Who says Indian civilian government is NOT subservient to its military..?

Greatness of a general doesn’t lie in waging and winning a war. Rather, in avoiding the war.

Indian Army chief opposes PM’s trip to Pak ( http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-chief-opposes-PMs-trip-to-Pak/articleshow/16482507.cms?#write )
The full news item titled “Indian Army Chief opposes PM’s trip to Pak”, published by the Times of India on 21 September, 2012 is also reproduced at the bottom of this write up dated 21, September, 2012.

Here, I remember what Winston Churchill said about the generals, “war is too serious a business to be left to the generals”. Adding to that I will say “peace is even more serious a business to be left to the nincompoop Indian Army’s generals, who by their training are mostly prone to their myopic and tunnel vision.”

I wonder, if the Berlin wall would ever have been removed, if the decision was left to the generals of the Indian Army.

So, Gen. Bikram Singh should also know that it’s not Siachin, but the future of 1.5 billion humanity of sub continent which is at stake. If, the blood has shed on a foolish act in the past, why not take action to stop further shedding of blood, for the noble cause of peace & eradication of ignorance and poverty, in the sub continent.

The thinking of such Indian generals, can delay the emancipation of Indians and Pakistanis, but can never permanently deny the divends of peace to such a large world population, which is no more interested in continued acrimony, between the two neighboring countries.

Now,the peace loving people of both the countries have decided once for ever, that they will no more remain the prisoner of the past.

If any body wants to observe the dividends of peace between the neighbors, just look at Europe, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.

Please read the Times of India report dated 21 September, 2012 reproduced below:

Army chief opposes PM’s trip to Pak
Indrani Bagchi, TNN | Sep 21, 2012, 01.17AM IST

NEW DELHI: Any hope Pakistan may have nurtured that a visit by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh could open the door for a “deal” on Siachen has been dashed, with Army chief Gen Bikram Singh being as opposed to the idea as all his predecessors before him.

In his maiden interaction with the press, Gen Singh clearly stated the ground rules on a border agreement. And they don’t include any troop withdrawal from the Siachen heights. “There is no change in our view at all. We must continue to hold that area…We have lost lot of lives and shed a lot of blood there. The positions are of strategic importance to us. We have conveyed our concerns to the government,” he said. It will be difficult for the Indian government to accept anything less.

Pakistan is hopeful of Singh’s visit before it goes to the polls. Singh himself is keen to visit Pakistan, and has not shied away from making his interest known. With this in mind, Islamabad has pushed New Delhi hard this year to do a deal on Siachen. Pakistan has even delayed talks on the Sir Creek issue in order to mount pressure on India for a Siachen pact.

Returning from Iran after the NAM summit, the PM hinted that a Sir Creek agreement was “doable” but he was silent on Siachen. There is little chance of Singh going to Pakistan this year. His position is very different from Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who had visited Pakistan twice in his five years despite a Kargil and a Parliament attack as well as a disastrous Agra summit between them.

Primarily, it’s because the nature of terrorism from Pakistan has changed substantially in the past decade. But mostly, it’s because Mumbai changed the discourse in a way that will make it difficult for a summit level visit without Pakistan taking demonstrable steps against terrorism. The political atmosphere in India is fragile enough that a concession to Pakistan would be interpreted as a betrayal. The UPA has already taken several knocks after the Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement with Pakistan in 2009. In the forthcoming state elections, political managers fear a PM visit to Pakistan could be battered on nationalistic lines.

There is cross-spectrum acceptance on trade concessions and people-to-people contacts with Pakistan. But there is no room for a concession on Siachen because it ties in with India’s larger strategic outlook, particularly regarding the China-Pakistan nexus. India’s occupation of the Siachen heights gives it a unique advantage that it does not want to relinquish.

Officials said India’s position on Siachen had neither hardened nor softened for years. But Pakistani Army chief Gen Ashfaq Kayani had said twice in a month (May) that Pakistan wants the Siachen issue to be solved and India had “toughened” its stand asking for a demarcation, which was seen here as a pressure tactic. Ideally, a Siachen agreement should be part of a broad agreement of the border, but Pakistan is yet to agree to that.

“We have been consistent on the steps necessary before demilitarization of Siachen can be carried out. We won’t give up the advantage we enjoy without a very credible, and verifiable, commitment from their side,” a senior Indian Army officer told TOI recently. Another officer pointed out that India has repeatedly pointed out that any demilitarization should be preceded by delineation of Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL), authentication of the line and military positions on maps to be exchanged between the two countries, an end to wrong projection of AGPL in each other’s maps, drawing up framework for demilitarization and as final step withdrawal of troops from the glacial heights. “They are reluctant to agree to our suggestions,” another senior military official said.

The core of the difference between the two sides is this: India wants Pakistan to authenticate positions on the AGPL before any talk of demilitarization or withdrawal. Pakistan is pushing a four-point plan that includes demilitarization, withdrawal of troops, delineation and authentication. India is unwilling to do this.

Tags: My Views