RW has a new claim today:
that INC/UPA under MMS was ready to surrender Siachen to Pakistan.
The tone implies anti-national behaviour from INC.
In this thread, let us explore the context and facts to set the claim right.
(1/32)
Most of us know about Siachen; the highest battlefield in the world, sub-zero climate conditions and importance as a strategic point to hold.
Also that the area has been claimed by India and Pakistan since independence.
(2/32)
That changed in the 70s when Pak started military mountaineering expeditions in the glacier and then India did the same to counter it. That went on till 1980s.
But then something crazy happened.
(3/32)
The supplier was also supplier to Indian Army.
RAW got the tip and realised that Pak is trying to put military there.
(4/32)
This amazing feat came to be known as Operation Meghdoot.
(5/32)
Indian army has held the position of advantage in Siachen since then. But it comes at a serious price.
India has lost more than 800 soldiers in Siachen to climatic conditions.
For Pakistan, that figure stands at 2000.
(visual credit @EconomicTimes )
(6/32)
(7/32)
economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/s….
Seeing the high cost of human lives and money involved, both India and Pak have time and again played with the idea to demilitarize the glacier.
Now this is important,
Demilitarize is not "surrender".
(8/32)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demilitar…
(9/32)
The second happened under Rao, but again didn't pull through.
The reasons of failures are always complex but rooted in deep distrust between the countries.
(10/32)
Pakistan sees the loss of Siachen as deeply humiliating and has made multiple attempts to capture the positions. So India finds it hard to trust Pak on honoring the agreement.
(11/32)
The fact that the area is barren but still fought so hard for has always split the political opinion into a choice between peace and reality.
(12/32)
- Siachen is important but we loose too many lives
- A section thinks Siachen as DMZ will be much better for the region and both the countries.
- A section doesn't trust Pakistan to honor the DMZ agreement.
(13/32)
- His predecessors have attempted DMZ talks, even started a bus service to symbolise normality but failed.
- There is a ceasefire since 2003, so no bullets fired but we are still losing soldiers to accidents.
So what does he do?
(14/32)
If you were to read about this today from Times Now/OpIndia, you would feel that MMS/INC were alone in supporting the DMZ and everyone else was against them. There is a sinister tone that suggests that all this happened in secrecy.
But it is far from truth
(16/32)
Media houses often quote the cable partially to show this as corruption or anti-national activity.
Even having "wikileak" in title is enough to create a sense of conspiracy.
But the issue was out for public debate.
(17/32)
1. He knew the public was on his side and thus could openly speak.
Or
2. was opposing this with MMS's will. It was to use that as a bargaining chip in talks with Pakistan
(19/32)
There were senior Army folks who argued that the modern technology ensures a better monitoring of the area, thus tracking Pak's misadventures if any.
They believed that the conflict was not worth losing soldiers to climate.
(20/32)
But apart from Army, what was the political pulse?
(21/32)
BJP's opposition according to Wikileaks was conditional. They were ok to support based on 4 conditions they had put.
The cable also talks about the fact that BJP would have exploited the "subjective" nature of conditions to win political discourse anyways.
(22/32)
stealth."
This is exactly what is happening today.
(23/32)
Another important bit is the NSA, MK Narayanan. He was previously a back channel diplomat from India.
Wikileaks suggest that he was one of the key opposers of the idea
(24/32)
theprint.in/defence/pranab…
(25/32)
Can you guess what would have happened next?
But before that, a quick summary of Wikileaks, which in a way recaps the whole event till now.
(26/32)
Sometime back the cable related to this issue was leaked and it has been misquoted very often by press to present a case that shows MMS in poor light. But if you go through it it very well summarises the whole issue like this:
(27/32)
2- Army, NSA and few more leaders believe deal is not feasible.
3- All his allies support him
4- BJP has conditions before supporting but they are percived as a trick
(28/32)
(29/32)
Eventually in the final discussions between top political and security circles, India decided to not pursue it. It was a major political risk and a major security risk.
(30/32)
(31/32)
A complex but normal political and diplomatic event, with enough points to support and oppose.
Nothing anti-national, anti-army, sinister.
Not even a deal.
Only a glacial dream.
(32/32)