

One solider has already succumbed to his injuries while two others with critical bullet injuries are undergoing treatment.

The first round of firing started on Wednesday around 2 pm and continued for over three hours. Initially, India exercised restraint but both sides exchanged heavy firing after Pakistani Army officers ignored hotline messages.

Contrary to the concept of honour among soldiers, even jawans who went forward to retrieve the dead body of the killed soldier were shot at by Pakistan. Ministry of Defence spokesman Col RK Palta said firing was escalated from other Pakistani posts, using rockets and heavy automatic weapons, to prevent evacuation of injured jawans.

Palta added that intermittent mortar and automatic firing had been continuing, though the situation was under control. "Both armies exchanged intermittent firing till Thursday afternoon," the Colonel added. Senior Army officers are monitoring the situation very closely and have sounded the alert following reports of attempted infiltration bids from across the LoC.

In the past two weeks, the Pakistani army has violated the ceasefire agreement on four occasions and several small groups have attempted infiltration but failed.

Now some close to those in 'power' or 'near to power' are providing this argument:

ShauryaT wrote: A CBM on the LoC, can be a future template for all of the LoC, if it works, in stages. Siachen is important from PA’s perspective. In their view, we aggressed and broke 1972 agreement through force.* (yes, I know our counters and reasons for doing so but we have to deal with their views on it) Siachen, negates the PA’s view that the only way to deal with India is through force. For many such reasons, Siachen is important to address.

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

*It's well know that IA acted on intelligence report that PA had decided to take over Siachin and checkmated them. Ack thoo !!!

sum · Post by **sum** » 15 Jun 2012 18:58

Contrary to the concept of honour among soldiers, even jawans who went forward to retrieve the dead body of the killed soldier were shot at by Pakistan. Ministry of Defence spokesman Col RK Palta said firing was escalated from other Pakistani posts, using rockets and heavy automatic weapons, to prevent evacuation of injured jawans.

^^Aman ki Asha onlee...

If only the Indians had made the border TSPA guards feel secure and not shown themselves holding weapons and good quality bunkers etc, the TSP-ians wouldnt have been provoked and attacked the aggressive Indians

Vashishtha · Post by **Vashishtha** » 15 Jun 2012 19:20

The ceasefire breach comes in the backdrop of new Army chief General Bikram Singh's two-day visit to Jammu & Kashmir from Friday.

Testing Bikram Singh?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jun 2012 21:16

yantra, Right after Independence, Mahtma Gandhi fasted to ensure GOI transfers the money from Treasury which was being held up to ensure good behavior by TSP. In one way that was the California and Alsaka purschase rolled into one and a huge CBM.
Yet TSP invaded Jammu and Kashmir!

Point is everything has been tried at some time or the other and has not worked with TSP.

India needs to not be in a hurry to become a regional or global super power or whatnot. Let kaal take its time and work his magic.

Who are the people in a hurry for India to become a toothless power in their lifetime?

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 15 Jun 2012 22:57

Manish_Sharma wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19054
Pakistan waging ‘war’ on Line of Control

(Hopefully) Eye opener for Mahatma Shaurya ji other "Gift them Siachin" folks

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 15 Jun 2012 23:54

sameer_shelavale wrote: (Hopefully) Eye opener for Mahatma Shaurya ji other "Gift them Siachin" folks

Sorry, did not see that poster's post, on ignore list onlee. You really mean traitor don't you. Keep the gaalis coming, that is what gets me going here.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 16 Jun 2012 00:43

ShauryaT wrote:Please understand, the claim exists since Oct 26, 1947 and is accepted as an issue to talk about. Our

self denial does not make it go away.

In 1947 Pakistan claimed Hyderabad and Junagadh as well. That lasted until we stamped our control on the territories and

made sure that the pakis never had any hope of getting their hands on them. They already control a third of Kashmir. If we

can't get it back, the least we can do is stop putting the territory that we do control up for negotiation.

We control all of what and to what end and how? What I want to control is not in control and what should be a

control of last resort, I do at great expense and blood and animosity generated. Is this the type of physical control

we want?

All of Siachen. I thought it was obvious in the context. And our control of Siachen does not generate animosity. The

animosity has always been there. For six decades and it runs far deeper than Siachen. Withdrawing from Siachen will not

make it go away or even lessen it to any significant extent. It would be incredibly naive to think in these terms.
As for the blood and sacrifice, it has lessened over the years thanks to better clothes and equipment. And more

importantly, if we were to withdraw in order to reduce the blood and sacrifice, we will end up sacrificing a lot more blood

and resources when we try to take it back from the pakis. The army certainly seems to think so. And since they are the ones

sacrificing everything, I'll defer to their judgement.The Siachen area itself has been largely peaceful since the pakis

figured out they cannot dislodge the IA from their positions.
As for the strategic significance of Siachen (or rather our positions on Saltoro ridge), Rohit has made numerous posts in

this thread replete with pictures and maps and explained it in great detail. Go and read them if you haven't.

It serves the purpose of a CBM if you want peace with Pakistan, if you do not desire peace then it does not.

My desire for peace is useless if the other side does not desire it as well. And we have had no indications of the same

from the other side, specifically the TSPA, aside from a few meaningless comments from Kayani. Hafiz saeed is still at

large , the terror infra remains intact. ISI's activities of printing FICN and sponsoring the IM, etc continue unabated.
Your argument is basically "Let them have a little something as a gesture so that they will be satisfied and leave us alone

and not ask for more." Chamberlain made a similar argument on a larger scale once upon a time and probably regretted it his

entire life thereafter.

Go to the other side, and see what they say about us on Siachen. The remarks are identical by some. Now, being an Indian, I

can say, Pakis are wrong, I am right, end of story, yada , yada. But, does not make the problem go away.

Uh, the other side also dreams about Ghazwa-e-Hind and flying the green flag on Lal qila. And considering the grassroots

support for the LeT and other jihadi groups, the TSPA is not alone in this. So yeah, pakis are wrong, I am right. End of

story. And I am not delusional to think this makes the problem go away. But at least it doesn't compound it by giving up

more territory.

On our peaceniks, there is no doubt that much is desired from the current administration. But it is in exactly the opposite

way in which you did think, I am saying the above. ABV was far more courageous to pursue the peace template and actually

got things done.

ABV wasn't infallible. Ultimately, the trust he placed in Pakistan's intentions turned out to be horribly misplaced. I'm

sure he doesn't want India to repeat that mistake.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Jun 2012 01:30

ShauryaT wrote:
sameer_shelavale wrote: (Hopefully) Eye opener for Mahatma Shaurya ji other "Gift them Siachin" folks
Sorry, did not see that poster's post, on ignore list onlee. You really mean traitor don't you. Keep the gaalis coming, that is what gets me going here.

Well I know you are getting upset about it, but what else are you asking for give away in the hope that appeasement will somehow change the Pakis?

All said and done, that is what your stand is -- we can be civil and polite, but that does not change the fact that appeasement is appeasement, and give away is give away. Lets not kid anyone here please -- couching the same in long paragraphs or polite conversation does not change the basics.

It is give away in hope that the appeasement will make Pakis turn a new leaf. Thats it. If you dont like hearing that, perhaps you should revisit your thoughts rather than saying those who disagree are being hostile (they are in many cases but not all, for example I am not being hostile at all)

And despite my regard for ABV, Jaswant Singh et al. I must say that I would take the same stand even if they were to take it up.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 16 Jun 2012 01:36

Sanku wrote: All said and done, that is what your stand is -- we can be civil and polite, but that does not change the fact that appeasement is appeasement, and give away is give away. Lets not kid anyone here please -- couching the same in long paragraphs or polite conversation does not change the basics.

Thank you, Sanku ji.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 16 Jun 2012 02:28

SSridhar wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:Siachen, negates the PA’s view that the only way to deal with India is through force.
ShauryaT, many other things we have debated and I though there was nothing more left, but this one caught my eye. If PA has not learnt that 'force is not way to deal with India' after so many wars, battles and skirmishes, especially after one of the most comprehensive defeats in the entire history of war-making, Siachen is the last thing that is going to change their opinion. Don't you agree ?

SSridahr ji: The way I see it PA realized that defeating us conventionally to wrest Kashmir fell out of their imaginations after 1971 itself. Hence their rationale to acquire a nuclear deterrent. They are scared of an Indian escalation on the lines of 1965, 71 and hence could do nothing against Op. Meghdoot. In 1987, all they could do against the fear of Brass Tacks was nuclear signaling. Since 71, it has been mostly asymmetrical, in the hope that we will crack at a political level and not be able to cope. 1999 again was laughable from a conventional perspective, they were scared enough that all they could do is move just one brigade to shore up defenses for Skardu, which they feared would be attacked but still wanted to retain enough strength in the south to put up a credible defense. Post Parakram (which again showed that we are willing to escalate - a legacy of ABV), there is increasing realization that non-conventional routes will not lead them anywhere, there are various reasons for it, chief among them the increasing conventional asymmetry along with our economic and political strengths.

Where India has lacked severely is in responding effectively in the unconventional area. A Bofors shell for every bullet would be a fitting response (conceptually). You should read Gurmeet Kanwal's views on them, for those who think he is WKK and what not, way too many ill informed opinions by many.

I have said this before, too many times by now. Siachen is a CBM. By itself it is not meant to solve anything, except achieve demilitarization in a glaciated zone. All it does is tells the PA, that India can de-escalate in a zone of conflict without foreign involvement or when things are hot as if in a war and across a negotiating table, that is all. It can act as a template for the rest of the LoC, if successful. In the past you have stated that PA is not rational but I differ. From the way I look at it, they have been fairly rational from their perspective of where they stand to protect their interests as they see them. Rationality does not mean, they will act the way we think they should. Also, does not mean, we agree with their choices as to serve their best interests. But, that is the thing, how does one define their interest? For the PA it is survival of the self first and foremost and then then the state and then everything else, such as Kashmir and control over Afghanistan.

Besides, the PA should know pretty well who started wars and who nurtures enduring hostility with whom. If they think it is India, then nothing we do, short of giving away the whole of India to them, would satisfy them. In the fog of enmity, sometimes facts may be clouded and there could be only a thin line separating the two parties in war. However, in the India-Pakistan case, there is no fog; it is bright as a tropical daylight in the middle of a summer as to who is right and who is wrong. The 60 years (and if one includes the modern Indian Islamist thought process, then a 100 years) of enduring hostility emanates from only one side and a 2000 Sq Km of glaciated land is not going to alter the psyche even if India gifts away that land. I am amazed that we even think along these lines.

I have not said give any land, nor anyone else, I have used in my arguments. There is a presumption made that demilitarization amounts to "giving away" but I disagree on this type of a definition. Delineation of AGPL, and then a trust but verify plan for demilitarization is the envisioned solution of the GoI and that will do for me.

Good that in your example you went back to pre-independence to trace the ideological motivations of TSP and I agree, no Siachen is going to change that but no one has claimed it will or such an ideological change of intent, is even the immediate goal. Siachen serves the purpose of a CBM as explained above. If you take next incremental concrete steps, which at our pace could take 20 more years, if it goes smooth, you may get something on the lines of peaceful co-existence and if that succeeds, you can then slowly take it somewhere towards co-option. There are no magic solutions to the ideological divide and as responded to ramana and other previously, do not think we are ready. The day, as ramana stated, India becomes Bharat and the name Hindustan is used instead of India and we learn to be comfortable in our own skins is the day we can think about taking on the ideological battle. Till then other means will have to be found.

After Siachen, the PA will demand that the IA cannot acquire modern weapons, missiles, FGFA etc because these capabilities threaten the PA. Then, how will we negate that view ? There is no end to this chain of appeasement.

I am sorry, this is non-sequitor. If you use every Paki idiots imaginations to block a geo-political compromise then you will find one. They can ask for whatever, does not mean we have to be ready to compromise, at their terms. It is only, if it serves our interests a compromise should be done.

People such as NSA SS Menon are experienced hands from the MEA. The MEA babus are no bunch of fools, who do not know what they are doing and neither shall they allow a large hearted Politician (few exist anymore, because of fractured mandates) to sing on the dotted line. At max, you will find goof ups like SeS, which are not more than political platitudes, at least the PA reads them as such, IMO.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 16 Jun 2012 02:34

Sanku wrote: Well I know you are getting upset about it, but what else are you asking for give away in the hope that appeasement will somehow change the Pakis?

All said and done, that is what your stand is -- we can be civil and polite, but that does not change the fact that appeasement is appeasement, and give away is give away. Lets not kid anyone here please -- couching the same in long paragraphs or polite conversation does not change the basics.

It is give away in hope that the appeasement will make Pakis turn a new leaf. Thats it. If you dont like hearing that, perhaps you should revisit your thoughts rather than saying those who disagree are being hostile (they are in many cases but not all, for example I am not being hostile at all)

And despite my regard for ABV, Jaswant Singh et al. I must say that I would take the same stand even if they were to take it up.

Sanku Ji: If you are equating demilitarization as giving away (even if I differ with that equalization) then yes, that is exactly what my stand is. Not unsimilar to what the GoI envisions. Also, do lookup what JS has said on it too, beyond the headlines ofcourse. Not different to what the GoI has. If anything and everything that is being talked to with Pakistan is appeasement and any negotiated settlement of outstanding issues with Pakistan is appeasement in your eyes, then yes I am all for a negotiated settlement, and others can call that appeasement from their view point.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 16 Jun 2012 02:51

ShauryaT wrote: SSridahr ji: The way I see it PA realized that defeating us conventionally to wrest Kashmir fell out of their imaginations after 1971 itself. Hence their rationale to acquire a nuclear deterrent. They are scared of an Indian escalation on the lines of 1965, 71 and hence could do nothing against Op. Meghdoot. In 1987, all they could do against the fear of Brass Tacks was nuclear signaling. Since 71, it has been mostly asymmetrical, in the hope that we will crack at a political level and not be able to cope. 1999 again was laughable from a conventional perspective, they were scared enough that all they could do is move just one brigade to shore up defenses for Skardu, which they feared would be attacked but still wanted to retain enough strength in the south to put up a credible defense. Post Parakram (which again showed that we are willing to escalate - a legacy of ABV), there is increasing realization that non-conventional routes will not lead them anywhere, there are various reasons for it, chief among them the increasing conventional asymmetry along with our economic and political strengths.

ShauryaT,

Pakistan's "increasing realization that non-conventional routes will not lead them anywhere" did not stop them from many number of train attacks, the mumbai attack. Hell it did not stop them from hiding Osama, giving a free run to Hafeez Saeed or kandahar hijack released Masood Azhar from threatening India on live tv.

The only reason for the "relative" jihad reduction as I see is Pakistan is utilizing them in afghan and making them wait in the sidelines.

Where India has lacked severely is in responding effectively in the unconventional area. A Bofors shell for every bullet would be a fitting response (conceptually). You should read Gurmeet Kanwal's views on them, for those who think he is WKK and what not, way too many ill informed opinions by many.

Another appeal to authority.

I have said this before, too many times by now. Siachen is a CBM. By itself it is not meant to solve anything, except achieve demilitarization in a glaciated zone. All it does is tells the PA, that India can de-escalate in a zone of conflict without foreign involvement or when things are hot as if in a war and across a negotiating table, that is all. It can act as a template for the rest of the LoC, if successful. In the past you have stated that PA is not rational but I differ. From the way I look at it, they have been fairly rational from their perspective of where they stand to protect their interests as they see them. Rationality does not mean, they will act the way we think they should. Also, does not mean, we agree with their choices as to serve their best interests. But, that is the thing, how does one define their interest? For the PA it is survival of the self first and foremost and then then the state and then everything else, such as Kashmir and control over Afghanistan.

The template already exists.

If survival of PA is your aim in doing it, why should India care? India should care about what India gets, its risks and benefits. If PA survives or blooms, no sh*t off India's back as long PA doesnt do it on Indias back.

I have not said give any land, nor anyone else, I have used in my arguments. There is a presumption made that demilitarization amounts to "giving away" but I disagree on this type of a definition. Delineation of AGPL, and then a trust but verify plan for demilitarization is the envisioned solution of the GoI and that will do for me.

Do you know that there is supposed to be a no man's land of around 5 km on LoC initially. If there is a vaccuum somebody will occupy it.

In military sense, no mans's land is nonsense and fradulence of highest order. Except for very rare case,no man's land is a very flawed concept and is used only by duping charlatans of highest order.

Good that in your example you went back to pre-independence to trace the ideological motivations of TSP and I agree, no Siachen is going to change that but no one has claimed it will or such an ideological change of intent, is even the immediate goal. Siachen serves the purpose of a CBM as explained above. If you take next incremental concrete steps, which at our pace could take 20 more years, if it goes smooth, you may get something on the lines of peaceful co-existence and if that succeeds, you can then slowly take it somewhere towards co-option. There are no magic solutions to the ideological divide and as responded to ramana and other previously, do not think we are ready. The day, as ramana stated, India becomes Bharat and the name Hindustan is used instead of India and we learn to be comfortable in our own skins is the day we can think about taking on the ideological battle. Till then other means will have to be found.

1) You are providing a rosy future of something which might or might not come to pass and using that future asking to give up something today(vacate Siachen) and in that rosy future you have to revert it again (occupy Siachen). I am sorry what kind of nonsense is this.
2) Other means for doing what is the question.

I am sorry, this is non-sequitor. If you use every Paki idiots imaginations to block a geo-political compromise then you will find one. They can ask for whatever, does not mean we have to be ready to compromise, at their terms. It is only, if it serves our interests a compromise should be done.

Why is it a non-sequitor? He is using your exact same logic to the last full stop.

You are using the same "Paki idiot imaginations" of geopolitics for appeasement.

People such as NSA SS Menon are experienced hands from the MEA. The MEA babus are no bunch of fools, who do not know what they are doing and neither shall they allow a large hearted Politician (few exist anymore, because of fractured mandates) to sing on the dotted line. At max, you will find goof ups like SeS, which are not more than political platitudes, at least the PA reads them as such, IMO.

Yes sir, with all due respect to them. They are not gods. Many times clasped in their own ideological pretensions, they forget how an a$$ looks and how an hand looks. Sorry appeal to authority doesnt work.

The same MEA babus couldnt see 1962 while everyone around were shouting at the top of their lungs. With their "experience" they definitely saw kargil from lets see how far. They took Kashmir matter to UN without realizing consequences. They do SeS like yesterday and instead of the complete and natural domination which is easily possible in Nepal, we are off trying to compete with China in Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bangaldesh.

Doesnt mean they are not working or any thing like that. But they are bound by their ideological fulminations.

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 16 Jun 2012 03:37

ramana wrote:yantra, Right after Independence, Mahtma Gandhi fasted to ensure GOI transfers the money from Treasury which was being held up to ensure good behavior by TSP. In one way that was the California and Alsaka purschase rolled into one and a huge CBM.
Yet TSP invaded Jammu and Kashmir!
Point is everything has been tried at some time or the other and has not worked with TSP.
India needs to not be in a hurry to become a regional or global super power or whatnot. Let kaal take its time and work his magic.
Who are the people in a hurry for India to become a toothless power in their lifetime?

Thanks Ramanaji.

India is not in a hurry. But millions of Indians are - ask those who are hungry.
But India has/is running out of options as you rightly put it. We need to out-think and out flank Pak strategically.

The flaw is not about the CBMs themselves - strong peoples make bolder moves, because they are confident of ensuring a strategic victory. Even countries like Israel have ceded land - but they have gone one to ensure they retain the strategic strangle-hold. It is about following up on the CBMs and ensuring the end-game strategically - where GoI has failed consistently. Including in 1971, after the Simla agreement - we failed to enforce the conditions laid out. The problem of our CBMs not working is not Pak, but GoI. We have consistently been weak/spineless to enforce our will - we had the opportunity every time after 3 and a half wars.

Clearly we are not in a position to 'manage' them after (if and when there is) a military victory - we do not need that. Pak is a failed state, no doubt, and will be in shambles if ever they take on India. Af-Pak would then become the biggest headache (many times than it is now) for Asia. Strictly speaking, we do not need a war - we may not like to manage the aftermath.

So what are our options? Isolate Pak - and they become even bigger headache. We do not want another NoKo. We need to keep them engaged, without ceding strategic ground (Siachen or otherwise). The question is how do we do it. Ideally, we would like them to flourish and become a dynamic economy like Turkey? (Yes, it is a distant dream). Alternately, we can keep them on "Ventilator" for however long necessary

My point it do not blame the CBMs or Pak - gather spine and come out with a strong plan. Enforce it come what may (irrespective of which party/parties run the GoI). Do we have the national will?

Thank you Supratik, for branding it as a TOI Op-Ed

. It is not that bad.

"In another 20 years even TSP as a whole will not be a deterrent but will have nuisance value."

- Yes. Global powers manage that and take out that nuisance value. Russia worked it out with China and Japan. US smoothed its borders with Canada and Mexico. China is doing it in its own way - they will get there. What is India's plan to eliminate nuisance/s around? We did a decent job with Bangladesh - but have failed miserably with Nepal, SriLanka and Pak.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 16 Jun 2012 03:38

ShauryaT wrote:Post Parakram (which again showed that we are willing to escalate - a legacy of ABV), there is increasing realization that non-conventional routes will not lead them anywhere, there are various reasons for it, chief among them the increasing conventional asymmetry along with our economic and political strengths.

Wrong. Terror is still very much a part of the Pakistani Army tool kit. Mumbai massacare happened after Parakram ..

ShauryaT wrote:All it does is tells the PA, that India can de-escalate in a zone of conflict without foreign involvement or when things are hot as if in a war and across a negotiating table, that is all. It can act as a template for the rest of the LoC, if successful.

This man wants India to demilitarise Siachen and the LoC i.e. give up all of J&K.

ShauryaT wrote:There is a presumption made that demilitarization amounts to "giving away" but I disagree on this type of a definition.

Demilitarisation amounts to not being able to defend your territory if the enemy decides to occupy your territory.

ShauryaT wrote:Delineation of AGPL, and then a trust but verify plan for demilitarization is the envisioned solution of the GoI and that will do for me.

You are grossly misrepresenting the Government' of India's views. Your views are closer to the PA stance than the GoI stance. GoI says "authenticate, delineate, demarcate" and then GoI will "consider" troop reductions.

Pak Army has not even accepted "authenticate, delineate, demarcate", so where does question of "trust but verify" come in?

ShauryaT wrote:Siachen serves the purpose of a CBM as explained above. If you take next incremental concrete steps, which at our pace could take 20 more years, if it goes smooth, you may get something on the lines of peaceful co-existence and if that succeeds, you can then slowly take it somewhere towards co-option.

Code for "withdraw Indian forces from LoC / J&K". Your solution is exactly what the Pak Army has been offering for 65 years: give us J&K and we will leave you alone. Offer is rejected ... have you understood?

ShauryaT wrote:The day, as ramana stated, India becomes Bharat and the name Hindustan is used instead of India and we learn to be comfortable in our own skins is the day we can think about taking on the ideological battle. Till then other means will have to be found.

You do have an ambitious agenda for India, don't you. Pakistan has long lost the ideological battle ... did you not notice?

ShauryaT wrote:People such as NSA SS Menon are experienced hands from the MEA. The MEA babus are no bunch of fools, who do not know what they are doing and neither shall they allow a large hearted Politician (few exist anymore, because of fractured mandates) to sing on the dotted line.

You have no authority to speak on behalf of India's NSA, and stop making these fanciful and ridiculous allusions. Your arguments find no buyers on this thread .. don't try and bluff us by dropping names. You don't fool me.

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 16 Jun 2012 03:44

If survival of PA is your aim in doing it, why should India care? India should care about what India gets, its risks and benefits. If PA survives or blooms, no sh*t off India's back as long PA doesnt do it on Indias back.

Sorry sir, India does care and it should. Otherwise, we will have the biggest humanitarian crisis on our hands, if it is not managed correctly. Do you want to manage 500 million illiterate mullas with guns in hand? And why?

It is in India's best interests to make sure Pak is kept at bay and does not become a failed state. Else Af-Pak region would be a daily Tsunami for India.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 16 Jun 2012 03:50

Here is my wild guess - the rulers of TSP (military et al) have come to the conclusion that by becoming a friend of India they have a lot to GAIN PERSONALLY. This is due to India's open economy and fast growth rate and most importantly India tolerates corruption on a mega scale (tens of thousands of crores of rupees). They want a piece of the action. Sort of like the mafia. Plus there are a billion consumers for their products that can keep their own economy moving and their common man content. They simply want to show their public opinion that they have got something from India (example Siachen) in order to proceed rapidly and plunge into India's black market. It will be incompetence of the highest order on the part of the corrupt leaders of TSP to simply not establish mutually beneficial links with the corruption opportunities in India. So, whether India gives in on Siachen or not should not matter since ultimately they do not care for their public opinion. That is why even Mr. Kayani is sounding like a dove. If this reaches its logical end point, then China will be unable to use TSP (taller than, bigger than etc. friend) against India! The security of India would improve dramatically.

My apologies in advance in case you find my post either funny or outrageous! No I did not simply wake up from a nightmare and start bleating! (To be honest I am finding it funny myself.)

Perhaps, there is now hope for lasting peace and tranquility between TSP and India.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 16 Jun 2012 03:59

yantra wrote:
If survival of PA is your aim in doing it, why should India care? India should care about what India gets, its risks and benefits. If PA survives or blooms, no sh*t off India's back as long PA doesnt do it on Indias back.
Sorry sir, India does care and it should. Otherwise, we will have the biggest humanitarian crisis on our hands, if it is not managed correctly. Do you want to manage 500 million illiterate mullas with guns in hand? And why?

It is in India's best interests to make sure Pak is kept at bay and does not become a failed state. Else Af-Pak region would be a daily Tsunami for India.

Build a stronger wall and put bigger guns on border, problem solved - if you are so afraid of the "yahoos"

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 16 Jun 2012 04:12

Virupaksha wrote: Build a stronger wall and put bigger guns on border, problem solved - if you are so afraid of the "yahoos"

Do you think you can stop a 100 million refugees with walls and guns? Really?!!! Read up on 1971 crisis. Are you stopping Bangla refugees even now with walls, guns and barricaded borders?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 16 Jun 2012 04:14

yantra wrote:
Virupaksha wrote: Build a stronger wall and put bigger guns on border, problem solved - if you are so afraid of the "yahoos"
Do you think you can stop a 100 million refugees with walls and guns? Really?!!! Read up on 1971 crisis.

and what did we do? Did we allow those refugees to settle here permanently.

We took a broom, cleaned up - chaka chak and put those back in.

Infact that is a very very good time to clean up the real dirt instead of the upar upar cleaning we did in 1971.

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 16 Jun 2012 04:17

Virupaksha wrote: We took a broom, cleaned up - chaka chak and put those back in.

Really??! Check up on facts sir. It is unfortunately not so. Why was the need to come up with UID spending crores and crores?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 16 Jun 2012 04:21

yantra wrote:
Virupaksha wrote: We took a broom, cleaned up - chaka chak and put those back in.
Really??! Check up on facts sir. It is unfortunately not so. Why was the need to come up with UID spending crores and crores?

Read up on what UID is for first. Also read up on origins of Ulfa and all.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 16 Jun 2012 04:22

Why walls etc. Mine fields. Lots and lots of anti-personnel mines all along wired and electrified borders.