Siachen Glacier, Fighting On The Roof Of The World

[Zarbe Momin]

My point of view is very simple. India dont want to leave an inch which india had captured. If he is not leaving siachin and also building dams in Kashmir and investing lot of money then how much india would be serious to solve the problem of Kashmir.

 

[The Patriot]

India will never give an concession. Its occupier and a hegemonistic state. The only solution is that Pakistan defeats India at Siachin. But if India is really realistic it can avoid it can make a right by pulling back its troops to pre-1984 situation, i am doubtful they wont do.

 

[Reddy]

India will never give an concession. Its occupier and a hegemonistic state. The only solution is that Pakistan defeats India at Siachin. But if India is really realistic it can avoid it can make a right by pulling back its troops to pre-1984 situation, i am doubtful they wont do.

What kind of wet dream is this - pakistan defeating India in siachen. Best solution would be to accept AGP held by both parties and demilitraize the whole zone. The solution could also be applied to LOC.

Peace can return then.

 

[bandit]

opinion: Siachen — time for settlement —Brian Cloughley

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.)



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.

Now thats some bullshit, I'm sure the author knows as well that it was Pakistan that started with the expeditions and then planned out to set up a millitary presence there...the Indian Army got wind of it and beat your army to the top, whereas he uses terms as ordered invasion and incursion -crap

the author is misguiding in his assertions to the point of lying...more sort of a propoganda article.

 

[Kasrkin]

the author is misguiding in his assertions to the point of lying...more sort of a propoganda article.

Has it occurred to you that what you've been fed in regards to the matter is propaganda, and not this respected writer's observations. A writer who has covered the region extensively, met officers from both sides of the LoC and has served as head of a UN observer mission in Kashmir. His book, in which he mentions these facts, got a glowing endorsement from an Indian DGMO who describes the writer as ‘both candid and objective’.

 

[Zarbe Momin]

This thinking of inida that pakistan should accept AGP & LOC would lead to a big clash. Indian's are dishonest. There is an honst proposal. Give right of Plebiscite to people of azad kashmir, indian Kahmir under UNO whether they want to live with india, with pakistan or as an independent country. Believe me no indian will accept this proposal because they know by doing this they will lose Kashmir although Nehru had accepted this.

 

[bandit]

Has it occurred to you that what you've been fed in regards to the matter is propaganda, and not this respected writer's observations. A writer who has covered the region extensively, met officers from both sides of the LoC and has served as head of a UN observer mission in Kashmir. His book, in which he mentions these facts, got a glowing endorsement from an Indian DGMO who describes the writer as ‘both candid and objective’.

Well I haven't read this book or heard about the endorsement but what I've read from neutral sources is what I wrote...perhaps you can make up your mind on who's been fed propaganda after reading this...a highly respected source you would agree

In the mid-1970s, Pakistan began to issue climbing permits to foreign mountaineers who wanted to explore the Karakoram Range, which has some of the world's highest peaks. Then, in 1977, an Indian colonel named Narinder (Bull) Kumar was leafing through a mountaineering magazine when he spotted an article on international expeditions venturing onto the glacier from the Pakistani side. Kumar persuaded his superiors to allow him to lead a 70-man team of climbers and porters to the glacier. They returned in 1981, climbed several peaks and walked the length of Siachen. In an interview with Outside magazine in 2003, Kumar described the glacier as "like a great white snake ... going, going, going. I have never seen anything so white and so wide."

Bull's secret trek was spotted by Pakistan. On patrol, some Pakistani soldiers found a crumpled packet of "Gold Flake" cigarettes—an Indian brand—and their suspicions were raised, according to a senior Pakistani government official. Soon, the Indian expedition on Siachen was shadowed by the Pakistanis. At army headquarters in Rawalpindi, Pakistani generals decided they had better stake a claim to Siachen before India did. Islamabad then committed an intelligence blunder, according to a now retired Pakistani army colonel. "They ordered Arctic-weather gear from a London outfitters who also supplied the Indians," says the colonel. "Once the Indians got wind of it, they ordered 300 outfits—twice as many as we had—and rushed their men up to Siachen." When the Pakistanis hiked up to the glacier in 1984, they found that a 300-man Indian battalion was already there, dug into the highest mountaintops. The Indians control two of Siachen's three passes, and two-thirds of the glacier. Says Lieut. Colonel Abid Nadeem, Pakistani commander at Gyong, which at 4,266 m is the highest battalion headquarters in the world: "The Indians were climbing heights. And we were climbing heights. Then the shooting started. And so the war began."

TIMEasia Magazine: War at the Top of the World

 

[Xeric]

Well I haven't read this book or heard about the endorsement but what I've read from neutral sources is what I wrote...perhaps you can make up your mind on who's been fed propaganda after reading this...a highly respected source you would agree


TIMEasia Magazine: War at the Top of the World

What exactly is that you want to enlighten us with?
Let's be specific.

 

[Kasrkin]

Allow me to remind you what you claimed good sir:

Now thats some bullshit, I'm sure the author knows as well that it was Pakistan that started with the expeditions and then planned out to set up a millitary presence there...

Now the completely accurate article you posted proves you wrong because:

a) Pakistan facilitated tourist expeditions, which was not against the Simla Agreement. Siachen is way more accessible from the Pakistani side, it was only natural that tourist seeking such dangerous adventure would come to Pakistan for a permit and transit.

b) Nowhere is it claimed that Pakistan planned a military presence in Siachen. That would be an utterly senseless and pointless thing to do. Pakistan only felt obliged to advance once it was apparent what the Indians were planning to do, we could not let them threaten places like Skardu. Therefore that claim of yours is also inaccurate.

c) You claimed that it was Indians who decided to move to Siachen in order to preempt a pre-planned Pakistani military deployment. Now with respect, that is BS. Military deployment from both sides was initiated as a result of India’s plans. Pakistanis did get wind that the Indians were into high attitude training elsewhere, ordering specialized gear and what not. It was not too hard to join the dots. But India initiated it, the fact that Pakistanis were late, and that the whole operation on our side was essentially rushed and our troops were not fully equipped for the mission (at first), unlike yours, is further proof that Pakistan’s actions were reactionary.

 

[Xeric]

Allow me to remind you what you claimed good sir:



Now the completely accurate article you posted proves you wrong because:

a) Pakistan facilitated tourist expeditions, which was not against the Simla Agreement. Siachen is way more accessible from the Pakistani side, it was only natural that tourist seeking such dangerous adventure would come to Pakistan for a permit and transit.

b) Nowhere is it claimed that Pakistan planned a military presence in Siachen. That would be an utterly senseless and pointless thing to do. Pakistan only felt obliged to advance once it was apparent what the Indians were planning to do, we could not let them threaten places like Skardu. Therefore that claim of yours is also inaccurate.

c) You claimed that it was Indians who decided to move to Siachen in order to preempt a pre-planned Pakistani military deployment. Now with respect, that is BS. Military deployment from both sides was initiated as a result of India’s plans. Pakistanis did get wind that the Indians were into high attitude training elsewhere, ordering specialized gear and what not. It was not too hard to join the dots. But India initiated it, the fact that Pakistanis were late, and that the whole operation on our side was essentially rushed and our troops were not fully equipped for the mission (at first), unlike yours, is further proof that Pakistan’s actions were reactionary.

A few additions:

Everybody knows that it was india who got itched over Siachen first.

Expeditions asked permissions from Pakistan to scale glacier's heights.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s, the United States Defense Mapping Agency (now National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) issued maps showing detailed position of the area and made their maps available to the public and pilots as proceeding from NJ9842 east-northeast to the Karakoram Pass at 5534m (18,136 ft.) on the China border.

Other international (governmental and private cartographers and atlas producers) confirmed this position. This implied in a cartographical and categorical allocation of the entire 2700 square kilometers (1040 square miles) Siachen area to Pakistan.


Many atlases showed the glacier on the Pakistani side so it was obvious that foreigners were seeking permissions from GoP. This actually was not digested by Mr Kumar!

i know that he was like 'all muscles no brains' kinda personality.

He got hold of some international map which showed the glacier on our side and his testosterone level shot up, and this lead to the remaining story where he convinced the senior commander (dont remeber his name now) and then india sent in her troops. Obviously Pakistan had to respond.

We all know that prior to 1984 neither India nor Pakistan had any permanent presence in the area presumably due to the extremely harsh conditions which prohibited any such presence. But Mr Kumar's testosteronic display of motivation and snow leopard-ness (which many claims he was) led to this unwanted war!

BTW, i am surprised that indians still actually praise him for this stupidity which had led to 1000s of causalities ion both sides, keeping aside the financial losses! He should have been tried actually, i wonder if a few more of these kinda Officers emerge in the IA, india would soon we on conflict with the remainder of the world!

 

[bandit]

Allow me to remind you what you claimed good sir:



Now the completely accurate article you posted proves you wrong because:

a) Pakistan facilitated tourist expeditions, which was not against the Simla Agreement. Siachen is way more accessible from the Pakistani side, it was only natural that tourist seeking such dangerous adventure would come to Pakistan for a permit and transit..

I failed to mention tourist expeditions but it is clearly mentioned in the article, and since I quoted from it, that was exactly what I meant.

Now accessible or not, if you say it is in disputed territory, sending foreign expeditions is a way of trying to establish your writ over the place, you do remember the brouhaha over a foreign millitary person visiting Kashmir.

b) Nowhere is it claimed that Pakistan planned a military presence in Siachen. That would be an utterly senseless and pointless thing to do. Pakistan only felt obliged to advance once it was apparent what the Indians were planning to do, we could not let them threaten places like Skardu. Therefore that claim of yours is also inaccurate.

The article states in no uncertain terms that it was Pakistan that started with the planning to take control of the heights before India did...

At army headquarters in Rawalpindi, Pakistani generals decided they had better stake a claim to Siachen before India did.

c) You claimed that it was Indians who decided to move to Siachen in order to preempt a pre-planned Pakistani military deployment. Now with respect, that is BS. Military deployment from both sides was initiated as a result of India’s plans. Pakistanis did get wind that the Indians were into high attitude training elsewhere, ordering specialized gear and what not. It was not too hard to join the dots. But India initiated it, the fact that Pakistanis were late, and that the whole operation on our side was essentially rushed and our troops were not fully equipped for the mission (at first), unlike yours, is further proof that Pakistan’s actions were reactionary.

I claimed on the basis of a solid evidence that is there for everybody to see, you talk about joining the dots. High altitude training could've been for chinese border as well.
The fact was you saw an Indian expedition up there and jumped the gun, hadn't it been for the silly mistake, siachen would be yours.

 

[bandit]

A few additions:

Everybody knows that it was india who got itched over Siachen first.

Expeditions asked permissions from Pakistan to scale glacier's heights.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s, the United States Defense Mapping Agency (now National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) issued maps showing detailed position of the area and made their maps available to the public and pilots as proceeding from NJ9842 east-northeast to the Karakoram Pass at 5534m (18,136 ft.) on the China border.

Other international (governmental and private cartographers and atlas producers) confirmed this position. This implied in a cartographical and categorical allocation of the entire 2700 square kilometers (1040 square miles) Siachen area to Pakistan.


Many atlases showed the glacier on the Pakistani side so it was obvious that foreigners were seeking permissions from GoP. This actually was not digested by Mr Kumar!

i know that he was like 'all muscles no brains' kinda personality.

He got hold of some international map which showed the glacier on our side and his testosterone level shot up, and this lead to the remaining story where he convinced the senior commander (dont remeber his name now) and then india sent in her troops. Obviously Pakistan had to respond.

We all know that prior to 1984 neither India nor Pakistan had any permanent presence in the area presumably due to the extremely harsh conditions which prohibited any such presence. But Mr Kumar's testosteronic display of motivation and snow leopard-ness (which many claims he was) led to this unwanted war!

BTW, i am surprised that indians still actually praise him for this stupidity which had led to 1000s of causalities ion both sides, keeping aside the financial losses! He should have been tried actually, i wonder if a few more of these kinda Officers emerge in the IA, india would soon we on conflict with the remainder of the world!

Does the US defence agency define your borders? They certainly don't define ours, and since they were your allies back then, there is a chance of bias creeping in with Pakistanis asking for favours.

Other than that it seems to be an attempt to denigrate Colonel Kumar , now obviously you would be pissed at him because he probably was the single biggest factor that you lost in siachen, but I thought being an army man you would respect another one, anyways about the stupidity of officers...did you try the guy who made the blunder of ordering from the same supplier...now I am sure you must have hung him given how passionately you hate stupidity.
And what about Musharraf, was he tried for the stupidity of making pakistan an aggressor in the eyes of the world and on top of that making it lose another war???

 

[Xeric]

Ok let me laugh first:

Ok here i go...

Does the US defence agency define your borders? They certainly don't define ours, and since they were your allies back then, there is a chance of bias creeping in with Pakistanis asking for favours.

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!

As for the ;defining borders' thing, you proudly quote Times and Newsweek, does they dwell upon your foreign policy and internal affairs, because they certainly dont dwell upon us for this purpose!

Other than that it seems to be an attempt to denigrate Colonel Kumar , now obviously you would be pissed at him because he probably was the single biggest factor that you lost in siachen, but I thought being an army man you would respect another one, anyways about the stupidity of officers...did you try the guy who made the blunder of ordering from the same supplier...now I am sure you must have hung him given how passionately you hate stupidity.
And what about Musharraf, was he tried for the stupidity of making pakistan an aggressor in the eyes of the world and on top of that making it lose another war???

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.

Now as for the Mr Kumar, anyone having an iota of common sense would oppose his act, as intelligent men avoid conflicts instead of giving birth to them!

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

 

[Kasrkin]

I failed to mention tourist expeditions but it is clearly mentioned in the article, and since I quoted from it, that was exactly what I meant.

No you mentioned expeditions and planned military bases. This is incorrect.

Now accessible or not, if you say it is in disputed territory, sending foreign expeditions is a way of trying to establish your writ over the place, you do remember the brouhaha over a foreign millitary person visiting Kashmir.

Actually, as per the agreement reached by officers from both the countries who drew up the details of the LoC: who ever wanted to access this territory was welcome to, because during that time no one imagined a war over that useless and inhospitable piece of territory. You assert that foreign civilian tourist expeditions are in some way ‘proof’ of Pakistani military plans? If India was unhappy with the fact that international cartographical records considered it part of Azad Kashmir, given the obvious geographical realities, then the issue could’ve been raised peacefully with Pakistan as the terms of the Simla Agreement demanded. Instead India decided to mount a secret, expensive and essentially pointless invasion to ‘prove’ that the territory was theirs.

The article states in no uncertain terms that it was Pakistan that started with the planning to take control of the heights before India did...

No. Pakistan had reason to believe that India was planning a massive operation to capture Siachen, which would prove to be entirely correct. This was what encouraged us to take preventive preparations. Still, India was able to get there faster, in larger numbers, with more equipment despite the large geographical disadvantage. Read the things in the context, I’m not going to explain it again.

I claimed on the basis of a solid evidence that is there for everybody to see, you talk about joining the dots. High altitude training could've been for chinese border as well. The fact was you saw an Indian expedition up there and jumped the gun.

Actually, the information was very particular. I can go into details if you like, but the fact that our intelligence proved to be correct negates your argument that we jumped on shadows. Indian sources themselves have admitted that it was Ms Gandhi’s vexation with the fact that Siachen was being considered Pakistani territory that triggered the whole Indian plot, including going for specialized training as far as Antarctica and an explainable and particular spike in the acquisition of high altitude gear. Indian troop advancement and logistical enlargement from Ladakh to the glacier also confirmed our belief.

 

[bandit]

No you mentioned expeditions and planned military bases. This is incorrect.
.

Expeditions meant mountaineering expeditions not millitary ones.

Actually, as per the agreement reached by officers from both the countries who drew up the details of the LoC: who ever wanted to access this territory was welcome to, because during that time no one imagined a war over that useless and inhospitable piece of territory. You assert that foreign civilian tourist expeditions are in some way ‘proof’ of Pakistani military plans? If India was unhappy with the fact that international cartographical records considered it part of Azad Kashmir, given the obvious geographical realities, then the issue could’ve been raised peacefully with Pakistan as the terms of the Simla Agreement demanded. Instead India decided to mount a secret, expensive and essentially pointless invasion to ‘prove’ that the territory was theirs. .

Pakistan started off with expeditions in an area which it knew would draw a response from India. 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. So if Pakistanis think its a futile war, it has only to blame itself for initiating it.

No. Pakistan had reason to believe that India was planning a massive operation to capture Siachen, which would prove to be entirely correct. This was what encouraged us to take preventive preparations. Still, India was able to get there faster, in larger numbers, with more equipment despite the large geographical disadvantage. Read the things in the context, I’m not going to explain it again..

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.

Actually, the information was very particular. I can go into details if you like, but the fact that our intelligence proved to be correct negates your argument that we jumped on shadows. Indian sources themselves have admitted that it was Ms Gandhi’s vexation with the fact that Siachen was being considered Pakistani territory that triggered the whole Indian plot, including going for specialized training as far as Antarctica and an explainable and particular spike in the acquisition of high altitude gear. Indian troop advancement and logistical enlargement from Ladakh to the glacier also confirmed our belief.

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