Siachen News & Discussion

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 May 2012 01:07

[youtube]qFoRrym3uLk&feature=channel&list=UL[/youtube]

Liked the below one also.

[youtube]Evdmt_5x0uI&feature=channel&list=UL[/youtube]

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 11 May 2012 03:02

Typical BSing from a Puki desperate to look TFTA (Dyed Hair). Starts with the bull shit that reason for Siachen issue is because it was occupied by India in 1984, conviniently leaving out the Paki Perfidy and machinations prior to it (organising expeditions, issuing permits to foreigners to enter it thereby making it look as if pakistan has the authority/right/ownership).
Calls India as having heagamonistic designs and gives the Paki version of how Northern areas became a part of Pakistan.
Admits to Pakistan playing traunt in 1984 with India when India wanted to disengage from the territory.
Now Pakistan wants to disengage only because of diminishing returns to it as Indians have mastered the Logistical challenges and are in a position to bear the cost easily while Pukis are not able to afford it. Speaks about Joint Control of the entire area when himself admitting that the Glacier has always been with india. So basically whats mine remains mine while i want a share of whats your's.

The second speaker appears all reasonable and sane till he lets out the reason for it: Pakistan economically not strong enough.
All in all a massive exercise of taqqiya onlee.

Food for thought for everybody(especially the Bhaichara induced WKK's and wannabe WKK's). This absolute display of earnest reasonableness of the Paki's is because they are weak today financially/militarily.
Had the case been reverse with india being the weaker player what would have been the situation?

I cant believe there are people on this forum who are being fooled/ taken in by this sudden display of false humility.
To get a true picture of what their true mentality is i would suggest just watch the various current affairs programs on various pakistani channels and see the depth of the duplicitious behaviour/thought process of the so-called Saner elements in pakistan.I have been watching these and am absolutely dumb-struck at how they are desirous of lording over India either militarily or surreptiously.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 May 2012 03:46

Lt. Gen: V.P. Raghawan is also on the panel. Another wannabe WKK?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 11 May 2012 04:00

I'm sorry. One General doesn't represent the whole country. The territory is not his to give.

If the opinions of those of have served in the region count more than the opinions of others then this counts for a lot:

Roperia wrote:Oh I commented before the program finished. Bravo! Maj Gen Thapliyal for saying "the last thing we should do is to trust the paki" on national TV.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 May 2012 04:28

ShauryaT< Yes he is known WKK on the Track pee circuit. He has his own think tank/NGO called Delhi Policy Group. Its in the NHB building in Delhi.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 May 2012 04:38

ramana wrote:ShauryaT< Yes he is known WKK on the Track pee circuit. He has his own think tank/NGO called Delhi Policy Group. Its in the NHB building in Delhi.

I am sorry, ramana, no one from the IA, who has dedicated his life to the security of India by definition cannot be a WKK. He would be negating his entire life. Unless, I misunderstand who a WKK is.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 11 May 2012 05:05

Life post-retirement (whether in the Services or other high visbility positions) can be pretty boring and nerve wrecking. Not everybody can adjust to it.To be "relevant", "important" and "in demand" on the lecture/seminar circuit is to float an NGO/think-tank and take a contrarian view more palatable to the other side for instant visibility and fame in this media age.

Looking at the Track II member's from the Pakistani side (RAPE's aka snake-Oil salesman par excellence), i would seroiusly consider any Indian member of this circuit seriously infected and compromised, especially so if he/she is advocating Bull Shit about India ceding/foregoing any territory in the name of peace and progress.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 May 2012 05:13

Lt.Gen.Raj Kadyan provides a view, hope people like Biraj Patnaik do not bring in issues nothing to do with national security. We need to up the defense spend to 3% on a sustained basis not reduce it.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 11 May 2012 05:20

ShauryaT wrote:Lt. Gen: V.P. Raghawan is also on the panel. Another wannabe WKK?

Definitely and its unfortunate.For every such general (sitting with Ejaz Haider

), there would be many other serving ex-army personnel who have served in Siachen who would not advocate such a move. Check out the life and work of Ejaz Haider and Moeed Peerzada - Classic RAPE's dedicated to pakistan and then judge what to make of this General siding with them.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 11 May 2012 08:05

In a surprise move, Pakistan has called off Indo-Pak talks on Sir Creek -- giving a very bizarre excuse of 'unforeseen circumstances'. Islamabad want the talks on the disputed strip of water between the Kutch region in India and Sindh region in Pakistan to be held after the talks on Siachen. Pakistan has tried to raise an emotional pitch for the demilitarisation of Siachen last month after several Pakistan soldiers were killed in an avalanche. In a debate moderated by TIMES NOW's Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami, panelists -- Gauhar Ayub Khan, Former Foreign Minister Pakistan; Major General (Retd) Rashid Qureshi, Former Spokesperson to Musharraf; Shafqat Mahmood, Secretary Information, Tehri-i-Insaf; Mahroof Raza, Strategic Affairs Analyst; Major Gen (retd) G D Bakshi, Defence analyst and Lt Gen (Retd) Shankar Prasad, Defence Analyst -- debate the issue.

Debate: Pakistan raises pitch on Siachen - 2

Debate: Pakistan raises pitch on Siachen - 3

Interesting debate! At the very outset, Lt Gen (Retd) Shankar Prasad (former DGMO) gives it very bluntly to the Pakis on Siachen.

Pakis start by reminding India that if both sides withdraw from Siachen, it would build an enormous trust among our two countries and bring peace to South Asia. Hearing Pakis talk of peace Mahroof asks, what withdrawal are you talking about sir? As far as we know TSPA has never reached Siachen.

The Pakis being shamed on live TV, shift the goalposts and blame India for being the aggressor. L.t Gen (Retd) Shankar Prasad responds by saying that you made a cartographic aggression and we only preempted your move.

Pakis laugh in disbelief. Priceless!

For some reason the first part is missing!

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 11 May 2012 09:12

Rather than trying to counter points made by Biraj Patnaik and Girish nikam, we should be ignoring them. This human rights, leftist cottage industry thrives on their contempt for middle class Indians.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 11 May 2012 10:06

Five people shouting at once and twelve arms sawing the air-you gotta love Indian television.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 11 May 2012 11:55

Indian presence in Siachen is seen as an agression from paki pov. For them our withdrawal will be seen as entitlement and victory instead of any sort of concession. Another imp reason why we should not fall in the trap.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 11 May 2012 11:59

Viv S and sudeepJ, then we should think about demilitarizing Siachen after we build modern artillery. And also field the required number of UAVs to lase or target themselves such positions.
Without having the requisite capabilities, saying that IA can deter or respond to a PA violation is irrelevent.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 11 May 2012 12:25

it seems increasingly clear that this siachen brouhaha is an attempt to keep the cashmere issue relevant and up front
a sign of increasing desperation by the pakistani leadership

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 11 May 2012 12:36

India and Afghanistan sign a co-operation across J&K border in legal terms. For long term growth and peace. If illegal sale of part of J&K by pakis is not noticed internationally, no one can talk nonsense for legal agreement?

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 11 May 2012 12:47

My theory goes like this:

- Gayri not only base for men and the conventional weapons. It probably has some suitcases and chemical weapons.
- They were damaged during the avalanche and the base became toxic, hindering future deployments to Siachen (probably IA has good intel on it).
- Pure uniform cannot tell that and at the same cannot tell aam abduls they are not facing man-to-man in Siachen, now abdul can question why green uniform needs so much money if they are not bordering Siachen, when they are now ready to eat grass.
- They immediately discovered the virtues of piss and singing the tune of peace, but IA not buying it for many reasons.

In future,
- US is also slowly ditching the bitch.
- Base camp of Siachen is a toxic ground.
- They are becoming a laughing stock before its abduls.
- Expect a mini 26/11.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 11 May 2012 18:29

I absolutely love Major Maroof Raza and Maj Gen Afsir Karim when they give it to the Pukis. They are not bogged down like others in being unnecassarily polite or are not constrained when they say things as they are. Wish our other analysts were like them. The Paki talk shows never call these gentlemen for their views and have on their call other specialists who are also regulars on undie TV, coincidence?

Cartographic Aggression was the initial step with a bigger agenda of usurping the glacier the next, thankfully Col Narendra Kumar alerted the Army to the plan and were able to occupy it just in time.
The so called anal-yst and others who are advocating for India to withdraw from Siachen are seaking personal glory as peaceniks (along with it membership/invitation to some think-tanks) at the cost of sacrifices made by the Indian Army.

Lest we forget under the Taqqiya induced demilitarization bull crap:

About Col Kumar:

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/ ... us-siachen and
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... Kumar.html

Naib Subedar Bana Singh:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/26sld1.htm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2213913/Siach ... Bana-Singh
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Bana.html

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 May 2012 18:41

Brothers-in-arms

Maybe the subdued Pakistani response to Agni was on account of the unfortunate avalanche on the west side of the Saltoro Ridge earlier that buried alive Pakistan Army soldiers from the Northern Light Infantry, bringing home to a grief-stricken nation the human cost of the Siachen deployment. It triggered a wave of popular resentment against it. Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League-(Nawaz) and Imran Khan of the Tehreek-e-Insaf Party called for unilateral withdrawal and hoped this gesture would be reciprocated by India. The mounting public pressure compelled the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, to talk of “peaceful coexistence” and the need to resolve all disputes in a peaceable manner.

What is fascinating to see is how, for the first time in recent memory, the space for public and political discourse and debate within Pakistan about the best way to deal with India was seized, and the lead in thinking given, by mainline political parties and civil society, and how much the Pakistan Army’s room for manoeuvre on even national security issues has shrunk. India should have reacted to the Siachen tragedy with prompt offers of material and expert help, and proposed an immediate meeting between Gen. Kayani and his Indian counterpart, Gen. V.K. Singh, to explore ideas the Pakistani COAS might have for resolving disputes and coexisting peacefully. India had nothing to lose. When I said this on a television programme featuring two Pakistanis — former foreign minister Gohar Ayub Khan and retired Maj. Gen. Rashid Qureshi — a former ambassador to Afghanistan Vivek Katju pointed out that because the Indian Army does not enjoy the same exalted position its opposite number does in Pakistan, it would be an interaction between unequals. What he, and the Indian government, fail to appreciate is that regular meetings between the two Army Chiefs will advance the rapprochement process and put the stamp of approval of General Headquarters, Rawalpindi, on a peace dynamic created by warming economic and trade ties.

In the context of the Indian government once again whining about Washington not arm-twisting Islamabad enough to contain terrorist Hafiz Saeed and the Pakistani Lashkars to the visiting US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, making a case for restoring links between the armies of the two countries with shared regimental histories and background would appear to be quixotic.

One thing to note is Indian politicians have largely not opined on the issue or have they?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 May 2012 18:49

Roperia wrote: For some reason the first part is missing!

Part I of the show.

http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-Pakistan- ... 401885.cms

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 11 May 2012 19:51

Whats gone wrong with BK? He wants the nonsensical chai biscoot sessions not limited to bureaucrats but wants that the Indian Army should also have a fair chance of samosa's too.
Who is he kidding when he says that pakistan Army is under more civilian control now in matters of national security. Really? Can he mention one instance to show the Puki parties defying the army or having bought it under their control? Doesnt he remember how the entire Puki parliament cutting across party lines voted on resolutions absolving the army in all the acts of commission and omissions in the last 12 months?
He wants Indian army to take the initiative in trying to be good to pakistani army personnel posted in India even if they do not treat ours the same way. What next?
Why this sudden fetish from many(including the so called experts on the Indian side) saying the onus is on India to do something??
If he is amongst those who is "advising" MMS, then that explains a lot.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 May 2012 20:02

Vipul wrote: If he is amongst those who is "advising" MMS, then that explains a lot.

Is this where the angst is coming from? It will be prudent to separate political bias from national security issues. MMS has not really moved an inch on the issue. In fact BK is of the view that MMS does not not have the political heft. It is a result of an unelected and appointed executive, who is a technocrat and displays no kshatriya qualities in him. A BJP government would probably move much more aggressively towards a peace narrative with Pakistan, IMO.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 11 May 2012 20:04

ShauryaT wrote:
Roperia wrote: For some reason the first part is missing!
Part I of the show.

http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-Pakistan- ... 401885.cms

Has anybody got this gem from Rashid Qureshi "even if you pre-empted our move (to occupy Siachen) you are the aggressor and should vacate.(of course to facilitate our future occupation).

We positively have to be brain-dead to even agree to hold negoiations on Siachen.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 May 2012 20:08

Vipul wrote: We positively have to be brain-dead to even agree to hold negoiations on Siachen.

Then support war. Know anyone in Delhi in the next 50 years to support it and able to achieve meaningful results?

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 11 May 2012 20:13

ShauryaT wrote:
Vipul wrote: If he is amongst those who is "advising" MMS, then that explains a lot.
Is this where the angst is coming from? It will be prudent to separate political bias from national security issues. MMS has not really moved an inch on the issue. In fact BK is of the view that MMS does not not have the political heft. It is a result of an unelected and appointed executive, who is a technocrat and displays no kshatriya qualities in him. A BJP government would probably move much more aggressively towards a peace narrative with Pakistan, IMO.

How can you say MMS has not moved an inch on this issue? Do you know of his intent or the extent he wants to move when he finally does?? Wouldnt it be too late then before all the reactions are drowned out on his Nobel piss prize glory? Or are you waiting for a Sharm-el-Sheikh statement from him to finally know his intention to move not an inch but a whole kilometer on this???

About BK i admit i have been surprised by his theories recently. He is advocating wholesale turning of other cheek.Definitely no political bias there.Telling the situation as it is.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 11 May 2012 20:15

ShauryaT wrote:
Vipul wrote: We positively have to be brain-dead to even agree to hold negoiations on Siachen.
Then support war. Know anyone in Delhi in the next 50 years to support it and able to achieve meaningful results?

Ha i got it !! Why war? We can surrender. Right?

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 11 May 2012 20:18

Deleted.

member_23365 · Post by **member_23365** » 11 May 2012 21:19

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

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

As one of the poster already mentioned history tells us not to be Prithviraj but be Ranjit Singh

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 May 2012 21:39

atamjeetsingh wrote: During Kargil I lost a cousin and one son-in-law of our village. So peace is very essential personally for us.
But I am against the withdrawl of our forces from Siachen, the only reason is we dont know what Pakis would be doing after our withdrawl.

First, Please say thanks from me to all those who have served and sacrificed. The town I come from and my circle is full of selfish souls like myself who have not lifted a finger and sacrificed much for the nation, let alone putting lives on the line.

You are right, we do not really know, what PA would do, if we withdraw and hence we verify!

It is for our political leaders to understand the risks and benefits and then make a call, with full knowledge that if the risks materialize, we have a full and ready plan to compensate for the failed venture and ensure a double loss to the enemy.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 11 May 2012 21:49

ShauryaT wrote: It is for our political leaders to understand the risks and benefits and then make a call, with full knowledge that if the risks materialize, we have a full and ready plan to compensate for the failed venture and ensure a double loss to the enemy.

"Full and ready plan to compensate", the likes of which we have failed to demonstrate after the Parliament attacks or the Mumbai attacks because of a weak civilian leadership. Does demilitarisation of Siachen include the growth of a pair of balls?

No, thanks. The Army better stay in Siachen.

sum · Post by **sum** » 11 May 2012 21:56

^^ Honestly, whatever little hope i had on the civilian leadership vanished after 26/11 where we took the thappad and are now patting ourselves for not having been provoked by TSP.

Nothing to suggest that loosing a "barren piece of land" will cause great outrage and suddenly make the same GoI to "punish" TSP. Can already forsee the Chankian theories which will float once TSP takes over the vacated posts:
The incursion was a deliberate ploy to provoke India and we shouldn't fall in the trap and retaliate. Since TSP-ians are anyways killing themselves, it is a small price to pay( else they will unite against India) and we should swallow our anger and losses for the larger picture.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 11 May 2012 23:09

ShauryaT wrote:First, Please say thanks from me to all those who have served and sacrificed.

Please spare me from your phoney respect to our military. You and those who say siachen bear no strategic value are the one who are belittling the sacrifrice our brave soldiers have made for our country. You are saying a thousand soldiers die on siachen for nothing! And not only that but you are challengic collective intelligence of our army, generals who decided to stay put for decades. Thus you are directly accusing the generals from then to now of either negligence or conciously misleding GoI and civilians, and hence responsible for the death of thousand precious soldiers. A court martial offense, dont you think?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 12 May 2012 00:22

ShauryaT wrote:
Vipul wrote: We positively have to be brain-dead to even agree to hold negoiations on Siachen.
Then support war. Know anyone in Delhi in the next 50 years to support it and able to achieve meaningful results?

So not asking the Army to withdraw from Siachen equals supporting war? I suppose this is the new spin being put on by the liberals to make the fence-sitters lean towards supporting compromise on Siachen.

The only ones who might start a war over Siachen are the pakis. And they have already learned their lesson the hard way. So now they are trying to use our naivete (and our inexplicable desire to hand a knife to the pakis and turn our backs) to get what they want for free.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 12 May 2012 00:58

Are people so naive not to understand what is actually going on?
India is at an advantageous position. Having overcome the challenges with the passage of time and having a resurgent economy the status quo suits us fine. But beaten back pakistan is at a disadvantage militarily, and cannot afford the status quo and hence is trying to get on the negotiating table what it could not win in war.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 12 May 2012 02:14

anjan wrote:There is nothing strawman about it. The way it was being thrown around shows a severe underestimation of conditions facing combat troops. All that crisis is an opportunity is a load of BS unless it's your life on the line. It's a tradeoff. In actual human lives. Of casualties in one scenario vs another. This needs to be acknowledged. I object to the flippant manner in which it is brought up.

This perception of a "flippant manner" is only in your own mind. You can have your objections. I have mine too: people favoring a demilitarization using holier-than-though arguments, pretending that they somehow care more about Indian soldiers in Siachen than the rest. This last point may not apply to you (reading your posts) but it certainly does apply to a few others on this forum and elsewhere.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 12 May 2012 07:32

Vipul wrote:Are people so naive not to understand what is actually going on?
India is at an advantageous position. Having overcome the challenges with the passage of time and having a resurgent economy the status quo suits us fine. But beaten back pakistan is at a disadvantage militarily, and cannot afford the status quo and hence is trying to get on the negotiating table what it could not win in war.

This is actually a very good point. Pakistan's desire to demilitarise Siachen after the avalanche is nothing but an attempt to engage India in dialogue so that the Indian Army doesn't gain territory in Siachen. If the Indian Army were to gain territory while the Indian government was engaged in diplomacy with Pakistan, it would be decried globally as dishonourable, Machiavellian, despicable, etc. And we are all too worried about what others think of us.

It is in fact a masterstroke by Pakistan in leveraging the Indian government's weakness for if Siachen is to be demilitarised then it would be akin to winning a lottery with someone else's ticket. The avalanche was India's winning ticket.

Even if Siachen is not demilitarised, Pakistan would've plenty of time to reestablish themselves. After all, the Indian Army isn't going forward, that much is evident. The snail's pace with which the Indian government operates would be of great comfort. Either way, Pakistan won't be losing anything. We will surely lose territory the moment we step back. In the meanwhile, the WKK types including Barkha Dutt are concerned not for the Hindu but for the Hindu's frostbitten toes. How predictable.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 12 May 2012 17:26

ShauryaT wrote:Brothers-in-arms

Maybe the subdued Pakistani response to Agni was on account of the unfortunate avalanche on the west side of the Saltoro Ridge earlier that buried alive Pakistan Army soldiers from the Northern Light Infantry, bringing home to a grief-stricken nation the human cost of the Siachen deployment. It triggered a wave of popular resentment against it. Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League-(Nawaz) and Imran Khan of the Tehreek-e-Insaf Party called for unilateral withdrawal and hoped this gesture would be reciprocated by India. The mounting public pressure compelled the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, to talk of “peaceful coexistence” and the need to resolve all disputes in a peaceable manner.

What is fascinating to see is how, for the first time in recent memory, the space for public and political discourse and debate within Pakistan about the best way to deal with India was seized, and the lead in thinking given, by mainline political parties and civil society, and how much the Pakistan Army’s room for manoeuvre on even national security issues has shrunk. India should have reacted to the Siachen tragedy with prompt offers of material and expert help, and proposed an immediate meeting between Gen. Kayani and his Indian counterpart, Gen. V.K. Singh, to explore ideas the Pakistani COAS might have for resolving disputes and coexisting peacefully. India had nothing to lose. When I said this on a television programme featuring two Pakistanis — former foreign minister Gohar Ayub Khan and retired Maj. Gen. Rashid Qureshi — a former ambassador to Afghanistan Vivek Katju pointed out that because the Indian Army does not enjoy the same exalted position its opposite number does in Pakistan, it would be an interaction between unequals. What he, and the Indian government, fail to appreciate is that regular meetings between the two Army Chiefs will advance the rapprochement process and put the stamp of approval of General Headquarters, Rawalpindi, on a peace dynamic created by warming economic and trade ties.

In the context of the Indian government once again whining about Washington not arm-twisting Islamabad enough to contain terrorist Hafiz Saeed and the Pakistani Lashkars to the visiting US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, making a case for restoring links between the armies of the two countries with shared regimental histories and background would appear to be quixotic.
One thing to note is Indian politicians have largely not opined on the issue or have they?

What a disgusting article by Bharat Karnad.

Indian Army: professional, under full democratic control, no political agenda, primary guardian of the constitution

Pakistan Army: genocidal (Bangladesh, Baluchistan), sponsor of terrorism (in India, Afghanistan and Pakistan), usurper of constitution (coups by Ayub, Zia, Musharraf), start wars on own initiative (Kargil), tortured Lt Kalia and shot Sq Ldr Ahuja in the back

Not brothers, not brothers at all, never ever.

Jaybhatt · Post by **Jaybhatt** » 12 May 2012 20:57

eklavya wrote:
What a disgusting article by Bharat Karnad.

Indian Army: professional, under full democratic control, no political agenda, primary guardian of the constitution

Pakistan Army: genocidal (Bangladesh, Baluchistan), sponsor of terrorism (in India, Afghanistan and Pakistan), usurper of constitution (coups by Ayub, Zia, Musharraf), start wars on own initiative (Kargil), tortured Lt Kalia and shot Sq Ldr Ahuja in the back

Not brothers, not brothers at all, never ever.

Well said, Eklavya.

This Bharat Karnad fellow is getting senile. The other explanation for his torturous logic in some of his recent articles is quite grim - this would imply that the fellow has developed a noxious personal agenda in the last few months. By the way, one does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to propose the second explanation. There are too may instances of Delhi's salon circles singing the tunes of their foreign masters / mistresses.

Our elite is one of the most corrupt and venal groups in history.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 12 May 2012 22:08

abhijitm wrote:Please spare me from your phoney respect to our military. You and those who say siachen bear no strategic value are the one who are belittling the sacrifrice our brave soldiers have made for our country. You are saying a thousand soldiers die on siachen for nothing! And not only that but you are challengic collective intelligence of our army, generals who decided to stay put for decades. Thus you are directly accusing the generals from then to now of either negligence or conciously misleding GoI and civilians, and hence responsible for the death of thousand precious soldiers. A court martial offense, dont you think?

abhijitm: Thankfully I do not need a certificate from the likes of you on who I respect and not and do not answer to you on your versions of court martial. If you do not have it in you to counter the arguments presented then do not go on with your personal attacks and verbal diarrohorea on the board, putting words in my mouth out of context.

The above post is nothing but a gross misrepresentations of the arguments put forward and nothing but a personal attack.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 12 May 2012 22:49

PratikDas wrote:This is actually a very good point. Pakistan's desire to demilitarise Siachen after the avalanche is nothing but an attempt to engage India in dialogue so that the Indian Army doesn't gain territory in Siachen

PratikDas ji, This take ignores the fact that avalenche happened on the eve of Zardari's India visit and Siachen was a topic that was to be discussed. Keep in mind several rounds of discussions on this same topic. You also need to look at the statement by MMS (several days prior to Z's visit) that he needs something big before his travel plans to Pukistan are confirmed. So..I suspect there is more to avalanche than meets the eye.