India Rejects Pak Proposal to relocate Heavy Artillery away from LoC

[Bhairava]

My post is based on no assumptions along the lines of what you mention - I merely pointed out that the re-deployment of heavy artillery from the LoC makes little difference from a military perspective, in terms of controlling insurgent movement and preventing events like Kargil or Siachen from occurring.

Wrong. Actually I did not go into the military part in the first place. But since you have brought it up let me go.

You are looking at the military perspective from just one way - the firing range. The most important part of the artillery deployment is the logistics part. I don't have much idea of the Pak side..but on the Indian side many artillery have been entrenched in positions that have no road access and which have been diligently built up by transporting by helis after the kargil war.

So no, re-deploying is not as easy as you would want us to believe. And then again Kargil happened when one such CBM was already taking place in Lahore.

In the absence of redeployment, the artillery will remain where it is, and the cost does not escalate for Pakistan by leaving it where it is, rather than 30KM away.

Do you have any idea how 'big' 30 km is when it comes to the terrain on the LoC ?

But if you want to cling to delusions about artillery redeployment 'bankrupting Pakistan', please continue.

It's just not about artillery alone. They are just one piece in a very large jigsaw puzzle.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Good, make roads and bridges on LOC, Pakistan and India can have working relationship for business if both give and take.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Wrong. Actually I did not go into the military part in the first place. But since you have brought it up let me go.

You are looking at the military perspective from just one way - the firing range. The most important part of the artillery deployment is the logistics part. I don't have much idea of the Pak side..but on the Indian side many artillery have been entrenched in positions that have no road access and which have been diligently built up by transporting by helis after the kargil war.

So no, re-deploying is not as easy as you would want us to believe. And then again Kargil happened when one such CBM was already taking place in Lahore.

The territory does not magically improve along the Pakistani side - the terrain offers similar challenges along both sides of the border, along Kargil and Siachen for example. The logistical challenge will not be limited to India alone.

Do you have any idea how 'big' 30 km is when it comes to the terrain on the LoC ?

What does that have to do with the redeployment, or lack of, imposing an unsustainable cost on Pakistan?

It's just not about artillery alone. They are just one piece in a very large jigsaw puzzle.

They are certainly 'one piece', but in terms of 'imposing extraordinary costs on Pakistan', their redeployment (or lack of) does not impose significant costs on Pakistan.

The more exorbitant military costs that Pakistan is facing today, and will increasingly face going forward, are those incurred by Air Force and Navy in acquiring newer assets. Take a look at the sticky by Xeric in the land forces section that outlines some of the statistics related to PakMil businesses, budgets and expenses, and you will see that the Army budget is decreasing as a proportion of the total military budget.

Redeployment of heavy artillery is not going to make the Pakistani Military suddenly start trusting India and stop investing in upgrading its capabilities, so even if your argument is that 'India should keep tensions high in order to keep Pakistan investing in its military', the artillery proposal will have no impact on Pakistani policy in that regards - only a resolution of the Kashmir dispute will.

 

[kawaraj]

it's on the indian side whether they can just give up their Big Power mentality since Nehru and wholeheartedly strive for regional prosperity.

 

[Screambowl]

Not good for India moving back the artillery but benefits Pakistan.
Pakistan does not believe in conventional warfare any more against India. They are only confident of their Nuclear strike. For them artillery or no artillery, it's the same thing. Plus they have 1st nuclear strike ideology. If we move back artillery and any kind of misadventure happens(may this not happen) this would lead to war. And desperate Pakistan would this time definitely be ready to carry out nuclear strike. Where as we follow 2nd strike ideology, by any chance we will not fire our nuclear weapon first we have to face them conventionally.

 

[Bl[i]tZ]

India has rejected Pakistan's proposal to move heavy artillery and mortars away from the Line of Control citing frequent ceasefire violations and asked Islamabad to come clear on its nuclear policy, including command and control over nuclear assets.

This was conveyed to the Pakistani officials by India during the two-day talks on nuclear and conventional confidence building measures that were held in Islamabad after a gap of four years, sources said here today.

During the talks India conveyed to Pakistan on the need to demonstrate in practical measure restraint and responsibility in the nuclear field and urged it facilitate the talks on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

India expressed its inability to accept the Pakistani proposal of relocating heavy artillery citing the ongoing violations of ceasefire along the LoC, the sources said.

New Delhi cannot look at such proposals till the situation on the LoC improves, they said.

External Affairs Minister S M Krishna is slated to visit Pakistan to review the progress of the talks and both sides are keen to have the meetings between Home Secretaries, Water Resources Secretaries, Defence Secretaries and Foreign Secretaries before the visit.

On the nuclear CBMs, India made it clear to Pakistan that views on nuclear doctrines could be exchanged only when official documents enunciating the policies are available in the public domain.

Officials pointed out that India had announced its nuclear doctrine of credible minimum deterrence in 2003 which places the command and control of nuclear devices with the civilian leadership.

India stressed on the need to have transparency and predictability in nuclear policies and the importance to demonstrate in practical measure restraint and responsibility in the nuclear field.

Indian officials also told their Pakistani counterparts to allow discussion on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) at the Conference on Disarmament.

"This would be a CBM," sources said pointing out that Pakistan had blocked the discussions on FMCT claiming that it has to continue producing fissile material used in nuclear weapons to address the conventional military imbalance with India.

The two-day talks also saw agreement on moving forward proposals to extend two key agreements on pre-notification of ballistic missile tests and reducing the risk from accidents related to nuclear weapons.

Senior officials of the two countries agreed to recommend to their Foreign Secretaries to extend the validity of the "Agreement on Reducing the Risk from Accidents Relating to Nuclear Weapons" for five years.

The two sides also agreed to recommend to the Foreign Secretaries to extend the validity of the "Agreement on Pre-Notification of Flight Testing of Ballistic Missiles" by five years.

The current tenure of this pact is set to end in February next year, sources said.

A proposal for an agreement to prevent "incidents at sea" involving naval vessels of the two countries also came up during the talks.

There have been several incidents at sea, including one involving INS Godavari and PNS Babur when the Indian warship went to the rescue of persons captured by Somali pirates.

news.outlookindia.com | India Rejects Pak Proposal to Move Artillery From LoC

 

[MUHARIB]

Good!! ....

 

[notsuperstitious]

There have been multiple cases of pakistani forces providing cover to terrorists crossing over to Indian side in Kashmir this year as well. Even Kashmiris trapped on the Pakistani side were protesting

BBC News - Anti-militant protests in Pakistan's Neelum valley

Maybe Pakistan made this proposal to provide relief to these neelum valley residents, not for confidence building.

 

[Mirza Jatt]

Obviously !!!!!!!!

 

[Imran Khan]

ok dears as you like keep it there till you realize the way of peace is way of success

 

[blood]

its good if we don't move our artillery guns , we have seen numerous occasions were pak troops help terrorists infiltrate into our borders , we must not compensate our security to please someone , specially a neighbor like pakistan , good move by IA .

 

[Mirza Jatt]

ok dears as you like keep it there till you realize the way of peace is way of success

Fully agreed...who knows this better than India among the two countries.

but the point here is the risking the 1bn+ lives and also the improving relationship between India and Pakistan..which we have seen after a long time....its a great idea, but you see there are so many non state actors always ready to to infiltrate with the intention of damaging the economy and lives of the other country, it snot worth making this move and back tracking thegrowing relatonship. Let the time pass, and the relationship mature..let us have good experience (both sides) and build the trust..then we must consider a giant move like this.

 

[Imran Khan]

ok guys don't be more troll soon new pak-korea made artillry guns will be there to replace M198 guns . if you are not willing to do so keep it up like we both keep in last 64 years


pakistan zindabad

 

[StormShadow]

Great decision. If pak convinces India to reduce artillery in LoC, then pak gets a chance to relocate them at afgh-pakborder and increase their assets over there. Till today pak was focusing only on India and hence are able to use their assets effectively with low budget. Now time has come for pak to split their arsenal and India should at no point allow them to relax.

 

[Big Boss]

India should rejects each and every proposal that's related to border/military put forward by pakistan as its a open fact that pak army controls talks/relations with India.

Obviously they are up to something and that's why they are proposing this thing.