Siachen Glacier, Fighting On The Roof Of The World

[blain2]

That just the point I was making, Indo - Pak issues are dealt with by both beligerents from the heart most times not from the head. No one in the " right minds" would prolong a conflict for so long, no one would be blind to the realities on the ground and expect a change in the ground position line after trying futilely for over 60 yrs.

We all must grant others the same level of intellect we claim for ourselves.

Seen from an outsider's perspective it obviously wouldn't make sense. If Pak finds it futile it could simply veirfy where the troops are and withdraw. So would the indians.

Third,

The problem for Pakistan is that as soon as it verifies the existing positions (AGPL), India can use it to her benefit in a future discussion. The fact that the territory is under dispute (that is why you have two armies eyeballing each other), verification and signing off on the AGPLs is akin to Pakistan presenting Siachen on a platter and walking away from it.

I am sure all of the Indians and you are exactly aware of the above, if you insist otherwise, it obviously won't work for the other side (I.E. Pakistan).

I think the solution for both is to seek some UN arbitration to de-militarize the region to pre-1984 lines and then make a deal that the glacier will not be militarized. Its a hard task especially because the two countries do not have a track record of working things out, but it has to start somewhere.

In the absence of such an accommodation by both sides under the aegis of a neutral party, neither side will agree to what is being proposed by the other side and life will go on as it has been.

 

[Kasrkin]

I meant this.


If someone wants to be known as a pro, we have the right to seek the qualification.

I'm afraid I never claimed to be a 'pro' or an 'expert', merely an impartial observer in relation to a particular endeavor where as you are obviously not. Your love for your army and some hearsay has obviously deluded you as to the ground realities, and I have contradicted you and you obviously don’t have anything to dispute that with.

But you seem to be an expert at switching tracks though, this topic is not about Pakistani military 'blunders' and even if I agree that Kargil was a bad idea I don’t have to say it over here but you should at least have the honor to admit that you were wrong, and it has been proved so.

What kind of pathetic sub-personal attack was that? Like I said why would we be enthusiastic about India's military blunders? That’s what I said, if you would have read it with an unemotional eye. "un-Indian affiliated observers realistically commenting on the aspects of India's" Why does that statement offend you so? What part of it is untrue? Are we Indian affiliated? No. Was the Siachen idea India's blunder? Yes as stated by my source.

Are you taking the conversation to a mature level or dragging it down to pointless bickering? Since I came to this forum I have noticed that it is impulsive quality with some people, when they have soundly lost an argument they say "Ohh but you do that too, you are worse than us". So childish, so silly.

If you don’t have the ability to own up to being wrong, like I noted a few posts ago. You should atleast have the decency to leave the thread like I did after proving my point(and in your case failing to do so).

I agree without reservations and would like you to reflect on it instead of just making such profound statements.

That “profound” statement was written in light your less than professional attitude in this thread, not mine. I will bloody well reflect on it when Pakistan’s military initiatives are being considered, not here. Trying to suggest that I have been anything less than objective here shows that you are just punching air and any blind man can see that.

 

[third eye]

Third,

The problem for Pakistan is that as soon as it verifies the existing positions (AGPL), India can use it to her benefit in a future discussion. The fact that the territory is under dispute (that is why you have two armies eyeballing each other), verification and signing off on the AGPLs is akin to Pakistan presenting Siachen on a platter and walking away from it.

I am sure all of the Indians and you are exactly aware of the above, if you insist otherwise, it obviously won't work for the other side (I.E. Pakistan).

I think the solution for both is to seek some UN arbitration to de-militarize the region to pre-1984 lines and then make a deal that the glacier will not be militarized. Its a hard task especially because the two countries do not have a track record of working things out, but it has to start somewhere.

In the absence of such an accommodation by both sides under the aegis of a neutral party, neither side will agree to what is being proposed by the other side and life will go on as it has been.

Blain,

I was merely responding to laments I read here on the loss of lives & money being spent by keeping troops there.

Pak wants to go back to '84 coz its is at a disadvantage now viz a viz IA positions. India moved in early ..Pak years later tried unsucessfully to alter the LAC in Kargil to undo / apply pressure on Siachen... didn't work. Having lost so many lives & put in so much hard work no army will pull back unless its work is validated / accepted.

India has learnt it the hard way by vacating " winter posts " in Kargil while Vajpayee - Nawaz were signing the Lahore accord.


You cannot expect any army to do this without safeguards.Whats going to happen is that status quo will remain.

As far as 3rd party mediation is concerned... No. Life, as you said will go on..

 

[Contrarian]

Not necessarily contesting your assertion that casualties are down, but how is this DRDO?

Yep, the imported equipment plays its part, but other essential stuff like better communication gear, medical equipment like HAPO bags, etc, etc have become lifesavers. Better commercial winter protection is ofcourse a major factor.

 

[Contrarian]

Malay, based on what I have heard, the ceasefire definitely has had an indirect role in the reduction of casualties on both sides. Neither side is taking aggressive risks, positions that have been remain as they were. The sense of urgency is also not at the same level as it was before to supply and support positions (although the normal dumping still goes on). Secondly, over the years, the ability to evacuate has improved as well.

You would be surprised to know that a majority of the Indian posts in the Siachen area follow wartime protocols till date, even after the cessation of hostilities for so long.

I am sure DRDO is providing rations and stuff of that nature, however most of the personal equipment in use on the glacier for officers and jawans is being provided by Alpine based firms like Koflach (which I know for sure is providing gear like footwear for the Indian Army). Pakistan has other suppliers. Neither India nor Pakistan have the technology to develop such gear in house which has been constantly improving the comfort levels of the troops and providing greater protection in the cold.

Yes mate, commercial winter gear has definitely improved, but i was talking of many other things apart from better winter clothes.

 

[Contrarian]

Third,

The problem for Pakistan is that as soon as it verifies the existing positions (AGPL), India can use it to her benefit in a future discussion. The fact that the territory is under dispute (that is why you have two armies eyeballing each other), verification and signing off on the AGPLs is akin to Pakistan presenting Siachen on a platter and walking away from it.

I am sure all of the Indians and you are exactly aware of the above, if you insist otherwise, it obviously won't work for the other side (I.E. Pakistan).

I think the solution for both is to seek some UN arbitration to de-militarize the region to pre-1984 lines and then make a deal that the glacier will not be militarized. Its a hard task especially because the two countries do not have a track record of working things out, but it has to start somewhere.

In the absence of such an accommodation by both sides under the aegis of a neutral party, neither side will agree to what is being proposed by the other side and life will go on as it has been.

The military(Indian) has flatly refused from going back down from the Glacier without any sort of authentication by Pakistan of the Indian held positions. If you remember some time back, Siachen was in the news a lot and there was a lot of talk about demiliterization, at that time the GoI seriously wanted to resolve the problem, but the military persisted.

They are highly suspicious that the Pakistani Army would send their troops to occupy Indian positions and then later claim that the 'mujahideen' did it. They want authentication of both positions by both parties or else they would not vacate. Ofcourse if the govt orders it, then they have to follow, but the Army has stated its opinion in no uncertain terms.

 

[Vinod2070]

I'm afraid I never claimed to be a 'pro' or an 'expert', merely an impartial observer in relation to a particular endeavor where as you are obviously not. Your love for your army and some hearsay has obviously deluded you as to the ground realities, and I have contradicted you and you obviously don’t have anything to dispute that with.

But you seem to be an expert at switching tracks though, this topic is not about Pakistani military 'blunders' and even if I agree that Kargil was a bad idea I don’t have to say it over here but you should at least have the honor to admit that you were wrong, and it has been proved so.

My bad for bringing the Pakistani army here. But I did not see much impartiality in anyone being an "observer of India's military blunders". I have hardly seen anyone impartial who looks for blunders with a Microscope. If you are impartial you will look for the goo, bad and the ugly.

So you see the contradiction in your claims!

What kind of pathetic sub-personal attack was that? Like I said why would we be enthusiastic about India's military blunders? That’s what I said, if you would have read it with an unemotional eye. "un-Indian affiliated observers realistically commenting on the aspects of India's" Why does that statement offend you so? What part of it is untrue? Are we Indian affiliated? No. Was the Siachen idea India's blunder? Yes as stated by my source.

Well I did not make any personal or "sub-personal" attack. I am not sure why it seemed like that to you.

You are not Indian affiliated for sure, you are Pakistan affiliated which does not confer an automatic neutrality as far as Indian military affairs are concerned.

If you have been able to remain neutral, congratulations.

Was Siachin a blunder? I don't think the last word has been said on that. At least it affords India a wedge, you know where, that may need to be used some day. I hope that day does not come any time soon or ever.

At least we have to agree that Pakistan tried to take it militarily so the perceptions that it is an important territory is mutual if misplaced.

Are you taking the conversation to a mature level or dragging it down to pointless bickering? Since I came to this forum I have noticed that it is impulsive quality with some people, when they have soundly lost an argument they say "Ohh but you do that too, you are worse than us". So childish, so silly.

If you don’t have the ability to own up to being wrong, like I noted a few posts ago. You should atleast have the decency to leave the thread like I did after proving my point(and in your case failing to do so).

I agree. The post needs to keep to the topic and my bad is I made some diversions.

That “profound” statement was written in light your less than professional attitude in this thread, not mine. I will bloody well reflect on it when Pakistan’s military initiatives are being considered, not here. Trying to suggest that I have been anything less than objective here shows that you are just punching air and any blind man can see that.

Same as above.

 

[blain2]

Life, as you said will go on..

Yep that pretty much sums up the situation for the present and future.

 

[blain2]

You would be surprised to know that a majority of the Indian posts in the Siachen area follow wartime protocols till date, even after the cessation of hostilities for so long.

I am not surprised and its pretty much a norm (thus I stated the usual supply, dumping for fwd positions goes on). The difference is that neither side is taking any aggressive measures. Most of the losses were due to pushing patrols out and losing men to either the terrain or the cold.

Yes mate, commercial winter gear has definitely improved, but i was talking of many other things apart from better winter clothes.

The two key things that have made a big difference are the winter clothing and protection. Neither of quality are being produced in house in India. As I mentioned I am sure there are things here and there but the key equipment on both sides is being imported.

I saw the stuff that DRDO is producing for use on the glacier and most of it was MREs, light duty stuff.

 

[blain2]

The military(Indian) has flatly refused from going back down from the Glacier without any sort of authentication by Pakistan of the Indian held positions. If you remember some time back, Siachen was in the news a lot and there was a lot of talk about demiliterization, at that time the GoI seriously wanted to resolve the problem, but the military persisted.

They are highly suspicious that the Pakistani Army would send their troops to occupy Indian positions and then later claim that the 'mujahideen' did it. They want authentication of both positions by both parties or else they would not vacate. Ofcourse if the govt orders it, then they have to follow, but the Army has stated its opinion in no uncertain terms.

I understand the concern, however on the Pakistani side the concerns are equally valid as I have mentioned above. I do not think that authenticating AGPL on a disputed tract of land is an option for Pakistan . So its status-quo pretty much.

 

[fatman17]

Leaving Siachen to fester!

Khalid Saleem

The reader may not need reminding of the developments related to the Siachin dispute between Pakistan and India. For one thing, the fact that the US army commander felt the urge to join the Indian army chaps on a visit to the Indian base in the disputed Siachin region must have (and did) surprised some observers.

That its military commander should opt to visit only one side of a disputed area - and that too without informing Pakistan - does cast a shadow of sorts over the professed non-partisan image of the United States. It would bear repetition that the stand off at Siachin (that has been graphically described as the highest battlefield in the world) is a direct result of the most blatant violation by India of the Simla agreement of 1972. While Indian policy makers have been reverently professing the sanctity of the Simla accord, they simultaneously take the stand that the “ground reality” at Siachin be accepted as a fait accompli. In other words, they would like to eat their cake and have it too. And now the American action appears to have lent respectability to the Indian untenable position. So much for their non-partisan image!

Two years ago, the Indian establishment had tried to rewrite the rules of the game when they announced the launching of expeditions of trekkers onto the Siachin glacier. A somewhat lame protest lodged by Pakistan was unceremoniously swept aside by an Indian military spokesman.

The Indian Defense Minister speaking to the reporters volunteered the information that, “In July there have been teams with members from the US, France and Australia” and that in the past year as many as 15 military trekking teams had visited the Siachin glacier. For good measure he went on to add, “The whole of Jammu and Kashmir is Indian territory. What is the problem?” If this did not constitute thumbing the nose at the so-called composite peace process, one would like to be informed what is. There have been several bits of news, datelined New Delhi, on the subject of Siachin.

The Indian Army, it appears, organized “a civilian mountaineering and trekking expedition” to the Siachin Glacier for the second year in a row. Despite somewhat feeble protests from Pakistan, India continued to maintain that it does not need Pakistan’s approval to send trekkers to Siachin “since it is essentially Indian territory”. Despite umpteen sessions between the two sides and several optimistic prognoses emanating from oracles of the past regime, one has yet to hear what may be termed as good news in so far as the Siachin imbroglio goes. Meanwhile, a serious environmental problem appears to have cropped up in regard to the Siachin glacier area. International experts have warned that unless the two armies vacated the area, there is serious danger of melting of the glacier that could lead to widespread destruction in the area.

A number of reports and studies warn of an impending environmental catastrophe as a result of melting of the glacier. Resolution of the issue would thus be an important step towards saving the glacier and the environment. This new realization should shake the two sides from the stupor that has enveloped them for far too long.

The dispute had its beginning - circa 1982-83 - when India, taking advantage of the delivery of French high altitude helicopters, landed its troops and set up military posts on the Saltoro range. Prior to that, the entire area of the Siachen glacier was internationally recognized as being under the de facto administrative control of the Pakistan authorities, a fact that was not disputed by India at the time of the signing of the Simla accord.

Since the time of the Indian excursion, the forces of India and Pakistan have faced each other eyeball to eyeball in what has been graphically described as the world’s highest battlefield. It is perhaps the only battlefield in which more casualties have been the result of inhospitable climatic conditions than due to actual military operations. The confrontation in the Siachen area has been hurting both sides in terms of casualties as well as mounting unproductive expenditure. In 1989, the then Indian Prime Minister had expressed willingness to sign an agreement based on unconditional withdrawal of the troops of both sides to conform to pre-Simla positions.

Regrettably, the Indian government changed its mind before the agreement was ready for signature. Since that time, Indian negotiators have been blowing hot and cold in the same breath and the matter has been hanging fire. If anything, the attitude of the Indian establishment appears to be hardening at every step. This state of affairs hardly gives cause for optimism.

Now, with the danger of an impending environmental catastrophe on the horizon, time is of the essence. Siachin issue demands urgent attention of both parties. The question is: will the two sides heed the writing on the wall or will they continue on their bumbling path until the environment catastrophe materializes? The meandering way in which the India-Pakistan relations appear to be moving hardly gives cause for much optimism.

One may be excused for looking askance at the so-called composite dialogue. The more one looks at its “results” the more it appears to be a dialogue of the deaf. Instead of leading the common man on both sides up the garden path, would it not be the decent thing to do to let him know the facts. And should the two establishments also not recognize that the path of CBMs is strewn with pitfalls that can be damaging for the peace-wagon, considering that it is already foundering on the rocks of non-credibility?

 

[fatman17]

opinion: Siachen — time for settlement —Brian Cloughley

It is high time there was peaceful agreement about this absurd state of affairs. India and Pakistan should withdraw their troops by mutual arrangement and leave Siachen as it was before 1984 — militarily unoccupied and valueless to all but mountaineers

The Musharraf-Vajpayee summit of 2001 took place in Delhi on 14-16 July, and there is a meeting between Prime Ministers Yousaf Raza Gilani and Manmohan Singh in Egypt today, July 16. Perhaps there is something about July that encourages discussion, but it is regrettable that little of substance has emerged from India-Pakistan dialogue in that or any other month.

Exactly twenty years ago, when Benazir Bhutto was prime minister, the armies of India and Pakistan were confronting each other in the Siachen Glacier region, but it was recorded by the International Institute for Strategic Studies that “in the face of a disheartening history of hostile relations, Bhutto is trying to navigate a smoother course with India”.

In the course of navigation, Ms Bhutto invited Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to visit Pakistan, and twenty years ago today, on July 16, 1989, she went to greet him at Islamabad Airport where she said Siachen was a difficult problem but “we will definitely take advantage of Mr Rajiv’s visit to make movement on the issue”.

Alas, there was no movement as regards Siachen or any other dispute.

The reasons for India’s invasion of Siachen in 1984 are a mystery, but a brilliant Indian analyst, Colonel (retd) Pavan Nair, wrote a penetrating study in India’s Economic and Political Weekly last March and concluded that the incursion, Operation Meghdoot, was a “strategic blunder”. (See also two excellent books about the Siachen debacle, Heights of Madness by Myra MacDonald of Reuters, and Siachen: Conflict Without End by the estimable Lieutenant General VR Raghavan.)

The Siachen conflict has shown that the countries’ leaders are unable to agree on a key matter that could be resolved by the stroke of a pen, without cost to either in terms of prestige, vital territory or national finances.

Resolution of the Siachen confrontation would save soldiers’ lives, remove significant economic penalties, and show the world that India and Pakistan can set an example in peacefully resolving a bizarre and useless quarrel. So why can’t Delhi and Islamabad bring themselves to the sticking point?

There has been no fighting in Siachen for almost five years but the toll from non-combat menaces such as avalanches and lung disease continues. As declared by retired Indian Air Force Group Captain AG Bewoor in 2003, “Siachen is not worth another dead soldier; it never was.” Now there’s a man of common sense.

As I have written elsewhere, Delhi could have made a reasonable case in international law for a claim on Siachen, but chose force rather than negotiation, thereby breaking the 1972 Simla accord. “That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means” — just as Pakistan violated it by invading Kargil ten years ago.

India’s claim was based on the fact that the Line of Control ended at Grid Reference NJ980420, near Kargil, further delineation being limited to the vague phrase “then north to the glaciers”. But India came to consider, twelve years after agreeing with Pakistan about the division, that because there was no formal accord governing the barren lands between the end of the Line and the Chinese border, the area should belong to India. Mrs Gandhi ordered invasion, whereupon Pakistan rushed troops to the area, but not in time to enable tactical parity.

Fighting went on, and soldiers died for nothing but the pompous pride of politicians (such a common occurrence around the world; look at Britain in Afghanistan), but in June 1989 it appeared there was agreement about Siachen, because the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan, Mr SK Singh and Mr Humayun Khan, met in Islamabad and, as reported by the BBC, “At a joint news conference Mr Khan announced that both sides have now decided to withdraw to the positions that they held at the time of the Simla Accord.” And Mr Singh publicly concurred with what was said by his counterpart.

It seemed that, at long last, senior representatives of the countries were authorised to take decisions that would pave the way for further confidence-building measures, but this was not the case.

A “clarification” was issued by India’s Ministry of External Affairs. The “chronology of events”, said a spokesman, had been “muddled and confused”. He went on to explain that “the Indian foreign secretary had endorsed the Pakistani foreign secretary’s observations on their talks, whereas the report has made out as if he had endorsed the Pakistan foreign secretary’s remarks on the defence secretaries’ talks.” Which statement was, of course, not muddled or confusing. Delhi denied “that Pakistan and India had reached an agreement on this issue.”

In June 2005 Dr Manmohan Singh said that “Siachen is called the highest battlefield where living is very difficult... Our efforts should be that such an environment of peace is created wherein nobody feels any threats, and there is no scope for a conflict, and this place becomes an example of peace.”

But then he declared that “we feel these [Siachen] boundaries are important not only for our security but it relates to the country’s prestige also.”

So, following today’s meeting between Dr Singh and Mr Gilani, can we expect any movement on Siachen, as desired by Ms Bhutto twenty years ago?

It is high time there was peaceful agreement about this absurd state of affairs. India and Pakistan should withdraw their troops by mutual arrangement and leave Siachen as it was before 1984 — militarily unoccupied and valueless to all but mountaineers: the “example of peace” so desired by Dr Singh. It would be magnificent if India and Pakistan could set an example to the world in conflict resolution. The prime ministers would go down in history, deservedly, as peacemakers.

A Nobel recognition would not be excessive were they to achieve agreement. Indeed it would be almost guaranteed for both of them.

Or are July meetings doomed to failure because the political curses of “prestige” and national pride are more important than lives and common sense?

The writer can be found on the web at Brian Cloughley

 

[dizzy heights]

Sir,

It has been reported earlier that 'Siachen' is also the place were many important rivers are originating,so the party occupying it has an advantage on water resources. Since fresh water is going to be precious commodity in the future,may be Indians are ready to continue the occupation.

Is there any logic behind such an analysis?

 

[blain2]

Siachen is a waste that is concealed under the garb of faulty national pride. Pragmatic leadership on both sides can put this behind us but the egos are too large for the two sides to settle.

Regardless of who has this fountain's head (literally), there is nothing that can be done to block the flow of water from up north downwards. Secondly, both countries are signatories to conventions that ensure that the upstream country (in this case whosoever commands the glacier) cannot block the flow of water.

So these are all issues that can be handled diplomatically.

 

[dizzy heights]

Hi,

Very difficult to believe that there is only the national pride of both countries at stake,considering the hardships being suffered to keep the battle going. Here it seems the militaries of both countries have initiated the confrontation rather than a political will being extended.And the armies seems to be keen in continuing the occupation.So is the so called national pride just a tip of the iceberg.

Does Siachen allow any stragic or tactical advantage in a future war,or will it only add to the burden. And will the experience gained from Siachen help to fight a better war in some other locations.



BTW How can I thank a post