Also, thanks for your remembering me and for your kind words

I've quoted my thoughts on technology to maintain continuity, but as regards the other two - time and terrain - I'll use the specific example of Navdeep Top (pt 5770.)Y I Patel wrote: And this need not be the end of it either. India can choose to keep advancing at a glacial pace, and leverage the sheer mass of its presence to displace Pakis one peak at a time. Time, terrain, and technology are all reliable allies in this. Take technology for instance. Ironically, by raising environmental awareness about the pollution at the battlefield, Pakistan has forced the "play by the book" Indian Army to innovate and bring in technology like solar panels and windmills which have the potential to dramatically alter the battlefield. Think about it - everything so far has been done by sheer force of willpower, through an almost unimaginable ability to endure and carry out the country's mission. But plentiful energy sources not tied to a cumbersome and vulnerable distribution network can beget force multipliers like battlefield surveillance radars, heated shelters, even oxygen generators. There is more - electrical winches can be used to transfer heavier weights over sheer cliffs, much heavier weights than possible to be carried by an oxygen deprived soldier whose main attention needs to be devoted to safely getting to his post in the first place. Greater stores of food and ammunition can be accumulated, possibly oxygen generators can be located at larger posts for medical emergencies.
When MK Narayanan stalled Siachen deal
What's this itch of every PM to make a peace deal with Pakis instead of working on finishing them off? Are they after Nobel Peace Prize?In 2006, the stage was set between India and Pakistan to clinch a deal over the issue of Siachen — the world's highest battlefield where the climate has claimed more lives than gunfire — but the process was scuttled by India's then National Security Advisor (NSA) MK Narayanan, former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran has claimed.
In his forthcoming part-history-part-memoir titled How India Sees the World, Saran has claimed that he and his Pakistani counterpart Riaz Mohammad Khan were close to breakthrough. He has claimed that the deal was even consented by the Indian Army, and mentioned its finer points, including current positions of the forces of the two countries, the positions to which they would withdraw, a schedule for redeployment, and a joint monitoring mechanism to prevent mutual intrusions. All this would have been recorded in an annexure to the main agreement.
In their tumultuous relations, India and Pakistan had already missed two possible deals on the Himalayan territory — located as high as 20,000 feet above sea level — in 1989 and 1992.
"To give the document additional strength, we insisted, and the Pakistani side agreed, that both the agreement and the annexure will be signed, and that the main agreement will explicitly declare that the annexure had the same legal validity as the agreement itself," records Saran, who also worked as adviser to then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Of course, why wouldn't they agree? We are giving them what they want so why wouldn't they agree? Time and again GoI makes the mistake of trusting Pakistan. Will we ever learn? Sooner an IG like leader gets elected and takes care of Pakistan once for all, the better it will be.
Prime Minister Singh, who was keen on the agreement had directed the Foreign Secretary to obtain a consensus from all key stakeholders. "I did many rounds of consultations, both at the senior bureaucratic and ministerial levels in the ministries of defence, home and finance (whose members are part of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS)," he said.
Saran claimed that then Army Chief General JJ Singh and the chiefs of all intelligence agencies were also brought on board.
The deal was consented by the Army and its intricate technical details including the points and timing of redeployment and also the phases in which it would have been implemented and the structure of the monitoring mechanism were actually worked out by the Director-General Of Military Operations.
After all this exercise, when approval from the CCS was seen as a mere formality, the deal was aborted after Narayanan launched a bitter offensive. The draft agreement, along with the annexures, had been put together in a note to the CCS for approval so that it could be presented as a proposal from the Indian side at the India–Pakistan Defence Secretary-level talks scheduled for May 2006. The note had been examined and agreed to by all relevant stakeholders and agencies. The CCS approval was, therefore, expected to come as a matter of course.
"When the CCS meeting was held on the eve of the Defence Secretary-level talks, the NSA launched an offensive, saying that Pakistan could not be trusted, and that there will be political and public opposition to any such initiative and that India's military position in the northern sector vis-à-vis both Pakistan and China will be compromised. General Singh, who had happily gone along with the proposal in its earlier iterations, now decided to join Narayanan in rubbishing it," records Saran in the book.
It's scary to think that it's always that one bureaucrat that saves the day for us. Remember Vivek Katju too scuttled a stupid deal with Pakis.
In the meeting, Home Minister Shivraj Patil and Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee decided to play it safe and proposed the deferment of its consideration until further study. The Prime Minister, who was keen to see the deal through, chose to keep silent. In the ensuing exchange of words, Narayanan, went further suggesting that Siachen be taken off the agenda of India–Pakistan talks entirely and that this should be communicated to the visiting Pakistani Defence Secretary at forthcoming talks. At this stage, Mukherjee stepped in to support Saran. He pointed out that Rajiv Gandhi himself had agreed to include Siachen in the India–Pakistan dialogue.
So F*ing what? Is Rajiv Gandhi some kind of God? Just because he included Siachen in the dialogue, should we continue doing so forever? What kind of stupidity and sycophancy is this? I thought Pranab Mukherjee was better compared to other Conmen but doesn't look like it.
Saran recalls that in 2007, when he visited a couple of high-altitude posts at the Siachen Glacier as part of a border infrastructure survey, he informally asked stationed officers it they would support a mutual withdrawal by India and Pakistan from the glacier. "The answer was an unqualified yes. I then asked whether we could risk Pakistani occupation of the area vacated by us. The officers replied that nothing better could happen because the Pakistanis would suffer 'what we have been going through these past several years," he records in the book. The opportunity to finally resolve a long-standing issue and a constant source of bitterness in Pakistan was lost.
Strange.
Saran has also referred to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf's back channel and confidential talks on Kashmir at their January 2004 meeting in Islamabad, which continued during Manmohan Singh's era as well. He also mentions another tiff with Narayanan, when he tried to rock the boat of the Indo-US nuclear deal. Even though being chief negotiator, Narayanan had excluded him from an apex committee consisting of the Department Of Atomic Energy and PMO officials.
"It often turned out that I was negotiating with William Burns on one side and the PMO on the other. Narayanan became the interlocutor between the negotiating team and the DAE, which seemed to be convinced that we were about to sell the store to the Americans," he added.
Generational issue of people born before 1947.partha wrote:
[What's this itch of every PM to make a peace deal with Pakis instead of working on finishing them off? Are they after Nobel Peace Prize?
which itself was built one brick at a time on a foundation laid by col chewang rinchen, mvc (bar). this was THE game-changer in ssn.Y I Patel wrote:The gorge from Chalunka affords a line of communication to India that is every bit as good as the Paki access through the gorges leading northeastwards from the Ghyari valley.
hope springs eternalY I Patel wrote: now make the line go Northwest towards the Kunjerab Pass!
Bravo to MKN on this matter.Schmidt wrote:Kudos to MK Narayanan and General JJ Singh for scuttling this stupid deal
Somehow our diplomatic corps seem to be full of slimy mofos
During the book launch on Wednesday, General (Retd) J.J.Singh, who was also in the audience, asked Mr. Saran whether it would have been possible, in fact, to “trust Pakistan”, and ensure Pakistani troops wouldn’t return to occupy positions in Siachen.
“In matters of international diplomacy, it is a convergence of interests rather than trust that counts,” Mr. Saran replied.
So this idiot coolly discounts the issue of Paki trustworthiness and instead points to some imaginary convergence of interests
If the Pakis had then broken the treaty and occupied the heights , he would have justified it anyway saying this is a punishment for them !!
Ofcourse someone forgot to tell him, Siachien is not a 5 star hotel, where these worthies discuss "diplomacy". Convergence would decided by Paki Army.. not Paki MEA.Schmidt wrote:
“In matters of international diplomacy, it is a convergence of interests rather than trust that counts,” Mr. Saran replied.
nam wrote:MK Narayan being the sole reason the deal failed, sounds like a story made up. Narayan was a Gandhi family retainer and there is no way his opposition would have been considered. He would have been pushed to governorship much earlier, if he was standing in the way of Nobel prize and glory to Sonia Gandhi. Saran is probably settling a personal score.
The scuttling must have been from the Paki side and this moron is trying to cover it up that they fell in a trap. The Pakis must have seen an opening for a larger bargain and tried to push their luck further.
This was the same time of close to deal thing with Musharaff. joint administration and what not. Once there is joint admin of J&K, our access to Siachien would be cutoff. If Pakis occupied it afterwards, we would not have been able to move the troops in to Siachien.
Musharaff would have got, what he could not by using his SSG guinea pigs, when he was trying to capture peaks.
But according to the report, Pranab stepped in saying Rajiv Gandhi too had agreed to have Siachen included in the dialogue..Karan M wrote:Pranab & Patil would likely play the middle ground.. hey we supported ya MMS but hey what cud we do. That sort of thing.
I wish more people understand the above instead of just hallucinating with ideological blinkers on. Shyam Saran should have been the NSA instead of SS Menon, India would have been better served. It is painful to see respected bureaucrats being called names. I have disagreed with him (on the nuclear deal for example) but that can be done with respect, no? Very few mandarin speaking babus, who know the actual ground situation on the LOC and the LAC. Agree with his views on Siachen, demilitarization is possible without loss of core interests. The place is a geographical dead end for the military.Philip wrote:In my opinion,India's mil strength would've enabled us to counter any attempt by Pak to welsh on the agreement later by embarking upon snitching Siachen. The region is so inhospitable and air strikes would've made icy tombs for any Paki forces attempting another Kargil.It has been a colossal drain on manpower and money on both sides,esp. us. If the DMZ could hold in Korea for so many decades ,a Siachen Demilitirisation would've been possible too. Siachen is not Kargil. A deal could've been signed and sufficient security monitoring established. Opportunity missed,despite our mistrust of anything signed by Pak
I have near heard of these morons discussing about areas which are under Paki/Chini control.
The deal making is always about areas under Indian control. Peace park, area swapping, border not understood by chinis etc etc.
The link I originally mention is now dead, but here's another similar one from that era:Regarding the shelling of base camp by Pak arty and the need to move the base camp, we have none other than the official Mily rag Sainik Samachar saying this:
"A Bridge to Siachen"
http://mod.nic.in/samachar/html/ch9.htm
Gaurav Sawant gives details about a new road connecting Chalunka to Siachen base camp and "Souther Glacier". Now this may seem like just another report, until you pour over a map and realise that Chalunka is in Shyok valley and base camp is in Nubra Valley. Then, if you can imagine the terrain, you go![]()
Demarcation cannot easily be monitored or enforced. Core interests can be managed when the other player is a rational player playing within norms and rules. In Pakistan's case this assumption has been shown to be wrong several times. In a cost benefit analysis the costs of vacating far outweigh any gains.ShauryaT wrote:x-postI wish more people understand the above instead of just hallucinating with ideological blinkers on. Shyam Saran should have been the NSA instead of SS Menon, India would have been better served. It is painful to see respected bureaucrats being called names. I have disagreed with him (on the nuclear deal for example) but that can be done with respect, no? Very few mandarin speaking babus, who know the actual ground situation on the LOC and the LAC. Agree with his views on Siachen, demilitarization is possible without loss of core interests. The place is a geographical dead end for the military.Philip wrote:In my opinion,India's mil strength would've enabled us to counter any attempt by Pak to welsh on the agreement later by embarking upon snitching Siachen. The region is so inhospitable and air strikes would've made icy tombs for any Paki forces attempting another Kargil.It has been a colossal drain on manpower and money on both sides,esp. us. If the DMZ could hold in Korea for so many decades ,a Siachen Demilitirisation would've been possible too. Siachen is not Kargil. A deal could've been signed and sufficient security monitoring established. Opportunity missed,despite our mistrust of anything signed by Pak
What do you know about defending or capturing territory like Siachen? What have you ever had to defend or capture?ShauryaT wrote:Agree with his views on Siachen, demilitarization is possible without loss of core interests. The place is a geographical dead end for the military.
Pt 5770: 35° 0'13.63"N, 76°55'59.67"EY I Patel wrote:We can clearly see a road in google earth/maps leading northwards from Chalunka almost right upto Pt 5770. This affords a rare opportunity to circle back to a historic post on BRF
I was the one who broke the news on BRF that such a road was being considered:
viewtopic.php?t=335&start=80
It appears that shyam saran may have been lying through his teeth regarding the IA being on board for the siachen agreement with the pakis.eklavya wrote:What do you know about defending or capturing territory like Siachen? What have you ever had to defend or capture?ShauryaT wrote:Agree with his views on Siachen, demilitarization is possible without loss of core interests. The place is a geographical dead end for the military.
Scenario. India vacates. Pakistan and Chinese "roadbuilding" crew move in (overnight). Your move next.
According to shaurya T, General V.K. Singh is hallucinating while gurmeet kanwal is more competent.Karan M wrote:[
I wish more people understand the above instead of just hallucinating with ideological blinkers on.
I wonder who are hallucinating with idealogical blinkers on. The military who clearly note taking the heights back would have been next to impossible with current assets and would require a huge effort otherwise. Or the keyboard warriors who won't even be proper analysts and see the state of actual monitoring and control, and whether it is even feasible, let alone eviction without a vicious war which will escalate...
Saran is lying indeed, at that very time arnab interviewed General V.K. Singh and General indeed opposed the move. Later bikram singh too opposed. So army was very clear on this.chetak wrote:It appears that shyam saran may have been lying through his teeth regarding the IA being on board for the siachen agreement with the pakis.eklavya wrote:
What do you know about defending or capturing territory like Siachen? What have you ever had to defend or capture?
Scenario. India vacates. Pakistan and Chinese "roadbuilding" crew move in (overnight). Your move next.
The army's view has been very consistent.Manish_Sharma wrote:Saran is lying indeed, at that very time arnab interviewed General V.K. Singh and General indeed opposed the move. Later bikram singh too opposed. So army was very clear on this.chetak wrote:
It appears that shyam saran may have been lying through his teeth regarding the IA being on board for the siachen agreement with the pakis.
Undoubtedly!!! and why not??Vidur wrote:The army's view has been very consistent.Manish_Sharma wrote:
Saran is lying indeed, at that very time arnab interviewed General V.K. Singh and General indeed opposed the move. Later bikram singh too opposed. So army was very clear on this.
If all it required for determining strategic value was for one individual to stay one night at a place and decide, then we can give away large parts of land to China and Pakistan as its harsh environment in the mountains and cost of deployment is too high
Not a blade of grass ..putnanja wrote:If all it required for determining strategic value was for one individual to stay one night at a place and decide, then we can give away large parts of land to China and Pakistan as its harsh environment in the mountains and cost of deployment is too high