Truth/Facts About Pakistani Claim Over Siachen Glacier

[Xeric]

Both the Karachi and Simla Agreements are based on the 1949 text that clearly shows that the CFL in this area will be demarcated in greater detail by both sides with the UN Observers present, as I quoted earlier. It is obvious that this must have happened at some point and documented.

Yes it did happen. So what's the fuss about?

Oh, this:

Any intellectually honest and fair discussion cannot be carried out on this issue that obviously raises strong passions on both sides without that critical primary source verification.

Which primary source are you referring to?

It's a simple question. Try answering it without taking a puff of that cig.

 

[VCheng]

Which primary source are you referring to?

The official records of the meeting (or series of meetings) that demarcated the CFL in the area under question "in detail" as mandated in the main Agreements. Not third party claims or interpretations or NatGeo maps or who granted permits. The official demarcation in detail and its exact wording.

That is the correct primary source for this discussion. Without it, rhetoric will continue to rule without end or a point or solution.

 

[Xeric]

The official records of the meeting (or series of meetings) that demarcated the CFL in the area under question "in detail" as mandated in the main Agreements. Not third party claims or interpretations or NatGeo maps or who granted permits. The official demarcation in detail and its exact wording.

That is the correct primary source for this discussion. Without it, rhetoric will continue to rule without end or a point or solution.

Right

Matlab, tusi khota khu wich sut dita...

i mean, what next? You ask @WebMaster about the exact details and minutes if his meetings and exact wordings when he conceived and activated this forum?

On a serious note, this 'official demarcation in detail' is laying exactly in the neighboring drawer where the demarcation of Pakistan's international border is.

 

[VCheng]

On a serious note, this 'official demarcation in detail' is laying exactly in the neighboring drawer where the demarcation of Pakistan's international border is.

Then that drawer should be opened and the evidence presented to support what you have claimed. The legal interpretations of such matters of international importance rely on precise wordings, not on claims or pretty maps in magazines. Without it, I am afraid this discussion cannot develop any further.

 

[Xeric]

Then that drawer should be opened and the evidence presented to support what you have claimed. The legal interpretations of such matters of international importance rely on precise wordings, not on claims or pretty maps in magazines. Without it, I am afraid this discussion cannot develop any further.

The issue of maps in magazines and claims came in 1984 when Indian occupied Siachen illegally. If there was any problem with the demarcation issue, how do you think the area beyond Pt N 9842 was having no military presence and was being accepted as it is by both sides?

The positions as of 27 July 1949 were demarcated on ground by both sides and became the CFL. The document to this effect 'in detail' are held by both the countries, which are commanly known as Boundary Pillar (BP) marker records. The same documents 'in details' were also produced during Simla Agreement when CFL was converted into LoC. or how else do you think all the discussions were going on between the two countries?

The problem only came when Indian rejected everything and barged into Siachen on 13 April 1984.

And now you want to rubbish everything else which was authenticated and validated by both the countries twice (Karachi & Simla Agreements) but want an imaginary proof 9which infact is already infront of your eyes) in order to justify the Indian aggression of '84, although the proof was there all along, once in the shape of Karachi Agreement, then in the shape of action on ground when the 27 July 1949 positions were marked on ground short of Pt NJ 9842 and lastly during Simla Agreement.

Why the fack am i even talking to you?

 

[VCheng]

The positions as of 27 July 1949 were demarcated on ground by both sides and became the CFL. The document to this effect 'in detail' are held by both the countries, which are commanly known as Boundary Pillar (BP) marker records.

Sir, the exact wording of these primary documents for the area in question is all-important, without which your argument, no matter how robust it may seem to you, cannot be regarded as proven. The same is true for Indian claims too - they are equally unproven - unless this primary evidence supports the position taken.

Any interpretations based off secondary or tertiary sources are not legally valid.

In which case, "first come, first serve" may hold true for Siachen, may be?

 

[Xeric]

Sir, the exact wording of these primary documents for the area in question is all-important, without which your argument, no matter how robust it may seem to you, cannot be regarded as proven. The same is true for Indian claims too - they are equally unproven - unless this primary evidence supports the position taken.

Any interpretations based off secondary or tertiary sources are not legally valid.

In which case, "first come, first serve" may hold true for Siachen, may be?

So you claim that the positions as of 27 July 1949 as declared in Karachi Agreement were not demarcated, right?

And that Karachi Agreement itself is a secondary document?

 

[toxic_pus]

Both the Karachi and Simla Agreements are based on the 1949 text that clearly shows that the CFL in this area will be demarcated in greater detail by both sides with the UN Observers present, as I quoted earlier. It is obvious that this must have happened at some point and documented. Any intellectually honest and fair discussion cannot be carried out on this issue that obviously raises strong passions on both sides without that critical primary source verification.

One thing I forgot to mention is that ground positions, as described in Karachi Agreement were never physically demarcated. It was visually verified and the whole process ended on 3rd Nov, 1949.

 

[VCheng]

So you claim that the positions as of 27 July 1949 as declared in Karachi Agreement were not demarcated, right?

And that Karachi Agreement itself is a secondary document?

No Sir, the Karachi clearly demarcates most of the CFL and remains the primary agreement in force for that portion, except where it clearly defines an area where a detailed demarcation was to be performed later. For this latter part, that separate and detailed demarcation as mandated by the main Karachi Agreement is the primary document that governs the interpretation for the very northern end of the CFL, legally speaking.

Therefore, both the main and the ancillary information are needed together to specify the CFL completely, or at least as completely as possible, which would remain the robust test for any claims made by either side.

One thing I forgot to mention is that ground positions, as described in Karachi Agreement were never physically demarcated. It was visually verified and the whole process ended on 3rd Nov, 1949.

That whole chain of documents recording the demarcation must be part of the supporting evidence too, particularly for the northern end under dispute.

 

[Xeric]

No Sir, the Karachi clearly demarcates most of the CFL and remains the primary agreement in force for that portion, except where it clearly defines an area where a detailed demarcation was to be performed later. For this latter part, that separate and detailed demarcation as mandated by the main Karachi Agreement is the primary document that governs the interpretation for the very northern end of the CFL, legally speaking.

Therefore, both the main and the ancillary information are needed together to specify the CFL completely, or at least as completely as possible, which would remain the robust test for any claims made by either side.



That whole chain of documents recording the demarcation must be part of the supporting evidence too, particularly for the northern end under dispute.

i think you have already got your answer.

 

[toxic_pus]

KARACHI AGREEMENT
Chapter 5. Gen description of CFL given in Sec 1 is further explained at Page 38 where it states “thence northwards along the boundary line going through Pt 18402 up to NJ-9842”​

This statement of the "Karachi Agreement" (which you try to rubbish) if plotted on map shows the following alignment:Slide9 by Khakiate, on Flickr

Can you please post the original Karachi Agreement you are referring to. Because the Karachi Agreement I am referring to is from 'United Nations Treaty Series', Vol. 81, pg 273 and it doesn't, I repeat, doesn't have any 'Chapter 5' or any explanation that you are claiming.

​

 

[Xeric]

Can you please post the original Karachi Agreement you are referring to. Because the Karachi Agreement I am referring to is from 'United Nations Treaty Series', Vol. 81, pg 273 and it doesn't, I repeat, doesn't have any 'Chapter 5' or any explanation that you are claiming.

​

Stop getting your facts from Wikipedia, sir.

 

[toxic_pus]

That whole chain of documents recording the demarcation must be part of the supporting evidence too, particularly for the northern end under dispute.

The documents are with UN and the respective Govt.

Stop getting your facts from Wikipedia, sir.

I don't. United Nations Treaty Series is a public document available at UN site.

Now how about you reveal your sources.

 

[VCheng]

i think you have already got your answer.

No Sir, as I have explained, your explanation is insufficient and therefore the claims made cannot be regarded as proven, unless additional information is available. The same is true for the Indian claims, please do clearly note that.

I don't. United Nations Treaty Series is a public document available at UN site.
Now how about you reveal your sources.

Here is the link for anyone interested:

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 81/v81.pdf

CFL by VChengPhotos, on Flickr

 

[Xeric]

Haha...that's the perils of a quick internet search http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IN PK_490729_ Karachi Agreement.pdf. Stop reading the 6-pager 'text' of the agreement only and run back to a library where you can also find the explanatory notes and definitions connected to the agreement. It's indeed strange that you guys thought that this agreement was made up of only those six pages.

The text you guys are referring to is Chapter 1 of the agreement, which (only) describes the Karachi Agreement and its interpretation, which infact is sufficient for most people giving a casual read to the agreement. i'll try to get back to the source on the next working day and get a hard copy of the remainder of the chapters.

BTW, sir Pus, i am sure India too have the complete document, just because all of it isnt available online doesnt necessarily means that the info given in slide # 8 is incorrect despite the fact that it references the info down to the page number.