Pakistan pitches for mutual demilitarisation of Siachen after Lance Naik Koppad's death

[HAIDER]

Get your facts right. India's operation Meghdoot and incursion into Siachen which resulted in the thievery of land from us resulted in Pakistan's future operation in kargil. Kargil was a response to siachen, not the other way around. Look at history and ask what happened first, the siachen conflict or the kargil debacle. It was India which invaded Siachen. Kargil was a response to even things but Indian media was in its initial phase of growing increasingly powerful. It convinced America and other countries that Pakistan was being belligerant and combative.

Not a word was raised on the Siachen attack which India launched but Pakistan was asked to pull back in Kargil. Unfortunate and shows that India's soft power had been growing since that early. Pakistani government should have done something to curtail this growing influence and perhaps we wouldn't have American offers to India to sell f16s better than ours or a nuke deal.

When Nawaz chicken out and he is more busy in expending his personal business with Indian business tycoons ....and nation see and learn , when leader keep stepping back from national interest.

 

[surya kiran]

Nothing's wrong with the agreement - what's wrong is India's interpretation of the agreement (an interpretation contrary to how the majority of the international community interpreted it at that time) and her unprovoked military aggression in Siachen.

This is why you will never win an argument. What does north mean? North does not mean follow contour. Follow contour means follow contour.

When an line says, due north, it means going north. It means goes up.

You chaps really need to show agreements to lawyers before signing stuff.

The international community did not sign the dotted line. You did. The international community did not sign Kashmir Agreement, Simla and Indus Water. You did. Next time read the text. Just because, you chaps resorted to cartographic agression and started issuing visas does not mean zilch in legal parlance.

 

[foxbat]

Demilitarization of Siachen is as impossible as Pakistan reversing its stand on Kashmir and denouncing militancy in the state.

 

[bloo]

What you are actually saying is that Pakistan should accept and respect your aggression in Siachen.

For that as a Pakistani I can only say. LPC. Thank You.

"Indian aggression" is your POV, and what else can pakistan do about it?
You all have tried diplomacy you have tried war, and now clearly lip service is the only obvious alternative left for GoP.

 

[Areesh]

"Indian aggression" is your POV, and what else can pakistan do about it?
You all have tried diplomacy you have tried war, and now clearly lip service is the only obvious alternative left for GoP.

Read my post on first page. Thank You.

 

[Bornubus]

Their martyrdom will only reinforce our Stace on siachen which is a total occupation of siachen,unless Pak recognize our presence on Saltaro Ridge and will stay away from it.

 

[bloo]

Read my post on first page. Thank You.

I did.

 

[Silverblaze]

Get your facts right. India's operation Meghdoot and incursion into Siachen which resulted in the thievery of land from us resulted in Pakistan's future operation in kargil. Kargil was a response to siachen, not the other way around. Look at history and ask what happened first, the siachen conflict or the kargil debacle. It was India which invaded Siachen. Kargil was a response to even things but Indian media was in its initial phase of growing increasingly powerful. It convinced America and other countries that Pakistan was being belligerant and combative.

Not a word was raised on the Siachen attack which India launched but Pakistan was asked to pull back in Kargil. Unfortunate and shows that India's soft power had been growing since that early. Pakistani government should have done something to curtail this growing influence and perhaps we wouldn't have American offers to India to sell f16s better than ours or a nuke deal.

Siachen is absolute indian aggression, without informing they risked moving a huge force backed by air force. Such movement could have triggered war. As to why it was not criticized by international community, this was a failure of the govt at that time. Pakistan and west were staunch allies, why was it that nothing was done?

And about Kargil, I dont agree that it was a response per say. The Kargil move brought the conventional aspect back in the game after it has been neutralized by nuke tests by pakistan.

 

[tarrar]

India will do what it does bast lie & backstab.

 

[Pindi Boy]

Ya... just like India started all wars with Pakistan... and Pakistan won all wars :

he forgot to mention mighty hindia's victories in WW-I WW-II korean war ,Vietnam war, American Civil War ,Gulf War And also possible victory in WW-III

 

[Salik]

I remember an Islamic belief that if two people are fighting and one is killed, both will go to hell. Because if the killed one had the chance he would've done the same with the other.

Pitching such proposals Pakistan is trying to say that she's still alive. India on the other hand demanding AGPL is like asking Pakistan to sign her death certificate first.

It isn't going to take people anywhere. We need a wholesome approach.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What whining? India addressed the Kargil intrusion swiftly and without hesitation. If anything, Pakistan's actions on Siachin can be classed as "whining", but this line of argument really is spiralling into a very juvenile line.

One of your first comments on this thread used the 'Pakistan did Kargil' canard (ignoring India's own Siachen aggression) to argue against any demilitarization minus validation of the AGPL - you don't see Pakistan making the same argument given Indian duplicity and military aggression in Junagadh, Hyderabad and Siachen when talking about demilitarization in Siachen. Pakistan faces the same risk, that India could back track on any agreement and deploy her military again and take over even more territory.

This is why you will never win an argument. What does north mean? North does not mean follow contour. Follow contour means follow contour.

When an line says, due north, it means going north. It means goes up.

You chaps really need to show agreements to lawyers before signing stuff.

The international community did not sign the dotted line. You did. The international community did not sign Kashmir Agreement, Simla and Indus Water. You did. Next time read the text. Just because, you chaps resorted to cartographic agression and started issuing visas does not mean zilch in legal parlance.

demarcated, vs non demarcated (kargil vs Siachen) if you can truly comprehend that, Having read the last few pages, it seems weird that you are raising "point scoring" while all along that's exactly what you have been doing.
And the bollywood tamasha was is primarily due to your fancy dress operation in kargil, perhaps you would remind us who the combatants were?

Actually, this is why India never bothered to take the issue to any international forum for adjudication and/or clarification over the interpretation of the language of the demarcation agreement. The complete phrase is 'thence north to the glaciers' - which glacier? The middle of the glacier, the northern tip of the glacier, the southern tip of the glacier?

All the maps that existed at that time (including some Indian maps which India later rejected under the laughably ridiculous excuse of 'we made an error') supported the Pakistani interpretation of the agreement. Even now, if one looks at India's farcical interpretation, a 'true North' delineation from NJ9842 does not align with India's military deployments on the Saltoro Ridge - that deployment takes a 'North-Western' direction. Therefore, at a minimum under India's own 'true North' interpretation, India would have to hand over the current ridge-lines she occupies to Pakistan.

Based on the maps published by Pakistan, the US and even India (that India later called a mistake) technically the territory was demarcated - India just didn't like the way it was demarcated and deliberately chose to violate the Simla Declaration, the UN Charter and the agreement on the demarcation of the LoC in an unprovoked military occupation of Siachen.

(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 organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.

(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 recognized 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.​

India has no grounds to complain about Kargil, given her own unprovoked hostile acts in Siachen. If anything, Pakistan's Kargil action was a reaction to India's Siachen hostilities.

 

[MilSpec]

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.​

No clear definition on siachen exists in Shimla agreement, Whereas clear definition on LOC of kargil existed existed in shimla agreement. Your army lost kargil in 71 and ratified it on the treaty! so it's your government's problem not ours.

The 1972 Simla Agreement did not clearly mention who controlled the glacier, merely stating that from the NJ9842 location the boundary would proceed "hence north to the glaciers."

btw North means north straiaght up not "east" as understood by pakistani estb

 

[Bhoot Pishach]

One of your first comments on this thread used the 'Pakistan did Kargil' canard (ignoring India's own Siachen aggression) to argue against any demilitarization minus validation of the AGPL - you don't see Pakistan making the same argument given Indian duplicity and military aggression in Junagadh, Hyderabad and Siachen when talking about demilitarization in Siachen. Pakistan faces the same risk, that India could back track on any agreement and deploy her military again and take over even more territory.



Actually, this is why India never bothered to take the issue to any international forum for adjudication and/or clarification over the interpretation of the language of the demarcation agreement. The complete phrase is 'thence north to the glaciers' - which glacier? The middle of the glacier, the northern tip of the glacier, the southern tip of the glacier?

All the maps that existed at that time (including some Indian maps which India later rejected under the laughably ridiculous excuse of 'we made an error') supported the Pakistani interpretation of the agreement. Even now, if one looks at India's farcical interpretation, a 'true North' delineation from NJ9842 does not align with India's military deployments on the Saltoro Ridge - that deployment takes a 'North-Western' direction. Therefore, at a minimum under India's own 'true North' interpretation, India would have to hand over the current ridge-lines she occupies to Pakistan.

Based on the maps published by Pakistan, the US and even India (that India later called a mistake) technically the territory was demarcated - India just didn't like the way it was demarcated and deliberately chose to violate the Simla Declaration, the UN Charter and the agreement on the demarcation of the LoC in an unprovoked military occupation of Siachen.

(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 organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.

(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 recognized 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.​

India has no grounds to complain about Kargil, given her own unprovoked hostile acts in Siachen. If anything, Pakistan's Kargil action was a reaction to India's Siachen hostilities.

Common pakistan take your Siachin back, as India did in Kargil who is holding you back. Please come and take your piece of Cake.

 

[surya kiran]

No clear definition on siachen exists in Shimla agreement, Whereas clear definition on LOC of kargil existed existed in shimla agreement. Your army lost kargil in 71 and ratified it on the treaty! so it's your government's problem not ours.

The 1972 Simla Agreement did not clearly mention who controlled the glacier, merely stating that from the NJ9842 location the boundary would proceed "hence north to the glaciers."

btw North means north straiaght up not "east" as understood by pakistani estb

Pakistan will be better served by dismantling half their military and investing in lawyers and advertising agencies instead.