Siachen News & Discussion

[nachiket]

Well, I believe the GoI's stand was communicated to Pakistan at the secretary level talk - demilitarization to be considered only after Pakistan agrees to demarcation, delineation and authentication.

Isn't that what the chiefs have said as well? So why all the hoopla?

[ShauryaT]

What the foreigners think of the IA should not be a factor in the equation at all. But the gentleman whose article you quoted is an Indian and some one expected to understand the Indian Politico-Military relationship and set-up. If people like him come out with such nonsensical articles then it clearly goes on to show the motivation behind such articles.

And I'm not going to judge the IA based on actions or words of such idiots.

The one you call an idiot is an ex IA officer to boot and is intimately involved in Indian security matters in a scholarly fashion, after his service. You can do better than calling those not in agreement an idiot on the matter.

The fact of the matter as I see it is very clear - MMS and his ilk want the IA to rubber stamp their delusional peace park proposal because they lack any sort of moral or ethical locus standi on the subject. They are guided by some idiotic and romantic notions and of desire to leave behind the legacy...but, being the politicians that they are, they will never have the guts to own up to any **** up that definitely going to happen. When that happens, they want to lay the blame at the doorsteps of the Services.

It is a cynical view, assuming it is true, which I doubt. The ultimate responsibility for security is not with the forces but the people who wield them and their power do so is unquestioned. The govt is responsible and accountable to the people. The question of blaming the forces does not arise and is non-sequitur. If the people believe such then those people would be fools and deserve such a government.

[nachiket]

It is a cynical view, assuming it is true, which I doubt. The ultimate responsibility for security is not with the forces but the people who wield them and their power do so is unquestioned. The govt is responsible and accountable to the people. The question of blaming the forces does not arise and is non-sequitur. If the people believe such then those people would be fools and deserve such a government.

We don't live in an ideal world. The forces were blamed after 1962 and they will be blamed again after the peace park goes up in flames unless their views were known beforehand.

Transparency is good. It forces the politicians to think twice before making stupid decisions. Otherwise they fall back on the time tested method of claiming all the credit if things work out and shifting blame onto others if they don't.

In the Siachen case, if MMS and co. are so cocksure that this peace park will succeed and pakis won't stab us in the back, then they'll go ahead with it regardless of what any service chief has to say. What are they afraid of? It shouldn't matter if the people are aware of the army's position on the issue or not, should it?

[ShauryaT]

The forces were blamed after 1962

Why do you say so. Not looking for some random article here or there. But seriously, the IA was blamed for losses of 62? By who? Most works, I have read put the blame squarely on the executive. Maybe the actions of some generals were questioned for their efficacies, but that is par for the course and not in public by its govt?

But, I willing to learn on this issue of IA taking the blame for 62.

[Manish_Sharma]

The very way MMS works is a bit slimey. In sharam-al-sheikh too when he met gilani they started talking in punjabi and no one on Bhartiya side of delegation understood anything.

Then he met gilani alone in a room and together they draft this thing saying "India will stop provoking terrorism in vaziristan". Despite Bhartiya delegations protests MMS is hell bent upon signing it.

After coming back home when protests arise he simply shrugs shamelessly and says 'oh mistake of language in the draft'.

Now same slimey one is keeping silent and just waiting for a chance to kick siachin to pork/panda side and grab nobel prize in return.

Hence such a 'chhupa rustamgiri' on Siachin issue by govt.

That's why this govt. and people close to 'those in power or near power' are having acidity due to Generals speaking against vacating Siachin. They just wanted to keep army under thumb by playing divisive politics, trying that army stays silent on this subject while they do whatever they want.

But army has spoken. Otherwise on Siachin fiasco when porki/panda joint forces are sitting there 6-7 years later on Siachin and IA soldiers are fighting them to vacate, MMS' daughter would be writing furiously articles in papers and giving interviews 'fighting for honour of her father' that how honest mms was misguided by army that its ok to vacate the siachin and he trusting the nation's army did just that.

All the paper trails would have been suppressed or people would be arguing splitting hair on who said what.

[Vipul]

End India’s one-sided love affair: Vikram Sood.

Two pictures say it all: Pakistan foreign secretary Jalil Jilani on the extreme left of the frame shaking hands with his Indian counterpart Ranjan Mathai on the right of the frame. The distance is symbolic and possibly the handshake was limp as well. The other picture is of Mr Jilani in a clinch with secessionist Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The contrast is obvious and both happened on my territory. Incidentally, the government has fairly stringent rules for its civil servants about meeting foreign diplomats. Why are there no rules for secessionists?

Yet another exercise in futility has just been concluded and it was expected. Both sides asserted their stated positions. One should be reasonably certain now that the character of the Pakistani state today does not allow it to be flexible; it is fighting too many battles for its ghairat and it is far too down the road on the path drawn by its Islamic radicals. Diplomacy requires us to be courteous, not foolishly soft; it also requires reciprocity. There is no rule in diplomacy that says we should indulge in strategic masochism just to look good; the other side just makes use of us and walks away. No nation works only on theoretical ideals when it deals internationally. It merely pronounces them periodically. Any state worth its superpower status, functions on interests defined by itself for itself, not by others.

The United States coddled Pakistan for decades and got a spoilt child in return. And we coddled Kashmiri terrorists and terrorised the people. Instead of ensuring Pakistan remained out of the equation, successive governments in New Delhi thought it could solve the riddle by pleading with Pakistan. It was obvious to anyone following developments in the region and, given Pakistan’s attitude towards India, that it was never going to want to solve disputes with India. It just did not suit the Pakistan Army and the ruling elite attached to the Army, who had become dependent on a certain way of life and on largesse from abroad, to change its position.

One of the ways of conducting policy includes a determined counter-insurgency operation which is never pretty, but that’s the only option —to tackle the instigator of insurgency at its source. In India, successive governments have assumed that the best way to solve our problems in Kashmir is to try and get Pakistan on board, through grand gestures and grander statements. Pakistan has remained adamant as we have made overture after overture, in the hope that Pakistan would see value in peace. Each Indian government has been disappointed and yet there has been no new thought in changing our tactics.

For more than two decades we have been defensive and apologetic in our policy towards Kashmiris which has brought neither peace nor satisfaction to the people of the Valley. Instead of being stern and firm with Pakistan and instead of showing Pakistan that it has to pay a price for its actions that hurt India, we have been harsh on the people of the Valley. Kashmir’s so-called leaders, in fact, have played havoc at Pakistan’s bidding, so much so that till today one of these so-called leaders, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, has not had the courage to name the killers of his father.

He prefers, instead, to break bread with those who ordered the killing. We have another leader, Yasin Malik, now described as a moderate leader, who roams the streets of Srinagar free as a bird after murdering four Indian Air Force officers. We have another, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who openly says he wants to become a Pakistani and take Kashmir there, yet his open secessionism goes unpunished. This is not magnanimity. This is weakness of resolve.

So obsessed have we been with our self-image as a responsible state and the desire to look good in the West’s eyes that we have ignored what our apparent goodness of the heart means to our neighbours. For years, we have ignored what Pakistan was doing to Kashmir and us through terrorist organisations like the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. Instead of making the Pakistan Army pay a price all these years, we chose to take the dossier route.

What has it got us? Frustration at home and scorn from Pakistan. Our neighbours must be saying to themselves, if a huge country like India cannot look after its own interests then how or why would it look after their interests. Maybe they say to themselves: it is better to be friends with China and Pakistan, who together can keep India in check. It is time to change this.

Our interests lie in peace, not in coddling Pakistan, not necessarily in pursuing “most favoured nation” status, trade and visa issues with that country, but in ensuring it remains irrelevant in Kashmir and realises it is irrelevant. This will not happen by our mere say-so. It will happen with a little bit of firmness in New Delhi, which does not include drift and coddling as policy options. The old adage — it is sometimes necessary to be cruel to be kind — remains valid.

The two main political parties in Jammu and Kashmir, the National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party, will use the extremist elements for political mileage even though the rest of us know that neither Omar Abdullah not Mehbooba Mufti would want to lose political power to the Hurriyat as they are both the children of the electoral process not the gun. We have to remove the fear of the gun, but this needs firm action at home and, if necessary, suitable action across frontiers.

A state worth its future standing on the international scene especially needs to be seen to be safeguarding its interests. It owes it to its citizens and to the future.

[pragnya]

viv s,

i have gone thro' your arguments and i do understand 'your pov' that army regulations as governed by the indian laws does not permit the army authorities to speak out of turn to 'air' their views to the media including COAS - as said under, by you -

If the Pakistani occupy Siachen, the Army will have to sacrifice thousands of lives to get it back. Army Chiefs only speak on Siachen because it is their duty to do so.

Why just the Army Chief? Why is it the Jawan, NCO, JCO or junior officer serving in Siachen or scheduled to serve there, at risk to life and limb, is not permitted under army regulations to talk to media? The same rationale applies to the COAS' interactions with the media.

at the same time whenever they have spoken you 'imply' that the said interaction has been approved by the cabinet as said by you here -

The Indian media has always had access to the Service chiefs and have always asked them direct questions about controversial military matters, such as AFSPA, Siachen, deployment against Maoists, etc, and has always received a direct response from the Chiefs.

And that access has always been subject the cabinet's approval and there is a mutual understanding that the MoD will not micro-manage the service chief's interactions with the media, and the chiefs in turn will remain on message.

so (going by your own logic) whatever the COASs have opined to the media have been 'approved' by the cabinet. right?? in which case how does it 'undermine' govt decision making?? how does it subvert democratic process?? how do you construe it as against army regulations??

or do you think these particular set of views by COASs wrt Siachen are 'not' approved by the cabinet?? if yes, what is the basis for such an understanding??

regards.

[ashish raval]

^^ one word, hypogonadism among Indian leaders due to age. India fears its Muslims and lacks confidence that muslims in India will be on its side. It is fear and not magnanimity of the nation which drives its behaviour. Only revolutions change the character of the nation, I dont see it happening hence nothing will change in India.
Indian foreign policy is driven by people who in their prior life has never set foot abroad, neither studied foreign history, clueless about national characters of the other countries and had been bookworms with closed mind. A combination of these and several other factors results in directionless and clueless behviour by GoI and gets caught in pants everytime it tries to do something positive. Pakistan toasts for Indian muslims which Hindustan runs away from problems of Hindu's anywhere around the world. Pathetic loosers, Indian political class.

[gkriish]

End India’s one-sided love affair: Vikram Sood.

Two pictures say it all: Pakistan foreign secretary Jalil Jilani on the extreme left of the frame shaking hands with his Indian counterpart Ranjan Mathai on the right of the frame. The distance is symbolic and possibly the handshake was limp as well. The other picture is of Mr Jilani in a clinch with secessionist Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The contrast is obvious and both happened on my territory. Incidentally, the government has fairly stringent rules for its civil servants about meeting foreign diplomats. Why are there no rules for secessionists?

Yet another exercise in futility has just been concluded and it was expected. Both sides asserted their stated positions. One should be reasonably certain now that the character of the Pakistani state today does not allow it to be flexible; it is fighting too many battles for its ghairat and it is far too down the road on the path drawn by its Islamic radicals. Diplomacy requires us to be courteous, not foolishly soft; it also requires reciprocity. There is no rule in diplomacy that says we should indulge in strategic masochism just to look good; the other side just makes use of us and walks away. No nation works only on theoretical ideals when it deals internationally. It merely pronounces them periodically. Any state worth its superpower status, functions on interests defined by itself for itself, not by others.

The United States coddled Pakistan for decades and got a spoilt child in return. And we coddled Kashmiri terrorists and terrorised the people. Instead of ensuring Pakistan remained out of the equation, successive governments in New Delhi thought it could solve the riddle by pleading with Pakistan. It was obvious to anyone following developments in the region and, given Pakistan’s attitude towards India, that it was never going to want to solve disputes with India. It just did not suit the Pakistan Army and the ruling elite attached to the Army, who had become dependent on a certain way of life and on largesse from abroad, to change its position.

One of the ways of conducting policy includes a determined counter-insurgency operation which is never pretty, but that’s the only option —to tackle the instigator of insurgency at its source. In India, successive governments have assumed that the best way to solve our problems in Kashmir is to try and get Pakistan on board, through grand gestures and grander statements. Pakistan has remained adamant as we have made overture after overture, in the hope that Pakistan would see value in peace. Each Indian government has been disappointed and yet there has been no new thought in changing our tactics.

For more than two decades we have been defensive and apologetic in our policy towards Kashmiris which has brought neither peace nor satisfaction to the people of the Valley. Instead of being stern and firm with Pakistan and instead of showing Pakistan that it has to pay a price for its actions that hurt India, we have been harsh on the people of the Valley. Kashmir’s so-called leaders, in fact, have played havoc at Pakistan’s bidding, so much so that till today one of these so-called leaders, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, has not had the courage to name the killers of his father.

He prefers, instead, to break bread with those who ordered the killing. We have another leader, Yasin Malik, now described as a moderate leader, who roams the streets of Srinagar free as a bird after murdering four Indian Air Force officers. We have another, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who openly says he wants to become a Pakistani and take Kashmir there, yet his open secessionism goes unpunished. This is not magnanimity. This is weakness of resolve.

So obsessed have we been with our self-image as a responsible state and the desire to look good in the West’s eyes that we have ignored what our apparent goodness of the heart means to our neighbours. For years, we have ignored what Pakistan was doing to Kashmir and us through terrorist organisations like the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. Instead of making the Pakistan Army pay a price all these years, we chose to take the dossier route.

What has it got us? Frustration at home and scorn from Pakistan. Our neighbours must be saying to themselves, if a huge country like India cannot look after its own interests then how or why would it look after their interests. Maybe they say to themselves: it is better to be friends with China and Pakistan, who together can keep India in check. It is time to change this.

Our interests lie in peace, not in coddling Pakistan, not necessarily in pursuing “most favoured nation” status, trade and visa issues with that country, but in ensuring it remains irrelevant in Kashmir and realises it is irrelevant. This will not happen by our mere say-so. It will happen with a little bit of firmness in New Delhi, which does not include drift and coddling as policy options. The old adage — it is sometimes necessary to be cruel to be kind — remains valid.

The two main political parties in Jammu and Kashmir, the National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party, will use the extremist elements for political mileage even though the rest of us know that neither Omar Abdullah not Mehbooba Mufti would want to lose political power to the Hurriyat as they are both the children of the electoral process not the gun. We have to remove the fear of the gun, but this needs firm action at home and, if necessary, suitable action across frontiers.

A state worth its future standing on the international scene especially needs to be seen to be safeguarding its interests. It owes it to its citizens and to the future.

no matter what you do you cant clap with one hand this is what india is doing and you can slap with one hand this is not what india is not doing unless you give them the one hand treatment they donot understand no matter how lovable you are they always ditch us so untill the kongress govt is there at the center its always pro pakistani for muslim votes and anti india

in this regards i would like to ask one general questions to all indians (including hindus muslims and all other religion followers in this country) if pakistan is the enemy of india and muslims are supporting them then what do u call them and what do u call the government which supports such group ( here i am not blaming the entire community there are a fractions of people in india who do it) for example there are people who celebrate when india looses to pakistan in a cricket match by giving them packets of Briyani you donot believe come to shivajinagar in bangalore or near bamboo bazar in bangalore during india pak match when india looses you will know the truth........

this is out of anger that there are few traitors fraction (not the whole community ) in the country who openly support our enemy but still the government supports these fractions for vote i donot know how we ended up letting such people rule this country

[Samudragupta]

Pretty old article but regardless a gem from old Bruce...

The answer is to put a neutral force on the glacier. The South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) should deploy a couple of hundred armed Gurkha troops from Nepal or the British army to police the ice and serve as a trip wire against cheating. India and Pakistan would pay for it and provide logistical support. The United Nations Security Council would pass a resolution endorsing the SAARC force and committing to support it if either side violated the deal. The United States would separately promise to use its national technical-intelligence capabilities and satellite imagery to further monitor the area.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ ... -asia-5405

[sum]

Only in Lunatic will we have such Lunatic suggestions not being dismissed off-hand..

[rohitvats]

The one you call an idiot is an ex IA officer to boot and is intimately involved in Indian security matters in a scholarly fashion, after his service. You can do better than calling those not in agreement an idiot on the matter.

I can do better? So, an ex-IA officer writes an article where he not only calls the judgement of the IA on strategic significance of Siachen as specious but also makes out a case for IA being the impediment to 'piss process' needs to be heralded as the best thing that has happened to this manufactured debate? Of all the people, he should know what is the position of the IA in decision making cycle and yet, he lays the blame at its doorstep? If that is not being idiotic, then, pray tell me, what is? Is this the level of analysis that passes around as scholarly work in your books?

The entire thrust of that article is that IA is holding on to notions which are contrary to 'acceptable wisdom' as per him and others of his ilk - the argument about COAS speaking to media is just a ruse to get back at the army. Why does he not have the gumption to openly say that he (and his ilk) want IA to rubber stamp the desires of the PM...a PM who speaks through the media and his pappi-jhappi coterie. Let him make an open statement and state his POV in public openly. But there are more chances of pigs flying than MMS doing anything of this sort.

It is a cynical view, assuming it is true, which I doubt. The ultimate responsibility for security is not with the forces but the people who wield them and their power do so is unquestioned. The govt is responsible and accountable to the people. The question of blaming the forces does not arise and is non-sequitur. If the people believe such then those people would be fools and deserve such a government.

[/quote]

How very quaint...let the same government then stand up to its assumptions and POV and declare that it is going ahead with peace process...what stops them? There can be only two scenarios (a) government agrees with IA's POV (b) government does not agree with IA's POV. Had it been former, one would not have seen the slew of articles and sound bytes on the topic (like the discussion on BRF). There would not have been anything left to debate. But the chatter in media and sound bytes clearly points to what the government wants - but lacks the conviction to carry through with their proposition. For this, they need the shoulders of the IA and hence, with COAS after COAS not relenting on the issue, the snide remarks and idiotic articles...each painting the IA as the villain of the story.

[rajanb]

Pretty old article but regardless a gem from old Bruce...

The answer is to put a neutral force on the glacier. The South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) should deploy a couple of hundred armed Gurkha troops from Nepal or the British army to police the ice and serve as a trip wire against cheating. India and Pakistan would pay for it and provide logistical support. The United Nations Security Council would pass a resolution endorsing the SAARC force and committing to support it if either side violated the deal. The United States would separately promise to use its national technical-intelligence capabilities and satellite imagery to further monitor the area.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ ... -asia-5405

And with the chines close by, this peace keeping force is going to do anything if push comes to shove?

It is time we stopped trading territory for peace!

[eklavya]

Pretty old article but regardless a gem from old Bruce...

The answer is to put a neutral force on the glacier. The South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) should deploy a couple of hundred armed Gurkha troops from Nepal or the British army to police the ice and serve as a trip wire against cheating. India and Pakistan would pay for it and provide logistical support. The United Nations Security Council would pass a resolution endorsing the SAARC force and committing to support it if either side violated the deal. The United States would separately promise to use its national technical-intelligence capabilities and satellite imagery to further monitor the area.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ ... -asia-5405

I have a better idea for Bruce. How about a force of a few hundred thousand Nepali Gurkhas to defend the border between the USA and Mexico to keep USA drug free.

Maybe some can also be used to defend the Afghan border with Pakistan, as NATO does not seem to be any good at the job.

We will ask Bruce for advice on how to defend Siachen when he can show us his success in defending Afghanistan from the Pakistanis and the Taliban.

[Manish_Sharma]

^^Also Eklavya ji Indian Navy can take over Falkland so there is no more immature wars between brits and Argentina.

[pragnya]

How of all, gen. Zia 'almost' solved the siachen issue before he was killed in plane crash. interesting to say the least...

Zia-ul-Haq is remembered in history as a political murderer and the initiator of the Islamic thrust in Pakistan’s politics. Few will credit him with having a core interest in the well being of the people of Pakistan. However, the reality, strange as it may appear, was quite to the contrary.

In his time the Pakistani Defence Services were consuming almost 48% of Pakistan’s annual budget. The funds available for being spent on development, education and health were, therefore, very small. Zia-ul-Haq got convinced that the situation would not change for better for the people of Pakistan unless the outlay on defence was significantly reduced.

Siachen was identified as one of the major cause of wasteful expenditure. For success Indian cooperation was crucial. Zia-ul-Haq was able to enlist the support of his Corps Commanders for making an approach to India.

Such a path breaking effort could not be made through normal diplomatic channels. Further, a very high level intermediary was necessary to prove to the Indian Govt that the exercise was not frivolous. Zia-ul-Haq zeroed on a governmental leader of a very high status of a Muslim country, well disposed towards India, to convey his message to India. He received an immediate favourable response.

During discussions that followed between high-level interlocutors from both sides at neutral locations, the Pakistan side explained the background to their move and suggested that a solution on Siachen should be given the topmost priority.

Pakistan recognised the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in J&K up to point No. 9842. The agreement signed between the two countries drawing the LAC had stated that the line of demarcation between the two countries from this point would run roughly Northwards but no delineation of this on maps had taken place. Pakistan had subsequently claimed all the territory in J&K from NJ 9842 to Karakoram Pass as within its territorial jurisdiction. This was a unilateral claim, unrecognised by India.

The claim was also belied by the facts on the ground. All the territory in control of Pakistan was on the Western side of Saltoro Range of Siachen Glacier whereas the areas claimed were substantially on the Eastern side of the glacier. On the other hand the Indian Army was in occupation of a good chunk of territory on the Western side of the glacier. At the end of a series of meetings between the two sides, Pakistan agreed to a line going Northwards from NJ 9842 roughly along the heights of Saltoro to the Chinese border as the continuation of the LAC, giving up all claims to any territory to the East of it. The agreement made the Saltoro range the effective border between J&K and Pakistan occupied territories of the State. This meant the giving up by Pakistan of claims to territory within the tangential line from NJ 9842 to Karakoram Pass. The Indian side would also be giving up points occupied to the West of the glacier but that involved no tactical or strategic loss since the commanding heights would continue to remain with India.

The Pakistani side also conveyed the sense that in due course the LAC could become a permanent border. They were also ready for troop reductions, up to two divisions worth, provided there was a matching response from India. Freeing of trade was the only major issue on which Pakistan showed itself unwilling to make any compromise.

Actual demilitarisation of Siachen was to follow the formal acceptance of the extended LAC by the governments of the two countries through discussions between their military authorities.

Since the tentative agreement between the two interlocutors involved a substantive compromise on the Pakistani position, the Pakistani side was asked to confirm their understanding of the extended LAC on a map. In due course a Survey of Pakistan GHQ Rawalpindi map, with the proposed extended LAC marked on it, was received by India.

The GHQ map was seen as proof of Pakistan’s bonafide intentions as of that moment. Exercises then commenced to bring the historical understanding to the public domain. The Pakistani side was eager to demonstrate that it was turning a new leaf in Indo-Pakistan relations. One spectacular episode, totally uncharacteristic, says it all.

SIACHEN: An Episode to Remember

hope not posted earlier.

[SSridhar]

How of all, gen. Zia 'almost' solved the Siachen issue

The Pakistani side also conveyed the sense that in due course the LAC could become a permanent border.

That promise was also made by ZAB in 1972. And, in c. 1999, another Paki General tried to redraw it.

The Pakistani side was eager to demonstrate that it was turning a new leaf in Indo-Pakistan relations. One spectacular episode, totally uncharacteristic, says it all.

And here we are, thirty years later, experiencing some of the worst forms of terror attacks planned and executed by the state repeatedly.

[chetak]

How of all, gen. Zia 'almost' solved the Siachen issue

The Pakistani side also conveyed the sense that in due course the LAC could become a permanent border.

That promise was also made by ZAB in 1972. And, in c. 1999, another Paki General tried to redraw it.

The Pakistani side was eager to demonstrate that it was turning a new leaf in Indo-Pakistan relations. One spectacular episode, totally uncharacteristic, says it all.

And here we are, thirty years later, experiencing some of the worst forms of terror attacks planned and executed by the state repeatedly.

Terror? I'm shocked at the suggestion, SSridhar ji.

It was people to people contact onlee

[abhijitm]

Pak willing to go by past pacts on Sir Creek and Siachen

Pakistan on Wednesday said it is willing to go by the agreement that it had in the past with India to resolve some of the disputes like Sir Creek and Siachen.
"If you look at may be some of the disputes that we have. We have Sir Creek, we have Siachen... Pakistan has already made it clear that we are willing to go by the
agreement that we had in the past," foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar said.

To which past agreement she is referring here?

[Kanishka]

The Karakoram Highway: China's Asphalt Powerplay in Pakistan

China is shelling out massive amounts of money and manpower to improve Pakistan's Karakoram Highway, the highest motorway in the world. The supposed gift to its neighbor is a perfect example of China's economic strategy of taking on short-term expenses for the sake of long-term benefits.

Whether its high-rises, ports or streets, China is building -- worldwide and on a grand scale. The expansion of the famed Karakoram Highway from China to Pakistan, a part of the Silk Road trade routes, is just one of China's massive construction projects and an example of Beijing's strategy for the future -- investing a lot and giving generously in exchange for long-term benefits.

The almost 1,300-kilometer (800-mile) long path, which runs from Kashgar in western China's Uighur Autonomous Region almost to the Pakistani capital Islamabad, is set to be transformed from a dusty, bumpy road into a modern mountain highway. The section on the Chinese side is already finished. "For Beijing, it's about being able to export more goods to Pakistan, through the ports of Karachi and around the world," says China expert Fazal ur-Rehman of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Plans also include a future pipeline that runs along the Karakoram Highway, allowing China to bring in Iranian gas.

But government circles in India, China's rival in Asia, are concerned that after the expansion China will also be able to transport tanks and other heavy military equipment to the Indian Ocean. After all, China already showed its aggressive potential when it marched into Tibet in 1950, and a few years later when it occupied other parts of the region.

surrounded by Pakistani police, armed with machine guns, who keep watch over the Chinese laborers wherever they work. Under no circumstance can one of them be attacked or kidnapped, which could prompt the Chinese to stop the project over security concerns. Even photos of the Chinese are not allowed.

Li says that the highway is about getting a "reliable connection" between China and Pakistan, a road that's passable year-round and could even handle trucks with 40-foot containers. Currently, the Karakoram Highway is closed in the winter because snow plows don't work on the uneven surface. And in many places trucks with 20-foot containers still have trouble negotiating the curves.

With spectacular views of giant peaks such as Nanga Parbat and K2, the route for the highest highway in the world was blasted through the mountains during the 1960s and 1970s. Before that, the area was only traversed on dirt tracks by people on donkeys.

The road passes through the Karakoram, the Hindu Kush, the Himalayas, and long stretches of the Indus River. Along the way there are more than a hundred bridges. Policemen or military personnel also stand watch at these points along the way to ensure that no one takes pictures -- the bridges are considered strategically important targets and, as a result, they rarely show up on maps.

An Expensive Gift

The first incarnation of the enormous project was also a gift from the Chinese to their southern neighbor Pakistan. Beijing financed the project and it was implemented under the Chinese supervision of some 15,000 Pakistani workers, mostly soldiers, and up to 20,000 Chinese workers. According to official figures, more than 800 Pakistanis and 82 Chinese were killed, though there were probably even more unreported Chinese victims among the dead. Many died during blasts and others plunged to their deaths in deep gorges.

Despite being called a "highway," the road -- which reaches its highest point of 4,700 meters at the Khunjerab Pass on the border between China and Pakistan -- has mostly been gravel up until now. In the past 15 years, some sections have been paved, but they've remained only one lane wide, places where trucks push past each other at dizzying heights.

The current plans for uninterrupted pavement and widening the road to two, or in some places even four lanes, are yet another gift from China to Pakistan. The expansion will cost about $400 million, which is being financed by the Chinese government through state banks. "When we are done, the journey from the border to Islamabad will last only 20 instead of 30 hours," says Li.

Originally that was to be achieved by 2013 at the latest, but then came a violent landslide north of Karimabad. The crumbling mountain buried many villages and created an artificial lake that put some 22 kilometers of road under water. "Anyone who wants to cross from Pakistan to China or vice versa by land must change here on a boat," says Li, adding that there are no other routes and even cargo must be loaded onto boats.

A Monument to Chinese Policy

The Chinese have summarily decided to drill a tunnel to bypass the newly created Attabad Lake, now a tourist attraction. "It will now take another few years," says Li.

Undeterred by the challenge, the Chinese hauled in heavy equipment. And where bricks were needed to protect the road with walls against landslides or falling rocks, brickworks were swiftly built on site. "Where protective walls were of no use, we built a tunnel," says Li.

Kilometer by kilometer, a monument to Chinese foreign economic policy is being erected. Beijing doesn't worry about the short-term rates of return for its building projects abroad, but on the long-term trade options that they open up instead. The country is also interested in gaining allies with its generous help. In many countries besides Pakistan, Chinese engineers are working on key infrastructure projects. And often the Chinese are also investing in exactly the places from which the West has long since retreated -- such as many African countries rich in natural resources.

The Pakistanis are amazed by the knowledge of the Chinese and are learning from their building practices. But one section of the freshly paved road had to be torn up because the Pakistani workers simply spread it on the flat rolled gravel. Li says that he had to teach them that a road surface must consist of several layers, especially in regions where temperatures can get as low as minues 40 degrees Celsius (minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit) in the winter and up to 40 degrees (104 degrees) in the summer.

[pragnya]

it was a great googly bowled by Gen Kayani to the Wagah candle- brigade we have in our country.

Lt Gen Kamal Davar's take on Siachen

[eklavya]

Here is something for the CBM faction to reflect on:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19405

Lashkar-e-Tayyaba operative Abu Jundal has disclosed that Lashkar founder and Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed used to often meet top Pakistan Army corps commanders in that country to plan major terror strikes in India.

[SSridhar]

Lashkar-e-Tayyaba operative Abu Jundal has disclosed that Lashkar founder and Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed used to often meet top Pakistan Army corps commanders in that country to plan major terror strikes in India.

eklavya ji, After the US announced USD 10m for information leading to the prosecution of Professor saheb, a senior police official in Punjab, closely involved with investigations into militant activity, confirmed that Saeed and his supporters were helping efforts to transform militants into law-abiding citizens. We know that at least in c. 2006, after his release from a purported house arrest, the Lahore Corps Commander invited him for a Ramadan feast.

One more attack seems to be around the corner. But, even after that those who push the CBM-route to winning the hearts & minds of our estranged brothers would continue to do so.

[SSridhar]

Symbols over substancein India-Pakistan ties - an Op-ed by somebody called Kanti Bajpai

The Siachen dispute could be fairly easily resolved. After an avalanche took the lives of over 20 Pakistani soldiers a few weeks ago, Islamabad indicated it would like to settle the matter. New Delhi's response has been desultory and largely negative. What exactly is the point of sticking to a hard position on Siachen? What strategic objectives are achieved by holding on to a tiny point of territory at 17,000 feet where both sides lose more troops to the cold and harsh terrain than to any military conflict?

There is absolutely no strategic worth to Siachen whatsoever. The man who originally articulated the military rationale for holding Siachen, Lieutenant General M L Chibber, has long since said that our position there is useless. That doesn't mean handing it over to Pakistan. It means signing the agreement that both sides drew up as long ago as 1993! Under the agreement, both sides would withdraw to safer positions, reserving the right to go back to previously held positions if the other side violated the agreement.

Siachen must be the strategically most bizarre and futile struggle in the world. Only India and Pakistan would waste lives and hundreds of crores of rupees on it every year. Some in the military argue that controlling Siachen is vital for the security of Kashmir and that an Indian presence at Siachen usefully threatens the China-Pakistan Karakoram highway. Given that hardly anyone can move through the glacier with falling into a crevasse or bursting his lungs and given that the Karakoram highway is 200 km away, this is absurd. The prime minister should forthrightly tell the military that this is complete strategic nonsense and that we should stop sacrificing the lives of jawans in this absurdity.

India and Pakistan need to add substance to mostly symbolic diplomacy. Siachen would be a good place to begin the march towards substance. Pakistan, for its part, must unequivocally give India MFN status. Sir Creek should be next on the list of substantial problem solving; this also was nearly solved in 1993. The prime minister and his Pakistani counterpart need to shore up symbolic with real courage and resolve what is resolvable to create the base for a Kashmir settlement in the future.

[chetak]

Symbols over substancein India-Pakistan ties - an Op-ed by somebody called Kanti Bajpai

The Siachen dispute could be fairly easily resolved. After an avalanche took the lives of over 20 Pakistani soldiers a few weeks ago, Islamabad indicated it would like to settle the matter. New Delhi's response has been desultory and largely negative. What exactly is the point of sticking to a hard position on Siachen? What strategic objectives are achieved by holding on to a tiny point of territory at 17,000 feet where both sides lose more troops to the cold and harsh terrain than to any military conflict?

There is absolutely no strategic worth to Siachen whatsoever. The man who originally articulated the military rationale for holding Siachen, Lieutenant General M L Chibber, has long since said that our position there is useless. That doesn't mean handing it over to Pakistan. It means signing the agreement that both sides drew up as long ago as 1993! Under the agreement, both sides would withdraw to safer positions, reserving the right to go back to previously held positions if the other side violated the agreement.

Siachen must be the strategically most bizarre and futile struggle in the world. Only India and Pakistan would waste lives and hundreds of crores of rupees on it every year. Some in the military argue that controlling Siachen is vital for the security of Kashmir and that an Indian presence at Siachen usefully threatens the China-Pakistan Karakoram highway. Given that hardly anyone can move through the glacier with falling into a crevasse or bursting his lungs and given that the Karakoram highway is 200 km away, this is absurd. The prime minister should forthrightly tell the military that this is complete strategic nonsense and that we should stop sacrificing the lives of jawans in this absurdity.

India and Pakistan need to add substance to mostly symbolic diplomacy. Siachen would be a good place to begin the march towards substance. Pakistan, for its part, must unequivocally give India MFN status. Sir Creek should be next on the list of substantial problem solving; this also was nearly solved in 1993. The prime minister and his Pakistani counterpart need to shore up symbolic with real courage and resolve what is resolvable to create the base for a Kashmir settlement in the future.

Difficult to decide if this guy is a WKK or a moron.

[Vipul]

Look at his track record, the quickest way to gain recognition/importance is to pander to the other side's view.

[svinayak]

Under the agreement, both sides would withdraw to safer positions, reserving the right to go back to previously held positions if the other side violated the agreement.

Difficult to decide if this guy is a WKK or a moron.

He says that the troops can go back to previously held positions if the other side violated the agreement.
He may have thought that this is a easy terrain just as in the plains and previous status can be restored. No reference to China or other geo political situation of POK etc.

They have fallen behind the curve in the global geo political situation.

[member_23629]

What strategic objectives are achieved by holding on to a tiny point of territory at 17,000 feet where both sides lose more troops to the cold and harsh terrain than to any military conflict?

Someone should tell this Bajpai dude that territory once acquired is never vacated, whether a blade of grass grows on it or not -- that is the first fundamental prinicipal of statecraft. Just ask China (Tibet or Taiwan). Chankaya defined "arthashastra" (statecraft) as the art of acquiring and retaining land by a state. When you begin to relinquish land voluntarily with nothing in return, you are going against the tenets of statecraft. This eventually leads to the demise of the state as a more cunning statesman acquires your land and manages to retain it. (This is what Pakistan is trying to do -- trying to convince India to vacate territory that it holds, while one day it will abruptly acquire the same vacated territory in the Kargil fashion, thus practising statecraft.)

These Bajpai type dudes are junk analysts -- they don't bat for their country or civilisation. No other country has these kind of alienated citizens batting for the other side to the detriment of their own. And if they exist, they are treated as cranks.

[tejas]

Varunkumar, you have hit the nail right on its head. The problem is India has these type of people in spades. And even worse their disease is prevalent at the highest levels of govt.

[Vipul]

India thinks chimera is for real.

Accordingly, in the event of Mr Singh’s visit to Pakistan, as speculated, towards the end of this year, one should be prepared not merely for much bonhomie but also for sell-outs on issues like Sir Creek and Siachen,appropriately sweetened by economic goodies.

[chetak]

Under the agreement, both sides would withdraw to safer positions, reserving the right to go back to previously held positions if the other side violated the agreement.

Difficult to decide if this guy is a WKK or a moron.

He says that the troops can go back to previously held positions if the other side violated the agreement.
He may have thought that this is a easy terrain just as in the plains and previous status can be restored. No reference to China or other geo political situation of POK etc.

They have fallen behind the curve in the global geo political situation.

What curve?

we have a six lane highway to the siachen complete with toll gates and motorable all the way from India gate, no?

[PratikDas]

^^^ Irrelevant

[eklavya]

India has hardened its stand on Siachen: Kayani
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india ... i/945360/0

Pakistan's powerful army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani today contended that India had hardened its position on the Siachen issue, especially compared to the situation in 1989, when the two sides were "close to a resolution".

Speaking to the media during a visit to a high-altitude army camp in Siachen sector that was hit by an avalanche on April 7, Kayani indicated that India had toughened its stance on the issue and there had been "some kind of regression".

He reiterated that there should be "a peaceful resolution of the issue".

"We were close to a resolution in 1989 when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi came to Pakistan. It didn't materialise. I don't want to go into technicalities. There have been several meetings," Kayani said.

"At the last Defence Secretary-level meeting, there was some kind of regression. Because the term used earlier was authentication but in the last meeting, the Indian side said they want demarcation of the LoC (Line of Control)," he added.

"Having said this, we still have to talk. There is nothing like a peaceful resolution. The best thing is a peaceful resolution but short of that, we will do what we are

supposed to do," the army chief said while responding to

questions.

"It takes two hands to clap," he added.

Asked about the Indian response to his comments last month about the demilitarisation of Siachen, Kayani said his remarks were "received positively except for some ifs and buts, but that is understandable because there have to be CBMs between the two countries and then we have to move forward. Let's hope we can move forward."

In Pakistan, he said, there was support "across the board" for what he had said.

"It was received positively here," Kayani said.

During an earlier visit to the site of the avalanche at Gyari on April 18, Kayani had called for all issues between India and Pakistan to be resolved to ensure "peaceful co-existence" which would allow the two sides to focus on development and welfare of the people.

Kayani had also said at the time that Pakistan hoped that the Siachen issue is "resolved so that both the countries don't have to pay the cost".

Pakistani officials have for long contended that the two countries came close to an agreement on Siachen in 1989 during a meeting between then Prime Ministers Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto.

In recent days, senior Pakistani officials have called for the implementation of that "agreement".

Responding to a question on whether Pakistan's civilian and military leadership had revised the policy on Siachen after the avalanche, Kayani said he would not comment on the issue as it was "too early" to say anything.

"When the time comes, we will talk about it. The next (round of) talks are coming up," he said.

Still talking about 1989 after Mumbai blasts, Kargil, Parliament attacks, IA hijacking, Kabul embassy attack, Mumbai massacare, etc etc etc

[rohitvats]

^^^Well, we can expect another 50 pages of discussion on CBM-Siachen-Walk the extra mile-No strategic value.....expect the WWK brigade come out screaming....the usual suspects will raise their heads again.

[eklavya]

Symbols over substancein India-Pakistan ties - an Op-ed by somebody called Kanti Bajpai
Difficult to decide if this guy is a WKK or a moron.

He is a PMKK. He is kissing the PM's candle hoping for some bone to be thrown to him.

If Siachen is so unimportant, why doesn't the Pakistan Army withdraw from their positions unilaterally?

One thing is for certain, India will not advance from its current positions (Indian armed forces were not allowed to cross the LoC (by air or ground) during the Kargil war, even for temporary tactical advantage), not while this PM is in charge!

[chetak]

^^^Well, we can expect another 50 pages of discussion on CBM-Siachen-Walk the extra mile-No strategic value.....expect the WWK brigade come out screaming....the usual suspects will raise their heads again.

kayani is simply playing a psychological game as he does not want the Indians occupying territory that the pakis cannot defend because of their destroyed logistics and supply chain.

The pakis wouldn't have hesitated even for a split second had the situation been reversed. They would have immediately moved in and CBMs be damned. The avalanche certainly did not take out their brains.

[chetak]

Symbols over substancein India-Pakistan ties - an Op-ed by somebody called Kanti Bajpai
Difficult to decide if this guy is a WKK or a moron.

He is a PMKK. He is kissing the PM's candle hoping for some bone to be thrown to him.

PM's candle? That's really gross!

[Vipul]

Watch out for WKK's and other Pseudo-intellectuals come out of the woodwork and try to gain some self-importance with the help of sponsored print and electronic media.

[SSridhar]

If this might help . . .

Kanti Prasad Bajpai comes from an eminent family of Indian diplomats: his father, Uma Shankar Bajpai was a former Indian High Commissioner to Canada; an uncle, K.S. Bajpai was a former Ambassador to the United States; and his grandfather, the late civil servant Sir Girija Shankar Bajpai, was Agent-General for India in the United States prior to India gaining independence. Bajpai, his father, his son, and his uncle were all educated at The Doon School.

[chetak]

If this might help . . .

Kanti Prasad Bajpai comes from an eminent family of Indian diplomats: his father, Uma Shankar Bajpai was a former Indian High Commissioner to Canada; an uncle, K.S. Bajpai was a former Ambassador to the United States; and his grandfather, the late civil servant Sir Girija Shankar Bajpai, was Agent-General for India in the United States prior to India gaining independence. Bajpai, his father, his son, and his uncle were all educated at The Doon School.

Conclusion: the clown is educated but not cultured.

Seems to come from a long line savvy survivor type of civil servants.