Ajay Banerjee

Forty years since Prime Minister Indira Gandhi okayed the Indian Army’s plan to capture the 76-km-long Siachen Glacier, multiple strategic implications have emerged and Siachen remains a ‘military priority’ for India.

Operation Meghdoot — launched on April 13, 1984, to capture Siachen — was not a spur-of-the-moment decision. It was thought through, calibrated, planned and also practised. The move was a correction of three strategic oversights — first in 1949, then in 1965, followed by the developments after the 1971 war. After the India-Pak war of 1947-48, the Karachi Agreement of 1949 agreed upon a ceasefire line (CFL). The 1965 India-Pak war ended with an agreement at Tashkent. The Simla Agreement was signed post the 1971 war. Notably, none of the three agreements demarcate, on ground, the Line of Control (LoC) beyond Point NJ 9842 in present-day Ladakh.

Exploration missions

• Siachen Glacier’s existence, its length and location were a matter of speculation among western explorers.
• British explorer Willam Moorcroft passed close to the glacier’s snout in 1821 and it is described in the 1841 book ‘Travels in the Himalayan Provinces…’
• In 1848, Sir Henry Starchey, a British civil servant, became the first westerner to ‘discover’ the glacier.
• EC Ryall of the Survey of India sketched the lower part of the glacier in 1861,
• and determined its length was 16 miles.
• In 1889, Sir Francis Younghusband, in an attempt to find the watershed between Central Asia and India, noted that Turkestan La (along what is now known as Indira Col) separated the two.
• In 1909, TG Longstaff became the first westerner to traverse the glacier.
• In 1912, an American couple camped on the glacier for over two months. C Grant Peterkin, attached to the expedition, surveyed the glacier from its head at Indira Col to its snout at Nubra river.

The territory north of NJ 9842 — the glaciers — was deemed to be too treacherous, with peaks in excess of 22,000 feet and passes at 18,000 feet.

The 1949 agreement said, “From Point NJ 9842, the ceasefire line (CFL) will run northwards to the glaciers.”

India and Pakistan differ on what defines “northwards to the glaciers”. Islamabad, oddly, claims that the LoC should go north-east and end at Karakoram Pass, dividing Ladakh and Xinjiang, under Chinese control. Post April 1984, India has positioned its troops along the watershed and the claim line runs “northwards” of Point NJ 9842. The posts held by Indian troops are now referred to as the Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL), which is 110 km long.

How a map triggered action

Ambiguity on the alignment of the LoC allowed Pakistan to attempt cartographic calisthenics. Between 1972 and 1983, it permitted foreign expeditions on the Siachen Glacier and the surrounding peaks, with Pakistani army officers accompanying them.

In India, things happened by coincidence. In the summer of 1974, German mountaineers Jaroslav Poncar and Volker Stallbohm met Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Sheikh Abdullah, seeking permission for rafting down the Indus in Ladakh.

Abdullah agreed and even hooked the Germans up with Col Narinder (Bull) Kumar, posted at the High Altitude Warfare School in Gulmarg. The expedition was carried out in 1975.

The Germans were back in India in 1977 with another request — a trek to the 24,600 feet high Mamostong Kangri in the southeast of Siachen. India did not give permission, but Pakistan did. The Germans, in 1978, climbed up the 18,000 feet high Bilafond La from the Pakistan side, only to reach till Siachen — all these were part of the undefined LoC.

Amid the permission-seeking documentation for the trek, Col Kumar got hold of a map from the Germans. In January 1978, he took the map to the Director General of Military Operations, Lt Gen ML Chibber. Army Chief TN Raina gave his nod to the budget for Col Kumar’s expedition to Siachen in October.

The location of the Mamostong glacier and its peaks spurred India into action as the peak is closer to Depsang, facing China, than being in proximity to Pakistan.

Air Vice Marshal Manmohan Bahadur (retd), then a young pilot tasked at Leh, remembers the expedition in detail. “We would fly over the Siachen Glacier in our helicopters, and hover at the spot to drop fresh vegetables,” he says. He recollects: “On October 6, 1978, Sqn Leader ML Monga and I were tasked to evacuate an Army Captain and a jawan from an ‘advance base camp’ (now called Kumar Post at 15,600 feet). They were pulled out around 2 pm when wind turbulence had set in.”

Siachen plan

Following the 1978 expedition, the Indian Army carried out two similar mountaineering expeditions in 1980 and 1981. Harish Kapadia, a mountaineer, described these expeditions in his 2005 book, ‘Into the Untravelled Himalaya: Travels, Treks, and Climbs’: “The Indian government (revealed these treks only in 1983) made an attempt to pass them off as mountaineering ventures but their actual intentions were pretty obvious.”

In 1983, the ‘Siachen plan’ was given shape. Two Indian Army patrols were launched between June and September. The second one was tasked with building a small shelter. The components were lifted by helicopters, and so was the patrol party.

In August 1983, the Pakistan army sent two protest notes, which for the first time formally projected Pakistan’s claim line. The note asked the Indian side: “Instruct your troops to withdraw south of Point NJ 9842… Any delay in vacating our territory will create a serious situation.”

In other words, the LoC, agreed upon in a signed and sealed document, was being amended unilaterally by Pakistan and its army tried sending two companies up the Siachen in September/October 1983. The aim was to occupy the two entry points — from their side — to the Saltoro Ridge, Bilafond La and Sia La.

On April 13, 1984, a platoon of the Indian Army was flown onboard helicopters to Bilafond La. The rest, as they say, is history. Pakistan tried an offensive on April 24, but was beaten back. By then, the only other pass, Sia La, had been secured by India. The following year, in February 1985, the Pakistan army made another attempt, but was repulsed.

Lt Gen Sanjay Kulkarni (retd), who led the 4 Kumaon platoon on April 13, 1984, and planted the Indian flag at Bilafond La, remembers: “We had no navigational aid to guide us other than our Survey of India maps. We had walked over Siachen for months for two previous years.”

In July 1984, an Indo-Japanese expedition led by Col Balwant Singh Sandhu was okayed for the same Mamostong Kangri which Col Kumar had seen on the map of the Germans.

Why is Siachen important

Saltoro Ridge, dominated by the Indian Army, overlooks the Gilgit-Baltistan area of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Indian military presence guards the routes leading to Ladakh from the eastern flank of the glacier that have an access from the Depsang plains in Ladakh. The northern part of the glacier, ringed by very high peaks, dominates the Shaksgam valley, which is under Chinese control since Pakistan illegally ceded it in 1963. China’s Karakoram Highway, part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, runs close by.

In the past 20 years, the unwarranted entry of the Chinese under the guise of road builders and dam builders means the area immediately west of Siachen now poses a collusive China and Pakistan threat. Also, the present crisis along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) would have been different if Pakistan’s false claim line from Point NJ 9842 to Karakoram Pass was not challenged by India.

Lt Gen Rakesh Sharma (retd), a former commander of the Leh-based 14 Corps, says, “The glacier’s geostrategic importance cannot be underplayed, especially in hindsight of the 2020 Chinese incursions in eastern Ladakh.”

The Saltoro Ridge, coupled with Siachen Glacier and Saser Ridge, is the most daunting geographical stretch. It also cleanly divides Gilgit-Baltistan and Aksai Chin in northern Ladakh, says Gen Sharma. “If this region was not held by the Indian Army, the Pakistan army and the Chinese would have ventured to join up.” The 1984 operation put a ‘strong wedge’, thwarting Pakistan-China designs, he adds.

Can it be de-militarised?

Pakistan has suggested de-militarisation. It was discussed at Track-II diplomatic channels but never agreed to. From the Pakistan side, the approach to the Saltoro Ridge and the glacier is vulnerable as the Indian Army occupies the heights.

From an Indian perspective, vacating anything is not possible. Since the ceasefire of 2003, firing by both sides has stopped. However, troops still need to man the region.

The state-of-the-art surveillance systems, combined with ground-based and air-based stand-off weapons, stand guard. But it is the Army troops on ground who dominate the area. “Siachen Glacier cannot and must not be de-militarised in isolation. Based on current relations, any de-militarisation is a far cry,” says Gen Sharma.

PTI

Leh/New Delhi, April 22

Siachen is India’s capital of “courage, grit and determination”, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said on Monday after carrying out an on-the-ground review of the security situation at the world’s highest snow-clad battlefield.

Addressing soldiers at a forward post at an altitude of 15,100 ft, Singh lauded the “iron-clad” will of the Indian Army soldiers deployed in the icy cold glacier and said that their bravery will forever be an inspiration for future generations.

The defence minister described Siachen as a symbol of India’s sovereignty and determination.

He said that just as Delhi is India’s national capital, Mumbai is the financial capital and Bengaluru is the technology capital, Siachen is the “capital of courage, grit and determination.”

The Siachen glacier in the Karakoram range is known as the highest militarised zone in the world where the soldiers have to battle frostbite and high winds.

Singh’s visit to Siachen came over a week after the Indian Army marked the 40th year of its presence in the strategically key region following the ‘Operation Meghdoot’.

The defence minister described the operation, which was launched by the Indian Army in Siachen on April 13, 1984, as a golden chapter of the country’s military history.

“The success of Operation Meghdoot is a matter of pride for all of us,” he said.

The defence minister was accompanied by Chief of the Army Staff Gen Manoj Pande; General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of Northern Command Lt Gen MV Suchindra Kumar and General Officer Commanding of 14 Corps Lt Gen Rashim Bali.

In his remarks, Singh lauded the soldiers for walking on the virtuous path of protecting the motherland with valour and determination in extreme conditions.

“We are leading a peaceful life as we have an assurance that our brave soldiers stand steadfast at the borders,” he said.

Singh said that the first lamp on Diwali and the “first colour” of Holi should be dedicated to the protectors of the country, similar to the first food offering to deities, priests and gurus.

“Our soldier is no less than any protecting deity,” he said.

“In the times to come, when the history of national security is written, the acts of bravery and iron-clad will of our soldiers in the icy cold glacier will be remembered with pride. It will forever be an inspiration for future generations,” he said.

Singh’s visit to Siachen came over a week after the Indian Army marked the 40th year of its presence in the strategically key region following the ‘Operation Meghdoot’.

After carrying out aerial reconnaissance, the defence minister landed at the forward post and was given a detailed brief on the operational readiness in the Siachen Glacier and the prevalent security situation.

He also discussed the aspects associated with the operational challenges with the commanders on the ground.

“Visited a forward post in Siachen. Had a wonderful interaction with the brave Army personnel who are guarding our nation in extremely challenging conditions,” Singh said on ‘X’.

“I laud their courage and professionalism, in the line of duty,” he said.

The defence minister also laid a wreath at the Siachen War Memorial as a mark of tribute to the fallen heroes who made the supreme sacrifice in service of the nation.

Singh had visited Leh on March 24 and celebrated Holi with the troops. He was scheduled to visit Siachen, but it was postponed due to adverse weather conditions.

From Leh, the defence minister had spoken with the soldiers posted in Siachen over phone and told them that he would soon visit the world’s highest battlefield and interact with them.

Singh fulfilled his promise with Monday’s visit despite his busy schedule, the ministry said in a statement. The Indian Army has been strengthening its presence in Siachen over the last few years.

In January last year, Captain Shiva Chauhan from the Army’s Corps of Engineers was posted at a frontline post in Siachen Glacier, in the first such operational deployment of a woman Army officer at the key battlefiel

The whole gamut of border management merits a holistic review. It ought to be the key component of the National Security Strategy, which still remains a work in progress.

Maj Gen GG Dwivedi (Retd)

Former Defence Attache to China

THERE have been frequent reports about China building modern border villages and getting them inhabited. On March 28, the 65th anniversary of the Tibet takeover by China, Beijing organised several celebratory events in the new villages in proximity to the India and Bhutan borders. As per latest inputs, China is set to develop 175 more border villages in addition to 628 ‘Xiaokang’ (well-off villages) already in place.

In the garb of border area development, the Xiaokang initiative is centred on expansion through coercion. The model was proposed by Deng Xiaoping in 1979 to ensure equitable development of the Chinese society through poverty alleviation in rural areas. President Xi Jinping has transformed it into a strategic one through the integration of border regions with the mainland, thereby enhancing security of its land boundaries, particularly in Tibet, opposite Arunachal Pradesh.

As part of the Xiaokang scheme, 427 model villages have been constructed on the frontline, while 201 are in the second tier. These villages are spread across 21 border counties to include important towns of Xigaze, Lohka, Nyingchi and Ngari. In Lohka, which shares a border with Bhutan and Arunachal Pradesh, China has developed 354 ‘prosperous’ border settlements. Almost a third of these villages have been built in the close proximity of the Line of Actual Control (LAC). A sum of approximately $4.6 billion was allocated for the construction of these habitats, including supporting infrastructure.

Under the outcomes of the 19th Party Congress held in October 2017, Xi had called for talented Chinese citizens to work in the remote ethnic minority areas — the underlying design being primarily to change the demographic profile. Over the past decade, Han population in Tibet has risen by about 12 per cent. The ultimate aim of the communist regime is to achieve complete Sinicisation of the Tibet Autonomous Region. All border villages have been provided with quality amenities like roads, electrification and even Internet connectivity, especially in areas bordering India, Nepal and Bhutan. Additionally, around 206 industrial projects are under construction.

By 2021, the Tibet road network covered 1,18,000 km. Preliminary work on Hotan-Xigaze, Gyirong-Xigaze and Chengdu-Wuhan-Shanghai high-speed railway lines has been completed. The 14th Five-Year Plan aims to build a world-class Chengdu-Chongqing airport cluster, besides upgrading 39 civilian airports. Currently, a dozen airports are operational or under construction in Tibet-South Xinjiang. The new 1,078-km ‘Snow Mountain Oil Dragon Pipeline’ from Golmud to Lhasa will raise the number of oil depots in Tibet to 10.

China has introduced two national laws in recent years to bolster border management. The National Defence Law, passed in 2021, provides the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) a greater role in conjunction with civil agencies to further national interests. A year later, the Land Border Law was passed so as to consolidate Chinese hold over encroached areas. Its Articles 10 and 43 challenge the status quo with regards to the development of border infrastructure, which has a direct bearing on India’s border development programmes. China has launched a cartographic offensive against India, showing Ladakh, Barahoti and Arunachal Pradesh as its territories. Giving Mandarin names to places in these areas is part of China’s ‘Three Warfare’ strategy, encompassing propaganda, psychological and legal dimensions.

In July 2021, Xi paid a visit to Lhasa, the first by a head of state in the past three decades; he sought to make Tibet an ‘ironclad shield’. Accordingly, border villages have been integrated into the PLA’s overall defence plans to act as forward posts, especially in disputed areas like Doklam and Long Ju. Former military personnel of Han ethnicity are being settled in the border areas. China’s actions are in sync with its ‘Grey Zone Warfare’, wherein civilians and militia forces engage in non-contact warfare. A case in point is Beijing’s modus operandi in the South China Sea.

In the absence of a clear policy, India’s border areas remained underdeveloped, especially opposite China. It is only after China’s massive infrastructure development in Tibet and Xinjiang that India began upgrading its roads and surface communications in border regions. The Vibrant Villages Programme (VVP) was launched last year to provide requisite facilities to the people living in border villages. Accordingly, 168 villages along China’s border that are lacking connectivity are set to be linked by the year-end. A budgetary allocation of

Rs 4,800 crore has been made to create adequate infrastructure in 663 border villages of 19 districts.

In sharp contrast to the Chinese-controlled Xiaokang, the Indian programme envisages a ‘hub and spoke’ template, which is driven by the district administration and gram panchayats; the role of the Central Government is limited to funding. The main focus of the VVP is on the promotion of socio-economic initiatives. However, there is a need to adopt a dual-use approach by incorporating security aspects as well.

India is also undertaking large infrastructure projects, including frontier highways, rail lines, airports, the Dibang hydroelectric power projects and waterways. These are funded under the ‘Gross Budgetary Assistance’ provision amounting to Rs 12,882.2 crore for the holistic development of the northeastern region.

Given the disputed boundary and the ongoing standoff in Ladakh, the Chinese plan has serious strategic ramifications. Beijing’s intent to unilaterally alter the status of LAC will gain further impetus with the Xiaokang villages in place. China has also disregarded the ‘Political parameters and Guiding Principles for the settlement of the boundary issue’ agreement of 2005 (Article VII), wherein the existing arrangement of the population along the borders is not to be disturbed.

To effectively counter Chinese expansionist designs, there is a need for a de novo approach. Our current reactive approach, based on ‘tit for tat’, is passe. The whole gamut of border management merits a holistic review. It ought to be the key component of the National Security Strategy, which ironically still remains a work in progress.

Iran-Israel conflict impacts crude oil prices

ISRAEL launched a tit-for-tat attack on Iran on Friday, days after Tehran unleashed drones and missiles on Israeli territory. The development has raised the spectre of a wider West Asian conflict amid the prevailing hostilities between Israel and the Iran-backed militant group Hamas. The reverberations of the Iran-Israel confrontation are already being felt beyond the region, with the benchmark Brent crude price rising to above $90 a barrel before falling a bit. This is a matter of concern for India, which imports over 85 per cent of its crude oil requirements. A steep hike in global oil prices could significantly raise the country’s oil import bill and make the rupee depreciate due to the larger outgo of foreign exchange. It’s the purchase of cheaper oil from sanctions-hit Russia that helped India reduce its import expenditure over the past year or so.

Supply disruptions caused by geopolitical turbulence have prompted India, the world’s third biggest oil consumer and importer, to firm up plans to build its first commercial crude oil strategic reserve. Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Ltd, a special purpose vehicle created by the government, has invited bids for constructing an underground storage facility in Karnataka. However, the project is expected to be completed only by 2029-30. In the immediate future, India will continue to be heavily dependent on oil imports. The resilience demonstrated by the country in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war is now being put to the test by the shocks originating from West Asia.

India has been quick to express concern over the ‘new emerging realities’ and has noted that any escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran will threaten peace and security in the region. A global economic upheaval can be avoided if neutral countries like India impress upon both sides the vital importance of exercising restraint.

New Delhi, April 18

Vice Admiral DK Tripathi has been appointed the next Chief of the Indian Navy. The appointment was made late on Thursday.

He will take over from Admiral R Hari Kumar on April 30. He will be the Navy Chief for two years that is till he attains the age of 62 in May 2026.

TO GET CSD CARDS, NOW YOU CAN APPLY ONLINE AND GET CARD DELIVERED AT YOUR HOME

PROCEDURE :

1) Online Website for CSD Smart Card:-
https://csdsmartcard.co.in

2) Fill up Online Form.

3) Make online payment.

4) CSD Cards will be delivered within 7-20 days by courier service directly at your home address.

5) You can track your online application also.

NOW NO NEED TO VISIT ANY CSD CANTEEN OFFICE TO GET FORM AND APPLY FOR CSD CARDS.

ALL WHO ARE APPLYING FOR FIRST TIME OR RE-APPLYING, ARE REQUIRED TO APPLY ONLINE ONLY.

CSD CARDS ARE VALID FOR 10 YEARS. EXPIRY DATE IS WRITTEN IN YOUR CSD CARDS, PURCHASE BILLS AND ALSO CSD BILLING CLERK CAN TELL YOU

*All retired members
please initiate a movement -★ every retired personafter rendering
30 to 36 years of service to the Govt or the Dept where he worked, is entitled for pension as per the applicable & eligible schemes. Through out the service, he/she contributes from salary some fractions unknowingly for such pensions.
◆ Thus salary is different from pension. Hence Salary comes under
income whereas Pension does not come under income. Pension is nothing but employees’ factual & notional savings preserved under the control of Employerbut NOT a fresh salary.
■■ Therefore Salary is liable for income tax. but pension is not liable for *Income Tax

✔ after retirement he/she is paid pension as a superannuation fund for his/her livelihood on account of serving for so many years.
● Here a question arises as ✔ why Income Tax is levied on pension.

✔This is not an
income for any
services or work.

✔This is only
a deferred wage
by the Deptt
to the employees who
have served the Deptt
for so many years.
Then why Income tax ❓

🎤Raise your voice and let it reach the
Govt. to discontinue the levy of Income taxn pension.
When MPs’ & MLAs’ pension is not taxable why our pension is Taxed❓👴🏼
Pass on this message to 20 of your friends with request to further pass
Let the Pensioners community & Civil society know the facts.
🙏🏼🙏🏼
R.S Varma, IAS (Rtd.)
President Govt.Pensioners
Welfare Association.,
Alld. † This movement is started by Sh. R.S.Verma sir, every pensioner should share it on face book, WhatsApp and every possible social media till it is successful in reaching its goal. Do share it now.

After the war, there was a great deal of debate in Pakistan on miscalculations that led to the conflict and in India on the national security gaps.

Lt Gen DS Hooda (retd)

Former Northern Army Commander

ON February 20, 1999, then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee embarked on a landmark diplomatic visit to Pakistan at the invitation of his Pakistani counterpart, Nawaz Sharif. The next day, the two PMs signed the Lahore Declaration, embodying their shared vision of peace and stability between their countries and of progress and prosperity for their peoples.

The declaration was enthusiastically hailed on both sides of the border, emerging from the shadows of the 1998 nuclear tests that had heightened tensions. Regrettably, the optimism turned out to be illusory. Even as Sharif was greeting Vajpayee at the Wagah border, Pakistani soldiers were crossing the Line of Control (LoC) in the Kargil sector and entrenching themselves on heights like Tololing and Tiger Hill, names that would become ingrained in public memory.

The geography of Kargil, with heights reaching 18,000 ft, posed extraordinary challenges. The war in such extreme conditions was a true test of resilience, and success was achieved because officers and soldiers displayed superhuman tenacity and a willingness to die for the country.

After the initial discovery of intrusions on May 3, a bloody battle lasted nearly three months before India declared victory on July 26. The Pakistan army denied involvement in the fighting and refused to acknowledge its fallen men, an ultimate dishonour to their sacrifice.

Although limited in scale and geographical spread, the Kargil War prompted a deep strategic analysis in both countries. There was a great deal of debate in Pakistan on the miscalculations that led to the conflict and in India on the national security gaps, including an intelligence failure due to which intrusions went undetected. Looking back, we can now assess how effectively the lessons that were learned have been applied by both countries.

Three days after the war, the Indian government constituted the Kargil Review Committee (KRC) to review the events leading to the Pakistani aggression and recommend measures to safeguard national security against armed intrusions. The committee noted that the political, bureaucratic, military and intelligence establishments had developed a vested interest in the status quo. It emphasised the need for a comprehensive review of the national security system, considering the Kargil experience, the ongoing proxy war and the nuclearised security environment.

The Group of Ministers’ (GoM) report, which followed the KRC, was arguably the most comprehensive examination of national security issues undertaken in independent India. Four task forces were established to evaluate the intelligence apparatus, internal security, border management and defence management, underscoring the seriousness of the post-war assessment.

The two reports led to many changes in the management of national security. The National Technical Research Organisation was formed in 2004 to handle centralised communication and electronic intelligence. The Defence Intelligence Agency was formed to cater to the military’s specific intelligence needs. A multi-agency centre was set up to foster better inter-agency information-sharing and coordination.

The defence establishment underwent some restructuring. This included the creation of an Integrated Defence Staff, the founding of the Strategic Forces and Andaman and Nicobar Commands, and the devolution of financial and administrative powers to the three services. The appointment of the Chief of Defence Staff, as recommended by the GoM, was made in 2020.

Some recommendations remain only partially implemented. The GoM had noted: “Multiplicity of forces on the same border has also led to a lack of accountability on the part of the forces. To enforce accountability, the principle of ‘one border, one force’ may be adopted while considering the deployment of forces at the border.” This principle has yet to be applied to the Line of Actual Control with China, where the Indian Army and the Indo-Tibetan Border Police are deployed under different command arrangements.

The GoM pointed out weaknesses such as the absence of a national security doctrine and the lack of commitment of funds to the military beyond the financial year. Other problems that needed to be addressed were greater integration of the service headquarters into the government and jointness in the armed forces. These shortfalls persist.

On the Pakistani side, there was much public debate on the Kargil debacle. The war exposed the skewed nature of civil-military relations, where military objectives were framed without political and diplomatic considerations. Nasim Zehra, in her book From Kargil to the Coup, writes that the army gave then PM Sharif the first detailed briefing on the operation on May 17. By this time, soldiers had already occupied positions across the LoC.

After the war, the role of the Generals who plotted it should have come under scrutiny. Instead, the Pakistan military sought to shift the blame to the political leadership, and growing distrust finally led to the military coup that ousted Sharif from power in October 1999.

The Kargil fiasco brought out forcefully that Pakistan’s use of the military option against India carried no gains. Not only would India react with superior force, but the international community would isolate Pakistan over such action. Rather than finding ways to reduce tensions with India, the Pakistan army fell back on the use of terrorists, and violence escalated in Jammu and Kashmir after the war.

Many experts opined that Pakistan should refrain from becoming obsessed with Kashmir and focus on building a strong economy. Shahid Amin, a former Pakistani diplomat, wrote that the country should become ruthlessly realistic about its limitations and priorities. Pakistan’s survival must precede everything else.

Nevertheless, the core issues that drove Pakistan into an unwinnable conflict remain largely unaddressed. The military still controls the reins in the country, the rhetoric over Kashmir continues, the economy is in dire straits and state support to terrorist organisations persists.

Today, India is a far stronger nation, and a Kargil-type scenario appears unlikely. However, the 1999 conflict revealed a level of recklessness in the Pakistani establishment, and the current state of affairs in that country does little to dispel that impression.

Dubai, April 18

Iran could review its “nuclear doctrine” following Israeli threats, a senior Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander said on Thursday, raising concerns about Tehran’s nuclear programme which it has always said was strictly for peaceful purposes.

Israel has said it will retaliate against Iran’s April 13 missile and drone attack, which Tehran says was carried out in response to a suspected Israeli strike on its embassy compound in Damascus earlier this month.

“The threats of the Zionist regime (Israel) against Iran’s nuclear facilities make it possible to review our nuclear doctrine and deviate from our previous considerations,” Ahmad Haghtalab, the Guards commander in charge of nuclear security, was quoted as saying by the semi-official Tasnim news agency. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has the last say on Tehran’s nuclear programme, which the West suspects has military purposes.

In 2021, Iran’s then-intelligence minister said Western pressure could push Tehran to seek nuclear weapons, the development of which Khamenei banned in a fatwa, or religious decree, in the early 2000s.

“Building and stockpiling nuclear bombs is wrong and using it is haram (religiously forbidden) … Although we have nuclear technology, Iran has firmly avoided it,” Khamenei reiterated in 2019.

Iran’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. “If the Zionist regime wants to take action against our nuclear centres and facilities, we will surely and categorically reciprocate with advanced missiles against their own nuclear sites,” Haghtalab said. Indirect talks between Tehran and Washington to revive Iran’s 2015 nuclear pact has stalled since 2022. — Reuters

Will strike with advanced missiles

If the Zionist regime wants to take action against our nuclear centres and facilities, we will surely and categorically reciprocate with advanced missiles against their own nuclear sites. — Ahmad Haghtalab, senior Iranian commander

Indian mission says remaining 16 sailors in good health and in touch with their kin

Tribune News Service

Sandeep Dikshit

New Delhi, April 18

The sole woman cadet among 17 Indian crew members of a merchant ship with Israeli links detained by Iran returned home on Thursday, while the other 16 Indian crew members on board the cargo ship have not been reportedly detained and are free to leave that country.

Modi’s guarantee works, says EAM

Woman cadet from Thrissur (Kerala) Ann Tessa Joseph landed at the Cochin International Airport, where she was received by the Regional Passport Officer.

Commenting on the development, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, who had spoken to his Iranian counterpart Amir Abdollahian on the matter earlier this week, said PM Narendra Modi’s guarantee worked not just within the country, but outside as well.

“Great work, @India_in_Iran. Glad that Ms. Ann Tessa Joseph has reached home. #ModiKiGuarantee always delivers, at home or abroad,” EAM Jaishankar posted on X.

Iran’s Ambassador to India Iraj Elahi said the Indian mission was given consular access to the Indians by the Iranian authorities. The other 16 Indian crew members onboard the ship had not been detained and they were free to leave Iran, Elahi added.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said it was in touch with the Iranian authorities to ensure the safe homecoming of the remaining Indian crew members of the vessel MSC Aries.

“With concerted efforts of the Indian mission in Tehran and the Iranian government, Indian deck cadet Ann Tessa Joseph from Thrissur, Kerala, who was among the Indian crew members of the container vessel MSC Aries, landed safely at the Cochin International Airport today afternoon,” said an MEA statement.

“The Indian mission is also in touch with the Iranian authorities in ensuring the wellbeing of the remaining crew members,” it added.

“The Indian mission in Tehran remains seized of the matter and is in touch with the remaining 16 Indian crew members. They are in good health and in contact with their family members in India,” it added.

The 17 Indians were part of the 25-member crew of the ship. The other members are Filipino, Pakistani, Russian and Estonian. The Israel-linked merchant vessel was seized by Iran on April 13, for allegedly violating maritime laws.