Truth/Facts About Pakistani Claim Over Siachen Glacier

[VCheng]

I would let the person who made a claim do that.

If you go back in the thread, person who made the original claims here is from the Pakistani side.

 

[toxic_pus]

Had Pakistanis been occupying those heights, I would have questioned the wisdom of their doing so. It is simply not worth the treasure and human cost.

I highly doubt that you do that.

But one thing is for sure. I do not see that Indians have a case at all. It is just a function of them occupying that area. There is no justification at all, just maintenance of occupation and stalemate at the expense of manpower and treasure.

Actually, them Indians have a slightly better case than Pakistanis, legally speaking.

I would let the person who made a claim do that.

Do not, I repeat, do not hold your breath.

 

[Chak Bamu]

If you go back in the thread, person who made the original claims here is from the Pakistani side.

I was not referring to Xeric. I was referring to the person who brought up 1949 agreement as proof. I asked him to bring proof. The way I see it, the evidence goes more in Pakistan's favor because it is essentially open to interpretation. And I choose to interpret it our way. Why should anyone have a problem with that or claim priority? It is about occupation at the end of the day. Nothing else.

 

[VCheng]

I was not referring to Xeric. I was referring to the person who brought up 1949 agreement as proof. I asked him to bring proof. The way I see it, the evidence goes more in Pakistan's favor because it is essentially open to interpretation. And I choose to interpret it our way. Why should anyone have a problem with that or claim priority? It is about occupation at the end of the day. Nothing else.

Actually Sir, the primary references may not support Pakistan's stance as strongly as you see them, from a legal standpoint. But then again, who cares about legality when actual occupation of the ground is the more important reality, like you say.

 

[Contrarian]

Great! sit tight and eat ice.

And that ice costs thousands of dollars per kilo. Good for India.

I am glad that Pakistanis did not get to occupy it. We would be loosing soldiers and money for a bunch of ice.

Chak Bamu, the Indian Army feels it is important to hold it. Their recommendation to the GoI was to hold Siachen when Manmohan wanted to make Siachen and surrounding areas a ' mountain of peace'.

That said, the amount of money it costs India to keep Siachen is ridiculously low(and I mean ridiculously) from a percentage perspective. Understandably the amount it would take Pakistan would be a far larger percentage of its Defence Budget. Especially so after the Gyari tragedy where infra was wiped out.

So money is not really a constraining factor at all for Indian cost-benefit calculations.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Chak Bamu, the Indian Army feels it is important to hold it. Their recommendation to the GoI was to hold Siachen when Manmohan wanted to make Siachen and surrounding areas a ' mountain of peace'.

That said, the amount of money it costs India to keep Siachen is ridiculously low(and I mean ridiculously) from a percentage perspective. Understandably the amount it would take Pakistan would be a far larger percentage of its Defence Budget. Especially so after the Gyari tragedy where infra was wiped out.

So money is not really a constraining factor at all for Indian cost-benefit calculations.

That cold hell is not worth a single human life. What strategic significance does it have? I am surprised at your rather callous answer. MMS was right. It should not be a mountain of war.

 

[VCheng]

That cold hell is not worth a single human life. What strategic significance does it have? I am surprised at your rather callous answer. MMS was right. It should not be a mountain of war.

The continued loss of precious lives can be stopped by formalizing the AGPL as part of the LoC and withdrawing by both sides.

 

[toxic_pus]

That cold hell is not worth a single human life.

Agreed. But it appears that the Pak generals think that 'cold hell' is worth more than several Pak lives. Why else would they try again and again to recapture that 'cold hell'?

 

[Contrarian]

That cold hell is not worth a single human life. What strategic significance does it have? I am surprised at your rather callous answer. MMS was right. It should not be a mountain of war.

You spoke of paying the price for holding Siachen in terms of Blood and Treasure.

I was just adding some facts to the discussion. That treasure(money) is a complete non issue to IA because it is completely insignificant to IA's overall annual budget. So any cost-benefit calculations that Army/India does removes money as a factor of consideration. This is not the case with Pakistan.

Secondly:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Siachen nears zero casualty

"With better mountain-warfare training and management, medi-care facilities and best living standards, the battlefield casualties are virtually nil. We are nearing the zero casualty syndrome in the glacier region," General Officer Commanding in Chief (GOC-in-C), Northern command, Lt Gen H S Panag has said.

This year there were only three casualties, including that of two pilots, who died in a chopper crash, he said adding one jawan was killed in accidental fire.
Siachen nears zero casualty - The Times of India
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here. We have now near zero casualty rate on account of regular weather/altitude issues on Siachen. DRDO has played a big role in this by developing equipment for the soldiers there which saves lives.

Now, there is loss of life only in case of a natural occurrence like an avalanche.

My point is that we are consistently reducing our price of holding Siachen in terms of Blood by reducing casualties each year on account of technological innovations. And money is not a concern at all.

So the Army asked GoI, that why then should India vacate Siachen?

 

[VCheng]

You spoke of paying the price for holding Siachen in terms of Blood and Treasure.
I was just adding some facts to the discussion. That treasure(money) is a complete non issue to IA because it is completely insignificant to IA's overall annual budget. So any cost-benefit calculations that Army/India does removes money as a factor of consideration. This is not the case with Pakistan.

The benefit to Pakistan is non-monetary. India's occupation of Siachen becomes a useful rallying cry to unite the people behind the Army and positively reinforces their overarching role as Defenders of the Realm against the Big Bad Wolf next door. That value cannot be understated, given that there is not much else that can be used to unify an increasingly fractious country.

 

[Contrarian]

The benefit to Pakistan is non-monetary. India's occupation of Siachen becomes a useful rallying cry to unite the people behind the Army and positively reinforces their overarching role as Defenders of the Realm against the Big Bad Wolf next door. That value cannot be understated, given that there is not much else that can be used to unify an increasingly fractious country.

There is increasing acceptance of Christine Fairs view on Pakistan, in India. Though what she has espoused has been espoused by many others including Indians.

That even if Siachen were to be solved tomorrow along with everything else, Pakistan Army will find or create a new issue with India, so that they can use it to keep their prestige and power intact among Pakistani populace, along with the view that PA holds India as a civilizational threat to its Islamic Republic and will persist with the policy of a thousand cuts.

And so, we can not sacrifice our interests so that PA can no longer claim this particular issue as one of its rallying points.

The continued loss of precious lives can be stopped by formalizing the AGPL as part of the LoC and withdrawing by both sides.

That has been India's offer to PA.

Formal authentication of AGPL in exchange for withdrawal. PA has obviously rejected that for a multitude of reasons.
One among them is the domestic audience, apparently Pakistanis are led to understand that PA and IA are both on Siachen whereas PA is not even on the Siachen glacier itself. That would be revealing to Pakistanis.

Secondly, it also implies that PA actually does want to take Siachen at a later date, as signing the AGPL will quite clearly mark to the world that PA is not in Siachen.

 

[VCheng]

There is increasing acceptance of Christine Fairs view on Pakistan, in India. Though what she has espoused has been espoused by many others including Indians.

That even if Siachen were to be solved tomorrow along with everything else, Pakistan Army will find or create a new issue with India, so that they can use it to keep their prestige and power intact among Pakistani populace, along with the view that PA holds India as a civilizational threat to its Islamic Republic and will persist with the policy of a thousand cuts.

And so, we can not sacrifice our interests so that PA can no longer claim this particular issue as one of its rallying points.

As much as I clearly describe what the Pak Army does here on PDF at great cost in personal vilification, India's policies similarly are not correct either, to be honest. It can also clearly create positive steps that will eventually corner Pakistan into resolving the bilateral issues, but it chooses not to do so.

That has been India's offer to PA.
Formal authentication of AGPL in exchange for withdrawal. PA has obviously rejected that for a multitude of reasons.
One among them is the domestic audience, apparently Pakistanis are led to understand that PA and IA are both on Siachen whereas PA is not even on the Siachen glacier itself. That would be revealing to Pakistanis.
Secondly, it also implies that PA actually does want to take Siachen at a later date, as signing the AGPL will quite clearly mark to the world that PA is not in Siachen.

Expecting Pakistan to recognize only the AGPL portion is naive. Including it as part of a larger initiative to convert the LoC into a recognized and permanent international border might work.

 

[Contrarian]

As much as I clearly describe what the Pak Army does here on PDF at great cost in personal vilification, India's policies similarly are not correct either, to be honest. It can also clearly create positive steps that will eventually corner Pakistan into resolving the bilateral issues, but it chooses not to do so.

The question you must ask is - do we lose anything major by not having good relations with Pakistan or not resolving bilateral issues.
India's priority as a Nation is economic growth. How central is Pakistan to that goal? Almost not at all. Trade with Pakistan will be very little in percentage terms to India;s overall exports and trade.

Ergo, Pakistan does not rank high on the priority of issues to be tackled. So whether or not we take the right approach or wrong approach is irrelevant. Its like the desert at the end of the meal, good if we get it, doesnt really affect us badly if we don't.

Expecting Pakistan to recognize only the AGPL portion is naive. Including it as part of a larger initiative to convert the LoC into a recognized and permanent international border might work.

That is the thing, Pakistan is not comfortable with having the LoC turned into an IB, that would be everything they have worked against the last 67 years. And it was understood that PA will never agree to AGPL authentication, but it served to put the ball in Pakistan's court at a time when MMS was exerting immense pressure to get GoI to get on board his 'mountain of peace' plan by unilaterally vacating Siachen.

 

[VCheng]

The question you must ask is - do we lose anything major by not having good relations with Pakistan or not resolving bilateral issues.
India's priority as a Nation is economic growth. How central is Pakistan to that goal? Almost not at all. Trade with Pakistan will be very little in percentage terms to India;s overall exports and trade.
Ergo, Pakistan does not rank high on the priority of issues to be tackled. So whether or not we take the right approach or wrong approach is irrelevant. Its like the desert at the end of the meal, good if we get it, doesnt really affect us badly if we don't.

I would disagree. India will not be able to rise in the international community as it dreams of, and indeed, is capable of, without resolving its issues with Pakistan.

 

[Contrarian]

I would disagree. India will not be able to rise in the international community as it dreams of, and indeed, is capable of, without resolving its issues with Pakistan.

No mate. I disagree here.

India will not be able to rise in the international community as long as it remains poor. China rose not because it resolved its issues with Japan or Korea but on the back of its economic muscle that no one could ignore, not even its detractors.

Its exactly the same with India. Our economic growth is utterly central to any global stature. Anything else is putting the cart before the horse.