Siachen News & Discussion

[ManuT]

100 million refugees

Where is that number coming from.

Even the 'greatest migration in history' does not have those numbers.

[PratikDas]

Think of a CBM like the CFA which does not involve potential occupation of Indian lands.

It has to be something that both sides want. On the LoC as of today, Siachen is the best bet. It is so because it is least risky (UZ is possible and so is the CZ, with sparse populations) among available options (will not use the word strategic as that word means anything to anyone these days). A CBM on the LoC, can be a future template for all of the LoC, if it works, in stages. Siachen is important from PA’s perspective. In their view, we aggressed and broke 1972 agreement through force. (yes, I know our counters and reasons for doing so but we have to deal with their views on it) Siachen, negates the PA’s view that the only way to deal with India is through force. For many such reasons, Siachen is important to address.

Can you please, please, please explain to us why we have to deal with their "views" while they have never had to deal with our views on the Delhi Parliament attacks, Kargil, Mumbai, the two soldiers who died.... the list goes on.

Their "views", if you want to give them the credit of having intelligence be my guest but I'll abstain, are delusions. Why can't we then match delusion with delusion and demand the return of PoK?!

I have said this before, too many times by now. Siachen is a CBM.

You think you're the only one tired, that of repeating that Siachen is a CBM? Are you that detached from reality as to not understand that we're also tired of your delusions of peace?

If you want to use logorrhoea as a "civil" substitute for a " " then you're not really fooling anyone.

[ManuT]

Initially, India exercised restraint but both sides exchanged heavy firing after Pakistani Army officers ignored hotline messages.

[PratikDas]

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

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

Truly a son of Gandhi. Pakistani gaalis are all that keep coming our way as well but we return for more with CBMs.

[Kakkaji]

Here is my wild guess - the rulers of TSP (military et al) have come to the conclusion that by becoming a friend of India they have a lot to GAIN PERSONALLY. This is due to India's open economy and fast growth rate and most importantly India tolerates corruption on a mega scale (tens of thousands of crores of rupees). They want a piece of the action. Sort of like the mafia.

FYI they already have a piece of the action - a large piece. They share the spoils from the D-Company's business empire in India.

[symontk]

100 million refugees

Where is that number coming from.

Even the 'greatest migration in history' does not have those numbers.

And the question, what are they fleeing from? The ordinary folks will taste power after 65 years and they would leave that for India? Elites will leave Pakistan, doesn't mean that they will come to India, they have other options like US / Europe / Australia. India need not expect anyone

However India can expect a force of 100M at the border which includes its sea shores too

[Aditya_V]

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

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

100 million will not flee on the first day, with respect to Bengal, it was political will and pressure which keeps the border from being closed.

If we shoot the first intruders then the entire flock will be detered.

[Manish_Sharma]

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

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

Strange, this 180° turn. Sameer ji!

Sometime back he protested against this very reason, and said he was leaving forum until these posts are cleaned up, he won't return until it is done. Well he was ignored, nobody cared. So having crow breakfast, lunch & dinner he crawled back to the forum against his own 'condition' he had put.

Why would he put someone on ignore list? That's very much double standards. He can't take criticisms even if in harsh language. But he wants Bharatvarsh to build CBMs with country that's not just badmouthing us but sending terrorists to kill our citizens, open fires on border unprovoked even against soldiers going to pick up dead soldier's body. One shouldn't have double standards if you want country to build CBMs with genocidal PA, and say to make PA feel secure we as nation have to remove army from our own certain borderposts. Why not build CBMs with posters using harsh language. See 'personal pride' to him is too precious, while the fellow citizens murdered plus our sons in Armed Forces dying to take back Kargil or Siachin are just part of the risk 'we' should take. Shouldn't he build CBMs with fellow posters?

Ever since he has entered, first he argued on 'technical terms' which were answered point to point by Rohitvats beautifully, then he changed to strategic scene which have been countered by many posters specially SSridhar.

He also dropped hint that he takes the voice of forum to those 'in power' or those 'close to people in power' plus sophisticatedly called the poster here 'coward' in a sentence "It is very difficult to reason with a mob. It is so easy to use the seeming anonymity to act angry et al."
So Pratik Das provided his FB account and dared him to come forward and provide his own details.

The thing is ShauryaT isn't here to discuss for manthan or to learn but doing exact opposite of what he has stated "I do my part to make this discussion known to people in power or are near power." No he is doing it the other way around.

When the serving General Shri V.K. Singh's statement on Siachin is provided here verbatim and video. He brushes it aside with "Civilian authority will decide what to do" and then goes on to provide kanwal's article.

Some people have this strong urge to chamchagiri, somebody near to power talks to him for 2 mins. and guy gets charged up filling BR pages with garbage.

[PratikDas]

Good post, Manish. I'm probably on the ignore list as well. It is not without reason that I call him lecturer sahib. Most Indian lecturers don't have the capacity to accommodate being corrected. The ones who do gracefully earn their place in students' hearts forever. Similarly, I find ShauryaT posing challenges, like how Pakistan being allowed to fail (due to their own stupidity) could possibly be good for India. Then I find him running away from the answers, by ignoring the answers or the people who answer them. He just likes posing the questions as if he has made a monumental breakthrough, as if in asking the question he has proven his point.

He says the TSPA must be sidelined by making peace offerings to the Pakistani civilian government. We show latest data of Kayani being portrayed as the most important person in the land. We explain how giving the civilian government CBMs is like watering the wrong lawn. We explain that to make any real progress, you have to deal directly with the TSPA. We explain that the only language TSPA understands is one of force and the humiliation of being made to sign on the dotted line of an instrument of surrender. We explain that the weaknesses of GoIs past is only an indication of the weaknesses of GoIs past, and that it by no means is absolutely indicative of weaknesses of future GoIs or indicative of an undeniable need for CBMs. We question what the big rush is and why we can't wait for the next government because it is TSPA that wants something we have, not the other way round. We explain that it is they who need to offer CBMs, not us.

Either he chooses not to answer or his answers are simply (and I paraphrase), "we must deal", "we must deal now", "we have wasted time because we haven't dealed yet", "when are we going to learn that we need to deal". Sounds like a used car salesman to me.

So why do I keep writing back when he's probably ignoring me? If I've learnt one thing in having lived in 5 different countries, it is that media in every country is hopeless. They're all after TRP and, occasionally, they're all mouthpieces for the government (like Fareed Zakaria). There are also enough gullible in every country to believe the nonsense spewed by the local media outlets without a second thought. At some point you have to draw the line and say enough is enough, and with this one I'm going to take a stand. Making a peace park of Siachen through "joint monitoring" is when I reached that point. So I'm going to tackle ShauryaT's unending flow of more-of-what-I-said-2-weeks-ago-because-I-have-nothing-better-to-do with an incinerator.

[pragnya]

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

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

don't you think PA is exactly doing that here too?? didn't they agree and sign both karachi and shimla agreements?? don't you think they have no Locus Standi on Siachen?? that they have to honour the agreements?? doesn't those agreements make SIACHEN part of India?? didn't they accept that fact??

so, quoting you again -

They can ask for whatever, does not mean we have to be ready to compromise, at their terms. It is only, if it serves our interests a compromise should be done.

wouldn't it be the best possible course as you rightly put it?? is it not the GOI and IA stand too - which you agree with??

[chaanakya]

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

Well I would rather welcome 100 Mn refugees with Roses. They are , ultimately , Indians. It would give us reason and moral ground to go to Ismlamabad and set things right.

[Altair]

Well I would rather welcome 100 Mn refugees with Roses. They are , ultimately , Indians. It would give us reason and moral ground to go to Ismlamabad and set things right.

You mean set it on fire like the Islamic hordes looted the temple cities.

[ManuT]

^ Thing is talk of 100 million exodus does not put GofP into action or TSPA to drop its hostility towards India but GOI must act to prevent such an inflow.

[vasu raya]

what would a super power do to solve this problem?

Just draw a parallel between Kalifornia and Kashmir, US and India, Pak and Mexico, Muslims in Kashmir and Latinos in Kalifornia, except for latino gangs operating there and being dealt by local SWAT teams, not much of a news. Even reaching such a situation (CBM) is utopia given the current condition where an army is tied down and we all know the reasons.

Until such time dildaari on Siachin on our side will not help since TSP's psyche currently isn't deterred, the latest was 26/11 and not the last, 2014 is our deadline.

to make the LOC more relevant we could start using UAV's flying along side our border carrying AGMs with 30km range and TSP cover fire for 'East taliban' should be dealt with Salala like incidents.

JMT

[chaanakya]

^^
Joy and anger as Barack Obama relaxes deportation rules

Those eligible under Obama's plan must have come to the United States under the age of 16 and lived in the country for at least five years. They must be in school or have graduated from high school or be honorably discharged from the US military. They also must not have been convicted of any felony or significant misdemeanor offenses.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 187079.cms

[Sanku]

Sorry ShauryaT-ji: I think some more plain speaking is needed, with all due respects and appreciation for your previous posts

Sanku Ji: If you are equating demilitarization as giving away (even if I differ with that equalization) then yes, that is exactly what my stand is.

The problem ShauryaT ji, you are NOT asking for demilitarization. You are asking for unilateral withdrawal by India for a position of strategic advantage.

You can not ask for TSPA to similarly withdraw from Siachen, because they are, not there in the first place. What exactly is Pakistan giving up with a mechanic that India can trust?

You have not offered any. So Sir, a withdrawl == demilitarization. And please sir, kindly do not bring in "in your perspective" or anything like that. Please put what do you want Pakistan to give. So far you have not put up anything. Something real and tangible please.

Not unsimilar to what the GoI envisions.

Actually that is not really correct.

1) IAs stated points, including that put out by Gen VK Singh, flies in the face your statement. So unless you have taken IA out of GoI that is one point wrong right there.
2) Secondly, the GoI has not articulated its stand in the way you have. You are using the word "not unsimilar" which means, nothing because you could possibly slip in a elephant under the semantics of similar. So unless the GoI clearly makes a stand like yours, you are not entitled to claim that.

Thankfully even the most WKK and Paki loving sections of GoI (like Manmohan perhaps) have not dared to publicly take a stand like yours.

If anything and everything that is being talked to with Pakistan is appeasement and any negotiated settlement of outstanding issues with Pakistan is appeasement in your eyes, then yes I am all for a negotiated settlement, and others can call that appeasement from their view point.

I am sorry you are restoring to emotional histrionics here to deflect attention from simple facts, which is, that in your scheme of talking, there is nothing that Paki's are supposed to do and all the heavy moving is to be done by India.

I really wish instead of branding everyone who has pointed out factual errors in your position in emotional terms, you had spent a little more intellectual capital in explaining how does India stand to benefit and what are some hard believable guarantees that could be placed (beyond the flim flam of goodwill and emotional stuff) there could be a more sensible discussion.

Unfortunately since you want Paki's do nothing other than somehow hope they will have a change of heart, and India do everything. I would say you are asking for the worst form of appeasement.

[shyamd]

Having Ayni base is crucial for monitoring Siachen (we can see what they are doing and listen to what they are doing in that region) - now that things are up in the air because PRC, West are putting pressure on Tajik govt to kick us out - we are moving to a Russia, India and Tajik - three way sharing of the base as a compromise. We need the base to monitor Siachen and that region.

Doubt there will be a pull out without Ayni being in place.

[Kakkaji]

Having Ayni base is crucial for monitoring Siachen (we can see what they are doing and listen to what they are doing in that region) - now that things are up in the air because PRC, West are putting pressure on Tajik govt to kick us out - we are moving to a Russia, India and Tajik - three way sharing of the base as a compromise. We need the base to monitor Siachen and that region.

Doubt there will be a pull out without Ayni being in place.

Suppose we get a new 5-year lease on the Ayni base. Should we withdraw from Siachen then?

[shyamd]

Depends on a multitude of factors. How effective the surveillance is and how quickly we can get troops to the top of the mountain and at how short a notice. Can we detect movement at night? Many things need to be taken into consideration... only the army can give you the answer. If they say no - then the answer is no.

One thing is for certain - it won't be a withdrawal - but just a scale down of troops and only if we are comfortable that we have the measures in place to keep good surveillance of it and ensure we can respond quickly to a build up. In fact, GoI has pretty much said the same. There is no question of giving it up or anything of that sort.

[SSridhar]

The way I see it PA realized that defeating us conventionally to wrest Kashmir fell out of their imaginations after 1971 itself. Hence their rationale to acquire a nuclear deterrent. They are scared of an Indian escalation on the lines of 1965, 71 and hence could do nothing against Op. Meghdoot.

ShauryaT, if they are so scared of Indian escalation, then why should they provoke India at all especially when India is not an aggressor and is a status-quoist pacific power just happy with retaining whatever it has and is unwilling to be revisionist ?

I do not think the PA is scared of India. It has never been, IMHO. In the early days it developed alliances to offset the huge asymmetry in power structure between itself and its arch enemy and it stood it in good stead until the Cold War ended. The end of the Cold War dramatically altered equations and new relationships emerged that were detrimental to Pakistan. For example, India and the US came closer while Pakistan could not strike a similar relationship with Russia. Though the US-Pakistan relationship became more transcational and the tight-fisted Chinese were not of a great help either after the 90s, yet, Pakistan has been able to maintain jihad against India for the most part of the last two decades. So, PA is not scared of India because they are convinced that a status-quo wielding democracy with a long civilizational record to boot would not go to war easily and has therefore tried to bleed us under a sub-war threshold.

I would like to correct you by saying that Pakistan going nuclear was not due to 1971 or even the Smiling Buddha of 1974. Frequently, one hears such false claims by Pakistanis; let us not fall prey to the Pakistani fraud. Pakistan's quest for nukes started in late 1964 as soon as the Chinese exploded their first device in October of that year. Pakistan had already forged a friendlier relationship with the Chinese under the young foreign minister Z.A. Bhutto who even ceded a portion of PoK to them. Ayub Khan and Z.A. Bhutto began a series of manoueveres with the Chinese to get nuclear know-how. In his manuscript "If I am Assassinated" written from his death cell, Z.A.Bhutto has clearly said that the negotiations with the Chinese started in circa 1965 and Foreign Secretary Late Agha Shahi has since confirmed that. Let us remember that Pakistan had ceded more than 5000 Sq. Km of Shaksgam Valley to PRC by March 1963 and even given up claims to other territories that are part of Xinjiang today. China was grateful and its gratitude was to grow immensely later when Pakistan facilitated the US-China rapprochement. It was in 1965 in the General Assembly of the UN that Z.A.Bhutto said famously, “We Pakistanis will eat grass but shall live to win. We will fight for a thousand years but we will not submit or yield.”. So, the Pakistani efforts predate the "Smiling Buddha" by a decade. PAEC chief Dr. Munir Akram recalls FM Ayub Khan saying in late 1965 that ‘ . . . if needed, Pakistan could get it from China’, referring to the nuclear weapons.

Regarding Op. Meghdoot, I am surprised that you think they could do nothing because of their 'fear of escalation'. No, it was simply because they were late by a few days and there are enough evidences to that. The IA pre-empted them while they were waiting for the weather to improve. And, once the heights and passes were occupied, it became an impossible uphill task (pun intended) for them. As simple as that.

I have said this before, too many times by now. Siachen is a CBM.

Shaurya ji, you continue to labour under an impression that somehow the PA fears a decapitating Indian attack, even conventionally and it is our responsibility to eradicate that fear from the minds of the PA and somehow evacuating Siachen and making it a 'mountain of peace' (per MMS) would be a good first step. You are not the only one to hold such a view. A few Indian WKKs and all Pakistanis, well almost all, have a similar view. IMHO, this is a facade that has been carefully cultivated by the PA for ensuring their interests. So, they will continue to raise other bogeys once one of them is eliminated. My question has been and remains, what next ? What other fears that India will have to exorcise from Pakistani minds ? You call such a question as non-sequitur. Do you believe that once Saltoro and Siachen are evacuated by the IA, the PA will develop complete trust with India and there would be no more paranoia among the PA ?

In the past you have stated that PA is not rational but I differ. From the way I look at it, they have been fairly rational from their perspective of where they stand to protect their interests as they see them. Rationality does not mean, they will act the way we think they should. Also, does not mean, we agree with their choices as to serve their best interests. But, that is the thing, how does one define their interest? For the PA it is survival of the self first and foremost and then then the state and then everything else, such as Kashmir and control over Afghanistan.

Oh yes, even OBL, or Anders Breivik or Adolf Hitler have been rational, from their worldview. What do you call an Army that has since 1947 used terror as an extension of their policy and tactics ? What do you call an Army that recklessly and loosely talks of nuking a neighbour ? What do you call an Army that openly hobnobs with a UN-sanctioned terrorist ? It may be par for them but India has to consider them irrational because every such behaviour of the PA has brought not only their country, but also the region and even the world beyond, that much closer to disaster and grief. Why is the PA 'fighting for survival', if at all it is fighting like that ? Certainly not because India over-ran them and decimated them ! They dug their own grave through their obsession with an unachievable aim.

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

No, it is not a Paki idiot's feverish imagination uttered in delirium. The PA wants to look holistically at India's capabilities and match them. They have clearly said that they didn't care about India's intent but are worried about India's capabilities. But, you dismiss my conclusion as non-sequitur. What else can I say ?

At max, you will find goof ups like SeS, which are not more than political platitudes, at least the PA reads them as such, IMO.

A mere political plattitude shown to an enemy country that has killed and maimed thousands of us mercilessly for sixty years and promises to do so in the future too ? If we are not fools, then we should have known that PA would have correctly read such SeS concessions as worthless.

[Kakkaji]

ShauryaT:

With all due respect, this talk of "addressing the PA's fears", "building confidence of the PA in India's sincerity" is bunkum, and you know it.

The Pakistan Army's reason to exist is not really to defend Pakistan, its territory and people (they haven't done a good job of it anyway), but it is to build capability and use any means to defeat and conquer India. Given that, here are the real CBMs that GOI can undertake to win the confidence of the Pakistan Army:

1. Disband the Indian Army,
2. Invite the Pakistan Army in to take over the defense of India's territory and people.

Now, given that you are so close to the people in power, please suggest the above to them. It will help them buy eternal peace with Pakistan.

[shyamoo]

ShauryaT saar,

I will not argue in the same lines as the other members have done.

Let's say we do follow the approach outlined by you and withdraw from the Saltoro Heights as a CBM. What's next? As that is surely a CBM, should we expect TSP to respond in kind? If so, what will they do reciprocate in kind?

What I'm trying to get at is, what is the strategic/tactical advantage that we hope to achieve? And no, please do not say that we will weaken the TSP military somehow. What has TSP actually offered in return for us vacating the present advantageous position?

[Kakkaji]

Depends on a multitude of factors. How effective the surveillance is and how quickly we can get troops to the top of the mountain and at how short a notice. Can we detect movement at night? Many things need to be taken into consideration... only the army can give you the answer. If they say no - then the answer is no.

One thing is for certain - it won't be a withdrawal - but just a scale down of troops and only if we are comfortable that we have the measures in place to keep good surveillance of it and ensure we can respond quickly to a build up. In fact, GoI has pretty much said the same. There is no question of giving it up or anything of that sort.

My point was that the continuation of all bases in foreign countries are dependent on the local and regional politics. All agreements and leases are just ink on paper. Even the mighty US has had to vacate foreign bases when the local Govt did not want them to continue.

By all means, build up foreign bases and surveillence capabilities, but do not give up land for them. Their is no substitute for land.

[Manish_Sharma]

So why do I keep writing back when he's probably ignoring me? If I've learnt one thing in having lived in 5 different countries, it is that media in every country is hopeless. They're all after TRP and, occasionally, they're all mouthpieces for the government (like Fareed Zakaria). There are also enough gullible in every country to believe the nonsense spewed by the local media outlets without a second thought. At some point you have to draw the line and say enough is enough, and with this one I'm going to take a stand. Making a peace park of Siachen through "joint monitoring" is when I reached that point. So I'm going to tackle ShauryaT's unending flow of more-of-what-I-said-2-weeks-ago-because-I-have-nothing-better-to-do with an incinerator.

Pratik Das you have done a tremendous service to nation, by exposing him for past few weeks. Suddenly reading your post I'm reminded of a psychological experiment done by students in some western university, I read about it long time back, it was about how you can make somebody your slave by the 'stick & carrot trick'. This is how it went:

This psychology professor was frozen to the left extreme corner of the classroom, he just couldn't move totally helpless.

What the students did was when the professor entered the classroom door which was on the extreme right side. They would talk, shout to each other totally ignoring him. But the more he would move towards the left side of the room, they would slow down there tantrums are start giving him attention.

Now as he was used to lecturing them pacing 'right to left', again the more he will move towards right they'll start upping there 'talking to each other and lowering giving attention to him', then as he moved towards the left they'll 'up there attention to him, and tone down there conversations'. As he would move to the extreme left, the point they wanted him, he'll have pin drop silence and their rapt attention.

Now withing a week the poor professor got a phobia on being on the right side. So he'll enter the class almost running, go to the extreme left and be stuck there for whole of the period.

So here we have porkstanis, sending in waves and waves of terrorists to kill Bharatvasis, in fact Pork Army training them providing them with everything. And even if there is a slight slowdown, these WKKs start saying don't look at the past, that happened 4 years back, now my 'people in power or those close to people in power' are saying Pork Army has changed a lot, in fact they were doing all that genocide through terrorists because they were afraid, so it is our responsibility to allay their fears.

What happened with shauryaT was that during debate, he collected lots of backlog of questions from you and the other posters, which he couldn't answer. So he found an easy way out that 'I'm leaving the forum until these are cleaned up, I won't return until that is done'. This way pointing out couple of posts he managed to weasel out of all those questions. Then hoping those questions will be forgotten he started posting again his great vision of how it is our responsibility to make Pork Army feel secure.

Clever eh !

[chaanakya]

‘Kashmir issue key to regional stability'

One of the senior-most Pakistani generals on Friday said regional stability would remain a distant dream as long as the Kashmir issue remained unresolved.

This articulation of the centrality of Kashmir to peace and stability in the region was made by the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, General Khalid Shameem Wynne, while maintaining that Pakistan posed no threat to any country.

Addressing the graduation ceremony of the National Security and War Course at the National Defence University, Gen. Wynne said: “We seek nothing beyond secure frontiers and pose no threat to any country and will accept no pressure for standing up for our principles.”

Dwelling on peace and stability in the region, he added: “I must also point out that as long as the regional disputes, specially Kashmir, remains unresolved, stability will remain a distant dream, we must therefore continue for a just solution of the Kashmir dispute as it is only fair to all the people who dwell in this region.”

In Sum siachen is not going to help them a bit.

[sukhish]

they are very desperate, and they know they are not going to get anything out this.

[ShauryaT]

The problem ShauryaT ji, you are NOT asking for demilitarization. You are asking for unilateral withdrawal by India for a position of strategic advantage.

I do not believe the posts of Saltoro provide a strategic advantage for anything, but they do provide tactical advantage to protect the Siachen glacier. (have said this before) If you believe otherwise, you can educate me on why that is so. From my learnings and exchanges I have formed a concrete view that IF demilitarization takes place, there is no strategic loss for demilitarization negates the tactical need to hold the ridges, to protect the glacier. In context of land, the word strategic enters the equation if the land in question can be used for geo-political purposes, IMO and I do not see Siachen, i.e: the glaciated areas, including the high points of the Saltoro , in that manner by themselves. There are enough posts on this thread on all sides of the debate and others outside have spoken enough on this matter, for someone to form their own views. You can form your own views on the strategic nature of the lands in question. Now, if you insist that no, the positions on the Saltoro are strategic, then your choice.

You can not ask for TSPA to similarly withdraw from Siachen, because they are, not there in the first place.

In context of Siachen, I hope you can recognize that everyone refers to the glaciated areas as a composite to include the area north of NJ9842, just like this thread does and as does most news. It is a nomenclature to denote an area. The specific mutual demilitarization of the glaciated areas, from the AGPL, on Saltoro for India and for the PA west of Saltoro would form an uninhabited zone as one solution template envisages. So, hope it is clear, when the nomenclature Siachen is used, what is meant by it. For a possible template and details of what this looks like, you can read Gurmeet Kanwal’s reports, which you have refused to do in the past, citing a lack of trust in TSP and hence no need for such a CBM. Why do you bring this point up of PA is not on the Glacier. Too obvious a point, after pages and pages of this thread.

What exactly is Pakistan giving up with a mechanic that India can trust?

I do not know, if India has a mechanic to measure trust for Pakistan. There is a huge laundry list that Pakistan has and probably a bigger one that we do, on what we want from each other. Some are non negotiable, some are not. As far as I understand Siachen is in that negotiable list for both. If India is coupling some other items in exchange for a deal on Siachen, I do not know. How long this other list is if one exists, again, I do not know. Publicly, I have not seen such a list or a “mechanic” that India can use to measure “trust”. The point of the CBM is to work on this trust deficit. If you are imlying that the Siachen deal should include other items that India wants as additional CBM’s or unilateral acts that PA should commit to then you can articulate such a point, example maybe is Hafiz Sayeed’s head? I am unclear on where you are going with the above statement.

You have not offered any. So Sir, a withdrawl == demilitarization. And please sir, kindly do not bring in "in your perspective" or anything like that. Please put what do you want Pakistan to give. So far you have not put up anything. Something real and tangible please.

Words, like “view” “IMO” “Believe” is used all the time, what is wrong with perspective now? Siachen deal should be done largely independent of the huge laundry list we have or they do, as coupling too many things together has the tendency to fall on its own weight (have said this before on this thread).

On the question of what I want Pakistan to give, independent of the Siachen CBM discussion, this is a question posed by ManuT ji also, that is worthy of a discussion (have said this before and this discussion is yet to be had). How much of it should be coupled with the Siachen deal, I think as few as possible (have said this before). If you ask me for the one thing, If it was in my control that I could use as a negotiating point, then the top of my list would include a non-opposed role in Afghanistan with transit rights, including military items to that place. But again, someone else may have some other things and the negotiators will have their own. (Now, do not start pisko analyzing the above)

Actually that is not really correct.

1) IAs stated points, including that put out by Gen VK Singh, flies in the face your statement. So unless you have taken IA out of GoI that is one point wrong right there.

I do not know, which statement of mine you are referring to that you feel “flies” in the face. I have not taken the IA out of the GoI, but do consider the PM and the Cabinet along with Parliament to be the final word on the matter. The RM has a position stated in parliament, which I believe is a starting position of our negotiation line. How authentication, delineation and demarcation get negotiated is something I am open to. If there is no demarcation as part of the negotiated settlement on the issue then I am open to such a thing. In a previous set of posts to SSridar ji, I have stated that AGPL authentication is not the most important issue, we agree on that for different reasons though. As stated before, I do not attach much importance to this aspect and do hope some legalese will be found, but would like some formal recognition of the AGPL, with a trust and verify mechanism, for a demilitarization of the region in question.

The IA to my knowledge has not spoken formally on the matter. Ex COAS VK Singh said some words in response to some interview questions. You will have to first, take some interpretations of that interview as to be the considered view of the IA. I have taken pains to validate the interpretation of those words and have reason to believe that they are being misconstrued. Either way, the RM has spoken on the matter so that is the word, as of now for the GoI.

So, please tell me, where do you think I have misled and if so, I have no issues clarifying or admitting a mistake.

2) Secondly, the GoI has not articulated its stand in the way you have. You are using the word "not unsimilar" which means, nothing because you could possibly slip in a elephant under the semantics of similar. So unless the GoI clearly makes a stand like yours, you are not entitled to claim that.

The RM is on record of what the GoI stand is. I view that stand as the going in position and not the final one. If you have a different view you can share. I will reserve my right to make my observations on what I think the GoI stand means. I can be wrong, but am entitled to make an observation. You will have to grant me that much right. These words of authenticate, delineate and demarcate are something that has entered the lexicon post 1997 on the matter of Siachen, it was not there in these sequences before, so my view is they are not the final line.

Thankfully even the most WKK and Paki loving sections of GoI (like Manmohan perhaps) have not dared to publicly take a stand like yours.

It will be nice, if you quote me on what stand of mine you are referring to. My stand is identical on the matter to Brig Gurmeet Kanwal. Please quote him, if you like on the matter, I have no issues defending his stand on this issue.

Now, if that stand is most, most whatever adjective then so be it, for that is how I believe Indian interests are served. It seems on this board there is a group think, that anyone who does not scream “destroy Pakistan” enough times in the day is labeled WKK, traitor, peacenik and what not. I soon realized, that I should not take offense to these words, as they have become meaningless, if used on anyone and everyone, not fitting some narrow group think – atleast it seems that way. More so, it is impossible for one person (at least for me) to answer so many other opposing view points, many ill informed. The one’s I feel have informed views and something worthwhile for me to say, I am trying to respond to but may have missed some.

I am sorry you are restoring to emotional histrionics here to deflect attention from simple facts, which is, that in your scheme of talking, there is nothing that Paki's are supposed to do and all the heavy moving is to be done by India.

Your interpretation, right? Let me be more clear on your interpretation. I want Pakistan to do many things and have said I have a huge laundry list. If you have these things of A, B and C as some type of pre-conditions for a deal on Siachen, go right ahead and list them. I do not have such a pre-condition list. Quite frankly, I just do not know, what the defense secretaries are attaching as these things that you refer to as Pakistan should do to satisfy, the trust deficit that India has so that the deal looks like some type of better quid pro quo. If we are in a better negotiating position to get some additional things done then I hope the secretaries do that. In my view, Siachen is a CBM. The CBM by itself is not there to resolve many other things is my view (I am simply repeating myself now). I do not know, how else to say it.

I really wish instead of branding everyone who has pointed out factual errors in your position in emotional terms, you had spent a little more intellectual capital in explaining how does India stand to benefit and what are some hard believable guarantees that could be placed (beyond the flim flam of goodwill and emotional stuff) there could be a more sensible discussion.

If a military CBM to you is flim flam emotional stuff, which has never been done between the two countries in the past and if you do not believe a peaceful co-existence objective is possible or that the Siachen CBM does not help towards that objective and find discussions as being in emotional terms and this after you refusing to read some detailed reports on the matter, what can I say. I cannot predict for you, what may be some next steps, but the benefits of a CBM can lead to other things that both want from each other, if successful.

Unfortunately since you want Paki's do nothing other than somehow hope they will have a change of heart, and India do everything. I would say you are asking for the worst form of appeasement.

See this is the thing. You want to put words in my mouth, where discussions go sour. All I learnt is what you think, I think. Which, unfortunately is mostly wrong or off the mark, by a long margin. I am sure, it can be only due to my inability to communicate clearly.

Sanku Ji: Sorry, but to debate facts or a PoV on the matter that has not been discussed before, you will have to post these points on the topic matter. I will have to skip some of these posts for most of my views have been articulated before and there were no additional points to discuss or reflect upon. I am not into discussing and continuous clarifications of how I think, it becomes tiring and there is no end to it and serves no purpose.

You can post this long or short list of items that you think Pakistan can do to win our trust and other items that you think are important or pre-conditions to Siachen and contribute more to this debate than I have been able to do.

[ShauryaT]

SSridhar ji: I will respond later and will be glad to for they all deal with informed view points and thank you for showing the way on how a debate can be had, even if there are disagreements maybe even strong ones.

[Victor]

All this halla about CBMs wrt the pakis ignores the Chinese presence in Shaksgam and other parts of J&K. It's probable that the IA is actually more worried about them than the idiot pakis and are against any proxy CBMs that will benefit the PLA. The real strategic advantage of controlling the high features in that area may be more to make any chinese designs difficult to execute than to keep the pakis out. The pakis and chinese are certainly in perfect sync on "Siachen".

[shyamd]

My point was that the continuation of all bases in foreign countries are dependent on the local and regional politics. All agreements and leases are just ink on paper. Even the mighty US has had to vacate foreign bases when the local Govt did not want them to continue.

By all means, build up foreign bases and surveillence capabilities, but do not give up land for them. Their is no substitute for land.

that's a fair point but, it is just one tool of surveillance. And if we lose that tool and we don't feel comfortable then troops will be back in siachen. And there is no question of 'giving up' land , we will do it on our terms and what the army feels they are comfortable with. Rest of talk is just waste of time. We do want to see peace and also if you notice it is India that is making the offers of peace not the other way round and who keeps rejecting them? TSP. this whole indo pak peace thing is just to get points elsewhere - better trade deals etc. in international relations it's called issue relating.

[abhijitm]

The question is what pakistan wants on the table. A scaled down military presence or demilitarization? Please note here that demilitarization is not equal to scaled down militarization.

Also question is what GoI is proposing? It is demilitarization! And it is not acceptable.

Hence all this kolavari.

[shyamd]

GoI has been proposing a lot of things - how many of them worked with TSP? That making borders irrelevant and increasing trade across LoC with Mushy was probably the best and most serious attempt at peace - did it change anything? We still look across the border and see jihadi's waiting to cross. This is another proposal that will eventually fall through and there is still a long way to go before we see any development on this.

GoI wants demilitarization - but it would be done in a phased manner - not overnight.

In the meantime while the drama plays out on TV/media and people raise their voices, India is using it to get better trade deals and other benefits. Let this play out, because we are the only winners by media management.

Nations have 2 choices - cooperation or conflict. We are going into a cold war with TSP in Afghanistan today - we must do all that it takes to win. I am surprised not many in BR are talking about this.

[eklavya]

The Pak Army was kind enough to remind everyone (did ShauryaT notice?) last week (story above, quoting General Yummy Seekh Kebab) that there will be no peace until they get a resolution of the J&K issue to their satisfaction. Contrary to all evidence, including General Kebab's statement this week, poor ShauryaT thinks Siachen will sate the monsters appetite. The overwhelming majority opinion in India is that even if Siachen sates the monster, it is not negotiable.

[jai]

I think it's time some one in govt takes a once for all stand and declares that India is willing to notch up its trade with pak to $50 bn in the next 10 years, but the only trades on Siachen, j&k and terrorists would be the bullets from our guns, and pak can take it or leave it. Enough said !

[Kanishka]

Shyamd Ji,

This is what you said on page 13 of this thread.

Was just told that GoI is linking Siachen to larger Kashmir settlement and there will be no giving up of Siachen due to Kargil.
I hope the conspiracy theorists will learn a few things. They are in for more surprises soon.

and today:

GoI has been proposing a lot of things - how many of them worked with TSP? That making borders irrelevant and increasing trade across LoC with Mushy was probably the best and most serious attempt at peace - did it change anything? We still look across the border and see jihadi's waiting to cross. This is another proposal that will eventually fall through and there is still a long way to go before we see any development on this.

GoI wants demilitarization - but it would be done in a phased manner - not overnight.
{What happened to the larger Kashmir settlement?}

In the meantime while the drama plays out on TV/media and people raise their voices, India is using it to get better trade deals and other benefits. Let this play out, because we are the only winners by media management. {Please explain what better trade deal and other benefits India has got from pakistan.}

Nations have 2 choices - cooperation or conflict. We are going into a cold war with TSP in Afghanistan today - we must do all that it takes to win. {Does it mean unilateral demilitarization in Siachen by India}. I am surprised not many in BR are talking about this. {Is this the latest spin? Linking up Siachen demilitarization with winning in Afghanisthan? }

[shyamd]

Yes, GoI wants Siachen negotiations as part of larger Kashmir settlement and yes they do want demilitarization of whole of Kashmir (not just Siachen) as part of negotiations. If it does happen it will be in a phased manner. Is that a problem or a conspiracy? I also said we are miles away from seeing a settlement in Siachen.

Siachen demilitarization will not happen unless we have the security/surveillance in place to ensure it is not going to be taken over and face a Kargil like situation. There is nothing further to add. The link with afghanistan is that Siachen negotiations is not going to be moving any time soon but today we are escalating in Afghanistan and are in a cold war with TSP. Dont you see that jihadi's are busy up north in Afghanistan hence why we are not seeing much effect in J&K - Indian lives are being saved. It is in our interests to escalate there to keep J&K safe.If we win in Afghanistan, TSP will be under huge pressure.

Better trade deal from the EU/US and others. As you might be aware we are in the middle of negotiation of an FTA with the EU who are imposing conditions such as indo-pak peace - and negotiations moved forward because we have said we are negotiating with TSP. This whole peace thing is just for show.

Trade with pakistan is another subject.

Cooperation or conflict means if pak refuses to cooperate on peace it means conflict.

[chaanakya]

Keeping my Laundry list small for a starter

1. What if Pakistan withdraws its Army beyond Skardu and India comes down from Siachen? Verifiable and monitored protocol in place.
2. Pakistan to abrogate agreement with China on Shaksgam and ask them to withdraw.
3. Set up joint commission to authenticate AGPL.

Would that be an acceptable proposition for Pakistan in lieu of Siachen CBM?

[Sanku]

...............

ShauryaT you are not making sense. I asked a simple question, why are you asking for a unilateral move by India and what will Pakis give up in return.

Instead you go into a long and meandering points which deal primarily with discussion on intrepretation of this and that and more PoVs and beliefs etc.

Let us keep it simple -- what is credible mechanic and a suitable give away by Pakistan in order to justify an Indian give away.

Kindly be specific, and if your answer is "I dont know" (like you did mention a couple of times) -- why are we even having this discussion?

[RamaY]

Adi Samkara gives the best analogy for India's WKK mentality.

Don't remember the exact Sanskrit phrase but the meaning is this.

A dog is hungry and got a dry bone. It started chewing on it and is immersed with the pleasure. In the process the splinters of the bone teared the gum line and it started bleeding and blood was dripping from the bone. The dog was so immersed in its 'I am chewing the bone feeling' that it thought the blood is oozing from the bone and started enjoying the bone even more.

[ShauryaT]

...............

ShauryaT you are not making sense. I asked a simple question, why are you asking for a unilateral move by India and what will Pakis give up in return.

Instead you go into a long and meandering points which deal primarily with discussion on intrepretation of this and that and more PoVs and beliefs etc.

Let us keep it simple -- what is credible mechanic and a suitable give away by Pakistan in order to justify an Indian give away.

Kindly be specific, and if your answer is "I dont know" (like you did mention a couple of times) -- why are we even having this discussion?

I am sorry, I do not understand, your questions then. So cannot answer.