Siachen Glacier, Fighting On The Roof Of The World

[bandit]

Ok let me laugh first:

Ok here i go...


Allies-back then; let me laugh again

We needed them always and they were NOT our allies until someone kicked the remaining Jesus out of them on 9/11/01.

Get your history corrected!

You do realize you were supporting the Americans in Afghanistan or do you need a link for that as well?

Ok first, let's not talk about BS!

The ordering to the same supplier and Gen Musharraf etc etc, we can talk about it on a separate thread, or may be you want me to open the box of worms (starting from the IA officer involved with terrorists, Mr Modi the great, LTTE etc etc) on this thread? Because i dont want to.

Why get charged up, I was simply following your line of logic that if somebody makes a stupid mistake you should try him, I applied it to your side as well.

Oh and for the respect, i give them respect who demands it! i have stopped charitizing respect long ago!

Nobody is demanding respect and you may keep yours with you as I'm sure you have better uses for it.
Calling the other guy stupid just because you lost to him is being a bad loser.

 

[Kasrkin]

Expeditions meant mountaineering expeditions not millitary ones.

And only God knows why these were seen as such a big threat to India.

Pakistan started off with expeditions in an area which it knew would draw a response from India.

Yes because civilian mountaineering expeditions are such a bloody threat and military provocation? I’ve already told you, the area above Grid Reference NJ980420, which was where the LoC ended, was open to whichever side wanted to claim it as per agreement reached by the officers on both sides responsible for drawing up the LoC. India could’ve raised the issue peacefully if it thought something was unfair, but it was intent on militarily confronting the situation.

These created a threat for India that eventually this would lend credence to the Pakistani claim of having administrative control over the area, the Pakistani move into the area was in fact in line with its policy of incremental annexation into northern areas and siachen, there was no way India was going to stand by and let control of the territory it considered its own to be claimed by Pakistan. India's stand would have been weakened had Pakistan proved that it held administration of siachen.

This whole thing makes no sense. If you wish to convince yourself that somehow India's decision to invade the glacier was reasonable and justified, then you go right ahead. But as far as facts are concerned, India never approached the issue bilaterally or through a third party. India might have had a reasonable, and much less costly, chance of gaining joint control of the territory had it done so.

The operation came after Pakistan initiated intrusion into the area and India had specific information about Pakistanis preparing for high altitude warfare. So if you talk about joining the dots...there were plenty for India too.

India had no interest in siachen prior to 1978...Indian military had no presence there, they stepped in when they got information about Pakistan preparing for HAW, and you were there too, so our intelligence proved correct too.

I am growing tired of your consistent misinformation. It was Ms Gandhi's vexation with chorographical records and tourist expeditions which is what caused India to plan for Operation Cold-Messenger. NOT Pakistan's secret military plans invade the region.

Gandhi's vexation was correct as it was Indian territory that was being showed on international maps as Pakistani, and Pakistanis were giving it credence by sending in foreign expeditions. If Pakistan wanted to avoid conflict, it should not have interfered with siachen and let it alone.

The planning and training for your operation were already well underway when you guys got wind that we had gotten wind of your plans (a intelligence blunder on our part) which is what further spurred pace of your operation. Now I'm so tired of telling you this. India had military plans for the glacier first, ours were reactionary. Tourist expeditions are NOT military plans.

If Pakistan wanted conflict we could've deployed there before India even noticed that foreign expeditions were going through us. It was race to the top, a race we only entered once we saw that the Indians were in a full sprint towards the finish line. We lost the race, because it was not something we initiated.

Now unless you can prove that Pakistan planned to invade Sicahen before India decided to do the same, I suggest you drop your claims. Tourist expeditions in themselves are not ‘proof’ of Pakistan’s ill intentions, given the understanding reached by Simla. This was what vexed Ms Gandhi and other adventurist militarists in India. The fact is that Pakistan tried and failed to preempt India’s military maneuver, the Indians however had clear plans from the start which were sped up, but not initiated, by intelligence indicating the Pakistanis had got wind of their plans.

 

[sonicboom]

A question for Pakistani readers:

Pakistan has been spending $1 million/day (according to ‘The News’) to maintain troops at Siachen since 1984. That amounts to $365 Million per year and more than $9 billion over the period of 25 years.

I am just wondering how many squadrons of F-16 Pakistan could have bought from that money? Not sure what’s more important for Pakistan; Sicahen or F-16?

Your comments please?

 

[Kasrkin]

Six, maybe seven F-16s per year. But the cost is nearly 10 times as higher on the Indian side.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not sure what’s more important for Pakistan; Sicahen or F-16?

Your comments please?

Whats more important - allowing an aggressor to occupy more and more of your land, and use the savings to buy weaponry to prevent the aggressor from occupying more and more of your land ....

Its a 'chicken or the egg' kind of argument.

India is a bully, and if you let a bully get away with one thing, expect the bully to come back and whip your whimpering arse for more.

So, your question again - Siachen or F-16's?

We have maintained a sufficient conventional and unconventional deterrent without retreating from Siachen - the decision taken was correct.

 

[bandit]

And only God knows why these were seen as such a big threat to India.



Yes because civilian mountaineering expeditions are such a bloody threat and military provocation? I’ve already told you, the area above Grid Reference NJ980420, which was where the LoC ended, was open to whichever side wanted to claim it as per agreement reached by the officers on both sides responsible for drawing up the LoC. India could’ve raised the issue peacefully if it thought something was unfair, but it was intent on militarily confronting the situation. .

Civilian military operations lent credibility to the Pakistani claim of being in control of these areas, Pakistani sponsoring of these expeditions asserted its control over the area and thus made a case for future argument...India could not have somebody just coming in into its territory and authorizing expeditions. This made clear the Pakistani intentions of asserting control over the territory, its not that hard to understand what Pakistanis were trying to do. If Pakistan was so interested in peacefully resolving it it shouldn't have taken unilateral steps to assert control by providing permissions to access those areas.

I am growing tired of your consistent misinformation. It was Ms Gandhi's vexation with chorographical records and tourist expeditions which is what caused India to plan for Operation Cold-Messenger. NOT Pakistan's secret military plans invade the region.

Now unless you can prove that Pakistan planned to invade Sicahen before India decided to do the same, I suggest you drop your claims.

Pakistan starts sending in expeditions-->asserting control over the territory by issuing permits-->international maps start showing the area in Pakistan-->Pakistan suddenly orders a whole lot HAW equipment-->what's your guess it'll do next?

Now unless you can prove that Pakistan planned to invade Sicahen before India decided to do the same, I suggest you drop your claims. Tourist expeditions in themselves are not ‘proof’ of Pakistan’s ill intentions, given the understanding reached by Simla. This was what vexed Ms Gandhi and other adventurist militarists in India. The fact is that Pakistan tried and failed to preempt India’s military maneuver, the Indians however had clear plans from the start which were sped up, but not initiated, by intelligence indicating the Pakistanis had got wind of their plans.

Now unless you can prove that I suggest you drop your claims sir.

 

[MZUBAIR]

A question for Pakistani readers:

Pakistan has been spending $1 million/day (according to ‘The News’) to maintain troops at Siachen since 1984. That amounts to $365 Million per year and more than $9 billion over the period of 25 years.

I am just wondering how many squadrons of F-16 Pakistan could have bought from that money? Not sure what’s more important for Pakistan; Sicahen or F-16?

Your comments please?

Plz provide the link..............$1 million/day is a huge amount.

 

[Kasrkin]

Civilian military operations lent credibility to the Pakistani claim of being in control of these areas, Pakistani sponsoring of these expeditions asserted its control over the area and thus made a case for future argument...India could not have somebody just coming in into its territory and authorizing expeditions.

Now you assert that it was Indian territory. Based on what? International maps certainly considered it part of Azad Kashmir, as did geographical realities. As I’m sure you know, we give a lot of freedom to non-Pakistanis expressing their point of views and debating issues with us. BUT I cannot allow for you to continue blurting nonsensical and jingoist rhetoric at the expense of a reasonable discussion. Siachen was, at best, territory open to dispute. Claiming it was India’s won’t make it so. Your arguments based on ‘it was India’s so no one had a right to be there’ is pushing the line of our logical tolerance.

If Pakistan was so interested in peacefully resolving it it shouldn't have taken unilateral steps to assert control by providing permissions to access those areas.

There was NO “resolving” needed to speak of. As per terms of the Simla agreement, who ever wanted to access the territory was welcome to it. It was India that over-reacted, Pakistan cannot be blamed for which.

Pakistan starts sending in expeditions-->asserting control over the territory by issuing permits-->international maps start showing the area in Pakistan-->Pakistan suddenly orders a whole lot HAW equipment-->what's your guess it'll do next?

Don’t distort facts, consider this your last warning. I have made things amply clear for you.

International specialists consider it part of Pakistani Kashmir-Pakistan allows for civilian expeditions (it would’ve been a logistical nightmare for civilians to try and go through the Indian side)-India orders a whole lot of HAW equipment, sends training expeditions to Antarctica, orders specialized glacier-mounting equipmentPakistanis notice and try to take preventive measures (unfortunately we contacted the same British company the Indians were in contact with for their Siachen gear)-Indians get tipped off and speed up their already advanced preparations-Indians fly troops there before Pakistani troops are rushed in and take control of 2/3 of the glacier.

Now unless you can prove that I suggest you drop your claims sir.

Each and everything I’ve said can be attested in Cloughley’s work. His authority is more proof than anything you’ve provided so far. He makes it very clear in his article, which you just tried to refute, that it was an Indian blunder. His book makes it even more explicit. Now I suggest you stop wasting time with circular arguments. If you’re incapable of believing or comprehending what I’ve said or what respected observers like Cloughley have to say, then that’s your call. You haven’t backed up your claim of India having reacted to a Pakistani military maneuver or imminent maneuver, thus I’m concluding you’ve had your say. Facts and our respective arguments speak for themselves.

 

[bandit]

Now you assert that it was Indian territory. Based on what? International maps certainly considered it part of Azad Kashmir, as did geographical realities. As I’m sure you know, we give a lot of freedom to non-Pakistanis expressing their point of views and debating issues with us. BUT I cannot allow for you to continue blurting nonsensical and jingoist rhetoric at the expense of a reasonable discussion. Siachen was, at best, territory open to dispute. Claiming it was India’s won’t make it so. Your arguments based on ‘it was India’s so no one had a right to be there’ is pushing the line of our logical tolerance.

I didn't claim that, that's what the Indian stand has been. Its territory open to dispute is your governments contention.
That line of logic is pretty skewed.

There was NO “resolving” needed to speak of. As per terms of the Simla agreement, who ever wanted to access the territory was welcome to it. It was India that over-reacted, Pakistan cannot be blamed for which.

Reacted or over-reacted, you claim it was disputed, why did Pakistan
start showing it in their maps.

Don’t distort facts, consider this your last warning. I have made things amply clear for you.

International specialists consider it part of Pakistani Kashmir-Pakistan allows for civilian expeditions (it would’ve been a logistical nightmare for civilians to try and go through the Indian side)-India orders a whole lot of HAW equipment, sends training expeditions to Antarctica, orders specialized glacier-mounting equipmentPakistanis notice and try to take preventive measures (unfortunately we contacted the same British company the Indians were in contact with for their Siachen gear)-Indians get tipped off and speed up their already advanced preparations-Indians fly troops there before Pakistani troops are rushed in and take control of 2/3 of the glacier.


Each and everything I’ve said can be attested in Cloughley’s work. His authority is more proof than anything you’ve provided so far. He makes it very clear in his article, which you just tried to refute, that it was an Indian blunder. His book makes it even more explicit. Now I suggest you stop wasting time with circular arguments. If you’re incapable of believing or comprehending what I’ve said or what respected observers like Cloughley have to say, then that’s your call. You haven’t backed up your claim of India having reacted to a Pakistani military maneuver or imminent maneuver, thus I’m concluding you’ve had your say. Facts and our respective arguments speak for themselves.

Which fact is distorted...each one of that is well known...them leading to the conclusion that Pakistan was indeed planning something may make them distorted to you.

As for the claim

"According to Chibber, the Indian military operation, codenamed 'Meghdoot' (Cloud Messenger), resulted from intelligence reports that pakistan was planning to establish a military operation to claim the glacier"-Lt. Gen. M.L. Chibber, the head of the northern command at that time.

 

[Kasrkin]

I didn't claim that, that's what the Indian stand has been. Its territory open to dispute is your governments contention.

By what authority are you claiming that it is yours? In the Simla Agreement it was decided that whoever wanted the territory was welcome to it. If you keep on repeating rhetoric which has been effectively refuted, and you’re unable to substantiate it, a line will be crossed. You've circumvented all my explanations to jump on that same notion again and again that only India has a right over it. If my assertion, that we can consider it legally ambiguous in terms of official possession, is skewed, then what is your baseless and unbending contention that it is part of India period, if not skewed?

Reacted or over-reacted, you claim it was disputed, why did Pakistan start showing it in their maps.

Everyone was showing it to be Pakistani on their maps. Pakistan facilitated civilian tourist expeditions there because through Pakistan was the logical way to go, which is NOT against the Simla Agreement. And nowhere in hell does/did it say that the glacier belonged to India.

As for the claim

Link your claim. Thats enough bickering from you.

 

[bandit]

By what authority are you claiming that it is yours? In the Simla Agreement it was decided that whoever wanted the territory was welcome to it. If you keep on repeating rhetoric which has been effectively refuted, and you’re unable to substantiate it, a line will be crossed. You've circumvented all my explanations to jump on that same notion again and again that only India has a right over it. If my assertion, that we can consider it legally ambiguous in terms of official possession, is skewed, then what is your baseless and unbending contention that it is part of India period, if not skewed?

Your refute is based on the Simla agreement-

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the subcontinent so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their people.
In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan have agreed as follows:
(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.
(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.
(iii) That the prerequisite for reconciliation, good neighbourliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both the countries to peaceful coexistence respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty and noninterference in each other's internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit.
(iv) That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedeviled the relations between the two countries for the last 25 years shall be resolved by peaceful means.
(v) That they shall always respect each other's national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality.
(vi) That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, they will refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.
Both governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda directed against each other. Both countries will encourage the dissemination of such information as would promote the development of friendly relations between them.
In order progressively to restore and normalise relations between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that:
(i) Steps shall be taken to resume communications, postal, telegraphic, sea, land, including border posts, and air links, including over flights.
(ii) Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the other country.
(iii) Trade and cooperation in economic and other agreed fields will be resumed as far as possible.
(iv) Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be promoted.
In this connection delegations from the two countries will meet from time to time to work out the necessary details.
In order to initiate the process of the establishment of durable peace, both the governments agree that:
(i) Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border.
(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.
(iii) The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this agreement and shall be completed within a period of 30 days thereof.
This agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on which the instruments of ratification are exchanged.
Both governments agree that their respective heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that in the meanwhile the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of durable peace and normalisation of relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of diplomatic relations.
Quaid-e-Awam President Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Indira Gandhi Prime Minister Republic of India
Simla, the 2 July 1972.
– Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Indira Gandhi.[3]

Where is the term freely accessible mentioned??....or for that matter even siachen?

Everyone was showing it to be Pakistani on their maps. Pakistan facilitated civilian tourist expeditions there because through Pakistan was the logical way to go, which is NOT against the Simla Agreement. And nowhere in hell does/did it say that the glacier belonged to India.

Everyone showing it does not lend it validity. Simla agreement didn't say it was India's, neither did it say it was Pakistan's. Both country's have their own interpretations northwards of point NJ9842.

The Simla agreement does say something about it though

(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.

Link your claim. Thats enough bickering from you.

Sure buddy.
Page 84.

Conflict unending: India-Pakistan ... - Google Books

 

[sonicboom]

Plz provide the link..............$1 million/day is a huge amount.

Siachen: a global threat?

The heavy economic cost (Pakistan with $ 1 million/day and India $2 million/day) to maintain troops at Siachen since 1984 continues to be a financial disaster for both countries.


Pakistan, India spend $3m daily on Siachen troops

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan and India have put their economies at stake as they spend $3 million per day on maintaining troops on Siachen glacier, reveals the report, written by Ilmas Futehally, Semu Bhatt and Niaz A Naek.

 

[Kasrkin]

Where is the term freely accessible mentioned??....or for that matter even siachen?

Did you not follow my posts? It was an unwritten agreement between the officers responsible for the demarcation of Kashmir. Why do you think the LoC was ended at Grid Reference NJ980420? Read Cloughley's book, it is widely available.

Everyone showing it does not lend it validity.

Yes because its only the Indians who have all the credible authority in the world.

Simla agreement didn't say it was India's, neither did it say it was Pakistan's. Both country's have their own interpretations northwards of point NJ9842.

Which is what I've said. The matter could've been settled through discussion but India prefered to pursue a military solution, against the understanding reached at Simla, that all issues be addressed peacefully.

The link you posted is from a book written from an Indian writer. I'll go over it and get back to you if I have time. Needless to say, I would lend more credibility to neutral sources. The reality of the situation cannot be refuted based on a comment from an Indian general. A Pakistani general told me a different story, one attested by neutral sources.

 

[bandit]

Yes because its only the Indians who have all the credible authority in the world.

Which is what I've said. The matter could've been settled through discussion but India prefered to pursue a military solution, against the understanding reached at Simla, that all issues be addressed peacefully.

In our national matters we prefer our own. And you missed the point that it is explicitly mentioned in the simla agreement, that no country would explicitly alter it.
If there was an understanding, clearly Pakistan violated it by showing the area in it's maps.

The link you posted is from a book written from an Indian writer. I'll go over it and get back to you if I have time. Needless to say, I would lend more credibility to neutral sources. The reality of the situation cannot be refuted based on a comment from an Indian general. A Pakistani general told me a different story, one attested by neutral sources.

I'll try to find neutral sources since you insist. I'll try to get a look at cloughley too, as you speak so highly of him.

 

[sonicboom]

Whats more important - allowing an aggressor to occupy more and more of your land, and use the savings to buy weaponry to prevent the aggressor from occupying more and more of your land ....

Its a 'chicken or the egg' kind of argument.

India is a bully, and if you let a bully get away with one thing, expect the bully to come back and whip your whimpering arse for more.

So, your question again - Siachen or F-16's?

We have maintained a sufficient conventional and unconventional deterrent without retreating from Siachen - the decision taken was correct.

One point of view. Thank you.

May I, and if you will, say that this notion of yours ‘conventional and unconventional deterrent’ has never worked in the past and will not work in the future either? It’s about time that we change our thought process, quit making stupid blunders, get out of this deterrent mode and take an aggressive role. That’s the only way to survive in this world ‘Gis ki Lathi us ki Bhense’.