ramana wrote:
Not really. The only thing that weakens the TSPA which is the kabila guards is a public open defeat.
Agreement on Siachen strengthens their hands and makes them more strong in the kabila. The argument that if India shows its not a threat has already been tried out. In March 1999, AB Vajpayee, the Prime Minster from the NDA (so called conservatives), visited the Minar-e-Pakistan acknowledging the existence of TSP and yet he got rewarded with Kargil getting occupied during his visit.
This is a good argument and well grounded, It is also an argument that many I respect make. However begs some questions, is a bloody nose enough? I would think not and if so, a comprehensive defeat (means their military capacity and sovereignty has to be controlled by us) demands, first the will to fight and defeat the enemy and then deal with its aftermath. I do not think, there is any political dispensation ready to prepare at that scale and deal with all its risks. There is no intent to do so and hence our capacities reflect that intent. If there was any possibility for the case, ABV would not have gone to Pakistan and the UPA would not keep spending levels on defense so low for so many years. I know you rile at BK's comment of "riot with Tanks" but there is a point in it. That larger point of no will on either side, has to be recognized, it has nothing to do with the IA's skills or effort.
On ABV's good intent trip to Lahore, the PA thought that it was our continuing perfidy of meaningless political platitudes to shove real issues under the table (just stating what they thought). The three service chiefs refused to accord a proper salute to Vajpayee at the border, as protocol demanded. It was quite clear that the PA did not endorse the Lahore process. It was an expensive mistake by us to presume that dealing with Pakistan political authority is enough and addressing its military concerns can be done through political intent and signals. What the PA is looking for is military CBM's for it is our military, that in their view threatens their state.
On their Perfidies, for how long does a mouse think it can beat an elephant and play its games? They miscalculated Indian reaction to Kargil spectacularly. Have no hope in hell to get the valley. Lost competing strategically with India in 1971. Recognized that India can withstand the proxy war. They have been dumped by their foreign masters - three times by now. Their own Islamic agenda is firing back at them big time. At some point of time, the mouse has to look itself in the mirror and see the result of trying to compete and oppose an Elephant. This mirror is shining bright and many are beginning to see the futility of it all.
The military threat from India argument within TSP has to be marginalized, if not through war then on the negotiating table. We can use our strength to engage towards that goal. This is where Siachen comes in.
Also on Kargil, what I would have liked is for India to put the heads of the Gang of 4 on the table as a negotiating item that these 4 men at the very least have to be forsaken and cursed forever, if we do not have the heft yet, to ask for their prosecution. They are
Lieutenant General Mohammad Aziz Khan
Lieutenant General Mahmood Ahmad
Major General Javed Hassan
General Musharraf
I will respond to SSridhar also in some time.
....instead of wasting time on green shirt in the video...she should at least take some chai biscuit to our soldiers...nice to see lot of good people on the show who understand the concerns..
then the army’s Director General of Military Operations and a key member of the Indian delegation, has explained why he thinks India’s political leadership changed its mind: growing differences between the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party over the Babri Masjid issue made a political consensus difficult; and the political leadership had second thoughts in view of the violence that Pakistan was instigating in J&K.
}