‘India and Pak nearing deal on Siachen’

[Contrarian]

India's inability to make progress in relations with Pakistan affects its standing internationally.

Please tell us, how does our inability to progress in peace relations affect our international standing? doesnt it hurt Pakistan's standing even more??

You confuse agreements after wars with agreements on the solving of disputes. There was NO war at Siachen; the Indians snuck in.

Yeah, and they said that, they went in to pre-empt a Pakistani action there...
EXACTLY the same thing was tried by Pakistan in Kargil, they said they went in to pre-empt an Indian action.Difference is, India kept Siachen and Pakistan lost Kargil. You cant have both heads and tails.

 

[Srirangan]

Demilitarize! Indians go home and so do the Pakistanis.

Yes, but before doing that, we'll get you to acknowledge and demarcate the Actual Ground Position on the Glacier.

 

[Contrarian]

Demilitarize! Indians go home and so do the Pakistanis.

But what is the guarentee that Pakistan wont sneak into Siachen like it did in Kargil?
that is the MAIN reason why India wants the current troop positions demarcated, and possibly why Pakistan doesnt want that.

India has stated that it will remove its troops if the actual positions now are clearly marked by both sides.

 

[Sid]

Please tell us, how does our inability to progress in peace relations affect our international standing? doesnt it hurt Pakistan's standing even more??

Very simple example; Pakistan isn't vying for a permanent seat at the UN, India is! But it has border issues with nearly all of its neighbours and those are potential 'ignition sources'. It weakens India's position vis-a-vis the more peace-oriented states vying for the same spot such as Japan!

Yeah, and they said that, they went in to pre-empt a Pakistani action there...
EXACTLY the same thing was tried by Pakistan in Kargil, they said they went in to pre-empt an Indian action.Difference is, India kept Siachen and Pakistan lost Kargil. You cant have both heads and tails.

There was no Pakistani action in Siachen or even intelligence to support that arguement. What Pakistan did in Kargil was an attempt to pay India back in kind.

 

[Sid]

Yes, but before doing that, we'll get you to acknowledge and demarcate the Actual Ground Position on the Glacier.

It remains to be seen. So far 'you' havent been able to get 'us' to do as such.

 

[Sid]

But what is the guarentee that Pakistan wont sneak into Siachen like it did in Kargil?
that is the MAIN reason why India wants the current troop positions demarcated, and possibly why Pakistan doesnt want that.

Precisely why Pakistan says, 'write it down!' so that neither side takes the demilitarization as an opportunity to sneak back in.

Pakistan doesn't want the ground positions marked, not because it has any sinister designs but for the simple fact that it would legitimize Indian control of Siachen which is absurd since no country in the world recognizes India's control over Siachen since it is a disputed land. It should have been solved through dialogue but India decided to go the militaristic way when it launched Operation Meghdoot.

India has stated that it will remove its troops if the actual positions now are clearly marked by both sides.

Exactly, India wants its control of Siachen legitimized which clearly will not happen.

 

[Srirangan]

It remains to be seen. So far 'you' havent been able to get 'us' to do as such.

Doesn't matter. Kasuri was trying the push, onus is on his office. Not ours.

 

[Sid]

You can continue the fruitless exercise of tit-for-tat replies but I simply have no time for these immature overtures. Cheers!

 

[Contrarian]

Very simple example; Pakistan isn't vying for a permanent seat at the UN, India is! But it has border issues with nearly all of its neighbours and those are potential 'ignition sources'. It weakens India's position vis-a-vis the more peace-oriented states vying for the same spot such as Japan!

Agreed

There was no Pakistani action in Siachen or even intelligence to support that arguement. What Pakistan did in Kargil was an attempt to pay India back in kind.

yeah, but the Indian govt claimed that, whether it was true or not is a different game altogether. And i say so that what Pakistan tried to do in Kargil was payback India in kind, but Pakistan failed both in Siachen and in Kargil. So it negotiates from a very weak position.

Precisely why Pakistan says, 'write it down!' so that neither side takes the demilitarization as an opportunity to sneak back in.

Yeah, but tell me in case of a war b/w India and Pakistan, who would care for such a 'written' thing. Whoever gets to control siachen gets a verry important strategic location. Considering that there have been 3 wars in the past... i wouldnt bet all my money that there wont be a 4th. So that is why it is necessary to demarcate the troop positions, that every1 knows where every1 was before, status quo can continue.

 

[Srirangan]

You can continue the fruitless exercise of tit-for-tat replies but I simply have no time for these immature overtures. Cheers!

There isn't anything immature about it. Kasuri tried rushing India into an agreement. Being a minister that too of foreign affairs, he should have acted with tact. I guess he was pretty immature. Poor guy has got his foot in his mouth.

 

[Spring Onion]

If you have nothing to lose, why is Mr. Kasuri loosing so much sleep. Poor guy, for his sake at least quit pretending Jana!

Well my dear just last night there was a guest from India on GEO TV discussion, he was some expert from Indian University and when talking about Siachin and Kasuir remarks, he said India was upset by his remarks and he shudnt make it public as Indian govt would face pressures from parties and other circles.

 

[Goodperson]

One can get so many experts in here in US they discuss about anything and everything. On any silly topics.
I do not think any Milatary personel would be allowed to speak to foriegn channels.

 

[Sid]

... but Pakistan failed both in Siachen and in Kargil. So it negotiates from a very weak position.

Do tell me how Pakistan 'failed' in Siachen since it was not there in the first place to counter the Indians.

Yeah, but tell me in case of a war b/w India and Pakistan, who would care for such a 'written' thing. Whoever gets to control siachen gets a verry important strategic location. Considering that there have been 3 wars in the past... i wouldnt bet all my money that there wont be a 4th. So that is why it is necessary to demarcate the troop positions, that every1 knows where every1 was before, status quo can continue.

Who cares if such a thing is written down? Perhaps the very Kargil scenario should serve as an example! The 1972 Line of Control is a result of 'written' documents which the international community accepts legitimate and it was due to this that Pakistan was forced to back down from Kargil. A similar document assuring Siachen's demilitarized status would ensure it is kept that way.

Therefore India does not have any excuse to mark troop positions unless its own desires are sinister or it really wants legitimization of its rule on Siachen.

 

[Contrarian]

Do tell me how Pakistan 'failed' in Siachen since it was not there in the first place to counter the Indians.

Simple, Pakistan 'failed' to evict the Indians from Siachen when they went there. Similarly Pakistan 'failed' to hold on to its position in kargil, when the Indians evicted them from there.

Who cares if such a thing is written down? Perhaps the very Kargil scenario should serve as an example! The 1972 Line of Control is a result of 'written' documents which the international community accepts legitimate and it was due to this that Pakistan was forced to back down from Kargil. A similar document assuring Siachen's demilitarized status would ensure it is kept that way.

Therefore India does not have any excuse to mark troop positions unless its own desires are sinister or it really wants legitimization of its rule on Siachen.

Well, either way, i dont think there will be a deal to vacate siachen without troop position demarcation. I dont think we should vacate without the locations noted too.Like Sri said earlier...negotiation from a position of power.

 

[Sid]

Simple, Pakistan 'failed' to evict the Indians from Siachen when they went there. Similarly Pakistan 'failed' to hold on to its position in kargil, when the Indians evicted them from there.

You don't fail in battle when you werent there in the first place to engage the enemy!

Well, either way, i dont think there will be a deal to vacate siachen without troop position demarcation. I dont think we should vacate without the locations noted too.Like Sri said earlier...negotiation from a position of power.

Now you run out of arguements. You 'dont think' is different from 'it cannot be done'. The arguements for the demilitarization are very clear; you come up with a treaty or some form of joint-document and there it is. Anything else, is just dragging the subject to keep the status-quo which is not how 'disputes' are solved since conflict/dispute resolution requires the balancing of the status quo to bring about a settlement.