Siachen News & Discussion

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 30 Jun 2012 18:23

ramana wrote:should start a new CT that it was predator drone that triggered the avalanche@!

You mean it was a natural disaster?

I thought it was the collective effect of having pindi channa the night before.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 03 Jul 2012 17:19

Interesting coincident. Ever since calls for Indian to give up siachen have been diminished from the other side of the border, our save-life-save-money heart bleeders have also stopped regularly, i mean daily, posting here.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 03 Jul 2012 19:37

You have any doubts? You mean any sane person who is loyal to the country (or atleast a well-wisher) would seriously be advocating the vacating/ceding Bull-crap? Come on!!!!!!

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 10 Jul 2012 23:31

The Siachen Impasse - Srinath Raghavan

The seeming intractability of this dispute would be easy to understand if the two sides had strong interests at stake. In fact, the Siachen glacier is of no strategic advantage to either side. On the Indian side, a number of specious arguments have been advanced by opponents of demilitarization about the ostensible strategic value of occupying the glacier....

The military, moreover, is competent only to assess risks. It is the politicians who must judge them, and decide what chances are worth taking. It is up to the political leadership to consider whether the dubious risks attached to a withdrawal without demarcation outweigh the decided benefits of improved relations with Pakistan. At a time when India-Pakistan ties are improving – especially on the economic front – an agreement on demilitarization of Siachen will undoubtedly impart greater confidence and stability to the relationship. Indeed, the case for an accord has never been stronger. The Indian political leadership must seize this opportunity and not remain in thrall to imagined insecurities.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 10 Jul 2012 23:38

^^Are ties improving? Is it a delusion or reality?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Jul 2012 23:46

^^^So, why has the Political leadership shied away from taking the bull by the horn and decided to overrule the advise of the military on the matter? IA is doing what it is supposed to do - advise the government that in its opinion, Siachen has strategic value and one needs proper authentication and demarcation before any pull back is contemplated. So, why has the political leadership not gone ahead and entered in CBM with Pakistan? What stops them? Why blame IA in every such nonsensical article for doing what it is supposed to do? Or should they just become rubber stamps to justify some grandiose bhaichara plans of demented minds?

Quite funny how the article talks about political superiority over military and yet, blames the military for being impediment in the action plan. As if IA is going to overthrow the GOI if it orders withdrawal from Siachen. Talk about confused thinking...

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 Jul 2012 00:09

rohitvats wrote:
Quite funny how the article talks about political superiority over military and yet, blames the military for being impediment in the action plan. As if IA is going to overthrow the GOI if it orders withdrawal from Siachen. Talk about confused thinking...

rohitvats: Is it your contention then that J.J Singh making a statement on Siachen on the day of the 12th round and VK Singh, making informal statements in an interview just before retirement and on the eve of the 13th round of talks, is proper conduct? Not defending the weakness of political leadership, who should do what they think is best for the national interest. However, the above are two examples of uncooperative conduct on the matter, which could have been avoided.

The place for debate is in the public, media and parliament. Not between military and GoI, in public on national security matters. What we lack is proper oversight where a parliamentary body such as the defense committee being able to take the testimony of service chiefs on such matters. This way their considered views are known to the entire nation and if their views are overridden then parliament and executive are fully accountable to the public.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 11 Jul 2012 00:21

ShauryaT wrote:
rohitvats wrote:
Quite funny how the article talks about political superiority over military and yet, blames the military for being impediment in the action plan. As if IA is going to overthrow the GOI if it orders withdrawal from Siachen. Talk about confused thinking...
rohitvats: Is it your contention then that J.J Singh making a statement on Siachen on the day of the 12th round and VK Singh, making informal statements in an interview just before retirement and on the eve of the 13th round of talks, is proper conduct? Not defending the weakness of political leadership, who should do what they think is best for the national interest. However, the above are two examples of uncooperative conduct on the matter, which could have been avoided.

The place for debate is in the public, media and parliament. Not between military and GoI, in public on national security matters. What we lack is proper oversight where a parliamentary body such as the defense committee being able to take the testimony of service chiefs on such matters. This way their considered views are known to the entire nation and if their views are overridden then parliament and executive are fully accountable to the public.

You are strechtching things a lot. When you are vacating a ground occupied by military, I am pretty sure that military's views also have to be taken into cognizance. Military is also a part of govt and has its right to influence the govt.

You are confusing civilian superiority with military dumbness. What was shown in 1962 was military dumbness. Dont confuse the right of military to also express its views and influence military impacting decisions with civilian superiority. This was the mistake of 1962.

and yes the military also can and should influence public opinion on some matters(especially when foreign funded lobbies try to masqurade the truth. Eg: Kashmir when Pakistan cries out about 1000000000000000 IA soldiers, killing and raping every day or say about Siachen issue right now.). When the final orders are given, not following them - that is where civilian authority comes into picture. not while taking the decision itself. I am pretty sure what you think of Manekshaw's decision to wait when Indira was roaring to go into BD in july 1971, if I apply your same principles.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 11 Jul 2012 00:42

ShauryaT wrote:The Siachen Impasse - Srinath Raghavan
The seeming intractability of this dispute would be easy to understand if the two sides had strong interests at stake. In fact, the Siachen glacier is of no strategic advantage to either side. On the Indian side, a number of specious arguments have been advanced by opponents of demilitarization about the ostensible strategic value of occupying the glacier....

The military, moreover, is competent only to assess risks. It is the politicians who must judge them, and decide what chances are worth taking. It is up to the political leadership to consider whether the dubious risks attached to a withdrawal without demarcation outweigh the decided benefits of improved relations with Pakistan. At a time when India-Pakistan ties are improving – especially on the economic front – an agreement on demilitarization of Siachen will undoubtedly impart greater confidence and stability to the relationship. Indeed, the case for an accord has never been stronger. The Indian political leadership must seize this opportunity and not remain in thrall to imagined insecurities.

2 killed on LoC
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120615/j ... 613653.jsp

Raghavan's article is dated 18 June; our brothers / fathers / sons / husbands were killed by the Pakistan Army on 14 June. But relations are improving: after all the Pakistanis did not kill Raghavan's brother / father / son. What are these stupid army guys complaining about? Only 2 soldiers died, and the Army think relations are not improving and the Pakistanis are untrustworthy. What stupid undemocratic chaps.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Jul 2012 00:42

[quote="ShauryaT"]Is it your contention then that J.J Singh making a statement on Siachen on the day of the 12th round and VK Singh, making informal statements in an interview just before retirement and on the eve of the 13th round of talks, is proper conduct?

And what exactly is the improper conduct part in this? General JJ Singh or VKS simply reiterated the position of the army on the matter - which by the way, is no state secret. What is to be gained by asking the IA to keep mum on the subject? Or, is it a case of political expediency, to save the ruling clique, that requires the Services to keep mum on such topics as affecting national security? And as a citizen of this country, I want to know what the IA thinks in this case - lest the political subterfuge be employed at later stage to justify the actions of few. This nation has already seen the horrific example of one General keeping quite in 1961.

Not defending the weakness of political leadership, who should do what they think is best for the national interest. However, the above are two examples of uncooperative conduct on the matter, which could have been avoided.

You've nailed the word - "Uncooperative"; it is exactly this what the article tries to say in a roundabout way - they want IA to cooperate in this grand design. And how can the army cooperate - by putting rubber stamp on the government proposal for a peace park - by suspending their judgement and duty and "cooperate" or "play ball", as they call it. IA cannot be asked to cover for the ineptitude of the political class especially when, the moment sh*t hits the fan, the same political leadership will abandon all their tall claims and lay the blame at the doorstep of the generals.

The place for debate is in the public, media and parliament. Not between military and GoI, in public on national security matters. What we lack is proper oversight where a parliamentary body such as the defense committee being able to take the testimony of service chiefs on such matters. This way their considered views are known to the entire nation and if their views are overridden then parliament and executive are fully accountable to the public.[

And in absence of such mechanism and in a situation where higher defense management is hostage to whims and fancies of babus and netas, it is more important that Service Chief's use such medium as necessary to keep the nation informed.Last thing I want is for the nation to be led up the garden path because someone suffers from bouts of bhaichara and desire to leave behind a legacy - at the expense of the nation.

/quote]

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Jul 2012 00:52

>> What is to be gained by asking the IA to keep mum on the subject?

Because the government knows best. Remember it is the democratically elected govt. If you look at its performance in other sectors, it is fairly clear that they have the best interests of the country in mind.

Also note that people of the country *always* agree with the viewpoint of the ruling coalition. Therefore, if you disagree with the govt, you are pushing your views on 1 billion+ people.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 Jul 2012 01:06

rohitvats: Did not mean "uncooperative" to imply the military needs to agree with all political judgments. It was in context of conduct not opinion. No compromise on the need and duty of the military to give its views on matters of security to the government.

Lack of processes and mature systems cannot be an excuse for something worse. An attempt to influence an issue in subjudice (a legal metaphor). It reflects poorly on the nation and its system of decision making and cuts into the confidence reposed in civilian authority. Our democratic processes are not so weak that the military has to resort to this. There are enough differing opinions on the matter at ALL levels for a healthy debate in private and public.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 11 Jul 2012 01:07

ShauryaT wrote:However, the above are two examples of uncooperative conduct on the matter, which could have been avoided.

You want the Army Chief to lend credibility to the government by not questioning plans that may put hundreds nay thousands of soldiers liives at risk?

Indian Army did not threaten a coup; it stated an opinion. Politicians are free to ignore the opinion.

Why do politicians feel constrained by the Indian Army's views on Siachen? It is because the Army has CREDIBILITY with the public on this issue, and Manmohan Singh does not.

Army does not want to hold on to Siachen because its a great place to have a holiday or build villas for the benefit of the generals. Actually, that may be the problem. if the politicians could derive some benefit from Siachen (like the Adarsh flats), they would never talk about demilitarising it.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 11 Jul 2012 01:13

http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/ka ... nal-trends
Karakoram glaciers buck global, regional trends

When it comes to glaciers, stability represents a refreshing change of pace. In contrast to regional and global trends — which, scientists say, have unambiguously indicated ice loss in recent decades — a team of French glaciologists has confirmed that glaciers in a portion of the northwestern Himalayas remained stable on average, or may have even grown slightly, in recent years. The results have implications for local water supplies and glacial hazards and, the team says, underscore the value of high-resolution monitoring in accurately determining regional-scale glacial changes.
Using spaceborne data to study a 5,615-square-kilometer section of the Karakoram Range of northern Pakistan and western China, the researchers found an increase in ice thickness of 0.11 (plus or minus 0.22) meters of water equivalent (w.e.) per year between 1999 and 2008. Although small in magnitude, the value is significant because it diverges from best estimates of glacial ice volume change globally and over the entire Himalayan mountain range, which suggest a loss of about 0.4 to 0.8 meters w.e. per year, the team reported in Nature Geoscience.Given the uncertainty in the measurement, “it’s not 100 percent sure” that there was really a mass gain, says Tobias Bolch, a glaciologist at the University of Zurich in Switzerland. But, says Bolch, who was not involved in the study but was lead author of a recent review article on the current state of Himalayan glaciers published in Science, “what is clear is there is no significant mass loss.”Additionally, the results “show that we need to be careful as glaciologists when we are extrapolating measurements made on a few small glaciers,” says Etienne Berthier, a glaciologist at the Université de Toulouse in France and a co-author of the Nature Geoscience study. Estimating the past and future behavior of glaciers for which there is no direct evidence available — as well as their impact on sea-level change — based on observations of other glaciers is a necessity, to some extent, he says. But such extrapolations must be done carefully “because not all glacial regions are changing in the same way.”
The study’s results imply that the Karakoram glaciers might have lowered global sea levels over the period studied, albeit by only 0.006 millimeters per year. But previous estimates — assuming the Karakoram glaciers had behaved like others in the Himalayas that had been better characterized — suggested that their expected ice loss would have raised sea level by roughly 10 times as much.Over the years, there have been other indications of anomalous behavior among Karakoram glaciers, which account for about 3 percent of the total glacial ice-covered area in the world, excluding Greenland and Antarctica. Many had experienced surges — relatively sudden increases in ice flow rate — that transferred large amounts of ice downslope and extended glacial termini to lower elevations. Increased snow cover along with decreased summer temperatures and runoff to nearby rivers was also reported in preceding decades. But these were all indirect or empirical indicators of glacial growth. Direct measurements had not been attempted, largely because the region is so vast and remote. That is why a geodetic survey was particularly useful in helping piece together a more complete picture, Berthier says.The team used radar measurements taken from the space shuttle Endeavour in early 2000 along with data from a 2008 satellite survey to create separate pixelated digital elevation models of the study area. Looking at the difference between the two models, the researchers identified where the ice had thickened or thinned and by how much. They found significant heterogeneity, with particular glaciers thickening or thinning by as much as 16 meters per year on average. They also found that detrital debris-covered and debris-free glaciers showed similar behavior, contradicting the conventional wisdom that such debris cover — when more than several centimeters thick — insulates underlying ice and slows melting.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Jul 2012 01:21

ShauryaT wrote:rohitvats: Did not mean "uncooperative" to imply the military needs to agree with all political judgments. It was in context of conduct not opinion. No compromise on the need and duty of the military to give its views on matters of security to the government.

Sorry, but you're using the word conduct in a very narrow sense. And using it at all because this so called 'misconduct' does not allow the 'peace nicks' to have their way. It is not as if IA has leaked some report to the public or organized an impromptu press conference to let its view be know - there is a general level of awareness about the topic and on both the occasions, the COAS was replying to the question of the reporter. If the GOI needs to sanitize the environment (rather than educate the people) and for that it needs the IA to keep mum, well, the problem is with GOI and not IA. IA will tomorrow vacate the Saltoro Ridge if the political leadership asks it to do so. The fact that GOI needs to indulge in some sort of secret diplomacy on the subject means something is not good. And demands of propriety cannot always be laid only at the doorsteps of the Services - even if such demands are specious to begin with.

The fact that IA has been painted as a villain holding back the Siachen resolution clearly indicates to the lack of leadership abilities of political leaders....as if IA is same as PA in terms of leverage in decision making. The GOI clearly wants to hide more than reveal.

Lack of processes and mature systems cannot be an excuse for something worse. An attempt to influence an issue in subjudice (a legal metaphor). It reflects poorly on the nation and its system of decision making and cuts into the confidence reposed in civilian authority. Our democratic processes are not so weak that the military has to resort to this. There are enough differing opinions on the matter at ALL levels for a healthy public debate.

Again - what influence are you talking about? Is not the same military under government control? All it has done is aired its opinion. And who is it trying to influence? The opposition or the people of India? And why should the GOI be afraid of the people if it is so sound in its decision making? After all, did not the article you posted claim that political masters will be punished at the altars of elections if they did wrong? So, what gives?

OK - let us have your clear cut opinion on this - Do you think GOI can order withdrawal from Siachen even if the incumbent COAS airs only his opinion (against withdrawal) in private to RM/MOD/PM? Is that all which stands in the way of a deal? And what answer will the GOI give to any question in parliament on stand of army?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 11 Jul 2012 01:28

ShauryaT wrote:
Lack of processes and mature systems cannot be an excuse for something worse. An attempt to influence an issue in subjudice (a legal metaphor). It reflects poorly on the nation and its system of decision making and cuts into the confidence reposed in civilian authority. Our democratic processes are not so weak that the military has to resort to this. There are enough differing opinions on the matter at ALL levels for a healthy debate in private and public.

What exactly is sub judice?? Oh right, when govt is trying to bury a parliament resolution using all types of subvertage, somehow it becomes subjudice.

If views should not aired during decision making, when else should views be aired - after when the decision has been taken?

Something somewhere in your thought process has gone terribly wrong. You are starting to use illogical nonsense just because somethings are not in sync with your view point.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 Jul 2012 01:47

rohitvats wrote: The fact that IA has been painted as a villain holding back the Siachen resolution clearly indicates to the lack of leadership abilities of political leaders....as if IA is same as PA in terms of leverage in decision making. The GOI clearly wants to hide more than reveal.

This is precisely the "perception" created of the IA - especially in foreign circles, IMO wrongly for I believe the IA's views are probably more nuanced than the answers to questions in the media. These could have been handled better, IMO and in the opinion of others close to the matter. These type of public statements, do not represent the full views of the IA, IMO and do not serve the institution well, IMO. It does not serve any purpose to have a politician vs military public debate on a policy matter in India.

OK - let us have your clear cut opinion on this - Do you think GOI can order withdrawal from Siachen even if the incumbent COAS airs only his opinion (against withdrawal) in private to RM/MOD/PM?

Yes.

Is that all which stands in the way of a deal?

I do not believe so. As mentioned earlier, I think there are differences within all levels and across various departments on Siachen, that need to be resolved to make a deal or not.

And what answer will the GOI give to any question in parliament on stand of army? [/color]

I can only tell you the expected answer, not what GoI WILL do. The RM has to represent the full truth on questioning, either in private to a parliament committee or a public session.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Jul 2012 01:49

Virupaksha wrote:You are strechtching things a lot. When you are vacating a ground occupied by military, I am pretty sure that military's views also have to be taken into cognizance. Military is also a part of govt and has its right to influence the govt.

Taken into account by the govt based on internal consultations and not as a result of a public face-off.

You are confusing civilian superiority with military dumbness. What was shown in 1962 was military dumbness. Dont confuse the right of military to also express its views and influence military impacting decisions with civilian superiority. This was the mistake of 1962.

and yes the military also can and should influence public opinion on some matters(especially when foreign funded lobbies try to masqurade the truth. Eg: Kashmir when Pakistan cries out about 1000000000000000 IA soldiers, killing and raping every day or say about Siachen issue right now.). When the final orders are given, not following them - that is where civilian authority comes into picture. not while taking the decision itself.

And who's to say when it is ideal for the military to go public and when its not? What are these 'some matters' that you refer to? Because one cannot afford to let such questions be subjective. Today the army is saying something you like so you encourage it, tomorrow if it publicly opposes say.... the induction of the Arjun Mk2 while the MoD supports it, you'll hold a contrary position.

There are systems in place that deal with policy making, and creating arbitrary exceptions only results in further deteriorating the framework of governance. In India, ALL decisions relating to foreign and military policy are to be made by the government, which can choose to ignore or overlook the military's opinion altogether. There are checks and balances but those are exercised through the parliament, judiciary and media, NOT through the military. That's how things are supposed to work in a proper democracy. Not just in India but in the whole world.

I am pretty sure what you think of Manekshaw's decision to wait when Indira was roaring to go into BD in july 1971, if I apply your same principles.

You've got that backwards. It was FM Manekshaw's advice to wait till 1971, and Indira Gandhi's decision to do so. Advice that was rendered in a closed meeting and not communicated through the newspapers.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 11 Jul 2012 02:19

Viv S wrote:Taken into account by the govt based on internal consultations and not as a result of a public face-off.

Why should the public not hear it directly from the Chief. Public should know what the Chief thinks about plans to demilitarise the glacier. Government is always free to ignore the Chief or to change his date of birth or whatever they like.

Viv S wrote:And who's to say when it is ideal for the military to go public and when its not?

Obviously it is up to the military, and it is up to the politicians to decide what they want to do about it. If Manmohan Singh had any credibility on military issues, he would not be so worried about the generals pee'ing on his Siachen Pee Park.

Viv S wrote:There are checks and balances but those are exercised through the parliament, judiciary and media, NOT through the military.

Why are you so panicked by the military voicing its opinion. No Chief has ever threated a coup or refused an order. Military is not execising any checks and balances, just offering a viewpoint for the public to be aware of. Government can do what it likes ... what irks you is that government will look reckless and the PM self-serving when he decides to throw the military's advice in the dust bin (which he has every right to do).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Jul 2012 03:12

eklavya wrote:Why should the public not hear it directly from the Chief. Public should know what the Chief thinks about plans to demilitarise the glacier. Government is always free to ignore the Chief or to change his date of birth or whatever they like.

Quite simply because that will introduce the leaders of the military into the political arena, a place they should stay far far away from. All your laissez-faire approach does is give whichever government is in power an incentive to promote an 'uncontroversial' though otherwise unsuitable individual, instead of the best man for the job who may end up embarrassing the govt. As things stand the govt has relatively little political stake in such appointments but that would change very fast if the COAS attained political clout. By the way, this holds true for the civil services though that equation is muddier.

Obviously it is up to the military, and it is up to the politicians to decide what they want to do about it. If Manmohan Singh had any credibility on military issues, he would not be so worried about the generals pee'ing on his Siachen Pee Park.

Policy making doesn't take place in air and cannot be subject to opinions or exist in a grey area. Your 'it is up to the military' approach would imply the COAS would have freedom to publicly comment on say... Telengana, GST, NREGA etc subject to his personal discretion. That being the case, why just the COAS, why not give every officer and enlisted man in the three branches of the military complete freedom to talk to the press? Why just a general or admiral?

And when the issue is the civil-military balance, Manmohan Singh and UPA and NDA and RSS doesn't come into the question.

Why are you so panicked by the military voicing its opinion.

I'm perfectly calm. Public policy isn't formulated on BRF.

No Chief has ever threated a coup or refused an order. Military is not execising any checks and balances, just offering a viewpoint for the public to be aware of. Government can do what it likes ... what irks you is that government will look reckless and the PM self-serving when he decides to throw the military's advice in the dust bin (which he has every right to do).

Who's talking about a coup? I'm not and I don't believe ShauryaT is either. When Gen Stanley McChrystal was asked to tender his resignation it wasn't because he was threatening a coup. It was because there is a chain of command that needs to be respected and it doesn't terminate at the four star level. There are systems in place for a reason. Its no accident that the Indian military is avowedly apolitical institution.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Jul 2012 03:16

>> Your 'it is up to the military' approach would imply the COAS would have freedom to publicly comment on say... Telengana, GST, NREGA etc subject to his personal discretion

This Lahori Logic jump deserves a place in the hall of fame.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Jul 2012 03:29

abhishek_sharma wrote:>> Your 'it is up to the military' approach would imply the COAS would have freedom to publicly comment on say... Telengana, GST, NREGA etc subject to his personal discretion

This Lahori Logic jump deserves a place in the hall of fame.

Talk about missing the wood for the trees. There is a system in place that spells out in black and white what the military and service chiefs' powers and limitations vis-a-vis the govt are. And it should be apparent to even someone as straitjacketed as you, how replacing that with something abstract is a poor idea.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Jul 2012 03:34

>> Talk about missing the wood for the trees.

Yes. Why did I dare to point out your fallacious arguments? If the military comments on Siachen then it would "imply" that COAS would "comment" on GST. Wow. Post that in the trash thread.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Jul 2012 03:40

abhishek_sharma wrote:Yes. Why did I dare to point out your fallacious arguments? If the military comments on Siachen then it would "imply" that COAS would "comment" on GST. Wow. Post that in the trash thread.

Read it again and see if I said that or something else. Read slowly.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Jul 2012 03:44

I understood your point when I first read it. Your views are not very profound. It really requires a special mind to bring in GST and NREGA to a discussion on Siachen. By the way, it is not the only gem in your post. Your point on choosing an "uncontroversial" candidate is pretty bad too. Think about it. Take your time.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Jul 2012 03:53

abhishek_sharma wrote:I understood your point when I first read it.

And yet you chose to quote it taken out of context while making a snide one-liner.

Your views are not very profound.

I have never pretended to be a philosopher.

It really requires a special mind to bring in GST and NREGA to a discussion on Siachen.

My post wasn't about Siachen. And GST, NREGA was a randomly chosen domestic policy issue.

By the way, it is not the only gem in your post. Your point on choosing an "uncontroversial" candidate is pretty bad too. Think about it. Take your time.

Its a perfectly valid point when viewed in context. If you'd rather have read some other word used instead of uncontroversial, 'pliable' perhaps, so be it.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 Jul 2012 03:55

rohitvats wrote: Again - what influence are you talking about? Is not the same military under government control? All it has done is aired its opinion. And who is it trying to influence? The opposition or the people of India? And why should the GOI be afraid of the people if it is so sound in its decision making? After all, did not the article you posted claim that political masters will be punished at the altars of elections if they did wrong? So, what gives?

A public opinion expressed on a policy matter will be read by all, not just the people of India. We have a working parliament and vigorous media to question and debate policy. The military has NO role to play in this public debate directly. Once you open this can of worms, it directly undermines civilian authority and IMO, the institution itself. It is a slippery slope here. No need to imagine all the way to a coup et al.

The line between views on military matters and matters of policy are usually quite clear and where ambiguity or overlaps exist, deference to civilian authority is the best way to do it. The problem is also one of confident practices, apart from the lack of systems. A more confident government or systems will actually allow its services to articulate its views in various fora, allowing the services to interact with the public directly on matters of importance but AFTER the policy is clear. Before this event, all views of the services have to be in confidence only!

I will be the first one to admit that our systems are weak, however, undermining even those in place is not the way out.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 11 Jul 2012 03:57

Viv S wrote:
eklavya wrote:Why should the public not hear it directly from the Chief. Public should know what the Chief thinks about plans to demilitarise the glacier. Government is always free to ignore the Chief or to change his date of birth or whatever they like.
Quite simply because that will introduce the leaders of the military into the political arena, a place they should stay far far away from. All your laissez-faire approach does is give whichever government is in power an incentive to promote an 'uncontroversial' though otherwise unsuitable individual, instead of the best man for the job who may end up embarrassing the govt. As things stand the govt has relatively little political stake in such appointments but that would change very fast if the COAS attained political clout. By the way, this holds true for the civil services though that equation is muddier.

Our generals rarely if ever speak out on non-military matters. The security of Siachen IS a military matter. The public WANTS to hear from the Chief what the implications of demilitarisation are. How Siachen is defended is not a purely POLITICAL matter.

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

Anyway: authenticate, delineate and demarcate is government policy, as stated by Raksha Mantri in Parliament.

The only guy who is talking of Pee Park is the PM, and even his Cabinet is not with him.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 11 Jul 2012 03:58

I wonder what Operation Sadbhavana is all about.

I am pretty sure it involves moulding alien opinions of mars.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 11 Jul 2012 04:06

My question remains unanswered...are the relations improving? Or, it only a hope that they improve if more gifts, such as Siachen are offered. These gifts are above and beyond the lives of our people - soldiers and civilians alike - whether it is a border raid or a Mumbai like attack.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Jul 2012 04:10

This is the Siachen thread and I assumed that we are discussing issues related to it. Army has a stake in Siachen issue because it has to sacrifice soldiers if the security deteriorates in that area. Moreover, the Army has expertise in tactical/strategic issues. It has to actively deal with Pakistan. Therefore, I would like to know what the Army thinks on the Siachen issue.

Note that I don't care about what Gen V K Singh thinks on GST or SEZs (although he has the right to speak on any issue as long as it does not involve classified information). As far as I am concerned, the Army has no relevance in that debate.

Given the performance of civilian government in other sectors, it is understandable that many people don't have complete confidence in their maturity/wisdom. Of course, the govt is not obliged to follow the military's advice. But the public should know the views of all concerned parties, including the military.

Regarding pliable candidates: If the politicians start choosing pliable candidates then it is *their* fault. Why should we muzzle the Army for it?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Jul 2012 04:14

eklavya wrote:Our generals rarely if ever speak out on non-military matters. The security of Siachen IS a military matter. The public WANTS to hear from the Chief what the implications of demilitarisation are. How Siachen is defended is not a purely POLITICAL matter.

The Army is not a parallel or equivalent branch of the government. Under the Indian constitution, the issue of the military, political, environmental or geographical implications of demilitarization or any other similar issue for that matter is for the government to address, whether the question is posed by the media or by the parliament.

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

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

Anyway: authenticate, delineate and demarcate is government policy, as stated by Raksha Mantri in Parliament.

The only guy who is talking of Pee Park is the PM, and even his Cabinet is not with him.

Different issue.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Jul 2012 04:16

>> Why is it the Jawan, NCO, JCO or junior officer serving in Siachen or scheduled to serve there, at risk to life and limb, is not permitted under army regulations to talk to media?

I think they should be allowed to talk to media. I would like to know their views.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Jul 2012 04:45

abhishek_sharma wrote:This is the Siachen thread and I assumed that we are discussing issues related to it. Army has a stake in Siachen issue because it has to sacrifice soldiers if the security deteriorates in that area. Moreover, the Army has expertise in tactical/strategic issues. It has to actively deal with Pakistan. Therefore, I would like to know what the Army thinks on the Siachen issue.

Like I said to Eklavya, the Army is not an independent branch of the govt. Its opinions and concerns are for the Cabinet's consideration not for dissemination to the general public. Not unless a new found political role is to be carved out for the military.

Note that I don't care about what Gen V K Singh thinks on GST or SEZs (although he has the right to speak on any issue as long as it does not involve classified information). As far as I am concerned, the Army has no relevance in that debate.

That is the point. While in uniform he doesn't have that right even if it involves unclassified information. And this is true for the military of all democratic countries whether they're in Europe, North America or elsewhere.

Given the performance of civilian government in other sectors, it is understandable that many people don't have complete confidence in their maturity/wisdom. Of course, the govt is not obliged to follow the military's advice. But the public should know the views of all concerned parties, including the military.

Unfortunately there is no middle ground to be found here. The govt was given a mandate to govern for a period of five years subject to a majority in the Lok Sabha. That mandate included formulation of defence and foreign policy. If, as it seems, the govt fails to deliver, other political parties will have the opportunity to make their case and replace it. Constitutionally, there is no space for the military in this setup.

That said, if the military is truly a wiser, maturer institution better suited to policy making, well we should try military rule then.

Regarding pliable candidates: If the politicians start choosing pliable candidates then it is *their* fault. Why should we muzzle the Army for it?

Blaming a politician for appointing a 'pliable' or political safe COAS serves no purpose. People come and go, it is the systems that are put in place that endure. And for all its flaws, the current system preventing not just the COAS but the rank and file of the army from unsanctioned interactions with the media, has kept the military from getting politicized.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Jul 2012 04:54

abhishek_sharma wrote:I think they should be allowed to talk to media. I would like to know their views.

There are myriad of reasons relating to discipline, respect for the chain of command and military ethos. But suffice to say, no professional military permits its uniformed members to broadcast their personal opinions in public.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 11 Jul 2012 05:19

abhishek_sharma wrote:>> Why is it the Jawan, NCO, JCO or junior officer serving in Siachen or scheduled to serve there, at risk to life and limb, is not permitted under army regulations to talk to media?

I think they should be allowed to talk to media. I would like to know their views.

Paki bhaichara at one end, and complete 'media access' at the other will be a fast end to the nation and the IA.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Jul 2012 05:58

Viv S wrote:Like I said to Eklavya, the Army is not an independent branch of the govt. Its opinions and concerns are for the Cabinet's consideration not for dissemination to the general public. Not unless a new found political role is to be carved out for the military.

That is the point. While in uniform he doesn't have that right even if it involves unclassified information.

Is that true? If yes, then in my view, it should be changed.

That said, if the military is truly a wiser, maturer institution better suited to policy making, well we should try military rule then.

No, it is not suited for the entire spectrum of "policy making". But I certainly believe that it has to play a role ("role" is not synonymous with "military rule") in issues that concern the defense of the country. Siachen issue is certainly one of them.

Blaming a politician for appointing a 'pliable' or political safe COAS serves no purpose.

Actually, blaming the politician for appointing a pliable COAS is the only correct thing to do. When you find an undesirable situation, you should find who is responsible for it. Here, the appointment is *done by* the politician. If generals start dancing to the tunes of politicians then *both* should be blamed.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 11 Jul 2012 06:05

He

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

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

The public in India wants to hear the views of the service chiefs on these issues and the established norm in India is for the service chiefs to represent the views of the armed forces.

On the issue of Siachen, the current PM would like to muzzle the Army as he is inclined to take actions that are militarily highly stupid. The media is doing its job in exposing the stupidity of the demilitarisation faction in Government.

Please go and teach how you think the Constitution works to someone else. People on BRF know perfectly well that interaction between the Chiefs and the media is an established part of democratic public life in India.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Jul 2012 07:05

Viv S wrote:There are myriad of reasons relating to discipline, respect for the chain of command and military ethos.

Respecting the chain of command is not inconsistent with pointing out obvious flaws/mistakes/deficiencies. If a jawan does not have appropriate clothes/shoes/weapons, then he should be able to talk to the media about it. His superiors should not be worried if they have used all the funds appropriately. And I don't care about their "chain of command" if they have been misusing the funds. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As long as information is not classified, I believe everyone should be allowed to talk about it. The public would listen to all sides and make up their mind.

But suffice to say, no professional military permits its uniformed members to broadcast their personal opinions in public.

And that is one of the reasons why all professional militaries have major problems.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Jul 2012 09:12

abhishek_sharma wrote:No, it is not suited for the entire spectrum of "policy making". But I certainly believe that it has to play a role ("role" is not synonymous with "military rule") in issues that concern the defense of the country. Siachen issue is certainly one of them.

Please define this role. In explicit terms. Just calling for it to play 'a role' is not sufficient. Do you want the defence ministry to be headed by the COAS? Or maybe we should be more like Pakistan where the army exercises near-veto power over foreign policy. Perhaps you feel he should have a place in cabinet of ministers?

Actually, blaming the politician for appointing a pliable COAS is the only correct thing to do. When you find an undesirable situation, you should find who is responsible for it. Here, the appointment is *done by* the politician. If generals start dancing to the tunes of politicians then *both* should be blamed.

That's an awfully simplistic way to consider the matter. First off all, how would you identify an individual as pliable? Its a sufficient enough characterization to be suitable for the politician yet vague enough that no concrete accusation can be made against him. And secondly, say you blame the politician, so what? Some people will pay attention, others won't and sooner or later the issue will fade away. His successor will likely be someone in the same mold.

From the govt perspective some one who will stay on message will always be a better choice than someone who'll undercut the govt's authority by going to media. Blaming individuals will not change the fact that when the system is faulty, there will exist a deficit of forthrightness at top which in turn will seep down the ranks.