What's new

What is leading Indian army's rethink of its typically inelastic position on Siachin?

Pak Nationalist

FULL MEMBER
Jul 4, 2021
932
3
1,250
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
The subject, under discussion, is a non-issue, at least, for the present.
is trying to understand the strategic thought of the adversary a non-issue? I did not know. Thank you for this illuminating revelation.
What did Qureshi say, and when?
Read the OP.
How fast America can provide weapons to India and how fast India can use those weapons in the case of conflict?
Please note that the war, if happens, would be a matter of days not weeks or months.

Interesting to note that the link does not work anymore. I made this observation in the OP.
 
Last edited:

Pak Nationalist

FULL MEMBER
Jul 4, 2021
932
3
1,250
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
This guy is a complete idiot, he is full of hate for Pakistan and continuously slips in half and complete lies whenever he discusses anything to do with Pakistan.

Regarding siachin, this is an old Indian position.
But the biggest news is that the Indian army chief is making political statements, Indian army is getting involved in political matters, something they have tried hard not to do since the creation of India in 1947.

The statement is also designed to show the western masters that India does not want conflict, that they are peace loving, which is pure BS.
Let's focus on what made Naravane make that statement that is a departure from the traditionally held IA position which it has taken even in opposition to the governments in power in India. Indian army is otherwise relatively apolitical, but on this issue, it has taken an unflinching stance. What is making it backtrack from it now? Why now? Forget the imbecile Shekhar Gupta.
 

Pak Nationalist

FULL MEMBER
Jul 4, 2021
932
3
1,250
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States

peagle

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,108
10
5,063
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Let's focus on what made Naravane make that statement that is a departure from the traditionally held IA position which it has taken even in opposition to the governments in power in India. Indian army is otherwise relatively apolitical, but on this issue, it has taken an unflinching stance. What is making it backtrack from it now? Why now? Forget the imbecile Shekhar Gupta.

Firstly, I wouldn't say Indian army is apolitical, that's push it a bit. One could say historically it may have been, but that position has been eroding for a long time. If we bring religion into this calculation, the Indian army is clearly institutionally anti Muslim. But, leaving that aside.

I honestly do not see it as backtracking, but it does have mainly two elements.
1. If we agree in writing our existing positions, you are basically agreeing to a de-facto extension of LOC it may not be called an LOC, call it what you like, but it would have the same effective status as the LOC. If tomorrow Pakistan was to move forward and take control of those heights, the world would condemn us because of that written recognition of existing positions.

2. the Indian army is desperately trying to come across as the peacemaker, which it has always managed to do successfully, it instigates all the wars but it keeps it's image intact. Only with the ascendance of Hindu extremism and extremist politics has the Indian army taken a hit as well, losing against China and Pakistan has not helped. So the position taken by the army chief isn't totally new but the timing in my opinion is more about politics then anything else.
The only military benefit they gain is reallocating resource towards China, and one less headache to deal with. the siahin conflict is costing both countries but India is paying a far far heavier price then Pakistan.
In my view, it's not a big deal.


The big deal is that he made that statement and made that offer, whereas it should have come from the government, so far the Indians have made massive efforts at keeping the army out of political affairs, especially foreign relations. This matters because the more Indian army gets involved in political matters the more it's professionalism will suffer.
Pakistani army has found a balance between its traditional position in political affairs, because of our history and dealing with professional issues. But it came at a cost, and it took time. India has just started on this journey, and there is a cost to pay, which it will.
Let's see how it unfolds.
 

nahtanbob

BANNED
Sep 24, 2018
9,251
-51
3,129
Country
United States
Location
United States
India is and has always been the one to attack Pakistan. In 1971 they desired to used their conventional advantages destroy Pakistan once and for all, and had the US not intervened as the Soviets were helping India, that would have happened.

India still has fantasies of capturing Lahore and Multan, "limited" war by capturing large chunks of Sindh and South Punjab - just recently they officially threatened to capture Pakistan-held Kashmir. Thus, Pakistan has made it clear that it will vaporise any Indian formation that crosses its red line. This was the strategy of NATO in the cold war.

Now that India has decided to pick fights with China - a country their own size - things have changed.

However, India will never attack China and Pakistan will never attack India first. The one to start a war will be India and their Cold Start Doctrine (though I hear they have replaced this with something new)

Didn't Pakistan start the 1965 war ?
 

Pak Nationalist

FULL MEMBER
Jul 4, 2021
932
3
1,250
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Firstly, I wouldn't say Indian army is apolitical, that's push it a bit. One could say historically it may have been, but that position has been eroding for a long time. If we bring religion into this calculation, the Indian army is clearly institutionally anti Muslim. But, leaving that aside.

I honestly do not see it as backtracking, but it does have mainly two elements.
1. If we agree in writing our existing positions, you are basically agreeing to a de-facto extension of LOC it may not be called an LOC, call it what you like, but it would have the same effective status as the LOC. If tomorrow Pakistan was to move forward and take control of those heights, the world would condemn us because of that written recognition of existing positions.

2. the Indian army is desperately trying to come across as the peacemaker, which it has always managed to do successfully, it instigates all the wars but it keeps it's image intact. Only with the ascendance of Hindu extremism and extremist politics has the Indian army taken a hit as well, losing against China and Pakistan has not helped. So the position taken by the army chief isn't totally new but the timing in my opinion is more about politics then anything else.
The only military benefit they gain is reallocating resource towards China, and one less headache to deal with. the siahin conflict is costing both countries but India is paying a far far heavier price then Pakistan.
In my view, it's not a big deal.


The big deal is that he made that statement and made that offer, whereas it should have come from the government, so far the Indians have made massive efforts at keeping the army out of political affairs, especially foreign relations. This matters because the more Indian army gets involved in political matters the more it's professionalism will suffer.
Pakistani army has found a balance between its traditional position in political affairs, because of our history and dealing with professional issues. But it came at a cost, and it took time. India has just started on this journey, and there is a cost to pay, which it will.
Let's see how it unfolds.

I see your point that is why I wrote relatively apolitical, relative to us I meant. Even when it was apolitical (till the 90's one can argue), Siachin was one such issue where it took exception to the political government's aim of demilitarising Siachin through diplomatic talks. Might be going on a tangent, but anti-Muslim bias is also relatively new. recently, their ex-chiefs wrote a letter to Modi post that genocidal conclave, warning him of the perils of allowing this sort of thing. The Indian army of today however is the mouthpiece of Hindutva forces that have captured the imagination of the entire Indian polity. It is political in the sense that it tows the agenda of Hindutva forces shaping India today.

I have shared 7-8 links from neutral, Indian, and American sources that have all maintained that the Indian military has been historically averse to any kind of demilitarization (even if written guarantees are given) of Siachin. India took a written guarantee from us vis a vis the Kashmir dispute being a bilateral one (Simla), we have still been attempting to internationalize it despite that. This is a departure from the traditionally held position of the Indian army and we must analyze why this departure has taken place.
 
Last edited:

Pak Nationalist

FULL MEMBER
Jul 4, 2021
932
3
1,250
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Some folks have noted that Siachin has no importance. That might not be completely true. Pakistan would have never attempted Kargil if reversing the status quo on Siachin was not on agenda. The original aim of the Kargil operation was to sever the supply lines keeping the Indian occupation of Siachin extant. Some say it was to avenge the Indian occupation of Siachin. That is a flawed observation. In Siachin anyone who reached the heights first would have been virtually impossible to dislodge given the mammoth logistical, intelligence, mobility challenges in that sector. Kargil on the other hand would have certainly seen a fight. The terrain was far more accessible. Indians like to conflate Kargil as a Pakistani riposte to operation Meghdoot to demonstrate how the Indian army triumphed where the Pakistani army could not (NLI was a paramilitary force - the primary fighting element at Kargil till then, not regular military). @Cuirassier @PanzerKiel
 

peagle

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,108
10
5,063
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
I see your point that is why I wrote relatively apolitical, relative to us I meant. Even when it was apolitical (till the 90's one can argue), Siachin was one such issue where it took exception to the political government's aim of demilitarising Siachin through diplomatic talks. Might be going on a tangent, but anti-Muslim bias is also relatively new. recently, their ex-chiefs wrote a letter to Modi post that genocidal conclave, warning him of the perils of allowing this sort of thing. The Indian army of today however is the mouthpiece of Hindutva forces that have captured the imagination of the entire Indian polity. It is political in the sense that it tows the agenda of Hindutva forces shaping India today.

I have shared 7-8 links from neutral, Indian, and American sources that have all maintained that the Indian military has been historically averse to any kind of demilitarization (even if written guarantees are given) of Siachin. India took a written guarantee from us vis a vis the Kashmir dispute being a bilateral one, we have still been attempting to internationalise it despite that. This is a departure from the traditionally held position of the Indian army and we must analyze why this departure has taken place.

Point taken, although I still think their anti Muslim stance isn't a recent thing, but let's leave that for another discussion.

Then I would have to refer to my other points,
The image building exercise after losing two stand offs, with Pakistan and China, trying to come across as the peace maker, not the aggressor.

And, because they are stretched, they are looking to create space and reduce the number of potential flashpoints, where they actual could lose ground.
If tomorrow India were to lose siachin in a conflict, it couldn't cry to the world like it did during the Kargil crises. I suppose they want to avoid the possibility of such a result, bring Siachin to a close, and concentrate elsewhere. Siachin is also the only place where the interests of Pakistan and Chinese military converge directly.
 

akramishaqkhan

FULL MEMBER
Feb 28, 2017
986
1
2,397
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
There should be ZERO trust with India. The time to talk and move forward is gone. Everything India does is to change the status quo for its interests. Then asks for a pause. Then does the same again. They have been on this slow slow boil cycle for 70 years. And we are the idiots who think there can be a rapprochement. India has been locked in a zero sum game from day one. Some govs in India better than the other, but both are opposed to Pakistan and its existence. Because if the Pakistani experiment is successful India will rip apart in smaller countries. They understand that, and that is why their survival is in Pakistan not being successful, and they do everything in their power to make that happen.
From Google maps not showing street level views in AJK and Gilgit, to Davis cup, to Cricket boycott and actors ban - to more serious issues like Kashmir, Rann of Kutch and funding and supporting terrorism in Pakistan. India is killing us with a thousand cuts. We need to accept this fact and adjust accordingly.
 

American Pakistani

ELITE MEMBER
May 30, 2010
15,290
10
22,507
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Pakistan should somehow keep Indians occupy Siachen. The glacier is doing Pakistan's army job pretty fine by draining Indian resources as well as lives of soldiers and equipment or worse creating a disabled population of soldiers living off Indian tax money for lives.
 

SaadH

FULL MEMBER
Apr 22, 2021
1,527
0
2,024
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
I see your point that is why I wrote relatively apolitical, relative to us I meant. Even when it was apolitical (till the 90's one can argue), Siachin was one such issue where it took exception to the political government's aim of demilitarising Siachin through diplomatic talks. Might be going on a tangent, but anti-Muslim bias is also relatively new. recently, their ex-chiefs wrote a letter to Modi post that genocidal conclave, warning him of the perils of allowing this sort of thing. The Indian army of today however is the mouthpiece of Hindutva forces that have captured the imagination of the entire Indian polity. It is political in the sense that it tows the agenda of Hindutva forces shaping India today.

I have shared 7-8 links from neutral, Indian, and American sources that have all maintained that the Indian military has been historically averse to any kind of demilitarization (even if written guarantees are given) of Siachin. India took a written guarantee from us vis a vis the Kashmir dispute being a bilateral one (Simla), we have still been attempting to internationalize it despite that. This is a departure from the traditionally held position of the Indian army and we must analyze why this departure has taken place.

Not exactly, of the previous "Chiefs", none were from the Army, only one IA Lt. Gen. put his name on the letter. Only four chiefs were on the letter, three from the Indian Navy and one from the Indian Airforce.
 

wali87

FULL MEMBER
Jun 22, 2007
1,018
-1
1,022
In my opinion, we have lost Kashmir to India for good after 2020, when they unilaterally changed the status of Jammu and Kashmir and our government stood and watched. Like always all our government and military did was launch a few statements and the rest was history. I don’t think our military is serious or willing to acquire the part of Kashmir which Qaid e. Azam himself state is the Jugular vein of Pakistan and without which our survival would not be possible in future.

What we should’ve done was armed the people of Indian occupied Kashmir to the teeth and launch a massive insurgency. After all that’s what the Indians have been doing in Balochistan and KPK. So pay them in their own coin. But like I said our military and politicians don’t have the balls anymore to reclaim what is ours. Just a few statements and words and that’s that. I wish we had a strong minded leader who would take these steps someday.
 

nahtanbob

BANNED
Sep 24, 2018
9,251
-51
3,129
Country
United States
Location
United States
He feels coy about it remember Georgia? South Korea happened in the 50’s and in 51 the US and Saudi signed the mutual assistance treaty. These old ties the US has kept. There after it has been abysmal.

American troops pulled out of South Korea in 1948/1949

Georgia minus a small piece is still independent

Ukraine minus Crimea is still independent

When did USA sign a treaty with Kuwait ?

You are free to try your luck with India with/without China
 

Thorough Pro

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 23, 2008
13,206
-19
12,957
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
It's a deceitful act on India's part. Because of the Chinese advances in their occupied areas, India wants Pakistan to withdraw from
its positions so that they can take the whole Siachen in the mid of the night and checkmate china from this side.

Pakistan MUSt NEVER back down. The whole of Siachen belongs to us and India must withdraw unconditionally from all occupied areas.


This vital statement somehow evaded the radars of many all over the Pakistani internet; mainstream media in Pakistan is a lost cause anyway. The same Indian army which had scuttled efforts of Pakistani and Indian political leaderships to reach a settlement on the Siachin dispute (demilitarization) in the past is now expressing a desire to demilitarize the Siachin glacier. Indian military at no cost wanted to vacate from the Siachin glacier (and adjacent territories) given their strategic significance. What has led to this change of heart, reevaluation of the strategic calculus?

- Realization after wargaming scenarios where joint Pak-Sino operations cut off the Indian troops in Siachin?

- Desire to limit the probability of collaboration between the Pakistani and Chinese militaries in a future conflict in the North by eliminating at least one point of friction in the North?

- Reorienting manpower locked up in high altitudes of Siachin to more vulnerable LAC, MacMohan Line borders?

- Economic pressures of sustaining military pressures all along the Northern frontier and Siachin simultaneously?

- A combination of all the above factors?


An interesting thing to note is that many people have forgotten about a statement given by FM SMQ and reported by radio Pakistan back in 2020 when Pakistan was still fuming at the Indian unilateral actions in IoJK. The PLA had already completed its incursions into territory Indian either held or previously had access to in Laddakh. It is very interesting to note that the said link is nowhere to be found on RP's website anymore. This also coincides with the same time NSA, FM, DGMO, ISI chief were holding some meetings.

Indian army chief might know something we don't.

 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom