Siachen News & Discussion

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 01 Jun 2012 08:37

ShauryaT ji

Having come across it, I really had 2 choices either ignore it which would have been unfair to the discussion. Or rephrase it "as my own" which would be disingenous on my part.

I decided, a good article should not NOT be posted because of personalities.

I really don't care whose agenda is. Everyone has one.
Point is can we work with it and with honesty.

About the article.
Can't deny the basic premise of the article is that the clock is ticking against the TSPA troops up there. Unless they can figure out a way to restock them for the winter within the next few months, withdrawal is practically there for them - (authentication or not). It is a real problem for them at least today.

This gives India MORE leverage in the talks. But talks failed. Set back to peace process. Good. No Indian locos for Paki locos.

TSP should start with what is real for India. If TSP thinks India wants Hafiz Saeed/ Lakhvi/ Dawood/ KCF terrorists tried, think again. It is something TSP can do on its own.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Jun 2012 08:53

ManuT Ji: just wanted to make you aware, if you were not. Nothing more. Rest of the judgment is your choice.

On the article itself, as long as India has no plans to come down from the ridges, PA has all the time in the world, no matter how bad we think, they have been hurt. Never forget, PA has the resources of the entire state to exploit and they are in control.

Added: The upcoming summer helps to restock and rebuild. Even if an AGPL is signed tomorrow, this thing is not going to be resolved for many years till all the modalities of a mutual withdrawal are worked out. Do not think, PA is so broke that they cannot starve a few more Abduls to rebuild their base.

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 01 Jun 2012 09:02

[quote="ManuT"]
http://southasiamonitor.org/detail.php?type=sl&nid=2700
[quote]

Rakshaks beware!
Trend Micro Internet Security Agent in our office blocks all pages from the above website for "Malicious" content.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Jun 2012 09:05

RamaY wrote:^ ShauryaTji

Can you please elaborate?

The author of the article, is an ex mullah of BRF. He was very contentious and motivated and used his admin privileges to stifle debate. Has been running a blog, who's sole agenda seems to be pooh-pooh everything at BRF - that is the agenda, i was referring to. He may get it right on some issues some times but what is a discussion forum, without a multitude of views made in a civil and rationale manner. RamaY ji, knowing your views here, you would probably clash with him in a jiffy and get banned 10 times over!

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 01 Jun 2012 09:09

Kanishka ji, no such issues with Norton for the same website.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Jun 2012 09:11

ManuT wrote: TSP should start with what is real for India. If TSP thinks India wants Hafiz Saeed/ Lakhvi/ Dawood/ KCF terrorists tried, think again. It is something TSP can do on its own.

That is a good debate to have. What does India want from TSP for real? Something that is in their capacity to give in meaningful time frames?

I agree Saeed/Kakhvi/Dawood and the 42 so called training camps are probably low hanging.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Jun 2012 09:12

ShauryaT wrote:The author of the article, is an ex mullah of BRF. He was very contentious and motivated and used his admin privileges to stifle debate. Has been running a blog, who's sole agenda seems to be pooh-pooh everything at BRF - that is the agenda, i was referring to. He may get it right on some issues some times but what is a discussion forum, without a multitude of views made in a civil and rationale manner. RamaY ji, knowing your views here, you would probably clash with him in a jiffy and get banned 10 times over!

While it is true that he has an anti-BRF agenda, that in no way discounts what is written in the article which has nothing to do with BRF. So what is the point in bringing that up in this debate? That argument cannot be used to discredit the article, which is actually quite interesting. At the very moment that the PA is at it's weakest in the Siachen sector with supplies running low, a hue and cry has been raised in India about the need to withdraw from there. People joining this bandwagon should try to understand whose interests they may be unintentionally serving.

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 01 Jun 2012 09:17

PratikDas wrote:Kanishka ji, no such issues with Norton for the same website.

Pratik Ji, Yes it is a bit odd. Cannot visit the said website website from work as Trend Micro blocks it.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Jun 2012 09:22

nachiket wrote:People joining this bandwagon should try to understand whose interests they may be unintentionally serving.

Why, only the GoI? No?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 01 Jun 2012 09:27

Kanishka wrote:
PratikDas wrote:Kanishka ji, no such issues with Norton for the same website.
Pratik Ji, Yes it is a bit odd. Cannot visit the said website website from work as Trend Micro blocks it.

No need for the ji

I'm a mango jingo onlee.

Thanks for sharing a number of good articles recently.

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 01 Jun 2012 09:41

PratikDas wrote: Thanks for sharing a number of good articles recently.

Thank You.

Trend Micro link for the page/website in question:
http://global.sitesafety.trendmicro.com/result.php

"The latest tests indicate that this URL contains malicious software or could defraud visitors.
Sites that directly or indirectly facilitate the distribution of malicious software or source code"

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Jun 2012 10:31

ShauryaT wrote:ManuT: Hope you know, who the author is and what is his agenda? It is no secret.

The author of that article is Sunil, ex-BRF member. And what agenda are you taking about? That is as factual an article as can be and relays the actual ground position. What beef do you have with the article? Or do you have any other and contrary information to one presented in the article? Funny how you call other biased when they question papers written by those same opinion as yours while others are biased?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Jun 2012 19:28

rohitvats wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:ManuT: Hope you know, who the author is and what is his agenda? It is no secret.
The author of that article is Sunil, ex-BRF member. And what agenda are you taking about? That is as factual an article as can be and relays the actual ground position. What beef do you have with the article? Or do you have any other and contrary information to one presented in the article? Funny how you call other biased when they question papers written by those same opinion as yours while others are biased?

Everything that I wanted to say about the article and the author is in the few posts above. On the question of bias. My view is there is no such thing as an entirely objective view, in matters concerning policy. We all have built in biases, due to our experiences. All we can do is be aware of these biases and try to be as rational as possible within constraints of our emotional capacities.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 01 Jun 2012 19:39

ShauryaT ji

I got repeated warnings and bans because BRF admins are Fascists, Casteists and Saffron terrorists and they enjoy oppressing minorities and untouchables like me

That Sunil.S article has nothing to do with Indian posturing or action/inaction. It was an attempt to understand the financial costs of re-establishing the Ghayari base and its impact on Paki begging bowl after taking the dus-persenti and kiya-persenti into consideration. Another angle Sunil.S explored is the divisions and sensitivities between various tribal equations withing TSPA.

Given that outline, that article was an excellent attempt.

Since we all want to, even though we always fail to, discuss the message and not the messenger we can at least try to discuss the message and messenger separately. At one point (of course during Vanavaas) I was wondering if we have a dedicated thread in GDF to capture the poster bias profiles so we have something kept in some safe place so when something happens to someone in the family we know how/who/what happened. Similarly we can try to profile various news/farticle writers in Media/PsyOps like thread.

I agree with you that we all have our own biases. With your permission I would like to extend it to our rulers also. Perhaps we should allow posters to write about our neta-babulog biases as well and not ban them for calling the netas the names?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Jun 2012 20:07

ShauryaT wrote:
rohitvats wrote: The author of that article is Sunil, ex-BRF member. And what agenda are you taking about? That is as factual an article as can be and relays the actual ground position. What beef do you have with the article? Or do you have any other and contrary information to one presented in the article? Funny how you call other biased when they question papers written by those same opinion as yours while others are biased?
Everything that I wanted to say about the article and the author is in the few posts above. On the question of bias. My view is there is no such thing as an entirely objective view, in matters concerning policy. We all have built in biases, due to our experiences. All we can do is be aware of these biases and try to be as rational as possible within constraints of our emotional capacities.

All that you've done is pass your judgement on the author of the article and not commented on the article per se - you've tried to somehow discredit the article by bringing in the tangential about the author's dealings with BRF and hinting at some hidden agenda. This, when the article has all the data points to stand and be judged on its own merit. And as I can see, you have no arguments to counter the points put forth in the said article and are indulging in usual hand waving.

Sorry, but that is an utter lame attempt at countering an argument which is opposite to your views. Let people be the judge of the bias or otherwise - there is no need to bring tangential arguments which have no relevance to discussion at hand.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Jun 2012 20:10

The Mask is off
Prakash Katoch

The recent past has seen much frenzy in our media of improving India-Pakistan relations with speculations of resolving the Siachen and Sir Creek issues. What generated the hype was Kayani’s call for demilitarisation of Siachen when the Pakistan military was faced with the herculean task of clearing the massive avalanche (that buried some 140 Pakistani soldiers) blocking the axes of maintenance to his troops deployed west of the northern and central portions of Saltoro Ridge. What Pakistan conveniently forgets to mention is that it was the Pakistan Army that had made the first move to capture the Saltoro Ridge. In 2004, when a national publication interviewed Lt Gen (Retd) ML Chibber, the conclusion drawn was, “The Indian military leadership was jolted from slumber by an intelligence briefing on Pakistan’s extensive preparations for Siachen given to Chhibber .....” Lt Gen (Retd) ML Chibber was Northern Army Commander when Indian troops pre-empted Pakistani occupation of Saltoro. The following facts also cannot be ignored: -

• The unprecedented scale of intrusions in Kargil area by Pakistan.
• Aim of Pakistan’s Kargil intrusion was to cut off Siachen area and dislodge Indian troops from the Saltoro Ridge.
• Repeated attempts by Pakistan to intrude into Machchal area where there is a Line of Control - no ambiguity of line beyond NJ 9842 or AGPL.
• Periodic attempts by Pakistan to capture our posts on the Saltoro Ridge.

With a quirk of fate, the Pakistani mask started coming off even before the recent Home Secretary level India-Pakistan talks in Islamabad. Pakistan announced a 33 year jail term and a fine to Shahid Afridi – a doctor who ran a vaccination campaign (allegedly on behest of the CIA) to get blood samples of Osama-bin-Laden that helped fix his location and the eventual US raid that killed him. The question here is if Pakistan has no truck with Al Qaeda and serious about GWOT then why jail the doctor and that too for such exceptionally long duration? Should Government of Pakistan not actually be honouring Shahid Afridi for such mammoth contribution to GWOT? How was he considered a “traitor”?

Looking back, remember Admiral Mike Mullen, then Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff accusing ISI of engineering attacks on the US Embassy and other targets through the Haqqani network. Where are the Haqqanis? “The Haqqani family, which runs the network like a mafia, maintains several town houses, including in Islamabad and elsewhere, and they have been known to visit military facilities in Rawalpindi, attend tribal gatherings and even travel abroad on pilgrimages. “Experts say leaders of the Haqqani network may be hiding in plain sight in cities rather than in remote tribal areas,” wrote Pir Zubair Shah and Carlotta Gall in New York Times on 31 Oct, 2011. Vahid Brown, Princeton counter terrorism expert added, “Senior leaders of the group concerned with political and financial affairs, like Khalil Haqqani and another of Jalaluddin’s brothers, Ibrahim Haqqani, have long resided in Islamabad. My impression is they mostly live in the cities. Ibrahim Haqqani had lived in Islamabad for the past 20 years. Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks last year also revealed that the two Haqqanis often traveled to the UAE from Pakistan.” This apart, complicity of ISI-Haqqanis in attacking the Indian Embassy in Kabul and Indian interests in Afghanistan has been well established.

If there were expectations from the India-Pakistan Home Secretary level talks, they failed miserably as Pakistan is back to her true colours. The mask is actually off. Despite loads of evidence proving complicity of Hafiz Saeed in the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks and our Home Minister reiterating time and again that “enough evidence” has been given to Pakistan, Pakistan says “not enough”. The fact is simple - Pakistan will not act against this rabid mullah when he is being backed by scores of serving and retired military officers besides millions of radicals. Rehman Malik’s statement that the pact for the new liberalized visa regime should be finalised at the political level was another gimmick. He could have not signed it with someone else holding the strings.

Let us not have illusions about true democracy in Pakistan. “In the absence of the activism of democracy, you are left with the fatalism of patronage. A nation that obsesses over external threats is one that values patronage, because patronage means protection from what may come. Valuing patronage is in some ways the antithesis of voting in a democracy: rather than shape your future, you seek protection from it. Ironically, patronage also nullifies the future possibility of democracy because it reiterates the importance of that which is local — kinship, ethnicity, language, sect — over what is national. As long as we seek protection from an external enemy, we will seek patrons, even if they come in uniform —and it is thus that history readies to repeat itself,” wrote Huma Yusuf in Dawn last October.

Let us not get carried away by Kayani either. Globe and Mail newspapers had reported Kayani telling Hamid Karzai that the conditions for peace in Afghanistan would be closing of several Indian consulates while offering to broker deals with Islamic Emirate leaders whom he considers a “strategic asset”. Chris Alexander, former Canadian envoy to Pakistan and former Deputy Special Representative of UN Secretary General to Afghanistan says, “Pakistan Army’s mission in Afghanistan is to keep Pashtun nationalism down, India out and Hamid Karzai weak”. Does India still want to succumb to Kayani’s machinations?

Will Pakistan break up? No, definitely not. US, China, Saudi Arabia will not permit it notwithstanding Pervez Hoodbhoy, Professor of Nuclear& High Energy Physics, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad stating, “An extremist takeover of Pakistan is probably no further than five to ten years away”. A question does, however, arise whetherl a second break up of Pakistan into smaller nations be more conducive to world peace - stable smaller nations versus an increasingly unstable Pakistan?

What India needs to do is concentrate on bilateral trade that both economies desperately need. We must remember this is possible even while Pakistan’s crafty and radical anti-Indian designs will likely remain unchanged. Bilateral trade has not diminished Chinese aggressive designs on Taiwan and India, and we should not expect Pakistan to change so easily.

The author is a veteran Lieutenant General of the Indian Army

Views expressed are personal

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Jun 2012 20:27

rohitvats wrote: All that you've done is pass your judgement on the author of the article and not commented on the article per se -

My thoughts on the article's contents are in the response to ManuT. I have nothing more to add.

you've tried to somehow discredit the article by bringing in the tangential about the author's dealings with BRF and hinting at some hidden agenda.

This somehow is your imagination. I have not tried to hint but openly and directly stated on the author's agenda vis-vis BRF in the response to RamaY. I have not discredited the article, just because of the author. The original message to ManuT was nothing but to make him and others aware, rest as I said to ManuT, in as clear words as possible is his/their judgment.

Sorry, but that is an utter lame attempt at countering an argument which is opposite to your views. Let people be the judge of the bias or otherwise - there is no need to bring tangential arguments which have no relevance to discussion at hand.

If you find the author's articles and posts as someone who adds value, that is your choice. Trying to make someone aware of the history of the author with this board was my choice. You find it lame, so be it. I have some past experiences where positions by the author have not been welcome on this board. But that is just me.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Jun 2012 20:40

ShauryaT wrote:
you've tried to somehow discredit the article by bringing in the tangential about the author's dealings with BRF and hinting at some hidden agenda.
This somehow is your imagination. I have not tried to hint but openly and directly stated on the author's agenda vis-vis BRF in the response to RamaY. I have not discredited the article, just because of the author. The original message to ManuT was nothing but to make him and others aware, rest as I said to ManuT, in as clear words as possible is his/their judgment.

Don't hide behind the semantics here. Rather than comment on the content of the article - which you've not done - you chose to comment on the author. The debate at hand on BRF is not about Sunil's agenda vis-a-vis BRF but about Siachen. And that article is about Siachen written for some third party - which was simply linked here.

If you find the author's articles and posts as someone who adds value, that is your choice. Trying to make someone aware of the history of the author with this board was my choice. You find it lame, so be it. I have some past experiences where positions by the author have not been welcome on this board. But that is just me.

Again, while you pontificate about biases and such esoteric stuff, you openly display the same here. Quite rich, isn't it? Author's views and conduct on BRF - and their perception by BRFites - is not pertinent to debate at hand. It is your bias here - pure and simple. You're simply polluting the debate here. That article is full of facts and analysis which has been missed by many so called "analyst" in the media. If you can, please debate on facts and proper analysis - all that you've done so far is hand wave and put forth contradictory views.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Jun 2012 21:02

rohitvats wrote: Don't hide behind the semantics here. Rather than comment on the content of the article - which you've not done - you chose to comment on the author. The debate at hand on BRF is not about Sunil's agenda vis-a-vis BRF but about Siachen. And that article is about Siachen written for some third party - which was simply linked here.

What semantics are you talking about hiding behind. I read the article posted and attached are my thoughts posted above. Posted for reference again.

ManuT Ji: just wanted to make you aware, if you were not. Nothing more. Rest of the judgment is your choice.

On the article itself, as long as India has no plans to come down from the ridges, PA has all the time in the world, no matter how bad we think, they have been hurt. Never forget, PA has the resources of the entire state to exploit and they are in control.

Added: The upcoming summer helps to restock and rebuild. Even if an AGPL is signed tomorrow, this thing is not going to be resolved for many years till all the modalities of a mutual withdrawal are worked out. Do not think, PA is so broke that they cannot starve a few more Abduls to rebuild their base.

You're simply polluting the debate here.

You have the choice not to respond, keep on abusing, keep me on ignore list, report the post, debate your points etc. Your choice really on a range of options. You think I am polluting the debate by ensuring someone is aware of the author's background on this board, again your choice, your words. You can exercise, your range of options, as I will mine.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Jun 2012 21:51

RamaY wrote:Perhaps we should allow posters to write about our neta-babulog biases as well and not ban them for calling the netas the names?

A few thoughts to consider:

1. A seeming bias, when translated to another area at another time, may not translate at times, leading to incorrect observations of the bias of the person in question, in the first place. So care has to be taken towards this mis application of an apparent bias. But, many times it does translate and it is best to know such biases and prejudices for or against and towards the backgrounds are important
2. There is something to be said for tone and words used. There is a line between a constructive critique and abuse. When these lines are crossed as they often do, when calling names, discussions fall to the gutter. My personal preference is for moderation of feelings and emotions to the degree possible. A rule of thumb to follow is write nothing, that you will not say to a person's face.

As a citizen, our solemn right to critique our leaders actions even harshly but within the confines of law and reason, cannot be compromised. The rest is the judgement is of moderators, the rules they have framed and on what type of board they want to run.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 01 Jun 2012 22:39

Hope this wasn't posted earlier.
Dr. Subhash Kapila's view on Siachen. INDIA’S PAKISTAN POLICY: REALISM NOT IDEALISM SHOULD PREDOMINATE
Posting in full

Pakistan President Zardari’s recent ‘spiritual visit’ to India and luncheon meeting with Indian Prime Minister enroute to Ajmer Sharif has been overhyped in India as some new leaf being turned over in India-Pakistan relations. It was a ‘spiritual visit’ with no divine revelations of Sufi blessings that the stains in the entire fabric of trust-deficit relations between India and its contentious neighbour stand washed away.

Contextually, the security environment in the Indian Sub-Continent stands adversely changed by Pakistan facilitating China’s obtrusive military presence in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and opposite the Siachen Sector. Pakistan itself is gripped with political and military uncertainties as the grim forecast above reflects. India needs to discard its idealistic lenses and adopt hard-headed “realism” in its policy formulations on Pakistan.

Political suggestions have emerged in the Indian media that to enable a visit by Dr Manmohan Singh to Pakistan, India should redouble efforts to come up with workable proposals on Siachen and Sir Creek which could be acceptable to Pakistan and substantiate the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Pakistan by signing an agreement on these two primarily military issues. The Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Pakistan can then be hailed as a path breaking ‘peace achievement’.

India’s foreign policy on Pakistan and China should not and cannot be determined by idealistic impulses or political expediency factors. India’s Pakistan policy needs to be primarily determined by “Realism” and not delusionary “Idealism”.

Idealism has been the hallmark of India’s foreign policy all these years with peace at any cost with Pakistan from the Gujral Doctrine, the Lahore Yatra, to the Havana Declaration, to Sharm-al-Sheikh Declaration and further to the contrived clamour now by the establishment that Dr Manmohan Singh should pay a visit to Pakistan by this year end. More starkly put this ‘idealism label’ was a political fig-leaf to shroud Indian political infirmities of giving-in to US pressures on Pakistan till recently and to the Indian political leadership’s own strategic timidity and strategic culture-deficit.

Realism predominating India’s Pakistan policy does not entail war-mongering or adopting political and military coercive approaches towards Pakistan. Realism in India’s Pakistan policy entails that while peace may and should be the end objective it is not at the cost of bartering away India’s national security and military advantages like the revived but once again the policy establishment’s contrived symphony on demilitarisation of the Siachin Sector and the Saltoro Ridge..

Realism in India’s Pakistan policy would further entail that India’s policy establishment does not disregard the historical pattern of Pakistan’s state behaviour, the mind sets of the Pakistan Army Generals and the lessons of the past decade of unrestrained major Pakistani terrorist attacks in the Indian heartland.

Realism in India’s Pakistan policy also implies that while pursuing peace with Pakistan, India concurrently and in tandem makes it patently obvious that India desires “normalisation of relations” with Pakistan as distinct from “peace at any cost” dictated by Pakistan’s erstwhile strategic patrons and echoed by India’s bleeding hearts.

“Peace at any cost” denotes or connotes that India is negotiating with Pakistan from a position of weakness or in desperation or under duress of external pressures.

“Normalisation of relations” with Pakistan carries the message to the other side and the international community that India despite its weighty leverages of power and economic strength still desires and aims for good-neighbourliness with Pakistan.

Realism in India’s Pakistan policy also dictates that India’s policy establishment recognize that India’s past approaches for normalisation of relations with Pakistan basically failed because of Pakistan’s obduracy that military issues like Kashmir, Siachin Sir Creek etc. be first resolved before normalisation can be achieved. This has been evident from the Neemrana Dialogues 1992 and other Track II dialogues in Bangkok, Dubai, Islamabad etc. and extending to official dialogues as part of the Composite Dialogue process.

Both India and Pakistan more specifically must recognise the reality that the above paths have led to nowhere and that with the changed geopolitics of the Indian Sub-Continent, Pakistan cannot drive home its earlier advantages of being the regional ‘spoiler state’ or the blackmailing factor of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal or preying on fears of the Indian establishment of a Talibanised Pakistan or United States pressures on India in its favour.

Realism in India’s Pakistan policy would dictate that India drastically transform its policy approaches towards Pakistan and lay down new markers based on hard-headed realism in keeping with the strategic changes brought by Pakistan facilitating Chinese military presence in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, Pakistan’s likely strategic and military moves in the run-up to US exit from Afghanistan in 2014 and the possibility of a US military intervention in Pakistan.

India’s Pakistan policy needs to be transformed and based on hard-headed realism determined by India’s national security interests and Indian Army’s military imperatives and advice. When it comes to Pakistan and China policy formulations of India’s foreign policy, it should incorporate Indian Army recommendations without reservation or their editing.

India’s policy planners need to recognise that India’s’ foreign policy on Pakistan cannot be based on diplomatic readings only as the issues that Pakistan contends adversarially with India are primarily dominated by military considerations. Kashmir, Siachin issue, Sir Creek etc. are not political issues as all of them are determined by Pakistan Army dictates.

The myth that is being propagated in Pakistan and by some in India is that India and Pakistan under Musharraf came “tantalising close” to a settlement on these issues needs to be politically and strategically debunked.

India needs to declare boldly that it intends to place new markers in place for ‘normalisation of relations” with Pakistan altering the hackneyed and unproductive negotiation mechanisms currently in place, namely the Composite Dialogue, Track II diplomacy centred on intractable issues like Kashmir, Siachin, Sir Creek , back-channel diplomacy by Special Envoys and subtle interventions by external patrons of Pakistan.

India should firmly lay down the marker that henceforth India –Pakistan Dialogues whether official or Track II would no longer dwell on political and military issues. India would henceforth dwell and lay priority on India- Pakistan Dialogues focused on economic and trade relations, cultural exchanges and educational exchanges. All political and military issues would be placed on the back-burner for a period of 10 years as disputes left overs by history and to be settled by future generations.

Let Pakistan reject the above approach so that both Pakistan’s external patrons and India’s peace-chattering classes can see for themselves the true intentions of the Pakistani establishment in the normalisation of India-Pakistan relations

Reverting to the Indian Prime Ministers proposed visit t Pakistan being currently advocated it can be asserted that such a visit is “strategically inadvisable” for a multitude of reasons.

Domestic political dynamics in both countries are stacked heavily against Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Pakistan. Indian public opinion is incensed that Pakistan has made no recompense for Mumbai26/11, refusal to hand over Hafiz Saeed and watching daily visuals of Hafiz Saeed spewing vituperative venom against India feely on Pakistani streets

In Pakistan, President Zardari has no control over Pakistan’s India policy which is still under control of Pakistan Army. President Zardari does not control the Pakistani streets and public opinion. The Pakistani streets are controlled by Hafiz Saeed and other Jihadi organizations under control of Pakistan Army. What a sight it would be that during the Indian Prime Minister’s proposed visit to Pakistan, the Pakistani streets are flooded with Hafiz Saeed controlled masses spewing venom against India?

India’s foreign policy planners advising the Indian Prime Minister to visit Pakistan should recall that Pakistan has been resisting putting economic and trade relations in the forefront right since the Neemrana Dialogues of 1992. They kept insisting that the ‘political basket’ and ‘military basket’ be tackled first. The reasons are not far to discern. Simply put, according priority to trade and economics generates widespread people-to-people contacts and understanding. Also and more importantly, the Pakistan Army cannot put hurdles in trade relations expansion on the grounds of national security and preying on people’s fears. Surely they cannot project to Pakistani people that increased trade with India and more people’s contacts would endanger Pakistan’s security.

Such an approach could eventually pave the way for gradual erosion of the trust-deficit that plagues India and Pakistan at the apex levels and in years to come open up more vistas which could render redundant the divisive issues that haunt Indian and Pakistan policy makers. The average Pakistanis viewing the benefits of Pakistan economy plugged-in to a vibrant Indian economy may themselves, despite the rabble-rousers like Hafiz Saeed, bring unbearable pressure on their governing establishment to evolve Pakistan into a ‘normal neighbour’ of India.

Prime Ministerial visits to Pakistan by an Indian PM get overhyped and raise political expectations to undeliverable levels. Such Indian PM visits to Pakistan also put pressures on beleaguered Pakistani civilian governments to play to the gallery of the Pakistan Army-Jihadi organisations nexus and unrealistically stiffen their approaches and demands.

Realistically therefore, the Indian Prime Minister should not contemplate any visit to Pakistan in 2012-2013 and thereby not retard the progress being made in economic and trade relations These can be fostered and built up by visits of Ministers of Commerce, bureaucrats and powerful businessmen and industrialists delegations. The India Prime Minister does not have to visit Pakistan for that purpose.

The political and security environments in both countries and the political uncertainties that hover on both sides of the border do not lend themselves to a visit by the Indian Prime Minister to Pakistan politically substantial and politically worthwhile when both governing establishments are readying themselves to the prospects of power changes in 2013-2014.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 01 Jun 2012 22:44

Thank you, abhijitm. That, in my opinion, is an excellent article.

India needs to declare boldly that it intends to place new markers in place for ‘normalisation of relations” with Pakistan altering the hackneyed and unproductive negotiation mechanisms currently in place, namely the Composite Dialogue, Track II diplomacy centred on intractable issues like Kashmir, Siachin, Sir Creek , back-channel diplomacy by Special Envoys and subtle interventions by external patrons of Pakistan.

India should firmly lay down the marker that henceforth India –Pakistan Dialogues whether official or Track II would no longer dwell on political and military issues. India would henceforth dwell and lay priority on India- Pakistan Dialogues focused on economic and trade relations, cultural exchanges and educational exchanges. All political and military issues would be placed on the back-burner for a period of 10 years as disputes left overs by history and to be settled by future generations.

Let Pakistan reject the above approach so that both Pakistan’s external patrons and India’s peace-chattering classes can see for themselves the true intentions of the Pakistani establishment in the normalisation of India-Pakistan relations.

Dr. Subhash Kapila,

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 01 Jun 2012 22:54

^^^
In May 2006 when the same debate was hotting up he wrote

In civilian minds, the common misperception is that Siachen sector comprises only the Siachen Glacier and hence de-militarisation should be no big deal. It is not so.

Pakistan wants India to give up the entire Saltoro Ridge, a long ridge extending nearly 120 km, (on which runs the Actual Ground Position Line, or AGPL) from the border of India with Pakistan ceded Chinese territory in the north to India's Kargil [ Images ] sector in the east.

The strategic significance of the Saltoro Ridge and the Siachen Glacier is that it gives India strategic and terrain domination over Pakistan's so-called Northern Areas (Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ] territory merged into Pakistan) and Pakistan-ceded Kashmir territory to China.

It also blocks routes of ingress to the vital Ladakh sector, and provides a 'strategic wedge' to prevent a further Pakistan-China geographical link-up.

It acts as a 'strategic pressure point' against Pakistan's military adventurism in the Kargil sector.

Indira-Col, the northern most part of Siachen, directly overlooks Chinese occupied territory that was illegally ceded by Pakistan to China. Having a foot on the ground here is the only way for India to legitimately and effectively dispute the illegal Chinese presence here.

Given all this, any argument de-emphasising Siachen's strategic significance is both puerile and sterile.

If Siachen's strategic significance is being de-emphasised on grounds of financial costs, logistic challenges or hazards to life and limb, then why not de-emphasise equally difficult regions on India's other frontiers?

India's borders define its nationhood and its sovereignty. Their defence and integrity cannot become debates on a 'cost-benefit ratio.' Further, the costs of re-deployment and de-militarisation would outweigh the costs of maintaining present positions as all the defensive and logistic infrastructure 'in situ' will have to be destroyed on the pull back of troops.

Don't sell out Siachen

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 01 Jun 2012 22:57

^^ if you read his articles in 2005 he was towing the same WKK line as Siachen has no strategic importance, death of soldiers, cost blah blah blah. Wonder what made him change his mind one year later

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 01 Jun 2012 23:02

I will henceforth refer to all WKKs with an opinion on Siachen, i.e. give it away for bhaichara, as the "peace-chattering classes" so as to be "civil".

Same to same onlee.

abhijitm wrote:^^ if you read his articles in 2005 he was towing the same WKK line as Siachen has no strategic importance, death of soldiers, cost blah blah blah. Wonder what made him change his mind one year later

Everyone has the right to see the light.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 02 Jun 2012 01:58

Hindustan Times: Siachen troop withdrawal tops agenda for talks with Pakistan
Jayanth Jacob
New Delhi, June 01, 2012

India has agreed to discuss the sensitive Siachen issue at the June 11-12 secretary-level meeting with Pakistan, pushing the Sir Creek issue – another flashpoint – way down the agenda. Observers say the reason for resetting the priorities is that Siachen being a far more complex issue than Sir Creek, any leeway on that front may give Pakistan the domestic leverage necessary to push ahead with the peace process.

The Siachen glacier is known as the world's highest battlefield where troops have been deployed at elevations of up to 22,000 feet. Sir Creek, a 96 km disputed strip of water in the Rann of Kutch, divides the Kutch region between Gujarat and Sindh province of Pakistan.

Pakistan wants to know how far India will be flexible on the Siachen issue before revealing its cards on Sir Creek. It was at the insistence of Pakistan that the talks on Sir Creek scheduled in May had to be postponed and the new dates have not yet been decided.

Also, New Delhi is deciphering the confusing signals from across the border, including that of the neighbour backing out of signing the new visa agreement at the last moment.

The Siachen troop withdrawal issue gained prominence in Pakistan following a massive avalanche burying a Pakistan army camp in Siachen on April 7, resulting in the death of 129 soldiers and 11 civilians.

Just after the incident, Pakistan president Asif Ali Zardari advocated for troop withdrawal from Siachen during his informal meeting with PM Manmohan Singh in April.

The foreign secretary-level meeting is expected to prepare the ground for external affairs minister SM Krishna’s Pakistan tour probably in the third week of July to review the peace process.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Jun 2012 02:15

Folks go easy on ShauryaT. Please dont see an agenda in every post.

Thanks.

ramana

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 02 Jun 2012 04:57

Pakistan will not sign any agreement unless it is 100% on their terms. The Indian side will have to come up with the spin with which they will sell it to the Indian Parliament and the Indian people.

Quite doable.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 02 Jun 2012 07:29

Need some help here framing this Siachen argument.

Pakistan illegally occupies Kashmir. Puts troops to protect illegal occupation. A god-send avalanche kills 130 TSP troops. TSP does not want to see further bleeding and can't afford to keep troops in light of reducing financial support from their western masters. So, they wish to remove troops from high altitudes; but want India to remove its troops so they can continue with their illegal occupation for free; while paving way for muja-aladins to sneak in whenever they wish. And, India is dying to work with TSP to do exactly what? Sell Bollywood movies, cheap t-shirts, electricity?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 02 Jun 2012 07:42

chanakyaa wrote:Need some help here framing this Siachen argument.

Pakistan illegally occupies Kashmir. Puts troops to protect illegal occupation. A god-send avalanche kills 130 TSP troops. TSP does not want to see further bleeding and can't afford to keep troops in light of reducing financial support from their western masters. So, they wish to remove troops from high altitudes; but want India to remove its troops so they can continue with their illegal occupation for free; while paving way for muja-aladins to sneak in whenever they wish. And, India is dying to work with TSP to do exactly what? Sell Bollywood movies, cheap t-shirts, electricity?

plus as Karan M pointed out rewarding porkis for making terrorist attacks on us, we remove our army + infrastructure to reduce financial burden on porkis.

Shat shat Pranaams for making the whole picture clear in such a short post.

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 02 Jun 2012 09:42

Didn't get such an alerts from my anti virus software.

I am really sorry about the virus alerts folks are getting alerts.

nachiket, rohitvats, RamaY have accurately put it. No further comment needed.
ShauryaT,

You are well within the right to question the author (I have done it too for example with Kiyani). In this case, I did not put the author's name so as not to shoot the messenger (as was happening with you). But then that is exactly what happened here, I got a little confused. I appreciate your concern for me.

Anyways

Added: The upcoming summer helps to restock and rebuild.

Base. Gone.
Reserves at base. Gone.
New base. Not there yet.
Another problem. Where to pitch the tent?

Troops on the posts looking out for mules right about now.
Not sure how many are getting through.

I think it can be problem.
We can differ.

In one of your responses you mentioned. That is of some value and to think about and these were discussed a little bit a few pages back, but still worth some thinking

What does India want from TSP for real? Something that is in their capacity to give in meaningful time frames?

Also from my side, if one was a ghazi afsars in TSPA, at the prospect of the posts being in dire situation how do you keep Indians busy during the summer?

Looks like Taalks ki picture abhi baaki hai mere dost ...

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 02 Jun 2012 09:51

chanakyaa ji (RamaY ji also had put this question but couldn't respond earlier)

There was some track-2 before, the avalanche happened. I thought initially, TSPA would keep silent but the extent of damage was TOTAL, so that couldn't be kept down. So shifting of the blame the Indians for the futile conflict.

TSPA has now started accepting where they are, this is a change from their previous position, so they kind of have been preparing the Abduls.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 02 Jun 2012 10:23

Kakkaji wrote:Pakistan will not sign any agreement unless it is 100% on their terms. The Indian side will have to come up with the spin with which they will sell it to the Indian Parliament and the Indian people.

Quite doable.

Yes, quite doable.

1. Paid media available to spin this as an Indian victory and all people opposed to it as saffronists, Internet hindus, fascists, warmongers, etc. CHECK
2. Ruling political class lead by a man desperate to sell out his country for a Nobel peace prize. CHECK
3. Chattering classes to move in tandem with 1. CHECK
4. Assorted ruling dispensation supporters coming crawling out of the woodwork. CHECK
5. Babus who have no interest in Indian interest but are simply interested in perpetuating their control on the Indian state. CHECK
6. Main opposition party too full of "one leg in grave other in fight to be top dog" and "cannot win elections to save their lives" and "I have gift of the gab so I should be PM" and "backroom operators" to give a damn about Indian interests. CHECK
7. Other opposition parties that can be bought over. CHECK

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Jun 2012 11:18

^^^Right on dot. We are the only country in the world which has to concede from an advantageous position to build CBM with a nation which is our mortal enemy. Talk of appeasement....

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 02 Jun 2012 13:14

Pak agrees on AGPL or not, just stay put. absolutely no need to climb down.

IG must be cursing from the heaven. MMS owns a lot of explainations to her.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 02 Jun 2012 21:17

If there are hundreds of tons of POL lost in Gyari, has anyone written on the environmental costs that may be incurred if these find their way into the water systems of glacial passages.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Jun 2012 23:49

abhijitm wrote:Pak agrees on AGPL or not, just stay put. absolutely no need to climb down.

IG must be cursing from the heaven. MMS owns a lot of explainations to her.

But wasn't she the original one who started the whole greasy slide by returning the 93000 porkis for the cold comfort of slimy bhutto's lying word?

MMS is just following the very same foot steps.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 03 Jun 2012 02:56

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

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jun 2012 05:36

From an insider of those times.

She did not want enmity with common mango abduls.

Only the Army and not even the other forces feel the shame of that defeat with live prisoners and not massacres if it were the other way.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 03 Jun 2012 05:40

Geneva Convention

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