# Siachen Glacier, Fighting On The Roof Of The World



## fatman17

_this is an old article but it depicts the very harsh and terrible conditions faced by soldiers from both sides... is it worth it?_

SIACHEN GLACIER , FIGHTING ON THE ROOF OF THE WORLD 

JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY 


On the Siachen Glacier, two nuclear powers dispute an uninhabited
wilderness. Robert Karniol reports from Pakistan on the harsh conditions of battle at 5,000m.

Fourteen years of conflict over control of the remote Siachen
Glacier region has taught India and Pakistan much about the unique
requirements of high-altitude warfare. However, the harsh
environment still accounts for more casualties than does combat.
This long-standing dispute set in the Karakoram mountains was among
six topics raised during bilateral talks held last month in New
Delhi, the first such formal discussion of the issue since 1992.
India came to the meeting with a proposed ceasefire arrangement, a
gambit that would have reinforced its territorial gains. Pakistan
rejected the initiative unless it was linked to a troop redeployment
that would largely affect Indian forces.
The standoff, which was predicted by analysts, remains unresolved.
No progress was achieved beyond a broad commitment to further pursue
the Siachen issue "at a later date".
The Siachen Glacier region is an uninhabited wedge of mountains and
ice situated at the point where India, Pakistan and China collide.
It covers a territory of about 3,000km2 that proved too hostile for
early survey teams.

Border demarcation has been equally contentious in adjacent areas.
Jammu and Kashmir remain divided and disputed, with Siachen
representing a separate although broadly related problem. Pakistan's
border with China was formally delineated only in 1963 while India
still claims the Aksai Chin plateau to the northeast, which is
occupied by China.
The Siachen conflict's origin is rooted in its remoteness. This saw
the ceasefire line between India and Pakistan - originally set in
1949, adjusted in 1972, and still the Line of Control (LoC) in
disputed Jammu and Kashmir - end some 80km short of Chinese
territory at the map reference point NJ9842. The line's extension to
cover the glacier and its approaches, couched in vague language, was
left for later discussion.
Islamabad has since held that the demarcation line should continue
northeast from this point to the Karakoram Pass, maintaining the
angle set by the LoC. New Delhi's view is that it should veer north
along the watershed line of the Saltoro Range to Indira Col, an
interpretation based on terrain features. This discrepancy defines
the disputed territory.
Neither side ever maintained a permanent presence in the region, and
Siachen was untouched by the wars of 1965 and 1971. India's interest
began to grow in the late 1970s. An initial series of military
mountaineering expeditions led to summer camps being set up in 1983.
Pakistani protests were ignored, and Indian forces advanced
unexpectedly in April 1984 to gain control of the glacier and its
approach routes. The conflict was joined when Pakistan responded
militarily.
The Indian strike brought advantages and disadvantages that are
still evident. The former include control of much of the disputed
terrain together with most of its high points, which provide a
strategic edge. The latter largely centre on the substantially
greater costs associated with supporting these isolated positions.
The conflict initially saw both sides undertake limited offensive
operations, mainly geared to seizing high points or improving
defensive positions. Such attacks proved costly and only partially
successful, and, by the early 1990s, the protagonists had largely
settled into an attrition-oriented strategy marked by steady
exchanges of artillery and small-arms fire.
Illustrating this point, Pakistan says the Indian Army is expending
30,000-40,000 artillery rounds annually in Siachen. One can assume
its own rate of fire is comparable.
The Siachen conflict is better known for its harsh conditions than
its strategic significance. Temperatures in the area range between
-20øC and -60øC, chilled by 80 km/h-plus winds. There are blizzards
producing an average 10m of snowfall annually, avalanches, steep
gradients and deep crevasses that comb the glacial ice. These
difficulties are severely compounded by altitude.
Indian positions are generally situated at heights of 3,700-5,300m,
the latter elevation representing the post at Indira Col. Pakistani
posts are normally lower and better sheltered, varying from 2,800m
at Dansum to 5,300m at Conway Saddle. Oxygen deprivation, seldom a
concern on other battlefields, poses a serious hazard.
"The soldier first has to fight nature to survive, and then fight
the enemy," Brig Sallah-ud-din told Jane's Defence Weekly at Dansum,
where his 323 Siachen Brigade is headquartered. The frontline force
along an 82km line of contact, 323 Brigade is a formation under the
Forces Command Northern Areas, a division-size element of the
Pakistan Army based at Gilgit.
The Indian Army's lead formation is 102 Infantry Brigade,
headquartered at Partapur. However, other units of unknown strength
supplement both brigades - Pakistani troops generally serving here
for a one-year period, Indians on a six-month rotation.
Indian sources recently told The Hindu newspaper that the Siachen
dispute has so far cost New Delhi nearly 2,000 killed and 10,000
injured. Separately, a paper published by the US-based Cooperative
Monitoring Centre states that hostile fire historically accounts for
just 3% of Indian casualties.
Without citing figures, Islamabad says its casualties are sharply
down in recent years for reasons equally applicable to the Indian
side: the 1992 shift to attrition-oriented warfare, and hard-gained
experience of the environment. Pakistan claims the ratio of
battle-related casualties to other losses is 1:2 now, down from a
"much higher level" of earlier years.
Support of its operations in the region cost New Delhi Rs50 million
($1.17 million) daily, The Hindu newspaper contends, largely because
of the complexities of logistic support that include a heavy
dependence on helicopter transport. Pakistan says its costs are
about $32,000 daily, the substantially lower figure reflecting a
decade of road-building completed about four years ago.
Brig Sallah-ud-din cites several military adjustments unique to the
Siachen region. These range from training to the deployment of
troops and weapons, from specialised rations to medical support.
Few of the troops serving in Siachen are fully qualified
mountaineers but all must have at least basic climbing and survival
skills. Proficient mountaineers, mainly assigned to serve as
instructors, are trained on three- to four-month courses near Astor
in Azad Kashmir. Other personnel undertake a four-week
course at Dansum, which combines basic skills with physical
conditioning, acclimatisation to high altitude and weapons training.
Forces deployed at forward posts are normally of section strength,
and seldom number more than a platoon. The unique terrain means the
conventional concept of these small units providing mutual defensive
support is impossible to implement, and each must be able to survive
independently for extended periods.
Operational requirements also dictate adjustments to weaponry that
go beyond efforts to lighten their weight. Each battalion has three
or four times the normal number of mortars, and each regiment more
than double the usual allocation of artillery pieces. Weapons such
as .50-calibre, 14.5mm, 37mm and 57mm anti-aircraft guns are here
brought to bear on ground targets.
The thin air at high altitude drastically affects accuracy of fire,
and experience has helped both sides adjust their targeting tables
accordingly. However, conditions can change daily and over-shooting
is common. The difficulties of resupply, meanwhile, result in
ammunition stocks being maintained at high levels.
Rations are supplemented to take into account higher caloric
requirements, especially in winter. This largely involves high-sugar
foods like dried fruit, glucose and honey. Some fresh foods are
provided to forward posts in summer but most of the rations are
tinned to allow stocking a full year's supply.
Pakistan Army Maj Muhomad Satti Akmal is the officer responsible for
logistics. "We plan for the complete year, including sufficient
reserve supplies," he said. "There is extensive forward dumping, and
the system has got to be really fine-tuned as everything must be
transported [and stored] during the three or four months after the
weather clears sometime in May."
Most supplies on the Pakistani side are transported by vehicle over
rough roads kept open year-round. Locally-bred ponies or mules cover
the distance from road-heads to forward posts, each carrying loads
of 80-100kg. Civilian porters, each carrying about 20kg, serve a few
high posts. Movement in the forward areas is conducted at night or
during low visibility to avoid attracting enemy fire.
The Pakistan Army has similarly adjusted its medical organisation,
with a nursing non-commissioned officer assigned to each post and a
doctor to each company. Such a concentration is unfeasible elsewhere
in the country. The posts have extensive medical supplies, including
oxygen cylinders, and feed patients to a fully equipped hospital
situated in the forward area and staffed with a range of
specialists.
Consultations can be held by radio, with each field doctor
overseeing 20-30 paramedics. Although evacuations normally take up
to three hours, the procedure can be carried out in 30 minutes if
required, with helicopter transport available to accommodate severe
cases. Like the road network, the army's medical staff and
facilities also benefit the local civilian population.
Three severe environmental factors govern conditions at Siachen:
weather, terrain and altitude. Each can have a significant impact on
combat operations.
Low temperature and blizzards are the main weather-related hazards.
The former can produce hypothermia, frostbite and chilblains - each
potentially debilitating and sometimes lethal. Blizzards can cause
death or injury because of disorientation. Temporary snow-blindness
is also evident.
Casualties resulting from weather have been substantially reduced
since the conflict's early years - mainly because of improved
clothing and equipment, and improved procedures gained through
costly experience. Pakistan receives its cold-weather gear from the
UK, and India from Switzerland or Austria.
Problems related to terrain include avalanches, treacherous
crevasses and ravines, and climbing accidents related to the steep
gradients. Training and experience have, once again, provided some
solution. For instance, better preventative measures have been
introduced as areas prone to avalanche were identified together with
the conditions under which they normally occur.
The oxygen deprivation that can occur at extreme altitude causes
changes in body chemistry that are still not fully understood.
Neither is it clear why some people are affected and others not, and
the question of which individual will suffer problems is not
predictable.
The main illnesses commonly evident in the region are acute mountain
sickness (AMS), cerebral oedema and pulmonary oedema. Hypertension
and cardiac problems are also seen, along with such maladies as
chronic weight loss and psychological disorders. These can be fatal
if left untreated, and descent to lower altitude can commonly
relieve all such illnesses.
Symptoms of AMS include headache, giddiness, palpitations, muscular
weakness, fatigue, appetite loss, sleeplessness, irritability,
nausea and vomiting. The disorder appears at altitudes above 2,500m
and usually disappears within four to seven days. Chronic AMS is a
variation that can take up to six months to clear. Its indicators
include memory loss, difficulties with decision-making and attitude,
nightmares and hallucinations.
Oedemas involve the swelling of tissue because of excess fluids, and
they can be induced if AMS is left untreated or if individuals climb
above 4,500m. Symptoms of the pulmonary version include cough, chest
discomfort, lethargy, palpitations and frothy or bloody sputum.
Symptoms of the cerebral version include severe headache,
difficulties with balance, visual and hearing loss, confusion,
speech defects and emotional problems.
Professional mountaineers are equally susceptible to these
illnesses. However, mountaineers climbing for sport limit their
ascents to the summer season while the soldiers serve in Siachen
year-round. Also, the mountaineers normally spend eight or 10 days
at high altitude while these troops can be deployed at observation
posts for two to three months. Finally, of course, the soldiers are
subject to hostile fire.
"Most of the people serving here, 80-90% of them, are from the
lowlands. They are not physically made for this area," said the 322
Siachen Brigade's medical officer, Maj Hassan Iqbal. Proper
acclimatisation is essential, he added, although some personnel may
have altitude ceilings beyond which they cannot safely venture.
"We keep a person at 10,000-11,000ft for about one week, then he
goes to 13,000-14,000ft for a week or 10 days. A thorough medical
check-up follows," said Maj Hassan, describing the procedure. "From
that point, one night of rest is required for each 1,000ft climbed
in a day. Normally, the move from base camp to a post takes two to
three weeks." Those who succumb to mild AMS descend to the base
altitude and try the process a second time, while anyone suffering
from an oedema or similarly serious problem is quickly re-assigned
elsewhere. Support personnel found to have altitude ceilings are
retained but combat soldiers must be fully capable of ascending to
extreme altitudes.
Perhaps more than civilians, soldiers are often psychologically
geared to dismiss the relatively mild discomfort of a headache or a
cough. However, together with similar irritants, these may here
indicate serious problems that require concerted education and a
broader awareness.
"Troops are encouraged, irrespective of rank, to keep an eye on how
others are behaving. That person may not realise the symptoms of
illness, may not understand why he is depressed or irritated," said
Brig Sallah-ud-din. "We place great stress on comradeship."
- Robert Karniol is JDW's Asia Editor based in Bangkok

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Great place to test all the physical and emotional faculties of the human being!!

It is a place that gives new meaning to life that we take for granted!!

Tough, but emotionally very nourishing and cleansing!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hoodhood1

I have heard that there have been incidences of Bear attacks in that region also?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Not that I have heard of them on the Indian side.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## F.O.X

Neither on Pakistani Side.


Regards
Wilco


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

WILCO said:


> Neither on Pakistani Side.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Wilco



Then what is hoodhood1 talking about?

any idea?

Or, are you suggesting that he is hallucinating?

Or writing for the sake of misplaced patriotism?


----------



## F.O.X

Salim said:


> Then what is hoodhood1 talking about?
> 
> any idea?
> 
> Or, are you suggesting that he is hallucinating?
> 
> Or writing for the sake of misplaced patriotism?


He may have heard a rumor from somewhere.


Regards
Wilco


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

So, he is a rumour monger! 

I rather believe that all are responsible people here since the Forum is quite a responsible one.

I wouldn't say he has heard a rumour. He has heard a rather ridiculous thing and all he is doing is that he wants to clear his mind!


----------



## Blackpearl

Siachen galcier is @ hieght of above 11,000 ft with peeks reaching to 24,000 ft. At this height, it is not possible for any living thing to survive. only humans can survive up there.

Also above 15,000 ft, there is no vegetation, no tree, no grass.


----------



## mujahideen

Blackwater said:


> Siachen galcier is @ hieght of above 11,000 ft with peeks reaching to 24,000 ft. At this height, it is not possible for any living thing to survive. only humans can survive up there.
> 
> Also above 15,000 ft, there is no vegetation, no tree, no grass.



My hats off to the troops of both India and Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fatman17

mujahideen said:


> My hats off to the troops of both India and Pakistan.




the question begs to be answered - is it worth it? - India spending upto US$ 500m/year and pakistan US$ 50m/year. resources which can be better utilised elsewhere i am sure.


----------



## mujahideen

fatman17 said:


> the question begs to be answered - is it worth it? - India spending upto US$ 500m/year and pakistan US$ 50m/year. resources which can be better utilised elsewhere i am sure.



Of course this amount could be better spent somewhere else. I have always wonder, what if Pakistan and India were not so hostile to each other? They wouldn't of had spent billions of dollars on defence, but use it on health, education and other places which actually help the people. But then again defence is very important, without a good defence their might not be a country.


----------



## su-47

Defence is definitely important, but if India and Pakistan werent enemies, they wouldnt need to have such large armies, or spend so much on military equipment. The 'minimum deterrent factor' that every armed forces require would be much less. 

More than money, we have to ask whether the cost of human life is worth it. Tens of thousands have died so far in Indo-Pak overt and covert conflicts. Could have all been avoided if the leaders of either country just sat their ***** down and negotiated properly and reach a satisfactory agreement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

The only solution is status quo being recognised as final

Anything else will neither be acceptable to India or Pakistan.


----------



## Blackpearl

Looking into the genesis of Siachen conflict, It is India which started that all in 1984. Although, there is now a tense ceasefire prevailing all over the LOC including the Siachen, however, India and Pakistan are sticking to there respective positions.

To resolve the issue, Pakistan stance is more realistic:
Pakistan wants India to go back to pre 1984 positions on ground. This means both India and Pakistan will withdraw their troops from present positions and will redeploy where they are not in direct contact with each other, eyeball to eyeball.

However, India has proved itself more stubborn. India donot want to relinquish present positions and want status que to be maintainrd. This implies that all the mountain peaks which India has occupied, Pakistan must concead to this, which is unacceptable. Interestingly, Govt of India, wants redeployment of troops, yet it is Indian Army, which donot want to leave posts and thus does not want settlement of conflict.


----------



## Blackpearl

Status Quo is unacceptable to Pakistan, 'cause, it means 
1. we are accepting the 1984 aggressive actions of India.
2. As India now commands the heights in northern part of glacier, so It will keep on overlooking our positions.

3. It means that troops will continue to man all present posts, which are as high as 23,000 ft. So troops will continue to suffer from harsh climatic conditions.

If Pakistan stance is analyzed, it merits, due to following,

1. That wil be a 'Nobody Loses' situation, as both Pakistani and Indian troops will be pulled backfrom heights.

2. The area will be de-militarized. Since 1984, ecosystem of the glacier has suffered a lot, due to war. ammunition crates, tinfood wastes and unconsumed fuel and its containers litter the area. The whole are needs to be cleaned as this area is feeding water to River Indus and we dont want a contaminated water, comming all from Siachen.

3. If troops are pulled back and they are stationed at reletively, lesser heights, i think it will be a moment of triumph for humanity. 

It is very easy to say , to maintain 'Status Quo' , one should not forget the soldiers, who are facing the toughest of living conditions, just maintaining Status quo.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Blackwater said:


> Looking into the genesis of Siachen conflict, It is India which started that all in 1984. Although, there is now a tense ceasefire prevailing all over the LOC including the Siachen, however, India and Pakistan are sticking to there respective positions.
> 
> To resolve the issue, Pakistan stance is more realistic:
> Pakistan wants India to go back to pre 1984 positions on ground. This means both India and Pakistan will withdraw their troops from present positions and will redeploy where they are not in direct contact with each other, eyeball to eyeball.
> 
> However, India has proved itself more stubborn. India donot want to relinquish present positions and want status que to be maintainrd. This implies that all the mountain peaks which India has occupied, Pakistan must concead to this, which is unacceptable. Interestingly, Govt of India, wants redeployment of troops, yet it is Indian Army, which donot want to leave posts and thus does not want settlement of conflict.



Kashmir, as per Pakistan, is a disputed country.

Therefore, if there is a part of Kashmir that is vacant and which is rightfully Indians, as per India's point of view, how is it that India started the show?

There is nothing about India being stubborn. Just because India beat Pakistan to the draw, it doesn't mean that the action was wrong. If Pakistan occupied it before India, would you then say that it was a wrong action?

One could even argue, given your slant of argument, Pakistan should quit Kashmir, since she started it!

Obviously, the logic is flawed, when observing with the background of the issue.

If you understood military operations in High Altitude, you would realise why the Indian Army is not keen to quit the heights.

Ask a military person to explain it to you.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

> Blackwater said:
> 
> 
> 
> Status Quo is unacceptable to Pakistan, 'cause, it means
> 1. we are accepting the 1984 aggressive actions of India.
> 2. As India now commands the heights in northern part of glacier, so It will keep on overlooking our positions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you are suggesting that India should do everything that is in Pakistan's favour and she sits back sucking her thumb!
> 
> Hardly logical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. It means that troops will continue to man all present posts, which are as high as 23,000 ft. So troops will continue to suffer from harsh climatic conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this harsh climate is causing sufferance to the Pakistani troops, then no one is stopping them from leaving!
> 
> It is not making any difference to the Indian trroops and so they are quite willing to hang around!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Pakistan stance is analyzed, it merits, due to following,
> 
> 1. That wil be a 'Nobody Loses' situation, as both Pakistani and Indian troops will be pulled backfrom heights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that in Kashmir, it is a "Nobody Loses" military scenario?
> 
> I wonder why should India be so concerned as to ensure Pakistan does not lose. India surely loses because it will lose what it has occupied as her right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The area will be de-militarized. Since 1984, ecosystem of the glacier has suffered a lot, due to war. ammunition crates, tinfood wastes and unconsumed fuel and its containers litter the area. The whole are needs to be cleaned as this area is feeding water to River Indus and we dont want a contaminated water, comming all from Siachen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one is that concerned about the ecosystem, let them take on the US since they are supposed to be the ones who are doing the greatest damage to the environment!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. If troops are pulled back and they are stationed at reletively, lesser heights, i think it will be a moment of triumph for humanity.
> 
> It is very easy to say , to maintain 'Status Quo' , one should not forget the soldiers, who are facing the toughest of living conditions, just maintaining Status quo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately you do not understand High Altitude Warfare or the Acclimatisation regime.
> 
> By going down to lower heights will not serve anyone's interest and instead will be very disadvantageous.
> 
> It is very easy to say "Status Quo" for the simple reason that the Indian Army is not afraid to face the toughest of living conditions and India has the 'loose change' to maintain what is up there on the Siachen!
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## blain2

> If this harsh climate is causing sufferance to the Pakistani troops, then no one is stopping them from leaving!
> 
> It is not making any difference to the Indian trroops and so they are quite willing to hang around!



I am sure you are fully aware that the feelings are exactly mutual on the Pakistani side as well. 



> Unfortunately you do not understand High Altitude Warfare or the Acclimatisation regime.
> 
> By going down to lower heights will not serve anyone's interest and instead will be very disadvantageous.
> 
> It is very easy to say "Status Quo" for the simple reason that the Indian Army is not afraid to face the toughest of living conditions and India has the 'loose change' to maintain what is up there on the Siachen!



Not understanding High alt. warfare does not negate the fact that many who are there would rather not be even if having enough acclimatized troops is not an issue (which for Pakistan and India is really not a problem due to very many of the units and troops being deployed at the LoC which in itself is a good acclimatisation exercise prior to undergoing further acclimatisation training at even higher altitudes). But in any case (and as the ground realities are), if the IA is there, you sure as hell can bet that Pakistanis will be there as well till kingdom comes (reminds me of a great article in the mountaineering magazine "Outside" about Siachen in which they profiled a young Pakistani and Indian Army officer deployed on Siachen. Both were pretty sure that they needed to stay up there for the same reasons) ....I guess the whole discussion is a moot point since both sides are fine maintaining status-quo. Like you say about no problems in IA continuing on as is, at least in the PMA, there is no shortage of officers willing to volunteer for stints on the glacier, so I think motivation is not a problem on this side either (and I am sure you would say the same about your boys).

While the two Armies may be willing to carry on indefinitely, of all the other ongoing issues, this may be the easier of the bunch between the two countries to be solved by civilians, although if history is something to go by, I am not very optimistic...but in any case life goes on.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

> blain2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you are fully aware that the feelings are exactly mutual on the Pakistani side as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't know for sure.
> 
> The Lament is from the Pakistani members.
> 
> Maybe they are expressing the popular view.
> 
> Personally, I find that there is no reason for the Pak Army having consternation because they are on lower heights and their lines of communication is way better and easier!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not understanding High alt. warfare does not negate the fact that many who are there would rather not be even if having enough acclimatized troops is not an issue (which for Pakistan and India is really not a problem due to very many of the units and troops being deployed at the LoC which in itself is a good acclimatisation exercise prior to undergoing further acclimatisation training at even higher altitudes). But in any case (and as the ground realities are), if the IA is there, you sure as hell can bet that Pakistanis will be there as well till kingdom comes (reminds me of a great article in the mountaineering magazine "Outside" about Siachen in which they profiled a young Pakistani and Indian Army officer deployed on Siachen. Both were pretty sure that they needed to stay up there for the same reasons) ....I guess the whole discussion is a moot point since both sides are fine maintaining status-quo. Like you say about no problems in IA continuing on as is, at least in the PMA, there is no shortage of officers willing to volunteer for stints on the glacier, so I think motivation is not a problem on this side either (and I am sure you would say the same about your boys).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am yet to know of those who do not want to go to Siachen.
> 
> It is an experience of a lifetime.
> 
> Understanding High Altitude Warfare is important. If the Indian Army goes to lower altitudes it will take a stages of Accilmatisation before they come to where they were. And if someone occupies those heights in the interim, then whatever was with India will be gone!
> 
> Siachen is not a volunteer assignment in India. It is a normal routine turnover.
> 
> There is a very good financial compensation for this tenure.
> 
> You are right. Both will hang around till Kingdom Comes. Therefore, I find it odd that to find the lament amongst some posters with such, if you don't mind, childish reasons as to what India or Pakistan should do.
> 
> Conflicts rarely bows to humanitarian or ecological reasons. In fact, conflicts are an antitheses of such lofty morality!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the two Armies may be willing to carry on indefinitely, of all the other ongoing issues, this may be the easier of the bunch between the two countries to be solved by civilians, although if history is something to go by, I am not very optimistic...but in any case life goes on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not until a solution, acceptable to both sides, on Kashmir is arrived at.
> 
> It is also kiteflying and a pipedream that either India or Pakistan can win by force the whole of Kashmir.
> 
> But then there are many kiteflyers on forums.
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## blain2

Salim said:


> Personally, I find that there is no reason for the Pak Army having consternation because they are on lower heights and their lines of communication is way better and easier!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am yet to know of those who do not want to go to Siachen.
> 
> It is an experience of a lifetime.
> 
> Understanding High Altitude Warfare is important. If the Indian Army goes to lower altitudes it will take a stages of Accilmatisation before they come to where they were. And if someone occupies those heights in the interim, then whatever was with India will be gone!
> 
> Siachen is not a volunteer assignment in India. It is a normal routine turnover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Its normal on this side as well. Was just pointing to the fact that there is no shortage of people willing to feel out Siachen on the Pakistani side, many of those who are getting a commission from the PMA into Infantry units love to head out if they can even before the chance of their unit being rotated comes around.
> 
> Your point about acclimatisation is not lost on me. Thus I mentioned that there obviously is a system in place for acclimatizing troops for higher altitudes. Both have troops deployed on fairly comparable altitudes and both have significant manpower (from most accounts, IA has almost double the size of the Pakistani units operating there so if anyone is to risk the loss of acclimatized troops after a climb down, then its the Pakistani side). So I am not suggesting a one-sided withdrawal where only one side risks losing acclimatized manpower.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. Both will hang around till Kingdom Comes. Therefore, I find it odd that to find the lament amongst some posters with such, if you don't mind, childish reasons as to what India or Pakistan should do.
> 
> Conflicts rarely bows to humanitarian or ecological reasons. In fact, conflicts are an antitheses of such lofty morality!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes but these are public forums and you have posters from all backgrounds and levels of exposure to the topic or subject matter on hand. So I am not surprised if someone comes up and posts "siachen hamara hai" type of a thing...have seen it on the Pakistani forums and have seen it on Indian ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not until a solution, acceptable to both sides, on Kashmir is arrived at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not disagree. I for one at least would never suggest that only the Pakistan side walks away with everything. Even a suggestion of that would be a non-starter even before we start talking.
> 
> 
> 
> It is also kiteflying and a pipedream that either India or Pakistan can win by force the whole of Kashmir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with this statement as well. Force has been tried and has failed. Time to evaluate new solutions to this 6 decade old problem.
Click to expand...


----------



## Blackpearl

I think everybody will agree that Pakistan and India should be at peace with each other. People of both the countries want this. However, there has to be a start point on way to peace. 

Lets not mix with Siachen with Kashmir. The matter of Kashmir is to sensitive and complcated, as it involved the people in Kashmir valley. Asi remember, Paksitan, in recent past has shown flexibility towards, its traditional stance of claiming the whole of Kashmir, wherein, now govt talks of division across River Jehlum, more or less a status quo. Anyway, both govt are refraining to come openly on this issue.

Siachen is a good start point. It is totally unhabitat area. local people inspirations are not as involved as in case of Kashmir. Resolving Siachen will boast confidence building between the two countries.

I think we have to give credit to each other (India and Pakistan), trust each other as responsible country, and have faith in peace. Both countries if withdraw, from present positions, should trust each other as nobody will be palying foul with each other and stabb in the back. What India and Pakistan have gained in these 25 years.


----------



## JK!

What heavy weapons have been deployed at Siachen if any?


----------



## Blackpearl

130 mm guns


----------



## blain2

JK! said:


> What heavy weapons have been deployed at Siachen if any?



Roughly speaking, on the glacier itself, 105mm howitzers (problems with logistics and elevation etc. limit bigger guns, however T-59 130mm guns have been used considerably but from bases further down) , 81mm and smaller caliber Mortars, TOW ATGMs for specific operations. That is the typical medium-heavy hardware at least on the Pakistani side.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

> Blackwater said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everybody will agree that Pakistan and India should be at peace with each other. People of both the countries want this. However, there has to be a start point on way to peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets not mix with Siachen with Kashmir. The matter of Kashmir is to sensitive and complcated, as it involved the people in Kashmir valley. Asi remember, Paksitan, in recent past has shown flexibility towards, its traditional stance of claiming the whole of Kashmir, wherein, now govt talks of division across River Jehlum, more or less a status quo. Anyway, both govt are refraining to come openly on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should Kashmir and Siachen not be clubbed. It is Kashmir.
> 
> India claims whole of Kashmir and I am not aware of the new Pak stance.
> 
> To my mind, the LC would be the answer since it has hardly changed over the years and has become the de facto dividing line!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siachen is a good start point. It is totally unhabitat area. local people inspirations are not as involved as in case of Kashmir. Resolving Siachen will boast confidence building between the two countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inhabitation or otherwise does not matter. Territory does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we have to give credit to each other (India and Pakistan), trust each other as responsible country, and have faith in peace. Both countries if withdraw, from present positions, should trust each other as nobody will be palying foul with each other and stabb in the back. What India and Pakistan have gained in these 25 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is utopia given the history of the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As of going there, and to know the conditions there, i think i am bit qualified to comment on that, as i have been to Siachen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And so have I and heights higher than you!
> 
> Here is what my friend has to say:
> 
> Why Siachen matters
Click to expand...


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

BTW, Athale is a peacenik!


----------



## Blackpearl

India has deployed 155mm FH77 guns, and man!!!
they are quite effective

It is believed that India is also using reconniasance and targetting UAVs in over the glacier. 

As far as i am concerned i have deep respect for Indian troops deployed in glacier for their professionalism.


----------



## blain2

Blackwater said:


> India has deployed 155mm FH77 guns, and man!!!
> they are quite effective
> 
> It is believed that India is also using reconniasance and targetting UAVs in over the glacier.
> 
> As far as i am concerned i have deep respect for Indian troops deployed in glacier for their professionalism.



I do not believe that the FH-77s have been deployed "on" the glacier itself (although its possible). I am sure some of the Indians can comment on this aspect.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

I have deep respect for all who are deployed on the Siachen for the sake of their country.

Be they Indians or Pakistanis.

We only do our duty!


----------



## blain2

Salim said:


> BTW, Athale is a peacenik!





> Interestingly, the post was held by the much heralded Pakistani commandos and was captured by the India Army's 'ordinary' infantry.



 As soon as you read inaccurate stuff full of bravado like this, all the objectivity of the so-called "Peacenik" goes out the door. Also India not trusting Pakistan is a joke in the eyes of most Pakistanis after what transpired in 1971. Although we can debate the recent reasons for the lack of confidence on the Indian side, both sides always have a ready list of gripes from the past.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

blain2 said:


> As soon as you read inaccurate stuff full of bravado like this, all the objectivity of the so-called "Peacenik" goes out the door. Also India not trusting Pakistan is a joke in the eyes of most Pakistanis after what transpired in 1971. Although we can debate the recent reasons for the lack of confidence on the Indian side, both sides always have a ready list of gripes from the past.



What is the "accurate" stuff?


----------



## Blackpearl

The referral may be to Pakistan lost of Quide OP, i think in 1986, 
Indian captured the post and named it as Bana Post, in hounour of Naib Subidar Bana Singh. This Indian post is still there today.

A brief account of the fight on post:
The post was held by 5 Pakistani SSG commandos. The brave souls defended the post for straight 3 days. No re-enforcement was possible as ropes from lower Quid Post, for transportation of, troops and men were cut due to extensive shelling by Indian Artillery. Without food, water and limited ammunition, commandos held for 3 days. finally all soldiers embrassed shahadat. and Indians captured the post at the end of 3rd day. Indian Army suffered 45 casualities, however they captured the post. Indeed, this was a great loss for Pakistan Army, as Indians were able to gain dominant position in area. Due to loss of Quid OP, our Artillery observers were deprived of observations. Bana OP completely masked Indian Positions in the north.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Thanks for the Pakistani side of the issue!


----------



## Blackpearl

The battle accounts are true, you can check from Mr Bana Singh (Retd).


----------



## blain2

Salim said:


> What is the "accurate" stuff?



SSG was never stationed on the post and the post itself was occupied by regular infantry (similar to the regular IA infantry unit which took over the post)..I can dig up the unit of the cadres defending the post. The only time SSG was used was in 87 during operation Qiyadat to retake the post. SSG, after the initial deployment of Pakistani forces in '84 (12 days after Indian troops were observed on the glacier in April of that year), was never deployed on the posts to defend them as such.

All 5 of the jawans died on the Quaid post after running out of ammo but killed many of the attackers.


----------



## Blackpearl

blain2 said:


> SSG was never stationed on the post and the post itself was occupied by regular infantry (similar to the regular IA infantry unit which took over the post)..I can dig up the unit of the cadres defending the post. The only time SSG was used was in 87 during operation Qiyadat to retake the post. SSG, after the initial deployment of Pakistani forces in '84 (12 days after Indian troops were observed on the glacier in April of that year), was never deployed on the posts to defend them as such.
> 
> All 5 of the jawans died on the Quaid post after running out of ammo but killed many of the attackers.



Sir, You are actually misunderastnding 2 posts in the same sector. The details are as follows:
*Sector: Bilafond La Glacier, Ali Brangsa Sector.*
1. This is a pass, which is protected by mountain tops on its right and left.
On the right shoulder of the pass is Bana OP, (then Quide OP). Quide OP was held by SSG,confirmed, led by Naib Subidar Atta Muhammad Shaheed, Sitara-i-Jurrat.

2. On the left shoulder of this Bilafond La pass is another mountain top on which Rana post is there. This is presently manned by Indians. But it was held, earlier by Pakistan. And yes , here you are right, it was manned by troops of Northern Light Infantry, then an irregular outfit. Northern Light Infantry is given regimental status only after Kargil war. 

3. So at that time, paramilitary troops of Paksitan were defending left shoulder of pass, Rana OP. and right sholder was protected by Quide OP (SSG), being higher post, good for directing artillery fire on Indians. 

4. Indians took both the posts, i think in the same year, 1986, yat not sure about exact year. Operation Qiadat was launched to retake Rana Post from Indians, as it was easier to retake as compared to Bana OP.

5. Led by then SSG troops, the Rana post was almost captured, except a lone bunker, which was manned by an Indian Lieutenant from a Sikh regiment and some soldiers. Pakistani troops were only 15 meters away from bunker and as they were goint to finally assault the bunker, the brave Lieut, asked Indian Artillery for SOS fire. Heavy shelling, subsequently killed all the attackers and defendors. Afetr some time , Indians reinforcement reached Rana Post and retained the occupation. The bodies of SSG troops who died in battle were returned by Indian by complete one year as all of them were burried under heavy snow.

6. I have met a person who saw the bodies of SSG troops, which were returned by Indian by full military honour. The bodies were as fresh as died just now. 

7. Operation Qiadat was a failure. Loss of Quide OP was greatest set back. Actually, SSG troops were holding, some posts in Siachen, some were held by regular Infantry, some by Paramilitaries. so the command channels were complicated and did not converge. Afetr this episode, it was realised that SSG will only assist the regualr infantry. They were then placed under command of Commanding Officers of regular Infantry Battalions.


----------



## Blackpearl

Oh yae, there is something very important i forgot to mention. Actually i was trying to remember the post.

Operation Qiadat, did not go totally in vain. Pakistani troops were unable to capture back Rana post due to dedicated efforts of Indian soldiers, however, a new post was established by Pakistani troops. This post is still manned by Pakistani troops. This Pakistani post is present , surrounded by Indian posts, which are literally at stone through length. Guardians of this post are keeping a watchful eye, over Indian side. 

The name of this post is TABISH.


----------



## blain2

Blackwater said:


> Sir, You are actually misunderastnding 2 posts in the same sector. The details are as follows:
> *Sector: Bilafond La Glacier, Ali Brangsa Sector.*
> 1. This is a pass, which is protected by mountain tops on its right and left.
> On the right shoulder of the pass is Bana OP, (then Quide OP). Quide OP was held by SSG,confirmed, led by Naib Subidar Atta Muhammad Shaheed, Sitara-i-Jurrat.
> 
> 2. On the left shoulder of this Bilafond La pass is another mountain top on which Rana post is there. This is presently manned by Indians. But it was held, earlier by Pakistan. And yes , here you are right, it was manned by troops of Northern Light Infantry, then an irregular outfit. Northern Light Infantry is given regimental status only after Kargil war.
> 
> 3. So at that time, paramilitary troops of Paksitan were defending left shoulder of pass, Rana OP. and right sholder was protected by Quide OP (SSG), being higher post, good for directing artillery fire on Indians.
> 
> 4. Indians took both the posts, i think in the same year, 1986, yat not sure about exact year. Operation Qiadat was launched to retake Rana Post from Indians, as it was easier to retake as compared to Bana OP.
> 
> 5. Led by then SSG troops, the Rana post was almost captured, except a lone bunker, which was manned by an Indian Lieutenant from a Sikh regiment and some soldiers. Pakistani troops were only 15 meters away from bunker and as they were goint to finally assault the bunker, the brave Lieut, asked Indian Artillery for SOS fire. Heavy shelling, subsequently killed all the attackers and defendors. Afetr some time , Indians reinforcement reached Rana Post and retained the occupation. The bodies of SSG troops who died in battle were returned by Indian by complete one year as all of them were burried under heavy snow.
> 
> 6. I have met a person who saw the bodies of SSG troops, which were returned by Indian by full military honour. The bodies were as fresh as died just now.
> 
> 7. Operation Qiadat was a failure. Loss of Quide OP was greatest set back. Actually, SSG troops were holding, some posts in Siachen, some were held by regular Infantry, some by Paramilitaries. so the command channels were complicated and did not converge. Afetr this episode, it was realised that SSG will only assist the regualr infantry. They were then placed under command of Commanding Officers of regular Infantry Battalions.



No I was wrong and you and Col Athale are actually right. Did confirm that the 5 who died on Quaid OP (named after Quaid Coy which actually setup the OP, post and base (all three named Quaid) and not Muhammad Ali Jinnah as is usually understood) including Sub Atta Muhammad (awarded SJ posth.) were from 1 Cdo (Shaheen Coy). 

Blackwater, BTW you are mistaken on the Rana post issue. Op. Qiyadat was undertaken to regain Quaid OP (confirmed!) with SSG leading the assault however the opertaion was to proceed in phases with Rana (captured by Indians) and Akbar post (earlier abandoned) were to be reoccupied followed on by the focus on the Quaid OP. Capt Muhammad Iqbal was awarded a well deserved Hilal-e-Jurrat posthumously (the first officer of the rank of Capt to be awarded the second highest gallantry award) during this operation which failed to retake the post.

On the issue of holding, as I mentioned, after the initial years of consolidation, SSG was removed from this task and NLI and other regular infantry units have been used in this role.


----------



## fatman17

is it worth it that brave young men from both sides are losing their lives for what....


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Fatman,

It is not worth it if you look at it in pure human terms.

But then the Army itself is redundant if there were no nations, no politics and things like that which makes life a complex an issue.


----------



## blain2

fatman17 said:


> is it worth it that brave young men from both sides are losing their lives for what....


Its a waste any which way you look at it. However the mechanics of the relations between the two countries are as such that we will be there for as long as the other side remains.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Both sides will remain forever.

And as I see it, in a peaceful coexistence!


----------



## blain2

Salim said:


> Both sides will remain forever.
> 
> And as I see it, in a peaceful coexistence!



Yes I agree. It seems the current situation is not too bad.


----------



## Blackpearl

blain2 said:


> Yes I agree. It seems the current situation is not too bad.



Easy to say,
But i wish that Siachen is resolved as early as possible, so that troops of both sides donot suffer any longer.


----------



## Astra

fatman17 said:


> the question begs to be answered - is it worth it? - India spending upto US$ 500m/year and pakistan US$ 50m/year. resources which can be better utilised elsewhere i am sure.



It is the question of National Integrity. The army is to guard the honour of the country. USD 500 Million is the little price paid for it along with most precious thing LIFE, that is risked by the soldiers.


----------



## Astra

Blackwater said:


> Easy to say,
> But i wish that Siachen is resolved as early as possible, so that troops of both sides donot suffer any longer.



It is not bound to be resolved atleast in the near future, thanks to the misturst that kargil misadventure has created. 

This is a kind of territory where recapture is almost impossible, so it is better to hold on to respective territories.


----------



## Blackpearl

Astra said:


> It is not bound to be resolved atleast in the near future, thanks to the misturst that kargil misadventure has created.
> 
> This is a kind of territory where recapture is almost impossible, so it is better to hold on to respective territories.



Astra

Nice Avatar yaar!!

Can anybody please tell me how i can select my own Avatar, just struggling with it but of no use.


----------



## blain2

Astra said:


> It is the question of National Integrity. The army is to guard the honour of the country. USD 500 Million is the little price paid for it along with most precious thing LIFE, that is risked by the soldiers.



Yes that is correct. This is the exact sentiment that carries both sides onwards.


----------



## blain2

Blackwater said:


> Astra
> 
> Nice Avatar yaar!!
> 
> Can anybody please tell me how i can select my own Avatar, just struggling with it but of no use.



You can upload it Blackwater. May have an image on your hard drive, just use that. Go to your profile. On the top you will see the tab for "User CP". Just click on that and then it will take you to the CP page. From there on the left, just click on "edit avatar". 

Hth


----------



## blain2

Blackwater said:


> Easy to say,
> But i wish that Siachen is resolved as early as possible, so that troops of both sides donot suffer any longer.



I am with you. Simply stating that since there are no active hostilities taking place on the glacier, the situation is better than before, however the chances of casualties, sickness etc. always exist.


----------



## Contrarian

Let me put things in a straight way. India wont withdraw even if the hostilities end till the time Pakistan recognizes the AGP's, and Pakistan will not do so as thats tantamount to accepting India's claims.

I for one agree with the Army's POV in this, no withdrawal till AGP's are demarcated and agreed to by Pakistan, so that later on, if indeed some 'mujahideens' cross over and settle there, India has the territorial right to bomb them without international discussions and deliberations.


----------



## blain2

malaymishra123 said:


> Let me put things in a straight way. India wont withdraw even if the hostilities end till the time Pakistan recognizes the AGP's, and Pakistan will not do so as thats tantamount to accepting India's claims.
> 
> I for one agree with the Army's POV in this, no withdrawal till AGP's are demarcated and agreed to by Pakistan, so that later on, if indeed some 'mujahideens' cross over and settle there, India has the territorial right to bomb them without international discussions and deliberations.



Well this is the reason that EVERY one of us here believes that this problem and for that matter any other issue between Pakistan and India will remain unresolved perpetually (despite all this talk of mending relations). So the current times are the best of it that the two sides will see.

On the issue of certifying AGPs, you have to understand (and you know this) the mistrust exists on both sides by the tonnage. Why should Pakistan agree to accepting and certifying the AGPs of the own and Indian troops when the area since the time of partition is a disputed territory? Pakistan has the exact same argument about the LoC. Its not International boundary so its subject to each side's interpretation. If the two sides really mean business and mend this mistrust deficit, then we can make some headway. But reality is as such that the possibility of either side putting aside the mistrust is very small.

So whosoever holds on to whatever it is that they are holding will stay on as such. Neither side will be very magnanimous about this issue as there is no need for this right now. Both sides can easily afford to carry on indefinitely.


----------



## Always Neutral

Time for India and Pakistan to move on and leave Siachen and mother nature alone to heal.

The money can be better spent in both countries


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Always Neutral said:


> Time for India and Pakistan to move on and leave Siachen and mother nature alone to heal.
> 
> The money can be better spent in both countries



Ideal, but sadly, it will never come to pass.

Optimistically viewing, a tenure there would give back some of the sanity that is taking a tailspin with the crass commericialism and the get rich quick syndrome that is gripping this world.

Nearer to Thee, My Lord!

Brings back reality, and time to interospect and realise the Sublime!


----------



## fatman17

Salim said:


> Fatman,
> 
> It is not worth it if you look at it in pure human terms.
> 
> But then the Army itself is redundant if there were no nations, no politics and things like that which makes life a complex an issue.



I dont disagree with your utopian view but some things are not worth it in my opinion. humans were not made to exisit at 6,000m (only if they are sitting in a airplane)
having said that, pictures sometimes are more believing than words. suggest everyone see this movie called ZULU starring michael caine. it is the real story of a battle between the english and zulu tribe at a place called rork's creek in the late 1700's. 150 english fighting 4,000 zulu warriors.
u will get my point.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

I have seen it (the Movie).

Moving.

But I have also seen the futility of war and yet nothing changes.

Attitudes of the population is too hardened for any leeway.

The attitude of some of us here is adequate to indicate that the govt cannot change their opinion unless they are suicidal!


----------



## Blackpearl

Gentlemen. 

I will only say that Soldiers are also humans. Our leaders, politicians sitting in air conditioned rooms in New Dehli and Islamabad, are just doing lip service, in the name of so called patriotism.

Thay simply dont know 'What It Really Takes" to stand a single night, on an isolated post, at 21,000 feet, facing blizards reaching 60-80 km/hr, temperatur plummeting to 50 degree Celcius.

Its a daunting task, yet i salute to courage and fortitude, of Soldiers of India and Pakistan, who are as dedicated and loyal to their country, as a solder is required to be. i can only urge both sides,...For God sake, for the sake of humanity, just settle the issue. There is nothing special about that #@$& piece of land. Just stop the misseries of soldiers.


----------



## JK!

fatman17 said:


> I dont disagree with your utopian view but some things are not worth it in my opinion. humans were not made to exisit at 6,000m (only if they are sitting in a airplane)
> having said that, pictures sometimes are more believing than words. suggest everyone see this movie called ZULU starring michael caine. it is the real story of a battle between the english and zulu tribe at a place called rork's creek in the late 1700's. 150 english fighting 4,000 zulu warriors.
> u will get my point.



That would be RORKE'S DRIFT and it is an outstanding film considering the day and age in which it was made when compared to newer films.


----------



## fatman17

JK! said:


> That would be RORKE'S DRIFT and it is an outstanding film considering the day and age in which it was made when compared to newer films.



i stand corrected!


----------



## Contrarian

blain2 said:


> So whosoever holds on to whatever it is that they are holding will stay on as such. Neither side will be very magnanimous about this issue as there is no need for this right now. Both sides can easily afford to carry on indefinitely.



Which is what i think is best anyway, contrary to what the good Brigadier wants. In Siachen, IA occupies the majority of the area, most of the cliff's and significantly all of the important/strategic cliff's are held by India. In Kashmir, India has 2/3rd, which i think is quite alright. It ensures in a conflict, India gains some sort of better starting and staging point.

I'd have been good, if India had been able to cut off the KKH, put a wedge b/w China and Pak, but thats just as always 'what could have been' and not what the reality is ! lol.

You know, even if India were to somehow take ***, it would be a disaster, the local population would rebel, which would mean the single biggest insurgency in India. So that option's basically out realistically speaking, though India still claims the rest. And you see this is recognized as well by Indian govt, you dont see them parading around saying *** is ours.

So the current AGP's according to me should most definitely be held on, without going back an inch. The status quo per me, suits India perfectly.

Test IoK
Question: Why is P-O-K banned? When IoK is very acceptable? Both countries have different terminologies to refer to the respective lands. Banning it here would not change anything. Or saying it Azad Kashmir, doesnt mean accepting that its 'Azad' from India. I think this is a case to say--'grow up'!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Malay,



> Originally Posted by blain2 View Post
> So whosoever holds on to whatever it is that they are holding will stay on as such. Neither side will be very magnanimous about this issue as there is no need for this right now. Both sides can easily afford to carry on indefinitely.



Where have I disagreed with this?


----------



## blain2

Another tidbit about Pakistani reluctance around the entire AGP authentication issue:

Pak army stakes claim to Siachen

Pak army stakes claim to Siachen
November 24, 2006 &#8211; 10:48 pm

November 24, 2006 Islamabad: Giving a new twist to the Siachen issue, Pakistan Army has claimed the glacier is a disputed area as it is part of Kashmir and thus India has no justification to ask Islamabad to authenticate troop positions there.&#8221;Siachen is also part of Kashmir. We think the Indian army went there when there was no military presence and it (take over) was not justified,&#8221; Pakistan Army&#8217;s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Ehsan-ul-Haq said in an interview to Geo TV on Thursday night.

Reacting to the Indian Army officials&#8217; statement expressing reservations over pulling out troops from Siachan without the authentication of troop positions by Pakistan, Haq said such stand may have been taken on presumption that questions may be asked why the army marched into Siachen in 1984 and the criticism that why they have &#8220;occupied&#8221; it.

&#8220;That could be at the back of their mind. To ask Pakistan to authenticate, (positions held by Indians) it is not justified because the full area is disputed and to insist for such things, I do not think it is correct,&#8221; he said.

India, while favouring demilitarisation of Siachen, has maintained that it cannot take place till Pakistan agrees to &#8220;iron-clad&#8221; authentication of present deployment of troops of the two countries.
New Delhi is insisting on authentication because of the experience in Kargil in 1999.

As part of the Indo-Pak dialogue process, both sides have been treating Siachen and Kashmir as separate issues.

Haq said Pakistan wants to have normal ties with India for mutual benefit. &#8220;We want to have normal relations with India which is mutually beneficial&#8221; and it is the wish of the people of the region also, he said.

Pakistan has taken lot of initiatives and lot of CBMs have been agreed upon by both governments which are being implemented. &#8220;The most important issue from Pakistan&#8217;s point of view is Kashmir,&#8221; he said adding that Pakistan leadership has made it clear that unless there is progress on Kashmir tthe CBMs will fall apart.

&#8220;The biggest CBM is to resolve Kashmir. These is complex issue but with a sincere approach and direction it can be resolved,&#8221; he said.

Denying that Pakistan army was in arms race with India he claimed New Delhi was now rated as the highest procurer of defence equipment in the world and Pakistan was only matching to reach the deterrence level.


----------



## blain2

malaymishra123 said:


> Which is what i think is best anyway, contrary to what the good Brigadier wants. In Siachen, IA occupies the majority of the area, most of the cliff's and significantly all of the important/strategic cliff's are held by India. In Kashmir, India has 2/3rd, which i think is quite alright. It ensures in a conflict, India gains some sort of better starting and staging point.
> 
> I'd have been good, if India had been able to cut off the KKH, put a wedge b/w China and Pak, but thats just as always 'what could have been' and not what the reality is ! lol.



Thus the status-quo will be maintained as we all agree.


----------



## fatman17

Always Neutral said:


> Time for India and Pakistan to move on and leave Siachen and mother nature alone to heal.
> 
> The money can be better spent in both countries



Thank God there is someone out there who supports my viewpoint!
Thanks AM


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

The point is a good point.

However, it does not take into account realpolitik.

The world would be a better place if sanity was the rationale to things. Unfortunately, everything that happens is so irrational.

That is the unfortunate and sad reality.


----------



## Iceman

BEAR ATTACK .. i was awaken by a sentry one early morning who told me of a bear lurking very close to the post ... i went outside to see it .. and there it was, a massive brown thing hardly around 50-60 m from my location .. my sentry loaded the weapon and asked my permission to bring it down ... and i was like ... NO NEED ... as long as it does not bother us ... the bear looked at us ... and then slowly walked down into the valley ..
i bet it was looking for a morsel ..o'wise why take risk of coming close to the most vicious creature on earth


----------



## su-47

!ceman said:


> BEAR ATTACK .. i was awaken by a sentry one early morning who told me of a bear lurking very close to the post ... i went outside to see it .. and there it was, a massive brown thing hardly around 50-60 m from my location .. my sentry loaded the weapon and asked my permission to bring it down ... and i was like ... NO NEED ... as long as it does not bother us ... the bear looked at us ... and then slowly walked down into the valley ..
> i bet it was looking for a morsel ..o'wise why take risk of coming close to the most vicious creature on earth



is this your own story or that of another soldier?


----------



## Iceman

since i was talking in first person ..... so .. 100&#37; my own .. my friend ..
Siachin ... been there .. DONE that ...


----------



## Flintlock

!ceman said:


> since i was talking in first person ..... so .. 100% my own .. my friend ..
> Siachin ... been there .. DONE that ...



That's cool man! The closest I've come to a wild animal is an elephant. It ran out of the trees just before my bicycle. I was dead scared, and fled some 100 mts before turning back!


----------



## Iceman

u in Army ?...


----------



## Flintlock

!ceman said:


> u in Army ?...



No..not in the army. I've lived in some interesting places though.


----------



## Iceman

Ahan .... interesting indeed ... although i am sure that elephant is twice as scary than a bear ever could be .. ..... i think .....SIZE DOES MATTER ..


----------



## solid snake

Also I doubt stealth had a gun on him when he chanced upon the elephant :p


----------



## Iceman

well .... i still would prefer to back than to take my chances with an elephant with anything lesser than a 12.7 mm


----------



## XxX_Sniper_Wolf_XxX

hmmm Saichen although I do give credit for a 60 year old country for coming this far but I must say that India took more and achieve far more than Pakistan they even killed 40 SSG during a small shootout. I dont know what the reason is that Pakistan did not advance faster but overall India took the lead. but i dont know what going on now. I researched that Every 4 days a pakistani is killled and every other day an Indian.


----------



## blain2

XxX_Sniper_Wolf_XxX said:


> *hmmm Saichen although I do give credit for a 60 year old country for coming this far but I must say that India took more and achieve far more than Pakistan they even killed 40 SSG during a small shootout. I dont know what the reason is that Pakistan did not advance faster but overall India took the lead. but i dont know what going on now. I researched that Every 4 days a pakistani is killled and every other day an Indian.*



Which small operation are you referring to? Regardless of any operation you can think of, Pakistan Army has never suffered any such casualties in a single operation on Siachen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Keysersoze

XxX_Sniper_Wolf_XxX said:


> hmmm Saichen although I do give credit for a 60 year old country for coming this far but I must say that India took more and achieve far more than Pakistan they even killed 40 SSG during a small shootout. I dont know what the reason is that Pakistan did not advance faster but overall India took the lead. but i dont know what going on now. I researched that Every 4 days a pakistani is killled and every other day an Indian.



Where did you "research"? please share this with us......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Goodperson

*Pakistan conveys concern to US over Gen Casey visit to disputed Kashmir territory*

WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (APP) :The Pakistani embassy here officially has conveyed Islamabad&#8217;s concern to the United States over the American military Chief General George W Casey&#8217;s reported visit to Siachen in the Indian occupied Kashmir.

Washington officially considers Kashmir as a disputed region between Pakistan and India whereas the senior US military leaders&#8217;s visit could be interpreted as endorsement of New Delhi&#8217;s position.

Pakitan and India are engaged in a dialogue process to resolve the decades-old Kashmir dispute and experts say visits by foreign officials to the Indian occupied territory could undermine the peace talks.

Associated Press Of Pakistan ( Pakistan&#039;s Premier NEWS Agency )

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## batmannow

Shivaji;
its not crying, but it just diplomatic crap, but what you think about , a situation where coas of PLAC visting Siachen Glacier pak side?
i guss, thn you will be thinking of "Grapes are sour" story .


----------



## deltacamelately

batmannow said:


> Shivaji;
> its not crying, but it just diplomatic crap, but what you think about , a situation where coas of PLAC visting Siachen Glacier pak side?
> i guss, thn you will be thinking of "Grapes are sour" story .


Batmannow,
Couldn't quite get your point. Could you please eleborate?


----------



## third eye

Blackwater said:


> Looking into the genesis of Siachen conflict, It is India which started that all in 1984. Although, there is now a tense ceasefire prevailing all over the LOC including the Siachen, however, India and Pakistan are sticking to there respective positions.
> 
> To resolve the issue, Pakistan stance is more realistic:
> Pakistan wants India to go back to pre 1984 positions on ground. This means both India and Pakistan will withdraw their troops from present positions and will redeploy where they are not in direct contact with each other, eyeball to eyeball.
> 
> However, India has proved itself more stubborn. India donot want to relinquish present positions and want status que to be maintainrd. This implies that all the mountain peaks which India has occupied, Pakistan must concead to this, which is unacceptable. Interestingly, Govt of India, wants redeployment of troops, yet it is Indian Army, which donot want to leave posts and thus does not want settlement of conflict.




Pak wants to go back to '48 coz in so doing it stands to gain while IA does not want to lose what it has lost lives for.

Whats stubborn abt it ? It makes military sense to hold the ground.


----------



## Kasrkin

It makes absolutely no military or any other sense. Every professional observer will tell you this, it was a retarded idea from the start. Indian forces cant come down and Pakistani forces can't go up, and men from both armies are dying (Indians more than Pakistanis). What possible strategic objective could anyone have in stationing troops in a desolate waste land with no prospect of further advancment? It's just about vain pride. Why waste more men because of the ones you have already wasted? Makes NO sense.


----------



## third eye

Kasrkin said:


> It makes absolutely no military or any other sense. Every professional observer will tell you this, it was a retarded idea from the start. Indian forces cant come down and Pakistani forces can't go up, and men from both armies are dying (Indians more than Pakistanis). What possible strategic objective could anyone have in stationing troops in a desolate waste land with no prospect of further advancment? It's just about vain pride. Why waste more men because of the ones you have already wasted? Makes NO sense.



How many things that India - Pak have done which have any sense ?

What makes mil sense is not vacating heights till the ground positions are validated & recorded by both parties.

It seems like a retarded idea coz Pak is on lower heights, if it were the other way round it wouldn't.

Was kargil a retarded idea ? To Pak it wasn't , to India is is.


----------



## Kasrkin

> How many things that India - Pak have done which have any sense ?



You change track pretty quickly, first you proclaimed that its sound military logic and then you attempt to dilute my reality check by suggesting that Pakistan has no sense? 

What importance are ground positions to you when it is a bloody desolate waste land completely insignificant in terms of any military application and no use to anyone other than the most dedicated mountaineers? Indian soldiers DIE horrible, lonely and cold deaths on a daily basis, why so you can keep a grasp on something insignificant that was never even yours? Do you value the lives of your men so lowly? What is this if not vain pride I ask you?



> It seems like a retarded idea coz Pak is on lower heights, if it were the other way round it wouldn't.



Your understanding of the situation seems to be retarded. Indian forces are essentially check-mated and have been for decades. Lower heights gives Pakistan an advantage because it&#8217;s 10 times cheaper and easier for us to keep our men properly supplied than it is for you. Also because lower heights mean our soldiers are less likely to die pointless, natural deaths as opposed to your soldiers. 



> Was kargil a retarded idea ? To Pak it wasn't , to India is is.



Pathetic and predictable attempt at changing the topic that is an impulsive quality some of our Indian friends find hard to kick. But I will address it never the less.

Kargil was not nearly has retarded as Siachen for a host of reasons:
1) Pakistani forces actually had something to GAIN by advancing to those heights even if the plan party failed because of political reasons.
2) More Indian regular Indian soldiers died in the Kargil fighting than Pakistani paramilitary/irregulars combined, so militarily it was sound. But in Siachen weekly Indians lose 4 times as many men than Pakistan to the harsh conditions.
3) Through Kargil Kashmir gained prominence on the international stage, which it did thanks to Siachen too but unfortunately for India that is something that obviously works in Pakistan&#8217;s favour.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vinod2070

Siachin *is* a strategically important piece of real estate.

The life of each Indian soldier is important but the Indian army has accepted to make sacrifices for strategic gains, same as Pakistan.

The situation now is far better than earlier for all we know. The deaths are far fewer and the soldiers are much better supplied with the required equipment.

It can be demilitarized after the actual ground positions are recorded and validated. What is wrong with this perfectly logical approach?


----------



## Contrarian

Karskin get your facts straight. Indian Army celebrated their first year last year or last to last year-of absolutely *no fatalities* in Siachen due to the climate. DRDO has developed a lot of technology for the soldiers in Siachen. And things are only going to get better, as India changes its chopper fleet of Cheetah/Chetak's along with building infrastructure in the lower lying areas.


----------



## Kasrkin

> It can be demilitarized after the actual ground positions are recorded and validated. What is wrong with this perfectly logical approach?



Perhaps that question will be better suited to your leaders in Delhi.



> Indian Army celebrated their first year last year or last to last year-of absolutely no fatalities in Siachen due to the climate.



Some more substantive proof in the way of links to that interesting claim will be most appreciated.


----------



## su-47

*At Siachen, casualties come to all time low*

It is a sad day at the Siachen base camp. A soldier died at the Kaziranga post on the glacier two days ago and his body has still not been brought down due to bad weather and heavy snowfall.

A Cheetah helicopter has been flying daily from base camp to the post but has not been able to land and pick up the body. Despite a rigorous selection procedure and extensive medical examinations before the posting, the soldier suffered a heart attack. Another one, doctors say, of the unpredictables while serving at extreme altitudes.

While days like these bring out the cost India is paying for maintaining troops at the highest battlefield in the world, casualty rates at the Siachen glacier have come down to an all time low.

Casualties peaked to almost 70 per year during the 1999 Kargil war but the rate has come down to single digits in the past two years.

New equipment, better medical facilities, faster evacuations and the ceasefire agreement has brought down fatality rates in the glacier to about four a year.

Till 2003, before the ceasefire agreement came into place, the army was losing close to 30 soldiers on the glacier every year. The figure went down to 10 a year after the agreement. However, heavy snowfall and the earthquake in 2006 brought up the casualties to 26 in 2006.

The past two years have, however, been stable. The army lost four men on the glacier in 2007 &#8211; two cases of medical complications and two pilots who died in a helicopter crash on the LoC. This year also, four soldiers have died on the glacier, again mainly due to medical complications.

The main reason, officers say, is the good quality of clothing and special equipment procured in recent years to equip men on the glacier. Most of the clothing - special down feather jackets, gloves, sleeping bags &#8211; has improved over the past two years and is being imported from Italy, France and Austria.

&#8220;We now have better medical facilities and equipment. Any case that looks bad is evacuated immediately. We don&#8217;t need to take any chances on the glacier anymore,&#8221; a medical officer says.

At Siachen, casualties come to all time low

Here you go. Malay wasn't 100&#37; right, but he got the gist of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## third eye

Kasrkin said:


> You change track pretty quickly, first you proclaimed that its sound military logic and then you attempt to dilute my reality check by suggesting that Pakistan has no sense?
> 
> What importance are ground positions to you when it is a bloody desolate waste land completely insignificant in terms of any military application and no use to anyone other than the most dedicated mountaineers? Indian soldiers DIE horrible, lonely and cold deaths on a daily basis, why so you can keep a grasp on something insignificant that was never even yours? Do you value the lives of your men so lowly? What is this if not vain pride I ask you?
> 
> 
> 
> Your understanding of the situation seems to be retarded. Indian forces are essentially check-mated and have been for decades. Lower heights gives Pakistan an advantage because its 10 times cheaper and easier for us to keep our men properly supplied than it is for you. Also because lower heights mean our soldiers are less likely to die pointless, natural deaths as opposed to your soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic and predictable attempt at changing the topic that is an impulsive quality some of our Indian friends find hard to kick. But I will address it never the less.
> 
> Kargil was not nearly has retarded as Siachen for a host of reasons:
> 1) *Pakistani forces actually had something to GAIN by advancing to those heights even if the plan party failed because of political reasons*.
> 2) More Indian regular Indian soldiers died in the Kargil fighting than Pakistani paramilitary/irregulars combined, so militarily it was sound. But in Siachen weekly Indians lose 4 times as many men than Pakistan to the harsh conditions.
> 3) Through Kargil Kashmir gained prominence on the international stage, which it did thanks to Siachen too but unfortunately for India that is something that obviously works in Pakistans favour.



I suggest you be a little careful with your verbiage. We are only exchanging views not fighting a war.

Having spent time there I am acutely aware of the significance of that piece of real estate. The net is not he place to dicuss / explain them & most defintely not his forum.

Any military man will explain the advantages of gaining heights in the mountains.

When you use words like ' retarded" all you communicate is your own sense of retardation, it does not show you as a stronger man as you might wish to show. 

Pakistan tried to do a Siachen in kargil which misfired. Despite all that is claimed, nothing has changed on the ground.. & never will. The LAC cannot change in peace time..even a cadet in IMA would know than.

As for the highlighted portion above, why are things aways out of sync ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kasrkin

> Any military man will explain the advantages of gaining heights in the mountains.



Even a 7 year old will tell you it is preferable to gain a vantage point over the enemy but I'm afraid things are always a little more complicated. For example achieving a "vantage" point to what end? To gain and retain the capability to advance on the enemy? Not there. Ability to inflict as much if not more casualties on the enemy? No happening. Forcing the enemy into a more resource consuming or otherwise dangerous disposition? Not really. Is achieving high ground really worth it if your forces will be condemned to bear a permanent and absolutely game changing disadvantage?

I refuse to believe that officers of the Indian Army are content to think like "yaay most of our posts are on higher ground and than most of the Pakistani posts! This means we are winning the war!"



> When you use words like ' retarded" all you communicate is your own sense of retardation, it does not show you as a stronger man as you might wish to show.



Hahaha, happily indulging in the same bitter demeanor you accuse me of displaying. Unlike you, I don&#8217;t feel compelled to attack the person, merely his argument. So yes your understanding of the ground situation (despite having been there, apparently) is pretty retarded.



> The net is not he place to dicuss / explain them & most defintely not his forum.



Yes, ofcourse. Simple geostrategic ground realities are always subject to such strict confidentiality, aren&#8217;t they? I mean there is no way I as a Pakistani can even begin to see or guess any potential Indian objectives in the narrow desolate and isolated strip of ice. Please don&#8217;t strain yourself fellow forum member, I wouldn&#8217;t want you to compromise the heavily guarded state secret about what, no doubt brilliant, object your Army has been trying to achieve through Siachen even after decades of fighting which we Pakistanis still haven&#8217;t been able to figure out. 



> Here you go. Malay wasn't 100&#37; right, but he got the gist of it.



I&#8217;m afraid Malay was 100% wrong, fatalities have nowhere near stopped. Furthermore the article makes clear, most of the reduction is due to the lack of hostilities which obviously complicated rescue, recovery and resupply operations. Also given the fact that Indian soldiers in Siachen are not exactly unknown for tweaking the truth a bit from time to time, I think I will stick to my position, if you don&#8217;t mind.


----------



## Contrarian

Kasrkin said:


> Im afraid Malay was 100% wrong, fatalities have nowhere near stopped. Furthermore the article makes clear, most of the reduction is due to the lack of hostilities which obviously complicated rescue, recovery and resupply operations. Also given the fact that Indian soldiers in Siachen are not exactly unknown for tweaking the truth a bit from time to time, I think I will stick to my position, if you dont mind.



I read a report which said IA had a year of zero fatalities in Siachen. I'l try and dig it out. Either ways, the news peice quoted states that the casualties have been greatly reduced.

Stick to whatever you want mate, its not the ceasefire which has changed much, its the equipment available to them courtesy DRDO. And things would definitely improve much more as soon as the pilots there get new choppers and the ground facilities get built. India is building its border infrastructure everywhere, at a fast pace.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DarkStar

third eye said:


> Having spent time there I am acutely aware of the significance of that piece of real estate. The net is not he place to dicuss / explain them & most defintely not his forum.
> 
> Any military man will explain the advantages of gaining heights in the mountains.



ooh...its all a closely guarded military secret, this strategic advantage. let's not talk about this on the net because they'll find out. You see, the PAK military has no idea about this strategic significance of the INdian positions and they'll find out if third eye talks.

laughable.


----------



## Vinod2070

If it is not strategically important, why are we discussing this? Why is it such a major issue?

It has many strategic advantages for India especially the Saltoro ridge. Else IA won't commit the resources it is doing in protecting it.

They do know more than most _enthusiasts_ here.


----------



## third eye

darkStar said:


> ooh...its all a closely guarded military secret, this strategic advantage. let's not talk about this on the net because they'll find out. You see, the PAK military has no idea about this strategic significance of the INdian positions and they'll find out if third eye talks.
> 
> laughable.




Watta Yahoo..


----------



## Kasrkin

> If it is not strategically important, why are we discussing this? Why is it such a major issue?
> 
> *It has many strategic advantages *for India especially the Saltoro ridge. Else IA won't commit the resources it is doing in protecting it.
> 
> *They do know more *than most enthusiasts here.



By that logic, no one can discuss any military endeavor in the world because someone who doesn't like where the logic is going will claim "because they know more".

Besides, darkstar and myself can hardly be termed _enthusiasts_ as far as India's military blunders are concerned. Think of us more like un-Indian affiliated observers realistically commenting on the aspects of India's "outpost of glory"

Now an eye opener for the _real enthusiasts_ here, a piece from a true professional military observer; Brian Cloughley is a British/Australian officer by profession and served as *deputy head of the UN mission in Kashmir.* 

_"The reason the description of the Line stopped at grid reference NJ 980420 was that nobody in their right mind (or words to that effect) could possibly want any of the land between there and the Great Wall of China..."_

_"Nobody, at that time, imagined that there might be military confrontation in the area. It would be futile to attempt to wage war at such heights, at the end of long lines communication, with no strategic or even tactical aim, in an area in which mere existence (and no-one lived there) would involve great hazard in moving tiny distances. Who would send troops to occupy a terrifying wasteland where there was no threat of invasion or even territorial infringement?
Mrs Gandhi.&#8221;_

-_A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections_. Wonderful book, I suggest you read it. And before you get any ideas do read this too:
_&#8216;The book has the special advantage of being written by an observant military author who is both candid and objective&#8217;_-Lt. Gen V.R. Raghavan, former Indian Director General of Military Operations.
So yes, qualified Indian officers do know the realities of the situation. But that doesn&#8217;t mean they have the priority or ability to act.

Now it&#8217;s all good to be enthusiastic and have loyalties, but blinding and deluding yourself to true realities or allowing unqualified others to blind you through romanticism and pride&#8230;now that sort of thing will result in all enthusiasm and no realism which would make forums like this quite useless, wouldn&#8217;t you say?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## third eye

Kasrkin said:


> By that logic, no one can discuss any military endeavor in the world because someone who doesn't like where the logic is going will claim "because they know more".
> 
> Besides, darkstar and myself can hardly be termed _enthusiasts_ as far as India's military blunders are concerned. Think of us more like un-Indian affiliated observers realistically commenting on the aspects of India's "outpost of glory"
> 
> Now an eye opener for the _real enthusiasts_ here, a piece from a true professional military observer; Brian Cloughley is a British/Australian officer by profession and served as *deputy head of the UN mission in Kashmir.*
> 
> _"The reason the description of the Line stopped at grid reference NJ 980420 was that nobody in their right mind (or words to that effect) could possibly want any of the land between there and the Great Wall of China..."_
> 
> _"Nobody, at that time, imagined that there might be military confrontation in the area. It would be futile to attempt to wage war at such heights, at the end of long lines communication, with no strategic or even tactical aim, in an area in which mere existence (and no-one lived there) would involve great hazard in moving tiny distances. Who would send troops to occupy a terrifying wasteland where there was no threat of invasion or even territorial infringement?
> Mrs Gandhi._
> 
> -_A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections_. Wonderful book, I suggest you read it. And before you get any ideas do read this too:
> _The book has the special advantage of being written by an observant military author who is both candid and objective_-Lt. Gen V.R. Raghavan, former Indian Director General of Military Operations.
> So yes, qualified Indian officers do know the realities of the situation. But that doesnt mean they have the priority or ability to act.
> 
> Now its all good to be enthusiastic and have loyalties, but blinding and deluding yourself to true realities or allowing unqualified others to blind you through romanticism and pridenow that sort of thing will result in all enthusiasm and no realism which would make forums like this quite useless, wouldnt you say?



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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

malaymishra123 said:


> Stick to whatever you want mate, its not the ceasefire which has changed much, its the equipment available to them courtesy DRDO.



Not necessarily contesting your assertion that casualties are down, but how is this DRDO?
*
"The main reason, officers say, is the good quality of clothing and special equipment procured in recent years to equip men on the glacier. Most of the clothing - special down feather jackets, gloves, sleeping bags  has improved over the past two years and is being imported from Italy, France and Austria."*


----------



## daredevil

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Not necessarily contesting your assertion that casualties are down, *but how is this DRDO?*
> *
> "The main reason, officers say, is the good quality of clothing and special equipment procured in recent years to equip men on the glacier. Most of the clothing - special down feather jackets, gloves, sleeping bags  has improved over the past two years and is being imported from Italy, France and Austria."*



Like this for example



> *ACCLIMATIMATISATION, ACUTE MOUNTAIN SICKNESS AND HAPE
> *
> 
> 
> Based on non-trivial medical events, an altitude of 3000 m or more is considered high altitude (HA) although significant individual susceptibility occurs at 2500 m. More than 45 million permanent or nomadic population is estimated to live above 3000 m scattered across 12 mountains and plateaus in all continents. A very large number of lowlanders visit HA for tourism, sports or professional purposes and constitute a high-risk group.
> 
> A subtle-to-gross change at multiple biochemical and functional levels takes place at HA. The changes correlate roughly with altitude and rate of ascent of a person and are influenced by a number of collateral factors, controllable or uncontrollable. Lack of or slow acclimatisation, non-specific appetite loss followed by weight loss, acute and chronic mountain sickness, high altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE), high altitude cerebral edema (HACE), cold injuries, and diseases secondary to thromboembolic phenomenon (and their complex interplay) have been recognised as major pathological entities at HA. DRDO has done pioneering work in understanding the basic issues involved and developing medical strategies to combat these problems. It involves both allopathic and alternative/traditional methods of treatment. DIPAS has done extensive work on pathophysiologic changes associated with HA and their correction using micronutrients, nitric oxide, glutamic acid and several herbal products. To compliment the ongoing activities under the same umbrella, INMAS has now initiated a multi-pronged programme having diagnostic and therapeutic components using allopathic system of medicine. Based primarily on nuclear medicine technology, several diagnostic methodologies and drug formulations have been developed that have direct relevance for HA medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DRDO has made some original observations that are important for residents at HA including defence and paramilitary forces after undertaking the largest global pulse oximetry survey. Besides creating a large databank serving as a reference at different altitudes, it was found that a new inductee has a higher heart rate and lower blood oxygen level compared to the natives, which only gets partially corrected during acclimatisation at extreme heights. Age, physical fitness, genetics, but not gender of a new entrant has a bearing on blood oxygen level. Among highlanders, different ethnic groups may have different basal oxygen levels. Surprisingly, basal heart rate is significantly lower in most adapted ethnic groups, who also may have highest exercise capacity. Highlander infants have significantly lower blood oxygen, a fact that can have anthropologic and recruitment significance. Clubbing is common in elders suggesting chronic hypoxemia.
> 
> Acclimatisation appears to follow circadian cycle and may be a 'night-time' phenomenon. Food, postural and exercise response gets more abnormal with altitude in non-acclimatised personnel and more so in acute mountain sickness (AMS). Blood oxygen level deteriorates drastically in any individual after a critical altitude.
> 
> 
> Simple Diagnostic Protocols for AMS & HAPE Susceptibility
> 
> Hypoxemia at rest correlates with mountain sickness with high specificity but low sensitivity. Non-acclimatisation can also a be judged objectively by person's response to food and beverage intake, postural changes, physical stress and sleep.
> 
> DRDO has introduced a simple non-invasive test, exercise provoked pulse oximetry (EPPO), that may be used to segregate asymptomatic inductees into 'normal', 'non-acclimatised',
> 
> 'susceptible to benign mountain sickness' and susceptible to malignant mountain sickness' categories with high sensitivity. This concept is based on initial pilot studies.
> 
> Critical values of EPPO are being defined by collecting more data. The test can also be used with obviousadvantages in assessing medical fitness of soldiers at HA. Two new pathology terms and a new simple mathematical parameter have been introduced that may quantitatively define 'acclimatisation', 'medical fitness', and to AMS' and make comparisons easy to assess improvement or deterioration of mountain sickness objectively.
> 
> 
> 
> Preventive & Treatment Protocols for AMS, HAPE, & HACE
> Simple changes in lifestyle of inductees in terms of food, posture, and physical and respiratory exercises can help them to acclimatise faster and arrest complications. The same is true for residents at extreme altitude. Medical management of altitude-related symptoms and diseases may now include glycerol, mannitol, prokinetic agents, and antiplatelet agents in an appropriate subgroup of patients.
> 
> 
> ITAD
> 
> DRDO has introduced a novel concept inhalation therapy for alveolar deposition (ITAD) for treating cases with pulmonary hypertention, AMS, HAPE and HACE. Using a simple delivery system, Anukool, developed at INMAS, ITAD therapy can also be given at field level even by non-medical personnel. More than 150 personnel have undergone the therapy, majority of whom were defence personnel. The treatment has been successfully performed at Referral & Research Army Hospital, Delhi; District Hospital, Keylong; and District Hospital, Leh; Badrinath Shrine Trust Hospital, Chamoli, Uttaranchal, and at various stations in Ladakh and upper Himachal with participation of the district and army authorities. The 14 Corps is currently using the systems developed by DRDO at many places, including Siachen Hospital.
> 
> DRDO has already introduced nitric oxide therapy (more appropriate for hospital-based patients) and HAPO bags (more appropriate for on-the-spot emergency management) for HAPE patients. ITAD therapy is appropriate in the field conditions as well as for hospitals, both as an emergency measure and maintenance therapy. The frequency and severity of this frequently fatal condition is expected to come down significantly using these approaches.
> 
> 
> 
> Anukool Drug Delivery System
> 
> ITAD acts by increasing pulmonary circulation, reducing pulmonary hypertension and increasing oxygen transport across the lung. A 20 per cent reduction in pulmonary hypertension, 5-15 per cent increase in blood oxygen and similar reduction in heart rate causes correction of cardio-pulmonary stress and improves mountain sickness and other diseases with similar pathology. This is possible due to preferred drug deposition in the alveoli using Anukool system. Drug deposition with commercial systems occurs in oropharynx and broncho-tracheal region making these unsuitable for use in HAPE and AMS.
> 
> Anukool drug-delivery system is a simple nebuliser-based equipment that works on re-entry principle. When connected between the aerosol generator and the mouthpiece, it changes AMAD features of the aerosols in such a way that it favours its deposition in the lung periphery rather than the central regions. This causes enhanced local effect of the drug and minimal systemic effect. The system is cheap enough for widespread use at HA.
> 
> Safety and beneficial effects of ITAD therapy and Anukool delivery system have been validated using nuclear medicine imaging and ECHO facilities at INMAS and animal trial at DIPAS before conducting field trials in collaboration with 14 Corps
> 
> 
> Salient Features
> 
> 
> Twenty per cent reduction in pulmonary hypertension
> 
> Fifteen per cent improvement in blood oxygen and heart rate
> 
> Improved exercise tolerance at HA
> 
> Early response in AMS/HAPE
> 
> Safe, easy and cost-effective technology

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

Kasrkin said:


> By that logic, no one can discuss any military endeavor in the world because someone who doesn't like where the logic is going will claim "because they know more".
> *
> Besides, darkstar and myself can hardly be termed enthusiasts as far as India's military blunders are concerned. Think of us more like un-Indian affiliated observers realistically commenting on the aspects of India's "outpost of glory"*
> 
> Now an eye opener for the _real enthusiasts_ here, a piece from a true professional military observer; Brian Cloughley is a British/Australian officer by profession and served as *deputy head of the UN mission in Kashmir.*
> 
> _"The reason the description of the Line stopped at grid reference NJ 980420 was that nobody in their right mind (or words to that effect) could possibly want any of the land between there and the Great Wall of China..."_
> 
> _"Nobody, at that time, imagined that there might be military confrontation in the area. It would be futile to attempt to wage war at such heights, at the end of long lines communication, with no strategic or even tactical aim, in an area in which mere existence (and no-one lived there) would involve great hazard in moving tiny distances. Who would send troops to occupy a terrifying wasteland where there was no threat of invasion or even territorial infringement?
> Mrs Gandhi._
> 
> -_A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections_. Wonderful book, I suggest you read it. And before you get any ideas do read this too:
> _The book has the special advantage of being written by an observant military author who is both candid and objective_-Lt. Gen V.R. Raghavan, former Indian Director General of Military Operations.
> So yes, qualified Indian officers do know the realities of the situation. But that doesnt mean they have the priority or ability to act.



Well I would like to know your credentials to make an assessment of this fantastic claim.

You do know about Indian military blunders! Anything about Gibralter, Grandslam, Kargil, 1971, need I mention some more?

Nobody in his right mind would have tried to pull a Kargill too, I guess. It had failure and blunder written all over it from the word GO. In fact I think it marked a new downward trajectory for Pakistan internationally, one where Pakistan began to be taken as an unpredictable maverick with its hands on a nuclear button that needed to be actively "managed".

It was not only a military debacle but a bigger political and diplomatic one.

So yes, India may have made its military mistakes but it has had the courage to acknowledge them and learn from them.

Can you say the same for your own military? With honesty!



> Now its all good to be enthusiastic and have loyalties, but blinding and deluding yourself to true realities or allowing unqualified others to blind you through romanticism and pridenow that sort of thing will result in all enthusiasm and no realism which would make forums like this quite useless, wouldnt you say?



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


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

daredevil said:


> Like this for example



And those efforts are to be commended, and I am sure they play their part, but it would be inaccurate to state that it is DRDO alone that is responsible for the low casualty rates, as the officers mentioned.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> Well I would like to know your credentials to make an assessment of this fantastic claim.



I thought he backed it up with Brian Cloughly's arguments, supported by an Indian DGMO.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I thought he backed it up with Brian Cloughly's arguments, supported by an Indian DGMO.



I meant this.


> *Besides, darkstar and myself can hardly be termed enthusiasts as far as India's military blunders are concerned. Think of us more like un-Indian affiliated observers realistically commenting on the aspects of India's "outpost of glory"*



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


----------



## third eye

If Pak has so many probs , why does it simply not verify where the troops are on both sides of LAC in Siachen, verfy their exact locations , sign on the map & pull back.

This is what has been the position of the IA all along.


----------



## blain2

malaymishra123 said:


> I read a report which said IA had a year of zero fatalities in Siachen. I'l try and dig it out. Either ways, the news peice quoted states that the casualties have been greatly reduced.
> 
> Stick to whatever you want mate, its not the ceasefire which has changed much, its the equipment available to them courtesy DRDO. And things would definitely improve much more as soon as the pilots there get new choppers and the ground facilities get built. India is building its border infrastructure everywhere, at a fast pace.



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.

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.


----------



## blain2

third eye said:


> 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

Vinod2070 said:


> 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

blain2 said:


> 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

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> 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

blain2 said:


> 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

blain2 said:


> 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

Kasrkin said:


> 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!



Kasrkin said:


> 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.



Kasrkin said:


> 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.



Kasrkin said:


> 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

third eye said:


> Life, as you said will go on..



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


----------



## blain2

malaymishra123 said:


> 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

malaymishra123 said:


> 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 &#8220;ground reality&#8221; 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, &#8220;In July there have been teams with members from the US, France and Australia&#8221; 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, &#8220;The whole of Jammu and Kashmir is Indian territory. What is the problem?&#8221; 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 &#8220;a civilian mountaineering and trekking expedition&#8221; 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&#8217;s approval to send trekkers to Siachin &#8220;since it is essentially Indian territory&#8221;. 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&#8217;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 &#8220;results&#8221; 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 &#8212; time for settlement &#8212;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 &#8212; 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 &#8220;in the face of a disheartening history of hostile relations, Bhutto is trying to navigate a smoother course with India&#8221;.

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 &#8220;we will definitely take advantage of Mr Rajiv&#8217;s visit to make movement on the issue&#8221;.

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

*The reasons for India&#8217;s invasion of Siachen in 1984 are a mystery, but a brilliant Indian analyst, Colonel (retd) Pavan Nair, wrote a penetrating study in India&#8217;s Economic and Political Weekly last March and concluded that the incursion, Operation Meghdoot, was a &#8220;strategic blunder&#8221;. (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&#8217; 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&#8217; 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&#8217;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, &#8220;Siachen is not worth another dead soldier; it never was.&#8221; Now there&#8217;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. &#8220;That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means&#8221; &#8212; just as Pakistan violated it by invading Kargil ten years ago.*

India&#8217;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 &#8220;then north to the glaciers&#8221;. 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, &#8220;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.&#8221; 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 &#8220;clarification&#8221; was issued by India&#8217;s Ministry of External Affairs. The &#8220;chronology of events&#8221;, said a spokesman, had been &#8220;muddled and confused&#8221;. He went on to explain that &#8220;the Indian foreign secretary had endorsed the Pakistani foreign secretary&#8217;s observations on their talks, whereas the report has made out as if he had endorsed the Pakistan foreign secretary&#8217;s remarks on the defence secretaries&#8217; talks.&#8221; Which statement was, of course, not muddled or confusing. Delhi denied &#8220;that Pakistan and India had reached an agreement on this issue.&#8221;

In June 2005 Dr Manmohan Singh said that &#8220;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.&#8221;

But then he declared that &#8220;we feel these [Siachen] boundaries are important not only for our security but it relates to the country&#8217;s prestige also.&#8221;

So, following today&#8217;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 &#8212; militarily unoccupied and valueless to all but mountaineers: the &#8220;example of peace&#8221; 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 &#8220;prestige&#8221; 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 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


----------



## 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

The Patriot said:


> 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

fatman17 said:


> *opinion: Siachen &#8212; time for settlement &#8212;Brian Cloughley*
> 
> *The reasons for India&#8217;s invasion of Siachen in 1984 are a mystery, but a brilliant Indian analyst, Colonel (retd) Pavan Nair, wrote a penetrating study in India&#8217;s Economic and Political Weekly last March and concluded that the incursion, Operation Meghdoot, was a &#8220;strategic blunder&#8221;. (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. &#8220;That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means&#8221; &#8212; just as Pakistan violated it by invading Kargil ten years ago.*
> 
> India&#8217;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 &#8220;then north to the glaciers&#8221;. 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 &#8216;both candid and objective&#8217;.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 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

Kasrkin said:


> 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

bandit said:


> 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&#8217;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&#8217;s actions were reactionary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Xeric

Kasrkin said:


> 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!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bandit

Kasrkin said:


> 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.



Kasrkin said:


> 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.





Kasrkin said:


> 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

xeric said:


> 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&#8217;s and 1970&#8217;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...



bandit said:


> 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 &#8216;proof&#8217; 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&#8217;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 &#8216;prove&#8217; 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&#8217;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&#8217;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

Kasrkin said:


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



Expeditions meant mountaineering expeditions not millitary ones.



Kasrkin said:


> 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 &#8216;proof&#8217; 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&#8217;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 &#8216;prove&#8217; 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.



Kasrkin said:


> 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&#8217;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.



Kasrkin said:


> 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&#8217;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.


----------



## bandit

xeric said:


> Ok let me laugh first:
> 
> Ok here i go...
> 
> 
> 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!



You do realize you were supporting the Americans in Afghanistan or do you need a link for that as well?



xeric said:


> 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.



Why get charged up, I was simply following your line of logic that if somebody makes a stupid mistake you should try him, I applied it to your side as well.




xeric said:


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



Nobody is demanding respect and you may keep yours with you as I'm sure you have better uses for it.
Calling the other guy stupid just because you lost to him is being a bad loser.


----------



## Kasrkin

> Expeditions meant mountaineering expeditions not millitary ones.



And only God knows why these were seen as such a big threat to India.



> Pakistan started off with expeditions in an area which it knew would draw a response from India.



Yes because civilian mountaineering expeditions are such a bloody threat and military provocation? Ive already told you, the area above Grid Reference NJ980420, which was where the LoC ended, was open to whichever side wanted to claim it as per agreement reached by the officers on both sides responsible for drawing up the LoC. India couldve raised the issue peacefully if it thought something was unfair, but it was intent on militarily confronting the situation. 



> 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.



This whole thing makes no sense. If you wish to convince yourself that somehow India's decision to invade the glacier was reasonable and justified, then you go right ahead. But as far as facts are concerned, India never approached the issue bilaterally or through a third party. India might have had a reasonable, and much less costly, chance of gaining joint control of the territory had it done so. 



> 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.





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



I am growing tired of your consistent misinformation. It was Ms Gandhi's vexation with chorographical records and tourist expeditions which is what caused India to plan for Operation Cold-Messenger. NOT Pakistan's secret military plans invade the region.



> 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.
> 
> The planning and training for your _operation_ were already well underway when you guys got wind that we had gotten wind of your plans (a intelligence blunder on our part) which is what further spurred pace of your operation. Now I'm so tired of telling you this. India had military plans for the glacier first, ours were reactionary. Tourist expeditions are NOT military plans.



If Pakistan wanted conflict we could've deployed there before India even noticed that foreign expeditions were going through us. It was race to the top, a race we only entered once we saw that the Indians were in a full sprint towards the finish line. We lost the race, because it was not something we initiated. 

Now unless you can prove that Pakistan planned to invade Sicahen before India decided to do the same, I suggest you drop your claims. Tourist expeditions in themselves are not proof of Pakistans ill intentions, given the understanding reached by Simla. This was what vexed Ms Gandhi and other adventurist militarists in India. The fact is that Pakistan tried and failed to preempt Indias military maneuver, the Indians however had clear plans from the start which were sped up, but not initiated, by intelligence indicating the Pakistanis had got wind of their plans.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sonicboom

A question for Pakistani readers:

Pakistan has been spending $1 million/day (according to The News) to maintain troops at Siachen since 1984. That amounts to $365 Million per year and more than $9 billion over the period of 25 years. 

I am just wondering how many squadrons of F-16 Pakistan could have bought from that money? Not sure whats more important for Pakistan; Sicahen or F-16? 

Your comments please?


----------



## Kasrkin

Six, maybe seven F-16s per year. But the cost is nearly 10 times as higher on the Indian side.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

sonicboom said:


> Not sure whats more important for Pakistan; Sicahen or F-16?
> 
> Your comments please?



Whats more important - allowing an aggressor to occupy more and more of your land, and use the savings to buy weaponry to prevent the aggressor from occupying more and more of your land ....

Its a 'chicken or the egg' kind of argument.

India is a bully, and if you let a bully get away with one thing, expect the bully to come back and whip your whimpering arse for more.

So, your question again - Siachen or F-16's?

We have maintained a sufficient conventional and unconventional deterrent without retreating from Siachen - the decision taken was correct.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## bandit

Kasrkin said:


> And only God knows why these were seen as such a big threat to India.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because civilian mountaineering expeditions are such a bloody threat and military provocation? Ive already told you, the area above Grid Reference NJ980420, which was where the LoC ended, was open to whichever side wanted to claim it as per agreement reached by the officers on both sides responsible for drawing up the LoC. India couldve raised the issue peacefully if it thought something was unfair, but it was intent on militarily confronting the situation. .



Civilian military operations lent credibility to the Pakistani claim of being in control of these areas, Pakistani sponsoring of these expeditions asserted its control over the area and thus made a case for future argument...India could not have somebody just coming in into its territory and authorizing expeditions. This made clear the Pakistani intentions of asserting control over the territory, its not that hard to understand what Pakistanis were trying to do. If Pakistan was so interested in peacefully resolving it it shouldn't have taken unilateral steps to assert control by providing permissions to access those areas.




Kasrkin said:


> I am growing tired of your consistent misinformation. It was Ms Gandhi's vexation with chorographical records and tourist expeditions which is what caused India to plan for Operation Cold-Messenger. NOT Pakistan's secret military plans invade the region.





> Now unless you can prove that Pakistan planned to invade Sicahen before India decided to do the same, I suggest you drop your claims.



Pakistan starts sending in expeditions-->asserting control over the territory by issuing permits-->international maps start showing the area in Pakistan-->Pakistan suddenly orders a whole lot HAW equipment-->what's your guess it'll do next?




Kasrkin said:


> Now unless you can prove that Pakistan planned to invade Sicahen before India decided to do the same, I suggest you drop your claims. Tourist expeditions in themselves are not proof of Pakistans ill intentions, given the understanding reached by Simla. This was what vexed Ms Gandhi and other adventurist militarists in India. The fact is that Pakistan tried and failed to preempt Indias military maneuver, the *Indians however had clear plans from the start which were sped up, but not initiated*, by intelligence indicating the Pakistanis had got wind of their plans.



Now unless you can prove that I suggest you drop your claims sir.


----------



## MZUBAIR

sonicboom said:


> A question for Pakistani readers:
> 
> *Pakistan has been spending $1 million/day *(according to The News) to maintain troops at Siachen since 1984. That amounts to $365 Million per year and more than $9 billion over the period of 25 years.
> 
> I am just wondering how many squadrons of F-16 Pakistan could have bought from that money? Not sure whats more important for Pakistan; Sicahen or F-16?
> 
> Your comments please?



*Plz provide the link..............$1 million/day is a huge amount.*


----------



## Kasrkin

> Civilian military operations lent credibility to the Pakistani claim of being in control of these areas, Pakistani sponsoring of these expeditions asserted its control over the area and thus made a case for future argument...*India could not have somebody just coming in into its territory* and authorizing expeditions.



Now you assert that it was Indian territory. Based on what? International maps certainly considered it part of Azad Kashmir, as did geographical realities. As I&#8217;m sure you know, we give a lot of freedom to non-Pakistanis expressing their point of views and debating issues with us. BUT I cannot allow for you to continue blurting nonsensical and jingoist rhetoric at the expense of a reasonable discussion. Siachen was, at best, territory open to dispute. Claiming it was India&#8217;s won&#8217;t make it so. Your arguments based on &#8216;it was India&#8217;s so no one had a right to be there&#8217; is pushing the line of our logical tolerance.



> If Pakistan was so interested in peacefully resolving it it shouldn't have taken unilateral steps to assert control by providing permissions to access those areas.



There was NO &#8220;resolving&#8221; needed to speak of. As per terms of the Simla agreement, who ever wanted to access the territory was welcome to it. It was India that over-reacted, Pakistan cannot be blamed for which.



> Pakistan starts sending in expeditions-->asserting control over the territory by issuing permits-->international maps start showing the area in Pakistan-->Pakistan suddenly orders a whole lot HAW equipment-->what's your guess it'll do next?



Don&#8217;t distort facts, consider this your last warning. I have made things amply clear for you.

International specialists consider it part of Pakistani Kashmir-&#61664;Pakistan allows for civilian expeditions (it would&#8217;ve been a logistical nightmare for civilians to try and go through the Indian side)-&#61664;India orders a whole lot of HAW equipment, sends training expeditions to Antarctica, orders specialized glacier-mounting equipment&#61664;Pakistanis notice and try to take preventive measures (unfortunately we contacted the same British company the Indians were in contact with for their Siachen gear)-&#61664;Indians get tipped off and speed up their already advanced preparations-&#61664;Indians fly troops there before Pakistani troops are rushed in and take control of 2/3 of the glacier.



> Now unless you can prove that I suggest you drop your claims sir.



Each and everything I&#8217;ve said can be attested in Cloughley&#8217;s work. His authority is more proof than anything you&#8217;ve provided so far. He makes it very clear in his article, which you just tried to refute, that it was an Indian blunder. His book makes it even more explicit. Now I suggest you stop wasting time with circular arguments. If you&#8217;re incapable of believing or comprehending what I&#8217;ve said or what respected observers like Cloughley have to say, then that&#8217;s your call. You haven&#8217;t backed up your claim of India having reacted to a Pakistani _military_ maneuver or imminent maneuver, thus I&#8217;m concluding you&#8217;ve had your say. Facts and our respective arguments speak for themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bandit

Kasrkin said:


> Now you assert that it was Indian territory. Based on what? International maps certainly considered it part of Azad Kashmir, as did geographical realities. As Im sure you know, we give a lot of freedom to non-Pakistanis expressing their point of views and debating issues with us. BUT I cannot allow for you to continue blurting nonsensical and jingoist rhetoric at the expense of a reasonable discussion. Siachen was, at best, territory open to dispute. Claiming it was Indias wont make it so. Your arguments based on it was Indias so no one had a right to be there is pushing the line of our logical tolerance.



I didn't claim that, that's what the Indian stand has been. Its territory open to dispute is your governments contention.
That line of logic is pretty skewed. 



Kasrkin said:


> There was NO resolving needed to speak of. As per terms of the Simla agreement, who ever wanted to access the territory was welcome to it. It was India that over-reacted, Pakistan cannot be blamed for which.



Reacted or over-reacted, you claim it was disputed, why did Pakistan
start showing it in their maps.




> Dont distort facts, consider this your last warning. I have made things amply clear for you.
> 
> International specialists consider it part of Pakistani Kashmir-&#61664;Pakistan allows for civilian expeditions (it wouldve been a logistical nightmare for civilians to try and go through the Indian side)-&#61664;India orders a whole lot of HAW equipment, sends training expeditions to Antarctica, orders specialized glacier-mounting equipment&#61664;Pakistanis notice and try to take preventive measures (unfortunately we contacted the same British company the Indians were in contact with for their Siachen gear)-&#61664;Indians get tipped off and speed up their already advanced preparations-&#61664;Indians fly troops there before Pakistani troops are rushed in and take control of 2/3 of the glacier.
> 
> 
> Each and everything Ive said can be attested in Cloughleys work. His authority is more proof than anything youve provided so far. He makes it very clear in his article, which you just tried to refute, that it was an Indian blunder. His book makes it even more explicit. Now I suggest you stop wasting time with circular arguments. If youre incapable of believing or comprehending what Ive said or what respected observers like Cloughley have to say, then thats your call. You havent backed up your claim of India having reacted to a Pakistani _military_ maneuver or imminent maneuver, thus Im concluding youve had your say. Facts and our respective arguments speak for themselves.



Which fact is distorted...each one of that is well known...them leading to the conclusion that Pakistan was indeed planning something may make them distorted to you.

As for the claim



> "According to Chibber, the Indian military operation, codenamed 'Meghdoot' (Cloud Messenger), resulted from intelligence reports that pakistan was planning to establish a military operation to claim the glacier"-Lt. Gen. M.L. Chibber, the head of the northern command at that time.


----------



## Kasrkin

> I didn't claim that, that's what the Indian stand has been. Its territory open to dispute is your governments contention.



By what authority are you claiming that it is yours? In the Simla Agreement it was decided that whoever wanted the territory was welcome to it. If you keep on repeating rhetoric which has been effectively refuted, and you&#8217;re unable to substantiate it, a line will be crossed. You've circumvented all my explanations to jump on that same notion again and again that only India has a right over it. If my assertion, that we can consider it legally ambiguous in terms of official possession, is skewed, then what is your baseless and unbending contention that it is part of India period, if not skewed?



> Reacted or over-reacted, you claim it was disputed, why did Pakistan start showing it in their maps.



Everyone was showing it to be Pakistani on their maps. Pakistan facilitated civilian tourist expeditions there because through Pakistan was the logical way to go, which is NOT against the Simla Agreement. And nowhere in hell does/did it say that the glacier belonged to India.



> As for the claim



Link your claim. *Thats enough bickering from you.*


----------



## bandit

Kasrkin said:


> By what authority are you claiming that it is yours? In the Simla Agreement it was decided that whoever wanted the territory was welcome to it. If you keep on repeating rhetoric which has been effectively refuted, and you&#8217;re unable to substantiate it, a line will be crossed. You've circumvented all my explanations to jump on that same notion again and again that only India has a right over it. If my assertion, that we can consider it legally ambiguous in terms of official possession, is skewed, then what is your baseless and unbending contention that it is part of India period, if not skewed?



Your refute is based on the Simla agreement-



> The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the subcontinent so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their people.
> In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan have agreed as follows:
> (i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.
> (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 organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.
> (iii) That the prerequisite for reconciliation, good neighbourliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both the countries to peaceful coexistence respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty and noninterference in each other's internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit.
> (iv) That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedeviled the relations between the two countries for the last 25 years shall be resolved by peaceful means.
> (v) That they shall always respect each other's national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality.
> (vi) That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, they will refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.
> Both governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda directed against each other. Both countries will encourage the dissemination of such information as would promote the development of friendly relations between them.
> In order progressively to restore and normalise relations between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that:
> (i) Steps shall be taken to resume communications, postal, telegraphic, sea, land, including border posts, and air links, including over flights.
> (ii) Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the other country.
> (iii) Trade and cooperation in economic and other agreed fields will be resumed as far as possible.
> (iv) Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be promoted.
> In this connection delegations from the two countries will meet from time to time to work out the necessary details.
> In order to initiate the process of the establishment of durable peace, both the governments agree that:
> (i) Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border.
> (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 recognised 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.
> (iii) The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this agreement and shall be completed within a period of 30 days thereof.
> This agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on which the instruments of ratification are exchanged.
> Both governments agree that their respective heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that in the meanwhile the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of durable peace and normalisation of relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of diplomatic relations.
> Quaid-e-Awam President Islamic Republic of Pakistan
> Indira Gandhi Prime Minister Republic of India
> Simla, the 2 July 1972.
> &#8211; Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Indira Gandhi.[3]



Where is the term freely accessible mentioned??....or for that matter even siachen?



> Everyone was showing it to be Pakistani on their maps. Pakistan facilitated civilian tourist expeditions there because through Pakistan was the logical way to go, which is NOT against the Simla Agreement. And nowhere in hell does/did it say that the glacier belonged to India.



Everyone showing it does not lend it validity. Simla agreement didn't say it was India's, neither did it say it was Pakistan's. Both country's have their own interpretations northwards of point NJ9842.

The Simla agreement does say something about it though



> (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 recognised 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.





> Link your claim. *Thats enough bickering from you.*



Sure buddy.
Page 84.

Conflict unending: India-Pakistan ... - Google Books


----------



## sonicboom

MZUBAIR said:


> *Plz provide the link..............$1 million/day is a huge amount.*



Siachen: a global threat?

The heavy economic cost (Pakistan with $ 1 million/day and India $2 million/day) to maintain troops at Siachen since 1984 continues to be a financial disaster for both countries.


Pakistan, India spend $3m daily on Siachen troops

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan and India have put their economies at stake as they spend $3 million per day on maintaining troops on Siachen glacier, reveals the report, written by Ilmas Futehally, Semu Bhatt and Niaz A Naek.


----------



## Kasrkin

> Where is the term freely accessible mentioned??....or for that matter even siachen?



Did you not follow my posts? It was an unwritten agreement between the officers responsible for the demarcation of Kashmir. Why do you think the LoC was ended at Grid Reference NJ980420? Read Cloughley's book, it is widely available.



> Everyone showing it does not lend it validity.



Yes because its only the Indians who have all the credible authority in the world.



> Simla agreement didn't say it was India's, neither did it say it was Pakistan's. Both country's have their own interpretations northwards of point NJ9842.



Which is what I've said. The matter could've been settled through discussion but India prefered to pursue a military solution, against the understanding reached at Simla, that all issues be addressed peacefully.

The link you posted is from a book written from an Indian writer. I'll go over it and get back to you if I have time. Needless to say, I would lend more credibility to neutral sources. The reality of the situation cannot be refuted based on a comment from an Indian general. A Pakistani general told me a different story, one attested by neutral sources.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bandit

Kasrkin said:


> Yes because its only the Indians who have all the credible authority in the world.





> Which is what I've said. The matter could've been settled through discussion but India prefered to pursue a military solution, against the understanding reached at Simla, that all issues be addressed peacefully.



In our national matters we prefer our own. And you missed the point that it is explicitly mentioned in the simla agreement, that no country would explicitly alter it. 
If there was an understanding, clearly Pakistan violated it by showing the area in it's maps. 




> The link you posted is from a book written from an Indian writer. I'll go over it and get back to you if I have time. Needless to say, I would lend more credibility to neutral sources. The reality of the situation cannot be refuted based on a comment from an Indian general. A Pakistani general told me a different story, one attested by neutral sources.



I'll try to find neutral sources since you insist. I'll try to get a look at cloughley too, as you speak so highly of him.


----------



## sonicboom

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Whats more important - allowing an aggressor to occupy more and more of your land, and use the savings to buy weaponry to prevent the aggressor from occupying more and more of your land ....
> 
> Its a 'chicken or the egg' kind of argument.
> 
> India is a bully, and if you let a bully get away with one thing, expect the bully to come back and whip your whimpering arse for more.
> 
> So, your question again - Siachen or F-16's?
> 
> We have maintained a sufficient conventional and unconventional deterrent without retreating from Siachen - the decision taken was correct.



One point of view. Thank you.

May I, and if you will, say that this notion of yours &#8216;conventional and unconventional deterrent&#8217; has never worked in the past and will not work in the future either? It&#8217;s about time that we change our thought process, quit making stupid blunders, get out of this deterrent mode and take an aggressive role. That&#8217;s the only way to survive in this world *&#8216;Gis ki Lathi us ki Bhense&#8217;*.


----------



## Xeric

bandit said:


> 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.



You have a creative mind i must say!

i mean i have never seen such stubbornness in any other national of this world as you indians have shown on this forum!!

Your own Mr Kumar-the great-provoker has openly admitted while displaying the highest level of testosteroneic and emotional tone that it was he who initiated this conflict (i am looking for that interview and i'll try getting it soon). In that interview he makes NO mention of this creativity of yours that it was us who went in first. He agressively says that (paraphrased-and it may not be exactly what he said as i saw the video like a 1000 years ago) "i saw a map and i was bewildered that it showed the Siachen Glacier with Pakistani borders, i at once went up the chain of command and convinced the dude sitting there to take prompt action"

i mean why wouldnt he not mention this 'straight' fact that as Pakistan had already crept towards the Glacier so we the indian who are have lose bowls had to respond!!??

Wouldnt it had been easier for your manipulative govt to stand with the claims that as the Pakistanis were the aggressors so we did respond in turn, as compared to sticking with the claims made my Mr-Provoker? i bet they must have kept this is mind that the later claim would ask for infractions from the Pakistanis and the world.

Simla Agreement vaguely mentioned the borders of the Glacier. The imaginary line thingy was clear enough to show the demarcation very clearly atleast on the maps, if not on ground, this is one.

Two, if the Agreement showed the Glacier as our part and the WORLD also accepted it, so from whom should you suggest the foreign expeditions should have asked permissions from? Afghanistan or China?

*Three, there is another school of thought that it was USSR who 'asked' india to open up the Siachen Conflict so that Pakistan should be committed there , thence Pakistan would not be able to interfere in Afghanistan against the Soviets!!!*

No allow me to use my imagination:
Mr-Bull-the Provoker was a mountaineering expert and a climb die hard, so obvioulsy he wanted to divert more funds to his Army Mountaineering School and show the Snow Warfare side of IA as a 'useful' practice, so there he goes he opens up an issue and the IA gets blindly committed there. How about that?

If Pakistan was following the policy of _"incremental annexation into northern areas and siachen"_ as claimed by you, wouldnt it had been better to go on tables and get the issue done with? Instead india wanted to show itself as an aggressor and went in secretly and invaded a sovereign territory! BTW, if Pakistan had nefarious designs do you think the permissions that it gave to the foreign expeditions should also have been kept secret and when when the situation had been ripened Pakistan should have jumped into the Glacier, thereby leaving india with no choice? If you could have gone into Siachin with force sir, so could have we, but we didnt!



> 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.


Refer to above!

And even if this rant is considered valid, why would india have used force and captured the area? Expansionary theory i supposed!




> 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.



Pakistan preparing for HAW, interesting!!

Hats off to your intellect!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Xeric

bandit said:


> Calling the other guy stupid just because you lost to him is being a bad loser.





Bad loser-i like that!! 

If you still think that we are losing at Siachen, i must say you need to see a doc ASAP!

Just try to compare the cost and the casualty rate on both sides and you'll know who is winning there. And yes you keep all the Gas and Oil Reserves there..

BTW, last time when i was there, Siachen didnt even grow Grass then!


----------



## Kasrkin

> And you missed the point that it is explicitly mentioned in the simla agreement, that no country would explicitly alter it.



Actually, no I did not:



> 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 recognised 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.



Now if you read it carefully. It talks about the Line of Control, and the LoC ended at GR NJ980420, Siachen was beyond that. Therefore Pakistan cannot be accused of disregarding the agreement. India's decision to deal with the issue militarily is, however, another matter.


----------



## Kasrkin

If you have something constructive to say, something that can add to the debate, there is no need to hesitate toxic_pus. We are all for freedom of expression, as long as you're factual and coherent.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bandit

Kasrkin said:


> Actually, no I did not:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you read it carefully. It talks about the Line of Control, and the LoC ended at GR NJ980420, Siachen was beyond that. Therefore Pakistan cannot be accused of disregarding the agreement. India's decision to deal with the issue militarily is, however, another matter.



So you say that since siachen was not covered in the agreement it was okay to redraw lines there...correct?

So what's the problem with India redrawing the lines milltarily there....how does it become another matter...if you justify your redrawing of lines there since it was not explicitly mentioned in the agreement, India's actions are automatically justified.


----------



## irfan1173

AoA
Old but still a Good read
The Coldest War


----------



## Kasrkin

> So you say that since siachen was not covered in the agreement it was okay to redraw lines there...correct?



I did not say Siachen was not covered in the agreement, I said it was. The line did not extend as far as Siachen so there was nothing to redraw.



> So what's the problem with India redrawing the lines milltarily there....



The fact that the Simla Agreement forbade unilateral military action as a way to address issues pertaining to Kashmir. The issue could&#8217;ve and should&#8217;ve been raised through talks. Unofficial agreement was that whoever wanted was welcome to the region, but nowhere in the agreement was it said that in the condition of a disagreement is India entitled to executing secret military operations without so much as mentioning the issue diplomatically.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## paritosh

what about sending foreign mountaineering expeditions to Siachin?
finding of cigarette packets and used tin cans of German/japanese and pakistani origin was the major cause for a preemptive race to capture the peaks of the siachin....and it was mutual.


----------



## paritosh

xeric said:


> Bad loser-i like that!!
> 
> If you still think that we are losing at Siachen, i must say you need to see a doc ASAP!
> 
> Just try to compare the cost and the casualty rate on both sides and you'll know who is winning there. And yes you keep all the Gas and Oil Reserves there..
> 
> BTW, last time when i was there, Siachen didnt even grow Grass then!



the state of affairs is hugely in favor of India as far as the importance and the amount of area controlled is considered....it is truue that we pay a higher cost...but we can't move away...especially after Kargil.
Kargil had Siachin as one of the reasons behind it...so you can't totally ignore the importance of holding heights in Siachin.


----------



## Kasrkin

paritosh I suggest you read over this entire thread, if you want to pick up the debate then do it from there. We're not going in circles anymore.



> the state of affairs is hugely in favor of India as far as the importance and the amount of area controlled is considered....it is truue that we pay a higher cost...but we can't move away...especially after Kargil.



What highway does Siachen overlook? It has nothing in common with Kargil. Siachen is pointless. It was a blunder. Indian forces are checkmated. Any advantage they might have had in using Siachen to circumvent our defenses down south is gone. We only need half the number of your troops there and a fraction of your resources to ensure that Indian forces aren&#8217;t going anywhere. But if you&#8217;re happy with this state of affairs, then you&#8217;re welcome to it, your men, your money.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ejaz007

So we are still running around in circles. This is the beauty of India Pakistan discussion. You move one step forward and two steps backward.


----------



## bandit

Kasrkin said:


> I did not say Siachen was not covered in the agreement, I said it was. The line did not extend as far as Siachen so there was nothing to redraw.
> 
> 
> The fact that the Simla Agreement forbade unilateral military action as a way to address issues pertaining to Kashmir. The issue couldve and shouldve been raised through talks. Unofficial agreement was that whoever wanted was welcome to the region, but nowhere in the agreement was it said that in the condition of a disagreement is India entitled to executing secret military operations without so much as mentioning the issue diplomatically.



Ok so we agree that Pakistan chose to unilaterally alter or establish a line in a disputed area whereas it was explicitly mentioned in the Simla agreement that no side shall do it unilaterally. The military action followed Pakistan's move to claim the territory in its maps. So the action was perfectly justified and it was Pakistan that broke the agreement by not coming to the table and discussing rather taking unilateral steps.


----------



## Kasrkin

> Ok so we agree that Pakistan chose to unilaterally alter or establish a line in a disputed area whereas it was explicitly mentioned in the Simla agreement that no side shall do it unilaterally.



What it _explicitly_ states in the Simla Agreement is that the *LoC* cannot be altered unilaterally. Read your own quote, I had highlighted this bit for your benefit. There is no "line" or LoC in Siachen, where it was agreed that whoever wanted was welcome to it. 

Don&#8217;t distort what I&#8217;ve said. It&#8217;s pathetic. Doing so again will get you in trouble.



> So the action was perfectly justified and it was Pakistan that broke the agreement by not coming to the table and discussing rather taking unilateral steps.



Pakistan did not take any steps that were unilateral or military in nature. Since the Indians agreed that whichever side wanted possession was welcome to it, Pakistan broke no 'agreement' by facilitating tourist travel or by allowing international chorographers to label it part of Azad Kashmir. As to was Indian military action justified? You&#8217;re welcome to believe whatever you&#8217;ve been programmed to, but since you can&#8217;t rationalize or justify your beliefs here, you need to check yourself.

I&#8217;ve repeatedly asked you to discontinue this nonsensical, circular bickering. I&#8217;m tired of repeating what I&#8217;ve already explained in the previous posts just because you&#8217;re incapable of comprehending any of it. *Another pointless outburst on this issue from you and your post will be deleted.*


----------



## bandit

Kasrkin said:


> What it _explicitly_ states in the Simla Agreement is that the *LoC* cannot be altered unilaterally. Read your own quote, I had highlighted this bit for your benefit. There is no "line" or LoC in Siachen, where it was agreed that whoever wanted was welcome to it.
> 
> Dont distort what Ive said. Its pathetic. Doing so again will get you in trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan did not take any steps that were unilateral or military in nature. Since the Indians agreed that whichever side wanted possession was welcome to it, Pakistan broke no 'agreement' by facilitating tourist travel or by allowing international chorographers to label it part of Azad Kashmir. As to was Indian military action justified? Youre welcome to believe whatever youve been programmed to, but since you cant rationalize or justify your beliefs here, you need to check yourself.
> 
> Ive repeatedly asked you to discontinue this nonsensical, circular bickering. Im tired of repeating what Ive already explained in the previous posts just because youre incapable of comprehending any of it. *Another pointless outburst on this issue from you and your post will be deleted.*



You keep on justifying Pakistan's action as being taken in the spirit of the accord, while India broke it. I still don't see the proofs or the logic behind it. 
Anyways since you are right that the argument has gone circular, we'll take it up when either one can convince the other with facts or logic.


----------



## Kasrkin

India's defense budget is 5, maybe 6 times that of Pakistan. India spends 10 times as much as we do on Siachen. So technically we are getting a better return for our money. Thats not even mentioning the lives lost. We will not allow you to stereotype the whole of Pakistan as a &#8216;beggar country&#8217; based on the requirement for economic and WoT related aid. Pakistan's budget is not controlled by anyone other than Pakistanis, and India has hit hard economic patches too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## paritosh

Kasrkin said:


> India's defense budget is 5, maybe 6 times that of Pakistan. India spends 10 times as much as we do on Siachen. So technically we are getting a better return for our money. Thats not even mentioning the lives lost. We will not allow you to stereotype the whole of Pakistan as a beggar country based on the requirement for economic and WoT related aid. Pakistan's budget is not controlled by anyone other than Pakistanis, and India has hit hard economic patches too.


Kasrkin...I am not picking-up tangential fights...I have gone through the entire thread...
Siachin is a pain...but i know you'd have a clear-cut idea about the how strategically important holding those heights are...the Pakistanis posted in Siachin are on lower posts...and run the risk of being sniped-out by the Indians...in fact the as I read in one of the articles posted in this thread by an American journalists...the Pakistani posts are at declination of almost 80degress to the Indian ones...and that Indians can drop grenades like pebbles on the head of the Pakistanis...
now in the event of a war...the importance of holding higher ground would be indispensable...when i quoted kargil...my point was that the Pakistani experience of not being able to take up heights and being unsuccessful at trying to dislodge the Indians from the Siachin and baltoro heights...prompted a cunning mission of sending a small force with limited arms and ammunition to keep a larger enemy force at bay...till the strategic goals have been met and concrete supply lines established.
so though in the times of peace...it might look utterly stupid to send your brave men face the nature in it's most extreme atop some god-forsaken peak....it is the coming war that both sides keep in mind.
as they say "it is better to sweat in peace than to bleed in the war"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Skeptic

Kasrkin said:


> India's defense budget is 5, maybe 6 times that of Pakistan. India spends 10 times as much as we do on Siachen. So technically we are getting a better return for our money. Thats not even mentioning the lives lost. We will not allow you to stereotype the whole of Pakistan as a &#8216;beggar country&#8217; based on the requirement for economic and WoT related aid. Pakistan's budget is not controlled by anyone other than Pakistanis, and India has hit hard economic patches too.



Great, so that is what country's defence has come to... getting a better bang for the buck? is that so simple? I think you have been influenced by existing kiddish bickering on this thread. Generally all your posts are remarkable and informative, but this one sir, is kiddish.

If we use the same logic in the Kashmr scenario, pakistan is getting better bang for the buck there as well. You are spending lesser and India is controlling the terrritory. So you must be pleased with the status quo?

Defending your land has nothing to do with money and the comparasion of the two are completely redundant. There have been greater lengths others have travelled to protect ther homlands than to spend some quids.


----------



## toxic_pus

Kasrkin said:


> India's defense budget is 5, maybe 6 times that of Pakistan. India spends 10 times as much as we do on Siachen. So technically we are getting a better return for our money. Thats not even mentioning the lives lost.


You are essentially echoing what Mr Xeric has done before, to which I had responded earlier and then deleted. The fact that, GoP has on several occasions tried to dislodge the Indian troops from the Siachen glacier and has even gone into a mini war (a.k.a Kargil) with Siachen as one of the factors, means GoP attaches more value to Siachen than you are willing to admit.

You can downplay Siachens importance, and I personally feel that you are not entirely wrong in that, but it is apparent, that GoP is more than willing to risk the expenditure and lives of her sons, just to be where Indian troops are today.

The argument that it is bleeding India more and therefore, Pakistan is better off, as far as Siachen is concerned, is inherently a false argument. Given the first opportunity, Pakistan would like to bleed a just as much, and this, Pakistan has proved through her actions.


----------



## Kasrkin

> Generally all your posts are remarkable and informative, but this one sir, is kiddish.



Perhaps you misunderstood the meaning and context of my words. It was being claimed, crudely, that Siachen is less of a burden on India because Pakistan is &#8216;begging for aid&#8217; and what not. I pointed out that Pakistan&#8217;s defense budget is stable, even if it is less than India&#8217;s, and as per the defense spending, the particularly pointless and futile confrontation in Siachen is still heavier to sustain on the Indian side, despite their financial superiority. I was not looking to claim a &#8216;kiddish&#8217; score, as you presumed. 



> If we use the same logic in the Kashmr scenario, pakistan is getting better bang for the buck there as well. You are spending lesser and India is controlling the terrritory. So you must be pleased with the status quo?
> 
> Defending your land has nothing to do with money and the comparasion of the two are completely redundant. There have been greater lengths others have travelled to protect ther homlands than to spend some quids.



The logic you are implying is not the one I used. Siachen is a wasteland of complete strategic, cultural, and military irrelevance. It has no resources to speak of, not even human inhabitants. The very act of breathing there is a challenge. Pakistan can do the same thing with 1/3 of it that it can do with the whole of it: stop Indian forces from using it as an unguarded route to enter Azad Kashmir. The whole state of Kashmir is entirely different. Not only do the Muslims living there under the yoke of Indian rule have strong cultural links with Pakistanis, Kashmir&#8217;s riverheads are also a lifeline for our agro-based economy. You can be proud of your &#8216;possessions&#8217; in Siachen all you want, it is only natural that the human psyche would seek to glorify and rationalize one&#8217;s accomplishment. But the fact is that the place is hell, and when there is no ceasefire and shells are raining, then not even the hardiest and suicidal mountaineers would risk life or money to go there. Like I said, at the end of the day it is your decision, your money, your men, your lives. They may be &#8216;some quids&#8217; to you, but that&#8217;s none of my business.



> Kasrkin...I am not picking-up tangential fights...I have gone through the entire thread...
> Siachin is a pain...but i know you'd have a clear-cut idea about the how strategically important holding those heights are...the Pakistanis posted in Siachin are on lower posts...and run the risk of being sniped-out by the Indians...in fact the as I read in one of the articles posted in this thread by an American journalists...the Pakistani posts are at declination of almost 80degress to the Indian ones...and that Indians can drop grenades like pebbles on the head of the Pakistanis...
> now in the event of a war...the importance of holding higher ground would be indispensable...when i quoted kargil...my point was that the Pakistani experience of not being able to take up heights and being unsuccessful at trying to dislodge the Indians from the Siachin and baltoro heights...prompted a cunning mission of sending a small force with limited arms and ammunition to keep a larger enemy force at bay...till the strategic goals have been met and concrete supply lines established.
> so though in the times of peace...it might look utterly stupid to send your brave men face the nature in it's most extreme atop some god-forsaken peak....it is the coming war that both sides keep in mind.
> as they say "it is better to sweat in peace than to bleed in the war"



I understand the point you are trying to make. But on the ground it is not a reality. We have always been at war in Siachen since the 80s. Many skirmishes, many lives have been lost and outposts have changed hands. Artillery duels were a consistent and unending affair between the two armies and we have not been pushed out of the glacier because of elevated Indian positions. So, the Kargil realities do not apply here, firstly because the Pakistani and Indian posts are not close enough that you can hurl grenades out of an Indian post and it lands on the Pakistani one. All of them are relatively far apart. Second, unlike Kargil, we have no wish or need to storm and take the heights you&#8217;re stationed in. We&#8217;re content to watching you from where we are. If we try to storm all your posts, then perhaps your grenade falling on our head logic will apply. But the reality is that the Indians can&#8217;t come down, because we will gun them down on descent, anymore than we can go up, that is something I&#8217;ve heard officers from both sides admit. It&#8217;s a stalemate, our posts are just less costly to maintain, and much less costlier to supply.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kasrkin

> The argument that it is bleeding India more and therefore, Pakistan is better off, as far as Siachen is concerned, is inherently a false argument. Given the first opportunity, Pakistan would like to bleed a just as much, and this, Pakistan has proved through her actions.



toxic_pus your argument is mostly based on false assumptions. There is no relation between Kargil and Siachen, Siachen is overlooking no vital highway. The plan for Kargil would&#8217;ve starved Siachen resulting in an Indian surrender, yes, as it would've Indian forces across a large chuck of the LoC. However that does not mean that Siachen was the sole consideration or motivation behind Kargil. Second, yes there have been skirmishes in Siachen, but none of them were designed or planned to expel the Indians from the glacier entirely. The Indians looked for weaknesses in our lines and attacked it, we looked for weaknesses in yours and attacked them (biggest Pakistani attack was actually motivated by revenge for an earlier Indian assault). Sometimes patrols ran into each other and there were firefights. None of this translates into &#8216;Pakistan is desperate to be where India is now&#8217;. Furthermore it must be remembered that even if Pakistan was in control of the heights Indians control now, it would still cost us much lesser than what it costs you because our path to Siachen does not require helicopters or expensive snow-vehicles to cross.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## toxic_pus

Kasrkin said:


> There is no relation between Kargil and Siachen, Siachen is overlooking no vital highway. The plan for Kargil wouldve starved Siachen resulting in an Indian surrender, yes, as it would've Indian forces across a large chuck of the LoC. However that does not mean that Siachen was the sole consideration or motivation behind Kargil.


If I recall correctly, I have never alluded that Siachen was the sole consideration or motivation behind Kargil . What I have said is, the GoP has even gone into a mini war (a.k.a Kargil) with Siachen as *one of the factors*.


> Second, yes there have been skirmishes in Siachen, but none of them were designed or planned to expel the Indians from the glacier entirely. The Indians looked for weaknesses in our lines and attacked it, we looked for weaknesses in yours and attacked them (*biggest Pakistani attack was actually motivated by revenge for an earlier Indian assault*). Sometimes patrols ran into each other and there were firefights. None of this translates into Pakistan is desperate to be where India is now.


This is the point that I was making in that post. Worth of Siachen to the two countries is measured differently and not necessarily, in terms of expenses or loss of life, or how much natural reserve it holds or if it overlooks any major highway etc. For GoI, it is a matter of national pride. For GoP, it is perhaps a matter of revenge, which is just a flip side of nationalism. I of course believe, that it is more than just revenge. It is about regaining a lost territory which they believe is theirs, and retaining it.

Please note, I am not arguing if GoI is justified or if Shimla agreement was violated. I would choose to stay away from that debate.


> Furthermore it must be remembered that even if Pakistan was in control of the heights Indians control now, it would still cost us much lesser than what it costs you because our path to Siachen does not require helicopters or expensive snow-vehicles to cross.


You are correct, but it still would have shot up the bill.


----------



## Kasrkin

> For GoP, it is perhaps a matter of revenge, which is just a flip side of nationalism.



You misunderstood. By revenge I didn't mean spite for the Indians being there. I was referring to a tit for tat raid. If the Indians keep attacking, the Pakistan Army are hardly the ones to sit quietly and take it. Do note that nothing you've said authenticates your claims that 'Pakistan would like to bleed just as much, and this, Pakistan has proved through her actions'. While it is easy to see how the Kargil operation would've led to an embarrassing and crippling blow to the Indian operation in Siachen, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Kargil was formulated _because_ of Siachen or that the Pakistani blood spilt in Kargil was for Siachen, I can tell you we certainly don't look at it like that. Thus your contention that Pakistan is willing to pay every bit that India is for controlling those heights on Siachen does not hold.



> You are correct, but it still would have shot up the bill.



Almost twice the cost actually, according to my calculations. Thats still a lot less than India's expenditure. The vast majority of your money goes into ferrying the supplies and rotating the troops, and India maintains twice as many troops as we do.


----------



## Xeric

paritosh said:


> Kasrkin...I am not picking-up tangential fights...I have gone through the entire thread...
> Siachin is a pain...but i know you'd have a clear-cut idea about the how strategically important holding those heights are...the Pakistanis posted in Siachin are on lower posts...and run the risk of being sniped-out by the Indians...in fact the as I read in one of the articles posted in this thread by an American journalists...the Pakistani posts are at declination of almost 80degress to the Indian ones...and that Indians can drop grenades like pebbles on the head of the Pakistanis...
> now in the event of a war...the importance of *holding higher ground* would be indispensable...when i quoted kargil...my point was that the Pakistani experience of not being able to take up *heights *and being unsuccessful at trying to dislodge the Indians from the Siachin and baltoro *heights*...prompted a cunning mission of sending a small force with limited arms and ammunition to keep a larger enemy force at bay...till the strategic goals have been met and concrete supply lines established.
> so though in the times of peace...it might look utterly stupid to send your brave men face the nature in it's most extreme atop some god-forsaken peak....it is the coming war that both sides keep in mind.
> as they say "it is better to sweat in peace than to bleed in the war"





paritosh said:


> ...*so you can't totally ignore the importance of holding heights in Siachin*.


Paritosh, you have been a guud debater, but i am really surprised at the understanding that you have shown of military matters. Holding heights at Siachen!? i mean, what's the point actually? i think you have mixed up heights and dominating features that are important when fighting battles at Plains, with fighting a war at Siachen. Let me ease it out for your assimilation:

Imagine a theater of war somewhere around your Punjab. Consider that you are holding a mole, hill, or a small cliff etc etc and the area surrounding it is plain, i mean quite low as compared to the 'heights' it surrounds. Now in this case you definitely are dominating a vast area around you as:

1) You can see much further-this can help in observation and direction of fire.

2)You can 'affect' an important landmark while staying miles and miles away from it.

3)It would be very difficult for the enemy to mount and attack on you because of the obvious reasons.

4)You have a moral ascendancy over the enemy

5)i can go on and on but i dont want to open up a tactics class here.

6)These above mentioned points hold valid mostly when a fluid battle is going on and by the virtue of your height you can drastically change the course of the battle, but if the battle is a 'static' one, the one being fought at Siachen, these heights become actually unless.

Now let's consider this in the Sicahen scenario:

1)You sit at 18000 ft and i sit at 17000 fit or may be at 17500 ft. There is a large 'La' (Balti word for way)/gap between the two ridges that we occupy, and most of the times this gap stretches for miles. 

2)You cant see beyond my ridge line, i cant see beyond your ridge line.

3)You are _actually_ NOT dominating the area around you as the area surrounding you also have a mean height approximately the same as yourself-as it is Siachen we are talking about, not the Plains! Except a few glaciated parts and 'Las', that actually are on ground level.

4)There is no strategic road/route in that area that you can affect by the virtue of your 'more' height.

5)You have to think a 100 times before you even actually think of mounting the others height to capture it.

6)You talked about dropping a grenade just like that, sir at the most places even larger caliber direct firing weapons (which have longer range as compared to small arms) prove inefficient because of the distance between the two ridges that both the parties have occupied. Though there are instances where you can actually just drop the grenade and hit would land on the enemy's Post-and this hold guud for both the side and not only for india.

7)The battles is a 'static' one, not much of the movements, and the movements that take place are actually hidden by the terrain itself, which you can effectively engage by the virtue of your 'more' height. Moreover there is no infantry-works so the heights actually fail to achieve what they are supposed to.

8)There are many point, but i'll leave it here.

So the height dominance that you claimed of actually fails, rather adds more to your toil as more height at Siachen mean less air and very difficult logistics.

As for having a larger chunk of Siachen, i would say you could keep it as both the parties dont actually plan on moving forth their occupied areas.


These are a few points which just came to my mind randomly or should i say something that i personally feel without getting into detailed tactical analysis, which anyone with some common sense can think of. i wonder what the 'seniors' at your and my side who are actually more learnerd and experienced would be thinking about this!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Xeric

toxic_pus said:


> You are essentially echoing what Mr Xeric has done before, to which I had responded earlier and then deleted. The fact that, GoP has on several occasions tried to dislodge the Indian troops from the Siachen glacier and has even gone into a mini war (a.k.a Kargil) with Siachen as one of the factors, means GoP attaches more value to Siachen than you are willing to admit.
> 
> You can downplay Siachens importance, and I personally feel that you are not entirely wrong in that, but it is apparent, that GoP is more than willing to risk the expenditure and lives of her sons, just to be where Indian troops are today.
> 
> The argument that it is bleeding India more and therefore, Pakistan is better off, as far as Siachen is concerned, is inherently a false argument. Given the first opportunity, Pakistan would like to bleed a just as much, and this, Pakistan has proved through her actions.


Surprised, i am.

Such blindness! My my my.

----

BTW, we have General Zorawar Singh back alive in your disguise, thanks to  !


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

sonicboom said:


> One point of view. Thank you.
> 
> May I, and if you will, say that this notion of yours conventional and unconventional deterrent has never worked in the past and will not work in the future either? Its about time that we change our thought process, quit making stupid blunders, get out of this deterrent mode and take an aggressive role. Thats the only way to survive in this world *Gis ki Lathi us ki Bhense*.



Sonic,

Another thing to think about in terms of the money saved to buy F-16's, was that the US embargoed the ones we had bought (750 million is what they stole from us at the time I think) - they would have had no qualms about the rest either. So a no go there.

The other option was the French - very expensive, but the 4 Billion dollar deal that fell though because of the alleged machinations of the government at the time and the reported $200 million kickbacks.

In addition, I am skeptical of the claim that it costs the Indians only twice as much as us. They have what, almost twice as many troops that have to be supplied primarily through the air, and a much more hazardous supply line.

Their costs have to be triple or quadruple ours - just the numerical superiority alone would almost double their costs.


----------



## qsaark

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> In addition, I am skeptical of the claim that it costs the Indians only twice as much as us. They have what, almost twice as many troops that have to be supplied primarily through the air, and a much more hazardous supply line.
> 
> Their costs have to be triple or quadruple ours - just the numerical superiority alone would almost double their costs.


However, owing to their large economy, they are sustaining and will continue to sustain the cost. For us, on the other hand, this war is becoming more and more expensive simply because our resources are shrinking with time.


----------



## EyelessInGaza

xeric said:


> Paritosh, you have been a guud debater, but i am really surprised at the understanding that you have shown of military matters. Holding heights at Siachen!? i mean, what's the point actually? i think you have mixed up heights and dominating features that are important when fighting battles at Plains, with fighting a war at Siachen. Let me ease it out for your assimilation:
> 
> Imagine a theater of war somewhere around your Punjab. Consider that you are holding a mole, hill, or a small cliff etc etc and the area surrounding it is plain, i mean quite low as compared to the 'heights' it surrounds. Now in this case you definitely are dominating a vast area around you as:
> 
> 1) You can see much further-this can help in observation and direction of fire.
> 
> 2)You can 'affect' an important landmark while staying miles and miles away from it.
> 
> 3)It would be very difficult for the enemy to mount and attack on you because of the obvious reasons.
> 
> 4)You have a moral ascendancy over the enemy
> 
> 5)i can go on and on but i dont want to open up a tactics class here.
> 
> 6)These above mentioned points hold valid mostly when a fluid battle is going on and by the virtue of your height you can drastically change the course of the battle, but if the battle is a 'static' one, the one being fought at Siachen, these heights become actually unless.
> 
> Now let's consider this in the Sicahen scenario:
> 
> 1)You sit at 18000 ft and i sit at 17000 fit or may be at 17500 ft. There is a large 'La' (Balti word for way)/gap between the two ridges that we occupy, and most of the times this gap stretches for miles.
> 
> 2)You cant see beyond my ridge line, i cant see beyond your ridge line.
> 
> 3)You are _actually_ NOT dominating the area around you as the area surrounding you also have a mean height approximately the same as yourself-as it is Siachen we are talking about, not the Plains! Except a few glaciated parts and 'Las', that actually are on ground level.
> 
> 4)There is no strategic road/route in that area that you can affect by the virtue of your 'more' height.
> 
> 5)You have to think a 100 times before you even actually think of mounting the others height to capture it.
> 
> 6)You talked about dropping a grenade just like that, sir at the most places even larger caliber direct firing weapons (which have longer range as compared to small arms) prove inefficient because of the distance between the two ridges that both the parties have occupied. Though there are instances where you can actually just drop the grenade and hit would land on the enemy's Post-and this hold guud for both the side and not only for india.
> 
> 7)The battles is a 'static' one, not much of the movements, and the movements that take place are actually hidden by the terrain itself, which you can effectively engage by the virtue of your 'more' height. Moreover there is no infantry-works so the heights actually fail to achieve what they are supposed to.
> 
> 8)There are many point, but i'll leave it here.
> 
> So the height dominance that you claimed of actually fails, rather adds more to your toil as more height at Siachen mean less air and very difficult logistics.
> 
> As for having a larger chunk of Siachen, i would say you could keep it as both the parties dont actually plan on moving forth their occupied areas.
> 
> 
> These are a few points which just came to my mind randomly or should i say something that i personally feel without getting into detailed tactical analysis, which anyone with some common sense can think of. i wonder what the 'seniors' at your and my side who are actually more learnerd and experienced would be thinking about this!



I'm quoting you fully because, you may say you expressed random thoughts, but that is as brilliant an explanation of tactics as I have seen - but I'm a military novice.

This point I thought was particularly outstanding (again, I know little about tactics):



> 6)These above mentioned points hold valid mostly when a fluid battle is going on and by the virtue of your height you can drastically change the course of the battle,



Of course more informed people than me may provide a different POV; for example it seems to me that in any battlefield situation holding the height is always good (I've read up quite a bit on WW I). 

So, given all that you've said, and also given my opinion that a *guaranteed* withdrawal is likely to be impossible for both sides to trust, what position would you rather be holding, the Indian or the Pakistani?

Again, thanks for the post; intellectually, it really forced me to rethink a fundamental position I'd held. 

I ask again - any Indian military professionals who'd like to counter Xerics's post?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## bandit

Kasrkin said:


> India's defense budget is 5, maybe 6 times that of Pakistan. India spends 10 times as much as we do on Siachen. So technically we are getting a better return for our money. Thats not even mentioning the lives lost. We will not allow you to stereotype the whole of Pakistan as a beggar country based on the requirement for economic and WoT related aid. Pakistan's budget is not controlled by anyone other than Pakistanis, and India has hit hard economic patches too.



The guy was trying to justify the stand based on costs. I put up some straight facts relating to costs...I did no stereotyping...if the facts seem to do that please try to counter them rather than deleting posts that seem discomforting.


----------



## Kasrkin

I deleted it because it was a crude rant about 'Zardari going around with bowls in his hands', etc. Thats not the direction for the thread I want to allow, neither is it relevant to the matter of who spends a larger degree of their allotted defense budget on Siachen. Avoid posts like that in the future. Thanks.


----------



## Xeric

EyelessInGaza said:


> I'm quoting you fully because, you may say you expressed random thoughts, but that is as brilliant an explanation of tactics as I have seen - but I'm a military novice.
> 
> This point I thought was particularly outstanding (again, I know little about tactics):
> 
> 
> 
> Of course more informed people than me may provide a different POV; for example it seems to me that in any battlefield situation holding the height is always good (I've read up quite a bit on WW I).
> 
> So, given all that you've said, and also given my opinion that a *guaranteed* withdrawal is likely to be impossible for both sides to trust, what position would you rather be holding, the Indian or the Pakistani?
> 
> Again, thanks for the post; intellectually, it really forced me to rethink a fundamental position I'd held.
> 
> I ask again - any Indian military professionals who'd like to counter Xerics's post?


Thanks for understanding.

Holding heights is always guud in battle, that's the basics, but when we start actually looking deep into the battle minute and cursory points start taking bigger roles and can alter the battle so critically that one is stunned. Sitting on high ground and dominating a vast area is fruitful mostly (i didnt use only) when you can actually make use of it. If i can't actually 'dominate' my surrounding, because of certain facts then i may be at an advantages position but then i am not winning the battle because of it.

Now another more important thing, i can again justify when all i have said in my post that you referred to, the other way round. i mean i can negate all my claims that i made in my post and still can 'praise' heights that the indians are holding and can give them all the winning credits, as it's all about perception and how you read the battle. Though what i have written is not available any tactics book and i dont call it tactics as it is sheer common sense and nothing else. But tactics is no ones baby! You are tactics yourself and tactics is what you think, but in the latter case thinking clearly and calmly is very important. Otherwise blunders can happen!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zob

toxic_pus said:


> You are essentially echoing what Mr Xeric has done before, to which I had responded earlier and then deleted. The fact that, GoP has on several occasions tried to dislodge the Indian troops from the Siachen glacier and has even gone into a mini war (a.k.a Kargil) with Siachen as one of the factors, means GoP attaches more value to Siachen than you are willing to admit.
> 
> You can downplay Siachens importance, and I personally feel that you are not entirely wrong in that, but it is apparent, that GoP is more than willing to risk the expenditure and lives of her sons, just to be where Indian troops are today.
> 
> The argument that it is bleeding India more and therefore, Pakistan is better off, as far as Siachen is concerned, is inherently a false argument. Given the first opportunity, Pakistan would like to bleed a just as much, and this, Pakistan has proved through her actions.



well see that is why status quo is not the solution complete demilitarization of the zone is!!! 

both sides should withdraw to there pre 1984 positions!!


----------



## third eye

Zob said:


> well see that is why status quo is not the solution complete demilitarization of the zone is!!!
> 
> both sides should withdraw to there pre 1984 positions!!



Not unless the existing Ground positions are documented & accepted by both sides.

This is something Pk is not inclined to hence the impasse.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zob

third eye said:


> Not unless the existing Ground positions are documented & accepted by both sides.
> 
> This is something Pk is not inclined to hence the impasse.



ok well i think if you withdraw then there is no issue of ground positions being documented....withdraw to 1984 position and maintain a status quo like it existed back then!! and declare Siachen a complete demilitarize zone on both sides...and make it a no man's land....!!! 

however, if you want to document things let's hear what positions would be documented....


----------



## third eye

Zob said:


> ok well i think if you withdraw then there is no issue of ground positions being documented....withdraw to 1984 position and maintain a status quo like it existed back then!! and declare Siachen a complete demilitarize zone on both sides...and make it a no man's land....!!!
> 
> however, if you want to document things let's hear what positions would be documented....



Status quo of '84 is in Pk's interest no that of IA. Having lost somany men & done so much there is no way the IA will withdraw unless its position is accepted.

To withdraw the stated party line is that both armies have to accept who stands where now & agree to maintain the sanctity of these lines.

Since this is unlikely to be accepted by PA - the current status quo will remain. If GOI has to spend more than GOP to keep the troops up there - well its has the resources to do that.

This argument has gone on for ages & will get nowhere.


----------



## Zob

@third-eye 

this is the problem that we are ok with recognizing 1984 boundaries because we never did any agression we didn't have troops up there Siachen was baron land and no one was there until the indians walked up the mountain and occupied it for unknown reasons!! 

so yes i guess as long as India is not willing to withdraw the problem will exist. what pak must do is increase foreign pressure on india just like it did during Kargil and succeed in getting a withdrawal due to international pressure!!


----------



## third eye

Zob said:


> @third-eye
> 
> this is the problem that we are ok with recognizing 1984 boundaries because we never did any agression we didn't have troops up there Siachen was baron land and no one was there until the indians walked up the mountain and occupied it for unknown reasons!!
> 
> so yes i guess as long as India is not willing to withdraw the problem will exist. what pak must do is increase foreign pressure on india just like it did during Kargil and succeed in getting a withdrawal due to international pressure!!



Going back to ' 84 is not an option at all.

The reasons for occupying are not ' unknown' either. Those who should know - do know thats why one side is holding on & the other is trying to oust them.

As rgds intl pressure, how much has changed & where is the pressure ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## arihant

Zob said:


> @third-eye
> 
> this is the problem that we are ok with recognizing 1984 boundaries because we never did any agression we didn't have troops up there Siachen was baron land and no one was there until the indians walked up the mountain and occupied it for unknown reasons!!
> 
> so yes i guess as long as India is not willing to withdraw the problem will exist. what pak must do is increase foreign pressure on india just like it did during Kargil and succeed in getting a withdrawal due to international pressure!!



Going back 1984 is no more solution. It is like going back to 1947 stage. Probably now India and Pakistan should have a dialogue to internationalized the boundary with mutual agreement. Border dispute with china, Bangladesh should also be solved in this way.


----------



## arihant

Zob said:


> @third-eye
> 
> so yes i guess as long as India is not willing to withdraw the problem will exist. what pak must do is increase foreign pressure on india just like it did during Kargil and succeed in getting a withdrawal due to international pressure!!



What pakistan did in Kargil ? I mean what pressure it made on India with international pressure. Please elaborate in detail.


----------



## HadaHada

i have a question...is the airforce used to bomb the other sides positions or is siachen too high for airplanes?


----------



## Joodi

HadaHada said:


> i have a question...is the airforce used to bomb the other sides positions or is siachen too high for airplanes?



Yes airforce can be used. but its useless. if one side uses air power then so does the other side. either side can use airpower to destroy each other post on high altitudes.


----------



## Windjammer

DAVE01 said:


> i want to How many time india cross border to pakistan after 1947.



It's not a question of merely crossing the border, India has been the habitual aggressor in the conflict, the late indian PM Mrs. Gandhi is on record for commenting, "Indian forces have entered East Pakistan in
SELF DEFENCE. ?????? !!!!!!!!!


----------



## Vassnti

Just how long will there be a Siachen glacier to fight over?



> The studies reportedly pointed out that during the last two decades, the melting of Siachen glacier has now been bracketed amongst the fastest in the world. Its retreat is evident from the snout (base of the glacier) and through the continuous thinning of ice along its entire length. Siachen, along with several other major tributary glaciers, reduced their volume by 35 per cent during the last twenty years and retreating at the rate of 110 metres per year.



'Siachen glacier melting due to military activity'


----------



## vnomad

The Indian army's senior leadership has publicly and vociferously decried any movement by the Indian political leadership to settle Siachen by diluting India's stand.

The reasons especially of late aren't hard to assess.

What the brass has been emphasizing over and over again is that India is no longer bleeding in Siachen. There was a time during the eighties and nineties when India was losing dozens of men annually to the harsh conditions on the glacier. That's mostly in the past now.



> *Siachen no longer hurts us: Army*
> 
> 2005:
> 
> Siachen Glacier: Siachen no longer hurts. That's the message from the Indian Army, which has now ensured that none of its troops perishes on the treacherous battlefield.
> 
> For the first time since it paratrooped to the Sia La heights in 1984 to pre-empt a Pakistani march into Siachen, the Army finally seems to have the measure of the Glacier.
> 
> "There has been no death in the last one year," Dr Latika, a doctor at the High-Altitude Medical Research Centre, said. The ceasefire since 2003 has helped arrive at zero fatality.
> 
> It was not Pakistani firing but the Glacier itself, which was the biggest killer of Indian Army men on the world's highest battlefield.
> 
> Of the 720 deaths suffered by the Indian Army so far, 60 per cent perished due to the frigid elements at heights up to 22,000 feet. The Army confers on Siachen the respect it would give to a worthy enemy by calling it 'General Glacier'.
> 
> Although survival continues to be a challenge, some astute medical management has enabled the Army to defy 'General Glacier'.
> 
> The provision of mobile hyperbaric chambers at all posts, which enable sick soldiers to be subjected to a sea-level atmospheric pressure and quick evacuation, is the key to survival.
> 
> "Once an Armyman has developed hi-altitude pulmonary edema, if inclement weather conditions do not permit immediate evacuation, he can survive in this bag (mobile hyperbaric chambers). It is a life-saving thing," Dr Latika explains.
> 
> So, as India and Pakistan consider de-militarisation, the Army is conveying to New Delhi that it is under no mortal pressure to withdraw. The Army's ruggedness has kept India's options open on Siachen. And the Army's case for staying put is now backed up by a feat in casualty management.
> 
> *There was an impression that prolonged deployment on this frozen frontier is hurting the Army. But by achieving a near-zero casualty rate, the Army has demonstrated that it can dig in for as long as it takes.*
> 
> Siachen no longer hurts us: Army





> *At Siachen, casualties come to all time low*
> 
> Oct 11, 2008
> 
> It is a sad day at the Siachen base camp. A soldier died at the Kaziranga post on the glacier two days ago and his body has still not been brought down due to bad weather and heavy snowfall. A Cheetah helicopter has been flying daily from base camp to the post, but has not been able to land and pick up the body.
> Despite a rigorous selection procedure and extensive medical examinations before the posting, the soldier suffered a heart attack. Another one, doctors say, of the unpredictables while serving at extreme altitudes.
> 
> While days like these bring out the cost India is paying for maintaining troops at the highest battlefield in the world, casualty rates at the Siachen glacier have come down to an all time low.
> 
> Casualties peaked to almost 70 per year during the 1999 Kargil war, but the rate has come down to single digit in the past two years. New equipment, better medical facilities, faster evacuations and the ceasefire agreement has brought down fatality rates in the glacier to about four a year.
> 
> Till 2003, before the ceasefire agreement came into place, the Army was losing close to 30 soldiers on the glacier every year. The figure went down to 10 a year after the agreement. However, heavy snowfall and the 2006 earthquake raised the casualties to 26 that year.
> 
> The past two years have, however, been stable. The Army lost four men on the glacier in 2007  two cases of medical complications and two pilots who died in a helicopter crash on the LoC. This year, four soldiers have died on the glacier, again mainly due to medical complications.
> 
> The main reason, officers say, is the good quality of clothing and special equipment procured in recent years to equip men on the glacier. Most of the clothing  jackets, gloves, sleeping bags  has improved over the past two years and is being imported from Italy, France and Austria.
> 
> We now have better medical facilities and equipment. Any case that looks bad is evacuated immediately. We dont need to take any chances on the glacier anymore, a medical officer says.
> 
> At Siachen, casualties come to all time low




With regard to expenditure, Siachen used to be a major expenditure when India's defence budget was $10 billion back in 1999. Today, its a substantially smaller fraction of the $33 billion budget. And as the national budget grows one can expect it to further decrease in the future.


----------



## wild peace

arihant said:


> What pakistan did in Kargil ? I mean what pressure it made on India with international pressure. Please elaborate in detail.



Is kargil present at an international border , Kargil is at LOC(line of controll)It is not an international border , these hights are in pakistan coustody in 71 when india stenched them. Secondly yes there is reason for this adventureism ..to satisfy its friend USSR now russia who was fighting in afganistan.


----------



## arihant

wild peace said:


> Is kargil present at an international border , Kargil is at LOC(line of controll)It is not an international border , these hights are in pakistan coustody in 71 when india stenched them. Secondly yes there is reason for this adventureism ..to satisfy its friend USSR now russia who was fighting in afganistan.



You need to check what I quoted. Did I said it is International Border. You want to again start fighting na...


----------



## All-Green

arihant said:


> What pakistan did in Kargil ? I mean what pressure it made on India with international pressure. Please elaborate in detail.



You jumped the gun since I think he was referring to the Indian pressure on Pakistan during Kargil...

In Siachin, India is the aggressor...so similar pressure should be applied by Pakistan.


----------



## arihant

All-Green said:


> You jumped the gun since I think he was referring to the Indian pressure on Pakistan during Kargil...
> 
> In Siachin, India is the aggressor...so similar pressure should be applied by Pakistan.



He was talking about Pressure on India about Kargil. I have no idea on this and that was base for my reply. Should we continue this discussion ?

Reason for Aggression was, Visa provided by Pak for Siachen. There left no option for Indian Army to do. What would have happen if you could have covered whole siachen. You would have given up ? right.


----------



## fatman17

*Let&#8217;s start with Siachen *

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Dr Saleem H Ali

No doubt both the United States and India have much to share in terms of trade ties and a mutual tradition of democratic institutions. However, despite his intellectual pedigree and celebrated reputation as a moderate on matters of war and peace, Singh has shown little leadership in resolving any territorial disputes with Pakistan. President Obama is said to have exertd some pressure on India in this regard but to no avail. The Indian-American lobby has succeeded in marginalising Pakistan and getting it lumped together with Afghanistan as an &#8220;******&#8221; phenomenon. The acronym appears to have some media appeal more for phonetic sound bites than for any real substance. 

Indeed, tying the problems of Pakistan&#8217;s tribal areas with Afghanistan has created a self-fulfilling prophecy for the ****** adherents, since this conflation fuels the fire of conspiracy theorists who keep insidiously suggesting that the US has an interest in destabilising Pakistan.

Sadly, on the eastern frontier, the Mumbai attacks have served the goal of the terrorists and military hawks on either side by stalling the peace process. However, Singh could still show some mark of statesmanship and move towards a resolution of the long-standing territorial disputes between the two countries. Kashmir is certainly an intractable problem because it can lead to a slippery slope for India&#8217;s myriad other sectarian conflicts. Providing some further measure of autonomy in Kashmir could further strengthen other separatist movements that are simmering in Assam and other parts of the country. Since a comprehensive dispute settlement strategy has eluded both countries for 62 years, perhaps the best way to approach Kashmir is incrementally resolving some of the other territorial disputes. First on the list should be a resolution to the Siachen conflict.

Several pragmatic solutions have already been proposed and with very little loss in political capital both countries can make a huge cognitive jump in resolving this dispute. For the past several years, various constituencies in South Asia and beyond have been attempting to establish a jointly managed conservation area, or &#8216;peace park&#8217;, in the Karakoram Mountains which divide the hostile nations of India and Pakistan. Researchers, mountaineers, and conservationists have joined forces to promote their vision of using environmental cooperation to make the magnificent Siachen Glacier region &#8212; militarised since 1986 &#8212; safe for geographers, tourists, and wildlife. This is an uninhabited region which, military leaders on both sides agree, has little military importance and yet soldiers are dying of hypothermia at elevations exceeding 18,000 feet above sea level.

Peace parks are trans-boundary conservation areas that seek to mitigate conflict through environmental cooperation between neighbouring countries. The idea can be traced back to the time-tested tradition of post-war memorials aimed at healing wounds between adversaries. However, they can also be used in zones of active conflict as a conflict-resolution strategy. For example, the establishment of a peace park in the Cordillera del Condor region, mediated by the United States and Brazil, was the key to resolving the decades-long war between Ecuador and Peru; the 2004 treaty between the two nations explicitly used environmental conservation as a conflict-resolution strategy by establishing a jointly managed protected area between the two countries.

The Siachen Peace Park, while unlikely to bring peace to India and Pakistan single-handedly, may be a catalysing variable that not only hastens the peace-building process but also makes it more durable. Those of us, who have worked on this proposal for the past several years, will continue to move forward with our efforts; that is, to address all questions that may be raised by sceptics. For example, what would the role of the militaries be in the peace park? As absolute demilitarisation is unrealistic in this case, the project is considering encouraging the militaries to act as rangers and assist in managing the park, which would allay fears about security and allow the two armies to work together for a constructive purpose.

Another issue facing the project is delineating the park&#8217;s border, a task that would have to be undertaken in phases to develop trust between the countries. Visitor access, too, poses a problem: do tourists visiting the park need visas for both countries? More realistically, visitors from either India or Pakistan could be allowed to enter the peace park on their entry visas from either country &#8212; but not permitted to cross over the park&#8217;s boundary into the other country.

To begin the process, both countries must overcome their institutional inertia and sign an agreement in principle. In 2004, a unified grass-roots campaign, combined with a strategic push from influential groups, sought to usher in the 50th anniversary of the first ascent of K-2 (a mountain in the Karakoram Range that is the second-highest peak in the world) by pushing the effort forward. The Italian government, which facilitated this process, established a meteorological measurement site near K-2. The proposal was submitted to both Pakistani and Indian governments, and during his 2006 visit to Siachen, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated that he hoped the area would some day become a &#8220;peace mountain&#8221;. Since then, the project has focused on using science as the conduit for peace-building, as does the Antarctic Treaty. In March 2008, Indian and Pakistani glaciologists met in Kathmandu for the first time and established a detailed plan for research partnerships that might ultimately reduce tensions and pave the way for a peace park.

The framework for moving forward in this is clearly evident and this is a pragmatic proposal, rather than an idealistic one. There have even been joint reports by Indian and Pakistani brigadier-generals as well as the retired Air Marshall of the Indian armed forces, K C Cariappa, on the strategic salience of such a common-sense solution. All that remains is leadership to move forward. With the Copenhagen Summit on climate change approaching, the prospects for using the Siachen Peace Park as a measure of conflict resolution in the name of science are even stronger. Since Indian forces are in control of the glacier itself, the initiative must come from them to move ahead with this effort. Mr Singh, you have it within your power to leave a lasting legacy and resolve this senseless dispute in the name of science and environmental conservation once and for all.

The writer is associate professor of environmental planning at the University of Vermont, US. www.saleemali.net

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RedBaron

A thought-provoking article by Dr Ali, thanks for posting it, Fatman.


> Sadly, on the eastern frontier, the Mumbai attacks have served the goal of the terrorists and military hawks on either side by stalling the peace process. However, Singh could still show some mark of statesmanship and move towards a resolution of the long-standing territorial disputes between the two countries.


While its true that Mumbai was a tragedy of epic proportions, not only for the victims but also for Indo-Pak relations, all is not lost. But there is no doubt the attack has thrown a spanner in the works of any peace deal on Kashmir. 

PM Singh is a rarity in Indian polity: a man of impeccable integrity, not some run-of-the-mill politician. I believe him when he says he does not know whom to do business with. The power equation in Pakistan is in flux. Zardari is under pressure, Gilani claims he is the head of the govt when its apparent to everyone that he's not, Gen Kiyani obviously chafing re:Kerry/Lugar bill. How can PM Singh reach any agreement with this odd troika? Even PM Singh admits it was easier to deal with the dictator who architected the Kargil fiasco. I would be interested in Pakistani opinion on how they perceive the current power equation in Pakistan.



> Kashmir is certainly an intractable problem because it can lead to a slippery slope for Indias myriad other sectarian conflicts. Providing some further measure of autonomy in Kashmir could further strengthen other separatist movements that are simmering in Assam and other parts of the country.


This is not true. Assam insurgency will not be influenced by events in Kashmir. The Assam/Naga/Naxalite insurgencies are as a result of years of government neglect, local corruption and outright abuse of powers - but not territorial disputes between states. 




> Since a comprehensive dispute settlement strategy has eluded both countries for 62 years, perhaps the best way to approach Kashmir is incrementally resolving some of the other territorial disputes. First on the list should be a resolution to the Siachen conflict.



My personal opinion is that the "irrelevant border" policy that PM Singh favors is the only realistic one, with the end-goal being the LOC ending up like the Swiss-Italy or Swiss-France border, namely, a border only on paper with free passage to Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris alike. This will obviously take a long time, years, perhaps decades to accomplish, if (and only if) peace is maintained elsewhere. This seems to be improbable given conditions on the ground today.




> The Siachen Peace Park, while unlikely to bring peace to India and Pakistan single-handedly, may be a catalysing variable that not only hastens the peace-building process but also makes it more durable.
> ...
> More realistically, visitors from either India or Pakistan could be allowed to enter the peace park on their entry visas from either country  but not permitted to cross over the parks boundary into the other country.


This is a realistic workable idea worth pursuing. Intellectuals always see all sides of the argument, hence environmentalists, glaciologists, geologists on both sides can be the first people with "free passes" to the Siachen glacier.



> In 2004, a unified grass-roots campaign, combined with a strategic push from influential groups, sought to usher in the 50th anniversary of the first ascent of K-2 (a mountain in the Karakoram Range that is the second-highest peak in the world) by pushing the effort forward. The Italian government, which facilitated this process, established a meteorological measurement site near K-2. The proposal was submitted to both Pakistani and Indian governments, and during his 2006 visit to Siachen, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated that he hoped the area would some day become a peace mountain. Since then, the project has focused on using science as the conduit for peace-building, as does the Antarctic Treaty.


K2 is one heck of a mountain, I would love to be part of a peace delegation visiting it, it has a rugged beauty unsurpassed by any other Himalayan peak including Everest. 



> With the Copenhagen Summit on climate change approaching, the prospects for using the Siachen Peace Park as a measure of conflict resolution in the name of science are even stronger. Since Indian forces are in control of the glacier itself, the initiative must come from them to move ahead with this effort. Mr Singh, you have it within your power to leave a lasting legacy and resolve this senseless dispute in the name of science and environmental conservation once and for all.


I would suggest the following:
- GoP convicts and hangs perpetrators of the Mumbai massacre (LeT thugs including Lakhvi-chacha), removing Mumbai issue from the equation and giving something for Mr. Singh to work on
- Mr. Singh can then work with GoP to make the Siachen peace park a reality. Get the intellectuals and more importantly the young educated people involved on both sides. Get college students to mount a joint expedition to Siachen, dammit. 
- The goodwill can then slowly be duplicated in the valley by first opening the borders to Kashmiris on both sides, intellectuals/students next, then civilians....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fatman17

*"- GoP convicts and hangs perpetrators of the Mumbai massacre (LeT thugs including Lakhvi-chacha), removing Mumbai issue from the equation and giving something for Mr. Singh to work on"*

i hope you believe in 'due process' - kasab is hopefully getting it in indian courts, otherwise he should have been 'hung' a long time ago!


----------



## fatman17

*VIEW: Melting ice of Siachen Glacier &#8212;Waheed Hamid*

War-specific developments are a death sentence for Himalayan glaciers. Blaming only global warming for rapid defrosting is a false impression being created deliberately by India with a view to covering up the serious and catastrophic environmental crime its army is committing

Glaciers are ancient rivers of compressed snow that creep through the landscape, shaping the planet&#8217;s surface. They are the earth&#8217;s largest freshwater reservoirs, collectively covering an area the size of South America. Most of the world&#8217;s glaciers are located around the poles. In the non-polar region, the Himalaya Mountains are the origin of many glaciers and important rivers of Asia. The range offers a variety of glaciers. It includes Siachen, Baltoro, Biafo, Nubra and Hispur Glaciers. But the most important is the Siachen Glacier, which is the largest glacier outside the polar regions. The Siachen Glacier is located in the eastern Karakoram range in the Himalaya Mountains at about 35&#176;3&#8217;N 77&#176;0&#8217;E, at an altitude of 15,000 feet, on the Line of Control between India and Pakistan. A portion of it is being controlled each by India and Pakistan. 70 km (43 mi) long, it is the longest glacier in the Karakorams. The glaciers are the main and the biggest source of fresh water in South Asia, particularly India and Pakistan. Therefore they are a lifeline for hundreds of millions of people of the area whose food security is dependent on Himalayan waters.

The Siachen Glacier&#8217;s melting ice is the main source of the Nubra River in Indian controlled Ladakh, which drains into the Shyok River. The Shyok in turn joins the Indus River. Thus the glacier is a major source of the Indus waters. The Indus Basin is the 12th largest basin in the world, ensuring food replenishment to millions of people. The geographic layout of the area is such that it slopes towards the south and southwest. Therefore speedy melting of the Siachen Glacier increases the chances of flooding the Indus Basin and causing destructive snow avalanches on both sides of Saltoro Ridge. If this happens, most of the routes used by world mountaineering expeditions, particularly originating or passing through Pakistan, would become unsafe.

As a matter of fact glaciers have been retreating worldwide since the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850), but in recent decades glaciers have begun melting at rates that cannot be explained by historical trends. Since the early 1960s, mountain glaciers worldwide have experienced an estimated net loss of over 4,000 cubic kilometres of water. However, among the legendary peaks of K2 and Nanga Parbat, glaciers with a penthouse view of the world are rather growing. It is the Siachen Glacier only which is melting and that too on the eastern side of the Saltoro Ridge (presently occupied by the Indian army), the retreat of which has been observed as about 110 meters a year. It is the fastest melting rate of any glacier in the world. Reports also indicate that a large lake has formed in the middle of the Siachen Glacier presently occupied by the Indian army.

It seems very strange that the glacier is defrosting fast on one side and at the same time growing on the other side. It really raises a question why global warming is not affecting the Himalayan glaciers uniformly? Is it global warming or something different that is causing rapid melting, thereby shrinking the glacier? In the recent past, expert reports suggested another probable cause: the erection of artificial infrastructure and human activity in the area as it has been an active battlefield for the last two decades or so. The surfacing of a lake at a location which is the centre of military activity of the Indian army further strengthens such speculations. It indicates one more thing that glaciers on the western side bear thin infrastructure and human activity. In any case, global warming has less to do with deicing of the Siachen Glacier. It is also evident from a statement of the Indian environment minister who admitted that there was no scientific proof to support the idea that the melting of the Himalayan glaciers was being caused by global warming. A report in the August 10, 2009 issue of Current Science journal of India said that the &#8220;Siachen Glacier has not been affected by the rise in global temperatures.&#8221; Jammu University scientists have also claimed that the &#8220;Himalayan glaciers, including the world&#8217;s highest battlefield Siachen, are melting not because of global warming.&#8221; The prevailing evidence therefore points towards extraordinary activity of the Indian army, the infrastructure being established and huge explosive storages on the eastern side of the Saltoro Ridge.

The effects of thawing of glaciers and particularly Siachen Glacier, being the largest in the region, are going to be devastating. However, there exists little awareness among the world community regarding the causes of this phenomenon. After clarifications of scientific experts and Indian officials themselves, it leaves not even an iota of doubt that the rapid shrinkage of the Siachen Glacier is due to chemical and explosive storage and cutting of glacial ice by the Indian army and not by global warming.

The de-icing of glaciers is not only hazardous for the food security of the region, particularly for the Indus Basin area, it is equally disadvantageous to the world&#8217;s mountaineering expeditions that commence their journey from this area. The area contains the highest peaks of the world like K2 and Nanga Parbat and remains attractive to world hikers. Ensuring a pollution-free and safe environment is the joint responsibility of all. It must be appreciated that war-specific developments are a death sentence for Himalayan glaciers. Blaming only global warming for rapid defrosting is a false impression being created deliberately by India with a view to covering up the serious and catastrophic environmental crime its army is committing. It is therefore a moral obligation of the world community and United Nations to take notice of the Indian army&#8217;s activities in Siachen and ensure that the Himalayan glaciers are not disturbed. Their deterioration would not only be detrimental to food safety, it would also be catastrophic to global environmental efforts.

The writer is a freelance columnist

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AVIAN

fatman17 said:


> *VIEW: Melting ice of Siachen Glacier Waheed Hamid*
> 
> War-specific developments are a death sentence for Himalayan glaciers. Blaming only global warming for rapid defrosting is a false impression being created deliberately by India with a view to covering up the serious and catastrophic environmental crime its army is committing
> 
> Glaciers are ancient rivers of compressed snow that creep through the landscape, shaping the planets surface. They are the earths largest freshwater reservoirs, collectively covering an area the size of South America. Most of the worlds glaciers are located around the poles. In the non-polar region, the Himalaya Mountains are the origin of many glaciers and important rivers of Asia. The range offers a variety of glaciers. It includes Siachen, Baltoro, Biafo, Nubra and Hispur Glaciers. But the most important is the Siachen Glacier, which is the largest glacier outside the polar regions. The Siachen Glacier is located in the eastern Karakoram range in the Himalaya Mountains at about 35°3N 77°0E, at an altitude of 15,000 feet, on the Line of Control between India and Pakistan. A portion of it is being controlled each by India and Pakistan. 70 km (43 mi) long, it is the longest glacier in the Karakorams. The glaciers are the main and the biggest source of fresh water in South Asia, particularly India and Pakistan. Therefore they are a lifeline for hundreds of millions of people of the area whose food security is dependent on Himalayan waters.
> 
> The Siachen Glaciers melting ice is the main source of the Nubra River in Indian controlled Ladakh, which drains into the Shyok River. The Shyok in turn joins the Indus River. Thus the glacier is a major source of the Indus waters. The Indus Basin is the 12th largest basin in the world, ensuring food replenishment to millions of people. The geographic layout of the area is such that it slopes towards the south and southwest. Therefore speedy melting of the Siachen Glacier increases the chances of flooding the Indus Basin and causing destructive snow avalanches on both sides of Saltoro Ridge. If this happens, most of the routes used by world mountaineering expeditions, particularly originating or passing through Pakistan, would become unsafe.
> 
> As a matter of fact glaciers have been retreating worldwide since the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850), but in recent decades glaciers have begun melting at rates that cannot be explained by historical trends. Since the early 1960s, mountain glaciers worldwide have experienced an estimated net loss of over 4,000 cubic kilometres of water. However, among the legendary peaks of K2 and Nanga Parbat, glaciers with a penthouse view of the world are rather growing. It is the Siachen Glacier only which is melting and that too on the eastern side of the Saltoro Ridge (presently occupied by the Indian army), the retreat of which has been observed as about 110 meters a year. It is the fastest melting rate of any glacier in the world. Reports also indicate that a large lake has formed in the middle of the Siachen Glacier presently occupied by the Indian army.
> 
> It seems very strange that the glacier is defrosting fast on one side and at the same time growing on the other side. It really raises a question why global warming is not affecting the Himalayan glaciers uniformly? Is it global warming or something different that is causing rapid melting, thereby shrinking the glacier? In the recent past, expert reports suggested another probable cause: the erection of artificial infrastructure and human activity in the area as it has been an active battlefield for the last two decades or so. The surfacing of a lake at a location which is the centre of military activity of the Indian army further strengthens such speculations. It indicates one more thing that glaciers on the western side bear thin infrastructure and human activity. In any case, global warming has less to do with deicing of the Siachen Glacier. It is also evident from a statement of the Indian environment minister who admitted that there was no scientific proof to support the idea that the melting of the Himalayan glaciers was being caused by global warming. A report in the August 10, 2009 issue of Current Science journal of India said that the Siachen Glacier has not been affected by the rise in global temperatures. Jammu University scientists have also claimed that the Himalayan glaciers, including the worlds highest battlefield Siachen, are melting not because of global warming. The prevailing evidence therefore points towards extraordinary activity of the Indian army, the infrastructure being established and huge explosive storages on the eastern side of the Saltoro Ridge.
> 
> The effects of thawing of glaciers and particularly Siachen Glacier, being the largest in the region, are going to be devastating. However, there exists little awareness among the world community regarding the causes of this phenomenon. After clarifications of scientific experts and Indian officials themselves, it leaves not even an iota of doubt that the rapid shrinkage of the Siachen Glacier is due to chemical and explosive storage and cutting of glacial ice by the Indian army and not by global warming.
> 
> The de-icing of glaciers is not only hazardous for the food security of the region, particularly for the Indus Basin area, it is equally disadvantageous to the worlds mountaineering expeditions that commence their journey from this area. The area contains the highest peaks of the world like K2 and Nanga Parbat and remains attractive to world hikers. Ensuring a pollution-free and safe environment is the joint responsibility of all. It must be appreciated that war-specific developments are a death sentence for Himalayan glaciers. Blaming only global warming for rapid defrosting is a false impression being created deliberately by India with a view to covering up the serious and catastrophic environmental crime its army is committing. It is therefore a moral obligation of the world community and United Nations to take notice of the Indian armys activities in Siachen and ensure that the Himalayan glaciers are not disturbed. Their deterioration would not only be detrimental to food safety, it would also be catastrophic to global environmental efforts.
> 
> The writer is a freelance columnist





A clear case of accusing Indian Army for ruins happenings in Himalyan glacier unnecessarily. How the hell the presence of some thousand troop will going to make glacier melt rapidly. On the top of that, writer isn't even giving any insightful input which will make presence of IA unsustainable for such glaciers, all writer has done is to raise unnecessary alarm about rivers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Policy should be simple with Indians - during these testing times

Any false move and nukes will fly - so its suggested they stay out of it altogether - 

While we focus to eliminate Talibans


----------



## vnomad

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Policy should be simple with Indians - during these testing times
> 
> Any false move and nukes will fly - so its suggested they stay out of it altogether -
> 
> While we focus to eliminate Talibans



The point of the concept behind Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD is that launching a nuclear attack your adversary is akin to nuking yourself.

So in effect what you're saying is that unless India 'behaves', you'll nuke yourself while also nuking India in the process.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ejaz007

*Avalanche kills 8 soldiers in Siachen glacier *
Updated at: 2310 PST, Tuesday, February 09, 2010 


SIACHEN: Eight soldiers embraced martyrdom when an avalanche hit a military camp at Siachin glacier. 

According to sources, the soldiers were discharging their duties according to the schedule when an avalanche struck a military post at Bevan sector. 

The bodies of the martyred soldiers were pulled out of the avalanche.

They will be laid to rest in their respective areas with complete military honor. 

Avalanche kills 8 soldiers in Siachen glacier


----------



## karan.1970

ejaz007 said:


> *Avalanche kills 8 soldiers in Siachen glacier *
> Updated at: 2310 PST, Tuesday, February 09, 2010
> 
> 
> SIACHEN: Eight soldiers embraced martyrdom when an avalanche hit a military camp at Siachin glacier.
> 
> According to sources, the soldiers were discharging their duties according to the schedule when an avalanche struck a military post at Bevan sector.
> 
> The bodies of the martyred soldiers were pulled out of the avalanche.
> 
> They will be laid to rest in their respective areas with complete military honor.
> 
> Avalanche kills 8 soldiers in Siachen glacier



May they rest in peace...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RPK

RIP for the soldiers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## air marshal

Inna lillah he wa Inna Elehe Rajioon.


----------



## Vassnti

fatman17 said:


> *Lets start with Siachen *
> 
> Tuesday, December 01, 2009
> 
> Dr Saleem H Ali
> 
> This is an uninhabited region which, military leaders on both sides agree, has little military importance and yet soldiers are dying of hypothermia at elevations exceeding 18,000 feet above sea level.



Hopefully people from both India and Pakistan can bring pressure on the politicians sitting in their nice warm offices to act.


----------



## Trichy

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Policy should be simple with Indians - during these testing times
> 
> Any false move and *nukes will fly* - so its suggested they stay out of it altogether -
> 
> While we focus to eliminate Talibans



hey nukes or not chocolates you open and put on others mouth, thats the end of that nation by G5...you only tell that we have nukes and we drop over you, but nothing happens in coming years even a conflict taken place between INDIA & PAKISTAN.


----------



## dizzy heights

May their souls rest in peace.

RIP


----------



## Faadi

The perception of the world usually changes at such places. Long live Pakistan Army which is defending the country at the world's top glaciers. Allah may protect our Pakistani soldiers.


----------



## Faadi

Long live Pakistan Army. You are the ones who are laying down your lives for the glory f Muslims and your country on the highest war ground of the world against an enemy which is 6-8 times stronger than you.


----------



## fatman17

Chumik Operation 

Introduction 



The Siachen dispute was added to the roster of major issues in Indo-Pakistan relations for the first time in April 1984. During the month, Indian Army airlifted mountain trained forces into position over-looking key passes in the Baltoro Range , a spur of the Karakoram Mountains , flanking the Siachen Glacier's southern rim, setting in motion a spectacular high-altitude military struggle with Pakistan that has continued unabated to the present day. Confronting one another in some areas at altitude over 6000 metres, the two armies contested for possession of a largely uninhabited, wedge-shaped piece of territory, about 2500 square kilometers in size, situated just south of the Chinese border. The struggle is on till today and a number of operations have been executed by both sides for occupation or retention of key areas / posts.




Background 
Chumik is a minor sub sector of Bilafond Sub Sector, which has remained quiet since 1984 with the exception of Chumik Operation in 1989. Forwarded posts of the sub sector overlook Gyong Glacier and also dominate by observation, enemies Baniya Base. A Pakistani post was established in the Location of present Sher Post in 1985. The post was later withdrawn suffering heavy losses due to avalanches and enemy artillery fire the same year. The post was re-established in 1988 by 9 Northern Light Infantry on the order of Commander Force Command Northern Area. In the early spring of 1989, there were signal intercepts indicating enemy activity in the area. On 22 February 89 , enemy helicopter's conducted reconnaissance of the area followed by inaccurate artillery fire. Reconnaissance was conducted by Helicopter and it revealed that enemy had established five new posts/bases. Enemy had also occupied off shoots of point 22158 (the highest peak in the area which came to be known as Naveed Top after this operation). This gave enemy, the vital observation over our entire sub sector which could create serious problems in holding and maintenance of own posts. Enemy started engaging our forwarded posts, Ashgar Base and escalated the situation in the sub sector , forcing us to react. 




Conduct of Operation 
Relative strength and deployment in the area is as under: 

Enemy 
Enemy had intruded into Chumik area and occupied the area. Enemy's one complete battalion supported by different calibers of artillery and complete flight of Lama Helicopter took part in the operation. She established the following posts/bases which were supported through administrative bases of Bniya and Rani:

GANGA One platoon 
SADHU One platoon (minus) 
AGRA -I One Section 
AGRA-II One Section with an artillery observer 
MG Position One Section with heavy Machine Gun 
Support Troops One Company in support role (for back up support). 


Own 
A company of regular troops was detailed to relieve Northern Light Infantry troops in the Chumik Sector on 10 April 1989 . The force was further strengthened later, which was necessary for the final eviction of the enemy from the Sector. Activities in this sector had intensified considerably and constant vigil was kept on the enemy activities. Risk of weakening of our forces in this area could therefore not be taken. Guns and mortars of available artillery in the area supported the operation. One company of Northern Light Infantry on relief from the sector was provided for assistance. Ten men of Special Services Group were provided for technical assistance and expertise. Four Lama Helicopters of Arms Aviation were provided to support the operation. 




The Initial Plan 
Company minus ex 9 Azad Kashmir was holding Chumik sub sector which was subsequently augmented by another company for offensive role. Helicopters were also provided for the operation, along with Special Services Group troops and additional 81 millimeter Mortars. It was planned to occupy the area to check the further movement of enemy. The out line plan was as follows: 

Mission 
To occupy the area by engaging enemy Ganga Base with observed artillery fire to interdict her Line of Communication. 

Execution 
The plan/task was to be accomplished in following phases:

Phase-I Establish Kausar Base. 
Phase-II Establish Kausar 1, Kausar 2 and Kausar 3 Bases. 
Phase-III . Occupy the area. 



First Attempt 
Aerial reconnaissance of the area was carried out on 16 April 1989 . The expedition was sent out in establishing Kausar Base by mid night the same day. Kausar 1 was established on 17 April at a height of 17000 feet and in the same evening Kausar 2 was also established. It was found that movement thereafter was not possible due to extreme difficult nature of terrain. The expedition was immediately called off to avoid detection by the enemy. 




Second Attempt 
Force Commander Northern Area decided to drop Special Services Group persons on Saddle by helicopter. Effort was made to drop the persons but helicopter could not hover at such a low level where persons could jump basically because of poor weather and configuration of ground. The mission was once again aborted. 




The Modified Plan 
After failure of two missions, the plan was modified as under:

Persons ex 9 Azad Kashmir and Special Service Group) to be sling &#8211; dropped at the base with the aim of occupying the area, facilitating ultimate eviction of enemy. 

Two platoon size expeditions to make efforts for link up from two directions (One platoon each from 9 Azad Kashmir and 6 Northern Light Infantry). 



Execution of the Plan  
On 19 April 89 , the first helicopter took off. Lieutenant Naveed, a volunteer officer ex 9 Azad Kashmir was sling drooped at the Saddle. Captain Seghal and Captain Zia(got shahdat as Lt colonel on a UN mission), the pilots of helicopter also did a wonderful job and were able to release the slung officer at a flat place on the base (Naveed Base). Subsequently Naik Yaqoob, Special Services Group was also dropped to join Lieutenant Naveed. Some stores were also dropped in next sorties. But soon weather deteriorated making further drops impossible. It was 21 April when weather cleared and more persons were dropped. Then it was race between Indians and us to reach the top. Our troops made it to the top (Kamran Top) earlier than the enemy thus gaining the victory at a highest point in the world where battle has ever been fought. Eight Indian soldiers were discovered only 300 &#8211; 400 meters from Kamran Top who were forced to withdraw under own fire. 




6 Northern Light Expedition  
The expedition having left on 18 April was close to saddle on 25 April. Three officers with one Jawan were buried alive under tons of snow. This marked the end of expedition. 




9 Azad Kashmir Expedition  
The expedition under Captain Tariq took a good start on 22 April 89 . Its fire raided enemy's Agra I forcing her to vacate the base. Then proceeded to close with Agra II but could not succeed due to difficult terrain. The post was however engaged with artillery fire. 




The First Blow 
Enemy's intention of dominating Chumik Glacier began to fail when &#8220;Ganga Base&#8221; also known as &#8220;Thappa Base&#8221; was effectively engaged by artillery. The enemy was forced to shift the base. Destruction of Ganga Base probably forced enemy to give a second thought to her plans. 




The Raid 
On 30 April 1989 , a raiding party consisting of 11 persons including 4 officers was organized by Major Abdul Rehman Bilal. The party closed in with enemy machine gun position at approximately 1900 hours. The fire was opened which caught enemy by surprise. However, enemy soon retaliated with small arms and rocket fire. Own troops were relatively safe since Kamran Post was protected by a boulder. The raiding party in the meantime inflicted heavy damages to the enemy. This final blow forced enemy to withdraw asking for a meeting where almost all of our terms were accepted. The area was vacated and declared as de-militarized zone. 




Casualties 
............Dead Wounded 
Enemy 34....... 150 
Own 6 (Shaheed) 44


----------



## mnmaria20

Siachin is a part of PAKISTAN SO VISIT IT WITHOUT ANY UPSET


----------



## Tajdar adil

Siachin is our integral part


----------



## INS

............


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

take it I am going back to my comfy warm blanket hmmm warm blanket 

Write me a letter when flower blooms on it


----------



## karan.1970

Tajdar adil said:


> Siachin is our integral part



Considering its under Indian control, does it say something about your integrity?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Areesh

karan.1970 said:


> Considering its under Indian control, does it say something about your integrity?



No just like AJK under Pakistani control doesn't hit your integrity.


----------



## krash

hi all 

guyz i remember reading about the Pakistan army's high altitude training school near Astor in this thread but cant quote it cuz im still learning my way through posting  well i went there this last winter for a skiing course  i have spectacularly amazing and unbelievable pics of that place that i wud like to share here but im kinda oblivious to the security implications that this might or might not have for the Pak army..... so if any senior member cud kindly advise me whether to post them here or not, it would be extremely appreciated. 

regards


----------



## GUNNER

krash said:


> hi all
> 
> guyz i remember reading about the Pakistan army's high altitude training school near Astor in this thread but cant quote it cuz im still learning my way through posting  well i went there this last winter for a skiing course  i have spectacularly amazing and unbelievable pics of that place that i wud like to share here but im kinda oblivious to the security implications that this might or might not have for the Pak army..... so if any senior member cud kindly advise me whether to post them here or not, it would be extremely appreciated.
> 
> regards




So you went to High Altitude School in Rattu. Amazing place really. I guess you should ask one of the mods about pics posting !


----------



## krash

yup  i was even affraid to mention its name in the previous post  its an amazing amazing place! i mean the place rattu is situated on is breath taking. iv traveled quite alot of gilgit-baltistan (northern areas) but this trip was definitely one of the best! i mean i went to Army High Altitude Training School! i even have a t-shirt of that school!!!


----------



## Storm Force

Current military situation in saichen.

India holds the heights in saichen 
Pakistan the ground in saichen 
indian are resupplyed by helicopters and cannot come down.
pakistans cannot get to the top and are resupplied by road.

Siachen Glacier / Operation Meghdoot


----------



## zubi2011

*Fighting On The Roof Of The World*

Roof of the World is a metaphoric description of the highest region in the world, also known as "High Asia", or the Trans-Himalaya, the mountainous interior of Asia.


----------



## ice_man

so basically we can sit tight on the ground and wait for the enemy! while the enemy can sit and watch our movements! indian operation in Siachen led pakistan to plan kargil along the same lines....however 2 decades had passed since siachen & this meant that AIRFORCE played a pivotal role in the whole proceedings! 

india can keep sitting on the top it will cost them 2 times our costs for resupplying itself. Now the question is how much of land in Kilometers does India hold???


----------



## Nalwa

ice_man said:


> india can keep sitting on the top it will cost them 2 times our costs for resupplying itself. Now the question is how much of land in Kilometers does India hold???


 
Thats not a problem. We can afford it. And I guess your question is rhetorical.


----------



## blackops

ice_man said:


> so basically we can sit tight on the ground and wait for the enemy! while the enemy can sit and watch our movements! indian operation in Siachen led pakistan to plan kargil along the same lines....however 2 decades had passed since siachen & this meant that AIRFORCE played a pivotal role in the whole proceedings!
> 
> india can keep sitting on the top it will cost them 2 times our costs for resupplying itself. Now the question is how much of land in Kilometers does India hold???


 70 km of land


----------



## Xeric

The glacier itself is 75 km long.

Giving us only 5 km is fair


----------



## Nalwa

Actually, its pointless. Should be made into a no-man's land. Kind of a DMZ.


----------



## blackops

Xeric said:


> The glacier itself is 75 km long.
> 
> Giving us only 5 km is fair


 
actually i posted what i knew 
_The Indian army controls all of the 70 kilometres (43 mi) long Siachen Glacier and all of its tributary glaciers, as well as the three main passes of the Saltoro Ridge immediately west of the glacier&#8212;Sia La, Bilafond La, and Gyong La&#8212;thus holding onto the tactical advantage of high ground.[19][20][21][22]_
wikipedia


----------



## sanasahil

Siachen matter is a bit cold these days due to war on terrorism, but as kashmir is getting ignited so will everything else be, but few days back diplomatic talks have been restarted, we hope everybody will be sincere there


----------



## REHAN NIAZI FALCON

well we have recaptured the area that we needed to stop advancement of indian troops and to secure KK pass.


----------



## third eye

Nalwa said:


> Actually, its pointless. Should be made into a no-man's land. Kind of a DMZ.


 
India's stand has been to mark the positions where both armies stand , have both parties accept this position & both armies to withdraw.

Pak feels this would be an acceptance of Indian suzerainty of the region hence rejects this.

The stalemate continues.


----------



## Last Hope

blackops said:


> actually i posted what i knew
> _The Indian army controls all of the 70 kilometres (43 mi) long Siachen Glacier and all of its tributary glaciers, as well as the three main passes of the Saltoro Ridge immediately west of the glacier&#8212;Sia La, Bilafond La, and Gyong La&#8212;thus holding onto the tactical advantage of high ground.[19][20][21][22]_
> wikipedia


 
Wiki doesnt get its fact right.
You cannot even trust it if it says Pakistan had increased its nukes. They keep increasing and decreasing the figures, and the one you posted is Biased.


----------



## REHAN NIAZI FALCON

well reality is who attacked ........... indians 
so who should go back .......... indians

ok declare it no mans land , even no body,s land we are happy ........... who is problematic with it ........... indian


----------



## mautkimaut

REHAN NIAZI FALCON said:


> well reality is who attacked ........... indians
> so who should go back .......... indians
> 
> ok declare it no mans land , even no body,s land we are happy ........... who is problematic with it ........... indian


 
Who attacked Kashmir in 1947............Pakistanis.
so who should go back from Pak Kashmir .........Pakistanis

ok declare it no mans land , even no body,s land we are happy ........... who is problematic with it ........... Pakistani..



This kind of logic makes no sense.
We cant trust Pakistan any more after kargil.
Only if there is an agreement that occupying Siachen will be breach of sovereignty , India might consider withdrawing troops


----------



## Pak_Sher

mautkimaut said:


> Who attacked Kashmir in 1947............Pakistanis.
> so who should go back from Pak Kashmir .........Pakistanis
> 
> ok declare it no mans land , even no body,s land we are happy ........... who is problematic with it ........... Pakistani..
> 
> This kind of logic makes no sense.
> We cant trust Pakistan any more after kargil.
> Only if there is an agreement that occupying Siachen will be breach of sovereignty , India might consider withdrawing troops


 
Actually it was 1948 after India ignored the fact that muslim majority areas should go to Pakistan, we had no choice but to attack, since India only understands the lanuague of war.

Had the Indians not installed too many Israeli radars in Kashmir, Kargil would not have happened. We do not trust India because of its hipocratric policies.

(01) Vajpayee comes to Lahore and shaked hand with Nawaz Sharif and wants friendship, as soon as he gets back to Delhi he orders the construction of dams in Kashmir

(02) India wants friendship and wants people to people contacts. We start Samjotha Express which is bombed resulting in the deaths of 75 Pakistani citizens and injuring 150+. India blames it on the ISI and plays this snake game. But we know that Col. Prohit was a RAW Agent and was acting on Indian Government's Orders.

Lets talk about trust, do not even get me started on the number of times India tried to harm Pakistan.


----------



## anoop

Pak_Sher said:


> Actually it was 1948 after India ignored the fact that muslim majority areas should go to Pakistan, we had no choice but to attack, since India only understands the lanuague of war.
> 
> Had the Indians not installed too many Israeli radars in Kashmir, Kargil would not have happened. We do not trust India because of its hipocratric policies.


 Seriously whole world knows about the fact the kargil war main architect Pervez Musharraf and donot give silly reason like radar of israeil every country has right to use any equipment to safeguard its border



Pak_Sher said:


> (01) Vajpayee comes to Lahore and shaked hand with Nawaz Sharif and wants friendship, as soon as he gets back to Delhi he orders the construction of dams in Kashmir



DAMS are post-kargil phenomenon used a by pakistan as an another silly excuse. all dams which are begin constructed are according to indus-water treaty

(02) India wants friendship and wants people to people contacts. We start Samjotha Express which is bombed resulting in the deaths of 75 Pakistani citizens and injuring 150+. India blames it on the ISI and plays this snake game. But we know that Col. Prohit was a RAW Agent and was acting on Indian Government's Orders.

Lets talk about trust, do not even get me started on the number of times India tried to harm Pakistan.[/QUOTE]

atleast we have arrested and are trying to get col.Prohit charged for it ,while for 26/11 nothing said is better


----------



## third eye

Pak_Sher said:


> Actually it was 1948 after India ignored the fact that muslim majority areas should go to Pakistan, we had no choice but to attack, since India only understands the lanuague of war.
> 
> Had the Indians not installed too many Israeli radars in Kashmir, Kargil would not have happened. We do not trust India because of its hipocratric policies.
> 
> (01) Vajpayee comes to Lahore and shaked hand with Nawaz Sharif and wants friendship, as soon as he gets back to Delhi he orders the construction of dams in Kashmir
> 
> (02) India wants friendship and wants people to people contacts. We start Samjotha Express which is bombed resulting in the deaths of 75 Pakistani citizens and injuring 150+. India blames it on the ISI and plays this snake game. But we know that Col. Prohit was a RAW Agent and was acting on Indian Government's Orders.
> 
> Lets talk about trust, do not even get me started on the number of times India tried to harm Pakistan.


 
This is among the few times that I have read a Pakistani admitting that Pakistan attacked India back in 47 -48 and not ' irregulars ' who voluntarily crossed over.

What has radars to do with Pak misadventure in kargil ???

India constructs Dams in ts own territory and within the ambit of Indus water treaty.


----------



## mautkimaut

Pak_Sher said:


> Actually it was 1948 after India ignored the fact that muslim majority areas should go to Pakistan, we had no choice but to attack, since India only understands the lanuague of war.
> 
> Had the Indians not installed too many Israeli radars in Kashmir, Kargil would not have happened. We do not trust India because of its hipocratric policies.
> 
> (01) Vajpayee comes to Lahore and shaked hand with Nawaz Sharif and wants friendship, as soon as he gets back to Delhi he orders the construction of dams in Kashmir
> 
> (02) India wants friendship and wants people to people contacts. We start Samjotha Express which is bombed resulting in the deaths of 75 Pakistani citizens and injuring 150+. India blames it on the ISI and plays this snake game. But we know that Col. Prohit was a RAW Agent and was acting on Indian Government's Orders.
> 
> Lets talk about trust, do not even get me started on the number of times India tried to harm Pakistan.


 
Time to come out of rabbit hole Alice.
Kargil was a misadventure by Geenral Musharraf, And what is it about Israeli radars? Where do you get this kind of news ? I have not heard about Israeli radars as the reason of war in past 12 years....
None of the dams are being constructed against Shimla accord.


----------



## sniperr

hmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Bossman

mautkimaut said:


> Time to come out of rabbit hole Alice.
> Kargil was a misadventure by Geenral Musharraf, And what is it about Israeli radars? Where do you get this kind of news ? I have not heard about Israeli radars as the reason of war in past 12 years....
> None of the dams are being constructed against Shimla accord.



Kargil was not a misadventure but test of a strategic doctrine. Somewhat similar to reconnaissance in force. It was tested and it worked. Your generals know it, your senior politicians know it, only kids like you, fed on bollywood propaganda, posting on websites don't know it. It is being discussed, debated and analyzed in military staff colleges all over the world, including yours. Infact repeated failures by Indian to react to incidents such as Kargil etc. has led to the so called "Cold Start" , which in itself is a flawed strategy. When the enemy changes strategy to react your actions, it is a victory of sorts as you are taking initiative away from your enemy. We are a little distracted right now, but very soon we will focus our attention back to you guys.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lionheart1

Bossman said:


> Kargil was not a misadventure but test of a strategic doctrine. It was tested and it worked. Your generals know it, your senior politicians know it, only kids like you posting on websites don't know it. We are a little distracted right now, but very soon we will focus our attention back to you guys.


 
now i know in pakistan strategic blunder are called as strategic doctrine


----------



## Bossman

lionheart1 said:


> now i know in pakistan strategic blunder are called as strategic doctrine


 
All the action was on your land, you lost 4 aircrafts, you were running around like headless chickens and as per Indian sources we are still sitting on your land in Kargill plus we proved that you will not and cannot start an all out war. This was proved again after the Mumbai attack. Kargill showed a whole lot of weaknesses in your defence doctrine and prepardness. You were running all over the place trying to buy every thing from 155mm shells to AKs to coffins and your politicians and generals getting kickbacks on every thing even on coffins for your dead soldiers. India has still not come up with an effective answer to limited incursions from Pakistan under the nuclear umbrella. If it had Mumbai would not have happened. Cold Start is a non-starter. So hardly a blunder.

As I said we are a little distracted right now but as soon as the Americans leave Afghanistan, which will be soon, we will turn our attention to you guys again.

Do remember you are 7 times bigger than us and you guys cannot find a way to deal with us other running to the Americans to ask for help.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ares

Bossman said:


> All the action was on your land, you lost 4 aircrafts, you were running around like headless chickens and as per Indian sources we are still sitting on your land in Kargill plus we proved that you will not and cannot start an all out war. This was proved again after the Mumbai attack. Kargill showed a whole lot of weaknesses in your defence doctrine and prepardness. You were running all over the place trying to buy every thing from155mm shells to AKs to coffins and your politicians and generals getting kickbacks on every thing even on coffins for your dead soldiers. Hardly a blunder.


 
According to your ex -prime minister you lost your entire NLI brigade in that war..what do you have to show for it?..you don't have the land and you don't have those soldiers ..our soldiers died..but atleast we have the land to justify their sacrifice...what do you have?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## third eye

Bossman said:


> Kargil was not a misadventure but test of a strategic doctrine. Somewhat similar to reconnaissance in force. It was tested and it worked. Your generals know it, your senior politicians know it, only kids like you, fed on bollywood propaganda, posting on websites don't know it. It is being discussed, debated and analyzed in military staff colleges all over the world, including yours. Infact repeated failures by Indian to react to incidents such as Kargil etc. has led to the so called "Cold Start" , which in itself is a flawed strategy. When the enemy changes strategy to react your actions, it is a victory of sorts as you are taking initiative away from your enemy. We are a little distracted right now, but very soon we will focus our attention back to you guys.


 
I have maintained all along the Pak Generals have the ability to think out of the box but lack the singular ability to think a military plan through to its logical end keeping in mind all options available to them & to the enemy. 

The options include military,Political , economic and others for war is too serious a thing to be left to the Generals to conduct.

Kargil followed the same pattern as Gibraltar, Grand Slam, Laungewala and so many others did. 

A recce in force which cannot be exploited is a wasted effort and a case of premature disclosing of hand with no political will to back a ham handed military mis adventure it was doomed from the start .

If at all this is being discussed at military forums / institutions it is being done as an example of how & why military aims of a nation must be in sync with the Political aims and capabilities of the nation and how disastrous & humiliating is for a PM of a nation to go to US uninvited on 4th July ( a national holiday) to seek help to get out of situation its rogue army chief out it in.

Not to mention how relevant it is for a nation to prepare the ground internationally before embarking on military missions.


----------



## lionheart1

ares said:


> According to your ex -prime minister you lost your entire NLI brigade in that war..what do you have to show for it?..you don't have the land and you don't have those soldiers ..our soldiers died..but atleast we have the land to justify their sacrifice...what do you have?


 
ares bhai idiots should be ignored, he is talking about a country which broked his country into two parts( erased west from west pakistan ) . that kido dont know if war begins 48 hours Indian flag will be flying GHQ Rawalpindi


----------



## rockstarIN

Bossman said:


> Kargil was not a misadventure but test of a strategic doctrine. Somewhat similar to reconnaissance in force. It was tested and it worked. Your generals know it, your senior politicians know it, only kids like you, fed on bollywood propaganda, posting on websites don't know it. It is being discussed, debated and analyzed in military staff colleges all over the world, including yours. Infact repeated failures by Indian to react to incidents such as Kargil etc. has led to the so called "Cold Start" , which in itself is a flawed strategy. When the enemy changes strategy to react your actions, it is a victory of sorts as you are taking initiative away from your enemy. We are a little distracted right now, but very soon we will focus our attention back to you guys.


 
Wonderful post..!! I never read such an 'explanation' for Kargil adventure earlier.

Strategic doctrine? Is this the same 'operation Gibraltar' in a new bottle? you still believe 1:10?

And we did not react? well your then prime minister admitted about the ferocity of our 'reaction' (well, you can say that he said it for political gains)

You keep changing strategies, well we have our economy as our first priority and we know that your 'changing strategies are your weak point'

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

ares said:


> According to your ex -prime minister you lost your entire NLI brigade in that war..what do you have to show for it?..you don't have the land and you don't have those soldiers ..our soldiers died..but atleast we have the land to justify their sacrifice...what do you have?


nawaz has been proven wrong many times... terrorist lover.

Abt land.... the 4 highest -stategic peaks r still in our control today.


----------



## rockstarIN

Bossman said:


> *All the action was on your land, you lost 4 aircrafts, you were running around like headless chickens and as per Indian sources we are still sitting on your land in Kargill plus we proved that you will not and cannot start an all out war*. This was proved again after the Mumbai attack. Kargill showed a whole lot of weaknesses in your defence doctrine and prepardness. You were running all over the place trying to buy every thing from 155mm shells to AKs to coffins and your politicians and generals getting kickbacks on every thing even on coffins for your dead soldiers. India has still not come up with an effective answer to limited incursions from Pakistan under the nuclear umbrella. If it had Mumbai would not have happened. Cold Start is a non-starter. So hardly a blunder.
> 
> As I said we are a little distracted right now but as soon as the Americans leave Afghanistan, which will be soon, we will turn our attention to you guys again.
> 
> Do remember you are 7 times bigger than us and you guys cannot find a way to deal with us other running to the Americans to ask for help.


 
Care to check your Army web site? ( with respect ) 

"The best win is the war without a fight". If Americans can 'control' you inside and out, why should we fire at you. Indirectly we have certain control over Americans, thanks to our economy.


----------



## rockstarIN

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> nawaz has been proven wrong many times... terrorist lover.
> 
> Abt land.... the 4 highest -strategic peaks r still in our control today.


 
Whose words are accountable? Nawaz? or Gen. Musharaf? (to whom Pakistan trying to extradite for court cases)?


----------



## ares

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> nawaz has been proven wrong many times... terrorist lover.
> 
> Abt land.... the 4 highest -stategic peaks r still in our control today.


 
Nawaz might have been proven wrong on other subjects and occasions ..but he was still your then prime minister and your next prime minister in waiting ..so maybe he has been proven wrong ..your people trust him enough to vote for him.

*If Nawaz has been proven wrong.. so has been Musharaff..why would you trust his word instead?
*
As far as I know only point 5353 remains occupied by your troops ...but remains surrounded by 3 Indian posts ..on the top of it has little strategic implication to India.*.but occuping this one peak ..was it worth the lives of 500-2500 of your soldiers(depending on the source)*


----------



## rockstarIN

Bossman said:


> Do remember you are 7 times bigger than us and you guys cannot find a way to deal with us other running to the Americans to ask for help.


 
We just need to block the waters of rivers, Pakistan will really know what will happen. You should really thank us, despite your strategic blunders, we still adhere Indus water treaty.


----------



## alphamale

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> nawaz has been proven wrong many times... terrorist lover.
> 
> Abt land.... the 4 highest -stategic peaks r still in our control today.


 
what is the advantage of those so called 4 strategic peaks???? Pakistan army tried several attempts to regain siachen but always failed.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

alphamale said:


> what is the advantage of those so called 4 strategic peaks???? Pakistan army tried several attempts to regain siachen but always failed.


 
U went to full scale war with ur army n airforce but couldnt take these hills frm rag tag para military n mujahedeen.Unlike PA.


----------



## toxic_pus

Bossman said:


> Kargil was not a misadventure but test of a strategic doctrine. Somewhat similar to reconnaissance in force. It was tested and it worked. Your generals know it, your senior politicians know it, only kids like you, fed on bollywood propaganda, posting on websites don't know it. It is being discussed, debated and analyzed in military staff colleges all over the world, including yours. Infact repeated failures by Indian to react to incidents such as Kargil etc. has led to the so called "Cold Start" , which in itself is a flawed strategy. When the enemy changes strategy to react your actions, it is a victory of sorts as you are taking initiative away from your enemy. We are a little distracted right now, but very soon we will focus our attention back to you guys.


 


Bossman said:


> All the action was on your land, you lost 4 aircrafts, you were running around like headless chickens and as per Indian sources we are still sitting on your land in Kargill plus we proved that you will not and cannot start an all out war. This was proved again after the Mumbai attack. Kargill showed a whole lot of weaknesses in your defence doctrine and prepardness. You were running all over the place trying to buy every thing from 155mm shells to AKs to coffins and your politicians and generals getting kickbacks on every thing even on coffins for your dead soldiers. India has still not come up with an effective answer to limited incursions from Pakistan under the nuclear umbrella. If it had Mumbai would not have happened. Cold Start is a non-starter. So hardly a blunder.
> 
> As I said we are a little distracted right now but as soon as the Americans leave Afghanistan, which will be soon, we will turn our attention to you guys again.
> 
> Do remember you are 7 times bigger than us and you guys cannot find a way to deal with us other running to the Americans to ask for help.


Take that you useless good-for-nothing 'Bhartis'. 'Bhartis' loose even when it wins. Pakistan wins even when it looses.

I am waiting for some genius to come up with a brilliant _anal_ysis of how 1971 was a 'strategic' victory for Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ares

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> U went to full scale war with ur army n airforce but couldnt take these hills frm rag tag para military n mujahedeen.Unlike PA.


 
Are you calming that your Northen light Infantry is rag-tag military?

You occupied 130 peaks but now you hold only one..and also lost 500-2500 soldiers in the process ..these statics speaks for them selves on who won!!

* Who asked you not to use your airforce? ..if you can launch war and send army men to die..least you could do is, respect their lives and provide them some air cover.*


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

ares said:


> Are you calming that your Northen light Infantry is rag-tag military?
> 
> You occupied 130 peaks but now you hold only one..and also lost 500-2500 soldiers in the process ..these statics speaks for them selves on who won!!
> 
> * Who asked you not to use your airforce? ..if you can launch war and send army men to die..least you could do is, respect their lives and provide them some air cover.*


 
Its part of PA now...... it was awarded due to its achievements in kargil......back thn it was a militia....

We respect em thts y 2 Highest gallantry awards were given to em n made a regular regiment in army.

P.S=Dont pull tht 500-2500 frm ..,.


----------



## alphamale

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> U went to full scale war with ur army n airforce but couldnt take these hills frm rag tag para military n mujahedeen.Unlike PA.


 
area of siachen glacier is 700 square km, this is clearly a very big area as compare to 3-4 small peaks.


----------



## ares

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Its part of PA now...... it was awarded due to its achievements in kargil......back thn it was a militia....
> 
> We respect em thts y 2 Highest gallantry awards were given to em n made a regular regiment in army.
> 
> P.S=Dont pull tht 500-2500 frm ..,.



It was never a militia..it was paramilitary force then..I hope you know the difference.

This is confusion on number of dead is from your side ..even some of your brigadiers support Nawaz's statement.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Syama Ayas said:


> Reminds me an old Tamil saying:"&#2950;&#2997;&#3015;&#2985;&#3021; &#2990;&#3009;&#2993;&#3021;&#2993;&#2980;&#3021;&#2994;&#3015; &#2965;&#3009;&#2975; &#2990;&#3008;&#2985;&#3021; &#2986;&#3007;&#2975;&#3007;&#2965;&#3007;&#2992;&#3019;
> "
> Translation : "Even in urine,he tries to find fishes"


 
So did u find em?


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

ares said:


> It was never a militia..it was paramilitary force then..I hope you know the difference.
> 
> This is confusion on number of dead is from your side ..even some of your brigadiers support Nawaz's statement.


 
No its not... the List of the martyrs can be searched on internet.

The 1 guy is nawazs puppet (of his party)and was forcefully retired frm the army .


----------



## rockstarIN

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> U went to full scale war with ur army n airforce but couldnt take these hills frm rag tag para military n mujahedeen.Unlike PA.


 
Militia never file artilary shells, wont fire Air to Surface missiles, they may have mortars+AKs. Dude it was Pakistani Army..


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

lOL..P.A ARTY wasnt even involved... lol @ arty shells.

But nowadays..... we r equiping the Paramilitaries with tanks n stuff.

While NLI is now a part of Army.


----------



## mikkix

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> No its not... the List of the martyrs can be searched on internet.
> 
> The 1 guy is nawazs puppet (of his party)and was forcefully retired frm the army .


 
bro, there were huge differences amongst the core commanders at that time on the time of kargil. 
only 4 or 5 generals planned this.
I bet it was a miserable blunder.


----------



## notorious_eagle

ares said:


> Are you calming that your Northen light Infantry is rag-tag military?
> 
> You occupied 130 peaks but now you hold only one..and also lost 500-2500 soldiers in the process ..these statics speaks for them selves on who won!!
> 
> * Who asked you not to use your airforce? ..if you can launch war and send army men to die..least you could do is, respect their lives and provide them some air cover.*



Correction, right now we occupy 4 peaks in your territory and not ours . Pakistan at one point held 120 peaks, 115 of them were abandoned and 5 of them were captured by the Indians. But the funny statistic is that Pakistan still occupies 4 of the peaks in Indian territory, it looks to me that Kargil was a failure for the Indian Army because isn't the Indian Army supposed to protect each and every inch of Indian territory . On a side note, NLI was at the time a paramilitary force but its bravery was never in doubt. Your own officers praised the bravery NLI soldiers showed during battle when they were severely outnumbered, this is why they were rewarded and are not a regular division in Pakistan Army.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ares

notorious_eagle said:


> Correction, right now we occupy 4 peaks in your territory and not ours . Pakistan at one point held 120 peaks, 115 of them were abandoned and 5 of them were captured by the Indians. But the funny statistic is that Pakistan still occupies 4 of the peaks in Indian territory, it looks to me that Kargil was a failure for the Indian Army because isn't the Indian Army supposed to protect each and every inch of Indian territory . On a side note, NLI was at the time a paramilitary force but its bravery was never in doubt. Your own officers praised the bravery NLI soldiers showed during battle when they were severely outnumbered, this is why they were rewarded and are not a regular division in Pakistan Army.



So tell me these 4 peaks ..which offer you no strategic advantage wrt to NH1..were they worth the lives of as many soldiers you lost?..
Because now you hold only 0.3 % of land area you originally held ..while Indian army holds 97.7% of land area.

And If you are so proud of these 4 peaks you held on to..why did you leave the rest?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bandit

notorious_eagle said:


> Correction, right now we occupy 4 peaks in your territory and not ours . Pakistan at one point held 120 peaks, 115 of them were abandoned and 5 of them were captured by the Indians. But the funny statistic is that Pakistan still occupies 4 of the peaks in Indian territory, it looks to me that Kargil was a failure for the Indian Army because isn't the Indian Army supposed to protect each and every inch of Indian territory . On a side note, NLI was at the time a paramilitary force but its bravery was never in doubt. Your own officers praised the bravery NLI soldiers showed during battle when they were severely outnumbered, this is why they were rewarded and are not a regular division in Pakistan Army.


 
So by the popular logic around here Pakistan won because-

-They captured 120 peaks, lost 116 of them, that is an enviable success ratio.
-They had high casualties but that does not matter becaue PA was at least able to sit on the peaks it had dreamed of conquering, for some weeks/months.
-IAF blew the poor mujahideens to pieces, but its a proud thing to be blown to smithereens when your airforce cannot/will not support you because of fear/disinterest/incompetency. 
-A grand reconnaissance achievement to have ~2000 soldiers killed to 'test' the enemy.
-International disrepute doesn't matter, neither does the head of state running wild to prevent a massacre of his forces, hey atleast we pissed on their mountains for a couple of months.
-Soldiers hardly matter, the dead even less so, we can disown them any time, and award them medals when we feel the time is right, right?
-The success was so great that it leads to a military coup when the PM tries to honour (by ignonimously removing) the army chief.
-The current PM was a fool to label the whole operation as a failure and reporting the casualty figure, great friend China publicly rebuking Pakistans actions also does not matter, killing some Indians was a matter of greater pride and a glorious victory.
-Economy......WTF is that? Only Indians can worry about such trivial issues.

I'm really impressed by this 'strategic victory', any more points you can conjure up please feel free to add to this post.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ares

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> lOL..P.A ARTY wasnt even involved... lol @ arty shells.
> 
> But nowadays..... we r equiping the Paramilitaries with tanks n stuff.
> 
> While NLI is now a part of Army.


 
Wrong your arty was definitely involved it ..it provided direct arty fire against Indian arty positions shelling Pak intruders.


----------



## Burnz

Bandit in Addition

The Prime Minister was such a Dumbass that he even didn't knew that his Army chief was preparing Nuclear Warheads, even after the war ended

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

ares said:


> Wrong your arty was definitely involved it ..it provided direct arty fire against Indian arty positions shelling Pak intruders.


 
Dude read abt it.
No arty was used frm our side.


----------



## justanobserver

Bossman said:


> If you want to discuss 1971, we can also discuss 800 years of hindu subjugation. In reality, muslim domination of India was the best thing which happened to hindus. It improved their gene pool and put some sense of wrong or right in their lives.


 
Those Hindus sure were cowards, forcefully converted under the sword. 

Their language was changed, script altered to a foreign one. Suffering from a Stockholm syndrome, they reward their rapists by proudly claiming Arab, Turkish, Persian descent.

Sad tale of a once proud people that lived in the region now called Pakistan


----------



## Bossman

justanobserver said:


> Those Hindus sure were cowards, forcefully converted under the sword.
> 
> Their language was changed, script altered to a foreign one. Suffering from a Stockholm syndrome, they reward their rapists by proudly claiming Arab, Turkish, Persian descent.
> 
> Sad tale of a once proud people that lived in the region now called Pakistan


 
All Muslim invasions starting from Mohamed Bin Qasim were supported by local hindu tribes because their were some hindus who could see the folly and corruption of their people, their rulers and even their own beliefs. They could see they had a better option. Forced conversion is a myth. It is practically impossible for a few thousand warriors to subjugate millions and rule over them for a 1000 year unless they had local support. If widespread conversion were forced, there would not have been any hindus left at least in Northern India. In Pakistan a strong belief in Islam does not take away their pre muslim heritage. Most people have Rajput, Punjabi and other pre Muslim last names and they are proud of them and they are even more proud that they are Muslims. You can see the difference between Northern/Western Indian Hindus and Southern Indian Hindus. The Northern Indian Hindus are much more decent and self respecting people compared to the Southerners and this is due to a longer Islamic influence. Also you very conviniently forgot the impact of the sufis.

You are just another ill informed Indian fed on propaganda.


----------



## justanobserver

Sure, ancient Pakistan was liberated. Totally agree. But the process is not done yet, modern Pakistan must continue it's liberation by changing it's official language to Arabic and enforcing strict sharia 

It shall truly become the land of the pure


----------



## ares

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Dude read abt it.
> No arty was used frm our side.


 
I have read about it and I have talked with officers involved Operation Vijay..your artillery was used to against Indian artillery positions, shelling Pakistani intruders on peaks..you had Weapons locating Radar from USA which helped you pin point our arty positions(when they opened fire)..India then lacked these radars.

It was also used to choke up NH1 ..was being directed Pakistani intruders sitting on peaks...thats why peaks you still have in control ..are not being pursued actively..as they have little strategic or even tactical implications for NH1 and are surrounded by Indian posts.


----------



## Bossman

ares said:


> I have read about it and I have talked with officers involved Operation Vijay..your artillery was used to against Indian artillery positions, shelling Pakistani intruders on peaks..you had Weapons locating Radar from USA which helped you pin point our arty positions(when they opened fire)..India then lacked these radars.
> 
> It was also used to choke up NH1 ..was being directed Pakistani intruders sitting on peaks...thats why peaks you still have in control ..are not being pursued actively..as they have little strategic or even tactical implications for NH1 and are surrounded by Indian posts.



We had one old 120mm on the hills which was mule packed to the top and was used to hit NH1. Only Pakistani artillary locating radars in Kargil were those in the imagination of Indian Army. Supporting fire from Pakistan came from WWII vintage British guns which are on semi permanent locations on our side of the border. We used minimum resources in Kargil. We are very conservative about how we deploy our resources. Kargil was never that important for us to mobilise our best equipment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ares

Bossman said:


> We had one old 120mm on the hills which was mule packed to the top and was used to hit NH1. Only Pakistani artillary locating radars in Kargil were those in the imagination of Indian Army. Supporting fire from Pakistan came from WWII vintage British guns which are on semi permanent locations on our side of the border. We used minimum resources in Kargil. We are very conservative about how we deploy our resources*. Kargil was never that important for us to mobilise our best equipment.*


*
*

From your reaction it seems.. clearly your men too were expendable, but why wouldn't you use WLR in such limited field of operations, even though you have had them since 80s ..it could have played havoc with India arty positions and saved your boys up there from our accurate arty fire.


----------



## EagleEyes

Bossman said:


> Where did I disrespect anyone's religion?
> 1) Its is a fact that hindus worship Hanoman, which is a monkey,
> 2) it is a fact they practice Kama sutra. Scenes from Kama sutra are engaraved in their temples
> 3) It is a fact that some hindus including their prime minister have publicly stated that they drink not only cow's but thier own urine.
> 
> stating publicly known facts is not disrespect. As far as tolerance is concerned, I would be very tolerant if these Indian respect this forum as a Pakistani forum and don't come here to spread their lies, misinformation, contempt and prejudice against Pakistan and its military. What's even worse is some people on the forum allow them to do so and take what they say line, hook and sinker.


 
Nothing to do with this topic.


----------



## Bossman

justanobserver said:


> Sure, ancient Pakistan was liberated. Totally agree. But the process is not done yet, modern Pakistan must continue it's liberation by changing it's official language to Arabic and enforcing strict sharia
> 
> It shall truly become the land of the pure


 
So what is wrong with Sharia? Islam is there for all times and all people, its a universal religion. It doesn't become outdated. We are proud of Sharia. It should be implemented in its true form. It can meet the needs of the so called modern times. Its implementation will take us away from the subservience to the West and its ideas and culture. It will help us regain our identity, power and glory. The change has already started to happen in most Muslim countries and it is not the rise of the so called militant Islam. Those just some misguided people who are doing more harm than good for the cause they are fighting for. But grass root change is happening and it will take generations and maybe more to see the final outcome and neither the west with all its power and wealth or you can do anything about it. We again will dominate you for another 1000 years as we did in the past. The reason we will do it is because your mentality, society and culture allows it to be dominated. Even now there is no bigger pleasure for India and Indians to be accepted as an humble servant of the west. All this cosourcing and backoffice work that you are so proud of is nothing more than that. The west throws a few crumbs at you in return, pumps you up a little bit in the media and you think you are the next super power. For Godsake the most powerful person in your country is not even an Indian by birth, she is a European white women. You people are gulliable and think the only truth in the world is the one which comes from the west. The only way you will accept us if we become monkey worshipping, kama sutra practising, piss drinking people like you - it will never happen. We have our own better way of life and if it involves Sharia, so be it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bossman

ares said:


> [/B]
> 
> From your reaction it seems.. clearly your men too were expendable, but why wouldn't you use WLR in such limited field of operations, even though you have had them since 80s ..it could have played havoc with India arty positions and saved your boys up there from our accurate arty fire.



They were all volunteers, they knew they were getting into an assymetric warfare situation. This was like a Commando raid with no guarantee of support or supplies. They knew the consequences of setting up positions inside your territory. Our artillary fire was effective without the radars because of the forward observers on the hills. In any case artillary radars have very limited benefit in high altitude mountainous regions like Kargil. Our best equipment was being saved in case Indians decided to open a new front. Which it never dared to do becuase of the nuclear threat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ares

Bossman said:


> They were all volunteers, they knew they were getting into an assymetric warfare situation. This was like a Commando raid with no guarantee of support or supplies. They knew the consequences of setting up positions inside your territory. Our artillary fire was effective without the radars because of the forwards observers on the hills. In any case artillary radars have very limited benefit in mountainous regions like Kargil.


 
You had very healthy supply lines up untill operation Safed Sagar was launched.
But accept it or not Kargil was an extremely strategically unsound operation...though it might have tactically well executed..lack of strategic foresight while planing it costed you dearly in terms of both men and reputation.. while having almost nothing to show for it.
It shows a military planners needs more than just cavalier attitude to execute a successful operation ie Compare it to our success in Siachen, where we still hold 2/3 rd of the land.


----------



## Bossman

ares said:


> You had very healthy supply lines up untill operation Safed Sagar was launched.
> But accept it or not Kargil was an extremely strategically unsound operation...though it might have tactically well executed..lack of strategic foresight while planing it costed you dearly in terms of both men and reputation.. while having almost nothing to show for it.
> It shows a military planners needs more than just cavalier attitude to execute a successful operation ie Compare it to our success in Siachen, where we still hold 2/3 rd of land.


 
Hey Ares ole,

Our supply line was a couple of mules everyday. You guys tend to make kargil into such a big deal to make your achievements look big. Read up on the older post on why this was not an unsound operation. This operation laid down the rules of engagement between Pakistan and its 10 times bigger enemy which are still valid today and you guys have not come up with a solution. BTW can't you come up with a better name, I keep confusing it with not a very pleasant part of human anatomy.


----------



## ares

Bossman said:


> Hey Ares ole,
> 
> Our supply line was a couple of mules everyday. You guys tend to make kargil into such a big deal to make your achievements look big. Read up on the older post on why this was not an unsound operation. This operation laid down the rules of engagement between Pakistan and its 10 times bigger enemy which are still valid today and you guys have not come up with a solution. BTW can't you come up with a better name, I keep confusing it with not a very pleasant part of human anatomy.



I had read it before hand ..those are but excuses for a botched up operation.. only a maniac general will get hundreds his own men killed just to prove it to himself that 'see I can get away it..without being bombed' 

All I am asking is 13 yrs later.. what do you have to show for it..for the men who gave their lives there?

I am sure those were not trying to prove .."see I will give up my life because my general has an itch ..and he wants to prove it to Indians..that they can't attack us..even though we will try our best to provoke them ?

As far as my name is concerned ..you like to talk about warfare ..but you don't know who Ares is?

Ares - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hopefully the above will help you relate 'it' to some thing more pleasant than a self portrait.


----------



## Mech

Bossman said:


> Hey Ares ole,.......blah........blah....... BTW can't you come up with a better name, I keep confusing it with not a very pleasant part of human anatomy.


 
"ares" is the goddess of war. I applaud your creative genius for coming up with "ares-hole".


----------



## Bossman

Mech said:


> "ares" is the goddess of war. I applaud your creative genius for coming up with "ares-hole".



Unfortunately I don't know anything about multiple gods or godesses, I only have one. Please check my post I never used the term mentioned above. You gave that label to yourself.

Also I just Googled Ares and she is a he. You even got your sexes mixed up.


----------



## notorious_eagle

ares said:


> I had read it before hand ..those are but excuses for a botched up operation.. only a maniac general will get hundreds his own men killed just to prove it to himself that 'see I can get away it..without being bombed'
> 
> *All I am asking is 13 yrs later.. what do you have to show for it..for the men who gave their lives there?*
> 
> I am sure those were not trying to prove .."see I will give up my life because my general has an itch ..and he wants to prove it to Indians..that they can't attack us..even though we will try our best to provoke them ?
> 
> As far as my name is concerned ..you like to talk about warfare ..but you don't know who Ares is?
> 
> Ares - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> hopefully the above will help you relate 'it' to some thing more pleasant than a self portrait.



We still have those four peaks under our control, and our our troops managed to kill more of your troops because they had the higher ground. Dont look too much into those Bollywood movies because they make your soldiers look like super humans. Its an irony that Indian Armed Forces pride themselves upon defending each and every inch of Indian territory while those 4 peaks are still under Pakistan's occupation. As Bossman said, Kargil was a good way to set up the future rules of engagement. The next two times both our Armies stood eye ball to eye ball, yours blinked both times so goes to show me that your Army does not has the capacity to force Pakistan into submission. All this hysteria of Cold Start Doctrine has died down because it appears clear to me that this doctrine cannot be achieved by the likes of the Indian Army, it simply lacks the Officer Core that is required to pull of a feat like that. After Desert Storm, the standard has been set so high by NATO that every country is trying to imitate what NATO forces did to Iraq.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ares

notorious_eagle said:


> We still have those four peaks under our control, and our our troops managed to kill more of your troops because they had the higher ground. Dont look too much into those Bollywood movies because they make your soldiers look like super humans.
> Its an irony that Indian Armed Forces pride themselves upon defending each and every inch of Indian territory while those 4 peaks are still under Pakistan's occupation.



If your prime minster is to believed then no!!...but do also tell are those 4 peaks that offer no strategic leverage what so ever..worth the lives of hundred of soldiers that you gave to acquire them?
Because Indian army has decided they do not pose a threat..see a general does not have to be all cavalier but also sensible for the lives of his soldiers. 



notorious_eagle said:


> As Bossman said, Kargil was a good way to set up the future rules of engagement.



While giving final briefing to your soldiers..did you give them this codswallop?

"See we have no strategic objectives in this operation..but you all will die..because we want prove it to Indians that they can't attack us..even if we provoke them"?? 



notorious_eagle said:


> The next two times both our Armies stood eye ball to eye ball, yours blinked both times so goes to show me that your Army does not has the capacity to force Pakistan into submission. All this hysteria of Cold Start Doctrine has died down because it appears clear to me that this doctrine cannot be achieved by the likes of the Indian Army, it simply lacks the Officer Core that is required to pull of a feat like that. After Desert Storm, the standard has been set so high by NATO that every country is trying to imitate what NATO forces did to Iraq.


 
Fortunately for you, it is our politicians and not our armed forces, who calls the shots in this country and yes our present crop of politicians do not have the stomach for war.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Mech

Bossman said:


> Unfortunately I don't know anything about multiple gods or godesses, I only have one. Please check my post I never used the term mentioned above. You gave that label to yourself.
> 
> Also I just Googled Ares and she is a he. You even got your sexes mixed up.


 
Not a hindu god, sunshine....this guy belongs to greek mythology. FYI...IM NOT A HINDU. And ARES usually comes under "general knowledge".


----------



## Xeric

Thankyou ares and bossman for a wonderful discussion. Not enlightening but it was guud to see that people can talk sense at times. Thanks again.


----------



## foxbat

Oops.. Opened the thread looking for a Siachen discussion and found Kargil. But no harm done, both were victories for the Indian side. The first one gave India control over a strategic piece of real estate and second one resulted in a sizable blow to the credibility of Pakistani claims on Kashmir.


----------



## rockstarIN

After reading all these, I still wonder how the truth is kept under the wrap and showed as a 'victory' to most of the people in a nation. I'm saying this coz some 'think tanks' too believe in this notion.


----------



## Windjammer

As one Western historian wrote,

In one of his articles covering the Kargil conflict, Brian Cloughley said,
"Indian public wanted to be assured of a victory, and their frivolous media provided them with this victory".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IND151

i salute indian troops who guard the indian side of glacier.


----------



## IND151

Tiki Tam Tam said:


> Kashmir, as per Pakistan, is a disputed country.
> 
> Therefore, if there is a part of Kashmir that is vacant and which is rightfully Indians, as per India's point of view, how is it that India started the show?
> 
> There is nothing about India being stubborn. Just because India beat Pakistan to the draw, it doesn't mean that the action was wrong. If Pakistan occupied it before India, would you then say that it was a wrong action?
> 
> One could even argue, given your slant of argument, Pakistan should quit Kashmir, since she started it!
> 
> Obviously, the logic is flawed, when observing with the background of the issue.
> 
> *If you understood military operations in High Altitude, you would realise why the Indian Army is not keen to quit the heights.
> 
> Ask a military person to explain it to you.*


 
the reason behind reluctant of indian army is simple.
if you dominate heights,you are already superior to enemy.


----------



## Rafi

This is why there will never be peace between these two countries, the indian's will always be our enemies


----------



## John Doe

Windjammer said:


> As one Western historian wrote,
> 
> In one of his articles covering the Kargil conflict, Brian Cloughley said,
> "Indian public wanted to be assured of a victory, and their frivolous media provided them with this victory".


 
I read the same article , and I never found him saying that. Can you please post that article or the relevant link, Windjammer? Otherwise you know how the members of this forum are: always insisting on the truth and all that.....


----------



## Windjammer

John Doe said:


> I read the same article , and I never found him saying that. Can you please post that article or the relevant link, Windjammer? Otherwise you know how the members of this forum are: always insisting on the truth and all that.....


 
Yup, Talking about truth and all that comes with it, care to point out where did I even mention the article which you claim to have read. ???
More over, if you have read the same article, perhaps you should post it and prove me wrong for once.
And while members have the right to know the truth, the MODS are also keen on Trolls and all that.


----------



## KS

Bossman said:


> You can see the difference between Northern/Western Indian Hindus and Southern Indian Hindus. The Northern Indian Hindus are much more decent and self respecting people compared to the Southerners and this is due to a longer Islamic influence. Also you very conviniently forgot the impact of the sufis.


 
Why dont you englighten your experience on how you came to decide that "Southern Hindus" are indecent and less self-respecting . BTW when you ppl were nomads hunting for food we were growing our own grains,building cities and wearing clothes made of silk. So it is but natural we (South Indians) have a condescending attitude towards you.

- A Southern Indian Hindu 




WebMaster said:


> Nothing to do with this topic.


 
Why do you have to quote this ?? You could have better left the original post.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## John Doe

Windjammer said:


> Yup, Talking about truth and all that comes with it, care to point out where did I even mention the article which you claim to have read. ???
> More over, if you have read the same article, perhaps you should post it and prove me wrong for once.
> And while members have the right to know the truth, the MODS are also keen on Trolls and all that.



I ask you for proof ( like I always do) and you ask me to help you out here?!?!? So basically you don't know how to find the article which you pretend to have read!

Are you not tired of getting caught lying so often by me? Or do you like this ritual flogging? 

Once again, where is the article in which Brian Cloughley said,
"Indian public wanted to be assured of a victory, and their frivolous media provided them with this victory". ? If you can find it, I will thank you. If you cannot find, I will call you a dishonest _poseur_ (Pardon my French)

---------- Post added at 10:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 AM ----------




Karthic Sri said:


> Why dont you englighten your experience on how you came to decide that "Southern Hindus" are indecent and less self-respecting . BTW when you ppl were nomads hunting for food we were growing our own grains,building cities and wearing clothes made of silk. So it is but natural we (South Indians) have a condescending attitude towards you.
> 
> - A Southern Indian Hindu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you have to quote this ?? You could have better left the original post.


 
+ 1 !

I can't wait for this answer!


----------



## Xeric

@ Sri

Empirical evidence..!!


----------



## Rafi

Xeric said:


> @ Sri
> 
> Empirical evidence..!!


 






indian general not convinced they won the war.


----------



## Rafi

Karthic Sri said:


> Nawaz running on his hind legs to beg Bill Clinton was good enough proof for me


 





Aren't you the horsey guy 

---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------




justanobserver said:


> Expect some talk about 'ancient pakistanis'


 
At least your training is still strong, as you remember.


----------



## Xeric

So infact, you condoned to what i had put forth in your honor.


----------



## Rafi

Xeric said:


> So infact, you condoned to what i had put forth in your honor.


 
I admire the horsey guy he is a great comedian


----------



## Windjammer

John Doe said:


> I ask you for proof ( like I always do) and you ask me to help you out here?!?!? So basically you don't know how to find the article which you pretend to have read!


 I know which article it is, but
You are the one lying through your teeth, who claims to have read the article, which i didn't even name in my post.


> Are you not tired of getting caught lying so often by me? Or do you like this ritual flogging?


Nothing gives me more pleasure than repeatedly giving you rosy cheeks.


> Once again, where is the article in which Brian Cloughley said,
> "Indian public wanted to be assured of a victory, and their frivolous media provided them with this victory".


 And once again, since you have read it, then prove me wrong and I will rest my case.


----------



## John Doe

@Windjammer: 
It is your post, and unless this is your first day in Defence.pk you should know that the responsibility of posting the proof is yours.

Somebody please check my profile, searchmy posts and count the number of times Windjammer has been caught lying !!!!


----------



## SQ8

Is it time to close the thread folks??.. throw a few warnings and/or infractions around??.. Im feeling generous today


----------



## KS

Rafi said:


> Aren't you the horsey guy


 
Yep, I was the guy who showed Pakistanis where the ground was and "helped" them get down from their high horse.


----------



## Windjammer

John Doe said:


> @Windjammer:
> It is your post, and unless this is your first day in Defence.pk you should know that the responsibility of posting the proof is yours.
> 
> Let me come out and say this: YOU ARE LYING ABOUT THE ARTICLE ! YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT NOR DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN IT!
> 
> Now if only you had posted a painting by some discredited artist about this matter........


 
It was indeed my call and I have named none other than the Author of the said article.
You are one disillusioned character, who when pushed to the floor had nothing to offer but criticism on my Avatar.
Why don't you just stick to you Rubik cubes and amuse your self.


----------



## John Doe

Since Brian and me go way back, I wrote to him and here is his reply:
_
From Brian Cloughley:
Hi John,
I can state that I have never written that "Indian public wanted to be assured of a victory, and their frivolous media provided them with this victory".

Anyone who claims the same is full of it. 

With best regards,
Brian_

Now what, WJ? Time to prove Brian wrong? Man up and post the article. Or at least confess that you found this quote online somewhere and don't know if it is true.....

PS: Your English is rarely English, so I don't know why I am bothering to ask: What is the Rubik's cube got to do with anything?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## toxic_pus

^^ Instead of wasting all this energy you could have easily made that article available to us and settle it for once and all. Thats not too much of an ask, is it now? 

I would really love to read it. Google uncle is, for some strange reason, silent on this.

EDIT: That was meant for Windjammer

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Windjammer

John Doe said:


> Since Brian and me go way back, I wrote to him and here is his reply:
> _
> From Brian Cloughley:
> Hi John,
> I can state that I have never written that "Indian public wanted to be assured of a victory, and their frivolous media provided them with this victory".
> 
> Anyone who claims the same is full of it.
> 
> With best regards,
> Brian_
> 
> Now what, WJ? Time to prove Brian wrong? Man up and post the article. Or at least confess that you found this quote online somewhere and don't know if it is true.....
> 
> PS: Your English is rarely English, so I don't know why I am bothering to ask: What is the Rubik's cube got to do with anything?


 
If any one it's you who is full of it JD.
Do you even know where Brian lives these days. Keep up with your nonsensical posts and make a spectacle of your sorry self.
Rubik cube and your letter to Brian go side by side.
BTW, next time you write to Brian, remind him that it's the same article where he referred to the Arjun as a lumbering giant. 
Now get busy with your next lines JD.
Can't wait to read what you come up with next.


----------



## Windjammer

toxic_pus said:


> ^^ Instead of wasting all this energy you could have easily made that article available to us and settle it for once and all. Thats not too much of an ask, is it now?
> 
> I would really love to read it. Google uncle is, for some strange reason, silent on this.
> 
> EDIT: That was meant for Windjammer


 Well your country fellow seems to have read it in his dreams, perhaps he should enlighten you with what was exactly written in the article.


----------



## KS

toxic_pus said:


> ^^ Instead of wasting all this energy you could have easily made that article available to us and settle it for once and all. Thats not too much of an ask, is it now?
> 
> I would really love to read it. Google uncle is, for some strange reason, silent on this.
> 
> EDIT: That was meant for Windjammer


 
If only Brian could write an article with the above mentioned words at such a short notice from windjummer

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## notsuperstitious

toxic_pus said:


> ^^ Instead of wasting all this energy you could have easily made that article available to us and settle it for once and all. Thats not too much of an ask, is it now?
> 
> I would really love to read it. Google uncle is, for some strange reason, silent on this.
> 
> EDIT: That was meant for Windjammer


 
Will you accept a painting of a delivery rep reading the article?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## John Doe

Where Brian lives? Why, he was my room-mate in Hicksville, Alabama till last month. Then when I moved to Pune, he missed my home's daily idli-dosa breakfast so much, he followed my family here. So we live right next to each other here in Shivaji Nagar, Pune. 

I mentioned you to him and what he said about you is unprintable. What I can repeat is that he called you a 'liar' and that he never, ever wrote any such thing. Why don't you remind him whether he wrote this or not, whether this was in a book, or a magazine article, etc, etc.?

Oh, he asked you to do something with your Rubiks' cube. I didn't understand what he meant.......

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manas

Rafi said:


> *indian general not convinced they won the war*.



*You need to use some brain to understand under what context he says that.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

Manas said:


> *You need to use some brain to understand under what context he says that.*


 
Coming from you - don't miss the word irony.


----------



## Whiplash

Rafi said:


> Coming from you - don't miss the word irony.


 
He's right. Don't just read the friggin headline.


----------



## Areesh

notorious_eagle said:


> We still have those four peaks under our control, and our our troops managed to kill more of your troops because they had the higher ground. Dont look too much into those Bollywood movies because they make your soldiers look like super humans. Its an irony that Indian Armed Forces pride themselves upon defending each and every inch of Indian territory while those 4 peaks are still under Pakistan's occupation. As Bossman said, Kargil was a good way to set up the future rules of engagement. The next two times both our Armies stood eye ball to eye ball, yours blinked both times so goes to show me that your Army does not has the capacity to force Pakistan into submission. All this hysteria of Cold Start Doctrine has died down because it appears clear to me that this doctrine cannot be achieved by the likes of the Indian Army, it simply lacks the Officer Core that is required to pull of a feat like that. After Desert Storm, the standard has been set so high by NATO that every country is trying to imitate what NATO forces did to Iraq.


 
By the way according to some news it was six peaks not four.



> *Pakistan is occupying at least six strategically located Indian peaks in the Kargil sector along the Line of Control, claimed Rajya Sabha member and senior criminal advocate R K Anand.
> 
> Basing his arguments on several documents and "authoritative sources", Anand said on Wednesday that these are strategic peaks from where Pakistani forces have a commanding view of the Srinagar-Leh highway, Drass helipad and several other military installations.
> 
> There was no immediate reaction from the army headquarters.
> 
> Anand named the Pakistan occupied Indian peaks as: Point 5353 (Map reference: 490644), Point Aftab-I (499642), Point Saddle Ridge (525638), Point Bunker Ridge (548639), Shangruti and Dhalunag.*
> 
> "Point 5353 is very strategic. In 1992-93, the then corps commander (of India) decided to make a shift pocket on this point and sent personnel there by helicopter. The officers posted there successfully cut off the entire supply to the Pakistani pockets along the LoC for nearly two months," he said. The capture was in retaliation of Pakistani attacks on several Indian posts including the national highway from Srinagar to Leh.
> 
> He said the Indian Army then claimed that point 5353 is "within our LoC and that we have every right to patrol the area." He said this point offers a 40-kilometre view of the Pakistan side and from the Indian side an attack could be launched on Drass and the Drass-Kargil road.
> 
> However, in January-February of 1999, Pakistan troops occupied Point 5353, along with several other strategic posts. These intrusions led to last year's Kargil war.
> 
> He said Indian troops had tried to capture Point 5353 on May 18, 1999 when army operations were beginning in Operation Vijay in Kargil last year. But it failed.
> 
> He said, the operation was carried out by a team of soldiers led by Major Navneet Mehta.
> 
> He gave reporters a copy of the two-page report prepared by the young officer for his seniors on the failed operation. In that report the major has explained the reasons why an attack on Point 5353 was difficult. "It is not possible to carry out an assault from the northwestern, western and south western approaches," the officer pointed out.
> 
> Anand also made available a wireless message of May 19, 1999 where it says "attack on 5353 called off due to bad weather" and that "13 OR (other ranks) injured in Maj Navneet's Pl (platoon) due to difficult trn (terrain)".
> 
> If the army's argument that Point 5353 was never India's is to be accepted, then "why did they launch the attack?" he asked.
> 
> Recent media reports about Pakistan occupying Point 5353 on Indian side of LoC was rubbished by the army headquarters and Defence Minister George Fernandes. Both refused to acknowledge that any Indian post is in Pakistani control.
> 
> Anand, who was elected to the Upper House as a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, said, even Parliament has been told that there are no peaks under Pakistani occupation.
> 
> He said Point 5353 is *"300 to 500 metres inside our territory"*.
> 
> "It looks like our army commanders are wrongly briefing the defence minister," he said when Fernandes' statement was pointed out. "The defence minister mislead Parliament on the basis of the briefing by army officers," Anand said, while demanding action against senior army commanders.
> 
> He said the Director General of Military Operations had no idea what was happening along the LoC. Similarly the corps commander during Operation Vijay too had no idea of the dimensions of the Pakistani gameplan. The army chief too is unaware of the situation, he said.
> 
> "Instead of holding them responsible, you promote them and give them awards," he said.
> 
> Whe asked why the army and government was allowing Pakistan to occupy the peaks, and did not regain it last year, Anand said there were various reasons. "They wanted to finish the war as early as possible as elections were coming. And they thought nobody will come to know," he said.
> 
> On the army's reluctance, he said if they launch operations to take back these peaks, there will be a full-fledged war with Pakistan.
> 
> However, he said Indian forces should take immediate steps to protect national integrity. Besides, a fact-finding team of five Parliamentarians should be constituted to go to the LoC to verify the facts.
> 
> Anand has repeatedly served notices for calling attention motions, special mentions in the Rajya Sabha on these intrusions by Pakistan. But despite repeated attempts the matter was not taken up for discussion, he said.
> 
> Anand said he also wrote to Fernandes calling his attention to the matter. But he did not get any reply.
> 
> The army too has been struggling to convince the media that Pakistan does not occupy even a single post on the Indian side of the LoC. In fact senior army officers have been holding special briefings for select groups of journalists after reports appeared that Point 5353 of India is with Pakistan.
> 
> Officials at army headquarters said they were studying Anand's statement.



Pakistan occupying six Indian peaks, claims MP

Pakistan still occupies four kargil peaks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BATMAN




----------



## @speaks

Pakistani Rulers are always mislead their awaam....nothing unexpected.
they said " corruption is their right...jo corruption nahi kar raha woh to galat karr raha hai". Historically ( dont take it communally) its bad luck of my neighbor country that they always got opportunists as their rulers....but the worst part is ....people out there specially youth believes on their fake statements. V indians always want to make our country better than yesterday....we accept that historically India was far glorious...and we wholeheartedly want to get tht glory again. thats why v are even ready to criticize our leaders whereas they are happy and satisfied on their false statements


----------



## alphamale

BATMAN said:


>


 
How come kargil was a success. Pakistan was not able to gain territory in kashmir, pakistan was unable to block highway leading to siachen & hence unable to capture siachen. pakistan tried to internationalize the issue but was unable to get any support from international bodies. what did pakistan gained from it's adventure or say misadventure in kargil. dead bodies of it's soldiers nothing else.


----------



## blackops

BATMAN said:


>


 
lol kargi was a mistake


----------



## blackops

to those who are posting kargil videos in siachin thread listen to your former pm
forward to 4:25

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## blackops

Rafi said:


> indian general not convinced they won the war.


 
to clear your mind 
he said we won back all the land and won tactical victories why he says we didnt won the war because we lost our soldiers life and they are not compensated

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## @speaks

The Kargil War (1999) against India was a military misadventure of the Pakistan Army master-minded and executed by Pakistan Army&#8217;s Chief of Staff, General Pervez Musharraf and now the self-anointed President of Pakistan. 

The Pakistan Army under General Musharraf, despite some initial gains, ultimately suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Indian Army. With the possibility of India escalating the war from a &#8220;limited war&#8221; in Kargil and extending it to Pakistan proper, General Musharraf seemingly goaded the hapless Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to rush to Washington and enlist United States aid to pressurize India for a three-day ceasefire to enable Pakistani troops to withdraw to their side of the LOC. 

The Pakistani Army under General Musharraf had kept the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the dark about the Kargil military misadventure. Later, the Pakistan Army and General Musharraf, after the Kargil defeat, kept secret this fact from the Pakistani nation. To deflect domestic and international attention from his own personal culpability in this misadventure, General Musharraf, unscrupulous as his wont, blamed PM Nawaz Sharif for Pakistan&#8217;s military humiliation and used this as a pretext for launching his military coup against a democratically elected Government Incidentally PM Nawaz Sharif was elected by an overwhelming majority and that too on an election plank of peace with India. 

Its only five years later after the Kargil war that analyses have now started appearing analyzing this war from the Pakistani perspective and drawing lessons from it. One such work that is now available on the Kargil War is by Shireen Mazari a Pakistani strategic analyst, with hawkish anti-Indian stances. Shireen Mazari&#8217;s research stands published by the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad, Pakistan. 

The aim of this paper is to dwell on the &#8220;Lessons Learnt From Kargil&#8221; as brought out by Shireen Mazari in her publication and give a deductive analysis on each of her major points as a commentary. Her conclusions are quoted verbatim in bold print and this author&#8217;s commentary follows each excerpt quoted.

It is also the aim of this paper to draw some brief lessons for the United States and India, as emanating after this authors analysis. 

&#8220;Lessons learnt From Kargil&#8221; as Projected by Pakistani Strategist Shireen Mazari: 

The short preamble to this portion of the publication praises the Pakistan Army showing &#8220;tactical ingenuity and boldness in its execution&#8221; and the very next sentences then adds: &#8220; However what the whole event revealed were critical shortcomings in the decision-making process". The observations then follow and to begin with: 

Confusion and Dysfunction in Decision Making:

"And as the operation incrementally moved up on the escalation ladder, Pakistan&#8217;s decision-making system betrayed signs of confusion and dysfunction. In fact, the short-coming of Pakistan&#8217;s national security decision-making were revealed by the Kargil Conflict were not episodic but systemic.&#8221; 

Commentary: It needs to be remembered that &#8220;confusion and dysfunction&#8221; in Pakistan&#8217;s higher elections during the Kargil War occurred due to the following factors:

 Kargil War was master-minded and launched by General Musharraf on his own personal decision and initiative, without taking PM Nawaz Sharif into confidence or bringing him into the picture at the outset.
Confusion and dysfunction occurred due to this &#8220;dis-connect&#8221; between the Pakistani Army Chief and his political master i.e. the Prime Minister.
General Musharraf and the Pakistani military hierarchy were in a &#8220;state of denial&#8221; till such time India&#8217;s military superiorities started coming into play.
The growing Indian and international media over-publicisation of the Kargil War added to Pakistan Army&#8217;s perplexities as by now plausible deniability exists stood sealed.
Pakistan&#8217;s national security decision making is centered on the Pakistan Army Chief and its collegium of Generals. This phenomenon, despite an NSC in existence will continue.

Lack of Strategic Policy Coordination Between the Military and Political Leadership:

Shireen Mazari observes: 

&#8220;To begin with the lack of strategic policy coordination between the military and political leadership was so apparent that no serious attempt was made to cover it up. The political leadership did not make any serious efforts to think-through the unfolding military situation on a strategic plan, and until late in the day June 3, 1999 this leadership did not feel the need and made no attempt to try and discuss the issue in the federal cabinet. Hence the utter confusion and lack of coordination once the diplomatic and political stakes rose". 

Commentary:

This is a motivated observation by Shireen Mazari aimed as a posterior protection measure for the Pakistan Army and General Musharraf. How could Pakistan&#8217;s political leadership exert when the entire operation was kept away from the political domain by General Musharraf. As would be recalled from Bruce Reidels records of the Clinton-Nawaz Sharif meeting of July 4, 1999 the Pakistani Prime Minister appeared to be terrorized by the prospects of General Musharraf&#8217;s coup and had come prepared with his family not to go back to Pakistan.
Shireen Mazari&#8217;s very choice of sequence of words &#8220;lack of strategic policy coordination between the military and political leadership&#8221; betrays who was calling the shots in Pakistan, namely General Musharraf and the Pakistan Army. So therefore, the blame falls squarely on their shoulders.&#8221;

Lack of Strong Civilian Institutions/Bureaucracies: 

Shireen mazari states&#8221;

&#8220;To put it simply, Pakistan utterly lacks strong civilian institutions/bureaucracies, inclusive of any national security apparatus, that can integrate various inputs at the upper echelons of the government and then render appropriate advice to the Chief Executive of the country, or set out policy options for him.&#8221; 

Commentary: 

This malaise will continue in Pakistan till such time the Pakistani masses mobilize themselves politically and force the Pakistan Army back to the barracks.
The Pakistan Army voluntarily would not permit emergence of viable strong civilian institutions.

Pakistan Military Cannot Fully Fill Civilian-Decision Making Gaps:

The following observation is a telling comment on the Pakistan military:

&#8220;Apparently, the conflict, at its various stages was broadly discussed verbally, in official circles, and some quick conclusions drawn. These were then disseminated through ad-hoc chains of communication between various organs. The negative manner in which competing bureaucracies, including military, absorbed and disseminated or refused to disseminate information further aggravated the issue at the national level. To give political context to military decisions, there have to be strong civilian institutions in defence policy making,--------. Military institutions and organizations, no matter how efficient cannot fully fill these civilian decision-making gaps and inputs in an adequate fashion. This is exactly what happed during the Kargil conflict also.&#8221; 

Comments:

This is the most valuable lesson brought out as it puts in proper perspective, all that is wrong with the Pakistani nation state.
The Pakistan Army has consistently subverted the Pakistani nation state to firm its grip and control on Pakistan's politics.
The Pakistan Army and its Generals are not competent to act rationally and give mature strategic directions to the nation state of Pakistan. The Kargil War defeat and the previous defeats of the Pakistan Army in earlier wars with India are eloquent testimony to this fact.
Even under civilian regimes, foreign and defence policies are dictated by Pakistan Army. Notably, even under civilian regimes the control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is in the hands of the Pakistan Army.
The world and particularly the United States needs to take a significant note of this aspect in relation to Pakistan&#8217;s nuclear weapons. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is not under civilian political control but in the hands of military adventurist rulers like General Musharraf.

Absence of Written Records of Security-Related Issues:

It has been brought out, that:

&#8220; A lack of serious thinking and critical assessment of the evolving situation during the conflict is borne out by the near total absence of written records at all levels of government. This aspect, perhaps, reflects a much deeper erosion of professionalism within the government that needs to be reformed. Prior to 1971, official records of defence and security-related meetings, show detailed minutes of government proceedings.&#8221;

Commentary: 

The absence of written records on security related issues reflects two serious infirmities of the Pakistan state machinery.
First, that all records, that may have been maintained within the Pakistan Army itself were either not made accessible to Shireen Mazari, or worse, fearing exposure of the sordid details of General Musharraf's misadventure, they stand destroyed, on the orders of General Musharraf who still continues in power.
Second, with a virtually continuous military rule in Pakistan post-1971, the Army has made sure that the civilian political executive has no access to the discussions of the Pakistan Army Corps Commanders Conference where all foreign policy, defence and nuclear weapons issues are discussed.
In such an environment where military decisions are verbally taken and no records of security issues maintained it is self evident that no accountability exists on critical issues of state policy like foreign affairs and defence. Pakistan's credibility therefore in international affairs is pitiably low.

Pakistan Army&#8217;s Bungled Military Planning in Kargil and Under-estimating Indian Army&#8217;s Response: 

The Pakistan Army and General Musharraf in particular stand significantly indicted by the following observations:

&#8220; For the Pakistani military it was essential to evaluate the various anticipated Indian politico-military responses-including the raising of the military ante and worse case scenarios. The military, in planning a division-sized defensive engagement, failed to foresee how the demands of military operational strategy would cross with the exigencies of grand strategy and international diplomacy. It also did not anticipate the degree to which the enemy would vertically escalate the military situation. A major failing of Kargil was to under-estimate the Indian response militarily. Therefore it is vital that the planning and operational conduct of this conflict (Kargil) is allowed to be critically discussed in military training institutions at all levels." 

Commentary:

Pakistani Army&#8217;s military planning failures need to be solely shouldered by General Musharraf. He was the mastermind as Pakistan's Army Chief in terms of planning and conduct of the Kargil mis-adventure. He is therefore responsible for Pakistan's defeat in the Kargil War as accountability is vertical.
General Musharraf, used as he is to military swagger, severely under-estimated the Indian military response. It is the same trait that is in play today in the on-going peace dialogue with India.

General Musharraf seems to have been misled into militarily challenging India, fortified by the newly acquired nuclear weapons arsenal of Pakistan Army in 1998.
Regrettably any such future miscalculation by General Musharraf on the use of nuclear weapons could surely lead to the extinction of the Pakistani State.
The Pakistan Army has always shied away from discussions of its military reverses against India. It would therefore be unimaginable that General Musharraf would allow his military fiasco to be discussed in Pakistan Army training establishments.

Pakistan Army&#8217;s Military Confusion and Disconnect with the Political Government:

It is stated that:

&#8220;By the end of May 1999, there was a total disconnect between the political government and the strategic planners, as a result of which no offensive formations were moved to the front which sent a clear signal to the Indians that Pakistan was in no mood to fight a war. Once ambivalence and confusion were not maintained at the military level by Pakistan for the enemy, India gained an assured level of focus.&#8221; 

Commentary:

The culprit for the &#8220;disconnect&#8221; stated above was essentially General Musharraf&#8217;.
If no offensive formations were moved by the Pakistan Army, than the responsibility once again lies with General Musharraf.
This may yet be another reflection of General Musharraf&#8217;s personal trait of resorting to brinkmanship, but shying away from hard choices when actually facing the brink..
It reflects poorly on General Musharraf&#8217;s qualities as a military leader and his professionally poor appreciation of the enemies capabilities ie. India.

Pakistan Lost the Information War:

Shiren Mazari states: 

&#8220; The information war was lost from the start because of the decision not to inform the public at home and an equally half-hearted approach regarding what to give out to the international community. There is no clear cut evidence to pinpoint who actually made the decision not to inform the domestic polity, but clearly the lack of coordination at the highest level of decision making was the major factor.&#8221; 

Commentary:

It is surprising for an astute strategic analyst like Shireen Mazari to state that no clear cut evidence exists as to who decided not to inform the Pakistani public about the Kargil misadventure.
Obviously, it was General Musharraf and the Pakistan Army which all along had kept PM Nawaz Sharif out of the decision- making loop of the Kargil War and the Pakistani defeat.
This phenomena of the Pak Army and its Generals has been noticeable in all the conflicts with India. The Pakistani masses are never taken into the picture by the Pakistan Army, which calls all the shots in Pakistan and in the process fudges its military reverses against India.
Why go further, published reports in Pakistan indicate that even the Pakistan Air Force Chief and Pakistan Navy Chief were not taken into picture on Kargil by General Musharraf till a late stage in the conflict.

Wrong Military Lesson Drawn By Shireen Mazari in Terms of Indian Responses 

As if to soften the indictment blows on the Pakistan Army in terms of her preceding comments, Shireen Mazari in the concluding para comes to this final conclusion: 

&#8220; However, one positive lesson from Kargil was that Pakistan could sustain limited military encounter in conventional terms in the face of India raising the conventional ante, and still prevent India from opening an all-out war front along the international border.&#8221; 
Commentary

This is a singularly erroneous misconception in terms of a conclusion.
It was the military restraint imposed by India&#8217;s political leadership on the Indian Army not to cross the LOC which permitted the Pakistan Army to sustain its military misadventure in Kargil. The outcome would have been otherwise had the Indian Army not been politically restrained.
It would also be erroneous for Pakistan to believe that India would not cross the international border in future. India did it in 1965 when its military resources were limited. With increased military might, India may not be all that restrained in the future notwithstanding Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
Whether in conventional war or into nuclear escalation by Pakistan in the future, Pakistan&#8217;s capacity to withstand both conventional and nuclear attrition is limited and therefore Pakistan's Generals need to exercise abundant caution before stepping on India's toes.

United States Needs to Re-evaluate its Strategic Ally in South Asia

The major lessons/deductions arising from an analysis of Shireen Mazari&#8217;s publication are that:

Pakistan is a highly militarised and militant state under the iron grip of the Pakistan Army.
The Pakistan Army is not inclined to let go its vice-like grip on Pakistan&#8217;s foreign policy and politics.
Pakistan Army would not permit the emergence of strong civilian bureaucratic institutions.
Pakistan Army is a reckless body led by military adventurists generals like General Musharraf.

If these be the hallmarks of the Pakistani nation-state run by military dictatorships, the United States needs to decide whether:

Can United States national security interests be served by Pakistan under a military dictatorship devoid of civilian political support from the Pakistani public and its polity?
Can United States feel safe with nuclear weapons being under the control of an irresponsible and strategically blind Pakistan Army?
Can the United States afford a nuclear conflict in South Asia initiated by a Pakistan Army Chief under whose sole control exists the Pakistan nuclear arsenal. United States needs to remember that India has declared a "No First Use" nuclear policy whereas Pakistan has not done likewise.

United States seems to be unwisely forgetting that the bigger danger is not of Pakistan&#8217;s nuclear weapons falling in the hands if Islamic Jehadis, but that Pakistan Army itself handing over nuclear weapons to Islamic Jehadis for proxy war against the hated enemy of Islam, that is the United States. 

United States must recognise that if ever a nuclear conflict takes place in South Asia it would be directly of Pakistan's making and indirectly that of the United States.

Lessons for India

India needs to take sharp notice of the following factors and devise appropriate responses:

The Pakistan Army is a military adventurist Army and has the propensity to repeatedly initiate new conflicts with India notwithstanding any episodic peace rhetoric.
In this it is buoyed by United States permissiveness of Pakistan Army&#8217;s military control over Pakistan, denial of democracy and emergence of strong civil institutions.
India should not mistake the 'peace with India' yearnings of the Pakistan masses as the aspiration of Pakistan's Generals, including General Musharraf .
Pakistan Army under military pressure could initiate a nuclear exchange with India. India needs to be politically and militarily prepared for swift appropriate responses.
India militarily and in terms of civil defence measures should prepare itself for an irresponsibly initiated nuclear conflict launched by Pakistan.
No amount of US guarantees or interceding on General Musharraf&#8217;s behalf be considered or accepted by India.

Concluding Observations: 

With the benefit of hindsight, Shireen Mazari at many places elsewhere in her published work, tries to cover up the Pakistan Army and General Musharraf. Some of those observations need quoting and these are:

&#8220;In fact the international attention focused on the Kargil conflict took Pakistan by surprise especially since Pakistan saw it as yet another tactical operational exchange similar to others along the LOC, but which incrementally escalated as a result of India raising the military, political and diplomatic ante.&#8221;
&#8220;another damaging result of Kargil has been the use of the Pakistan military as a scapegoat not only by the Indian and American analysts but also by elements within Pakistan&#8217;s political elite and civil society. There is an increasing attempt to undermine the institution of the military and place it at odds with civil society&#8221;

Many questions get raised and many factors come to the fore from these assertions and these are:

If Kargil was not planned as a deliberate well planned military operation by General Musharaaf, then what was the necessity of keeping the Kargil developments a secret from the Pakistani public. Tactical operational exchanges along the LOC are regularly reported in the Pakistani media, than why not the Kargil Conflict developments.
President Clinton and his Administration would have not come out so heavily on Pakistan and General Musharraf , had the Kargil misadventure been just &#8220; another tactical operational exchange similar to others along the LOC.&#8221; Obviously the United States also held evidence of Pakistan&#8217;s more wider and strategic grandiose designs in the illusionary mind of the military adventurist Pakistan Army Chief, General Musharraf.
Unlike the present President Bush and his Administration, President Clinton had not much respect for General Musharraf and his credibility, it seems.

Concluding finally, one could offer Pakistan and Shireen Mazari, the following advice which could be added to her &#8220;Lessons Learnt From Kargil&#8221;:

In any future military misadventure by Pakistan&#8217;s head-strong Generals, India may go in for a military sledge-hammer rather than an &#8220;incremental escalation&#8221; in response to what Pakistan would like to call &#8220;as another tactical operational exchange along the LOC&#8221;.
The Pakistan Army was not made a scapegoat in the Kargil War. It was the Pakistan Army and General Musharraf who made PM Nawaz Sharif as the scapegoat as a cover-up for their military follies. It was General Musharraf who kept the Pakistan nation, his Prime Minister and the other Chiefs in the dark about Kargil.

The Pakistan Army is a state within a state and a law unto itself. It is high time that Pakistanis, especially strategic analysts like Shireen Mazari joined hands with other Pakistani intellectuals to politically mobilize the Pakistani masses to rein in the Pakistani Army. The Pakistan Army was responsible for disintegration of Pakistan in 1971 (civil war leading to creation of Bangladesh) and it may now be leading towards another disintegration of Pakistan in Balochistan and Balwaristan.


----------



## Rafi

*Pakistan is occupying at least six strategically located Indian peaks in the Kargil sector along the Line of Control, claimed Rajya Sabha member and senior criminal advocate R K Anand.

Basing his arguments on several documents and "authoritative sources", Anand said on Wednesday that these are strategic peaks from where Pakistani forces have a commanding view of the Srinagar-Leh highway, Drass helipad and several other military installations.

There was no immediate reaction from the army headquarters.

Anand named the Pakistan occupied Indian peaks as: Point 5353 (Map reference: 490644), Point Aftab-I (499642), Point Saddle Ridge (525638), Point Bunker Ridge (548639), Shangruti and Dhalunag.

"Point 5353 is very strategic. In 1992-93, the then corps commander (of India) decided to make a shift pocket on this point and sent personnel there by helicopter. The officers posted there successfully cut off the entire supply to the Pakistani pockets along the LoC for nearly two months," he said. The capture was in retaliation of Pakistani attacks on several Indian posts including the national highway from Srinagar to Leh.

He said the Indian Army then claimed that point 5353 is "within our LoC and that we have every right to patrol the area." He said this point offers a 40-kilometre view of the Pakistan side and from the Indian side an attack could be launched on Drass and the Drass-Kargil road.
*
However, in January-February of 1999, Pakistan troops occupied Point 5353, along with several other strategic posts. These intrusions led to last year's Kargil war.

*He said Indian troops had tried to capture Point 5353 on May 18, 1999 when army operations were beginning in Operation Vijay in Kargil last year. But it failed.*

He said, the operation was carried out by a team of soldiers led by Major Navneet Mehta.

He gave reporters a copy of the two-page report prepared by the young officer for his seniors on the failed operation. In that report the major has explained the reasons why an attack on Point 5353 was difficult. "It is not possible to carry out an assault from the northwestern, western and south western approaches," the officer pointed out.

Anand also made available a wireless message of May 19, 1999 where it says "attack on 5353 called off due to bad weather" and that "13 OR (other ranks) injured in Maj Navneet's Pl (platoon) due to difficult trn (terrain)".

If the army's argument that Point 5353 was never India's is to be accepted, then "why did they launch the attack?" he asked.

Recent media reports about Pakistan occupying Point 5353 on Indian side of LoC was rubbished by the army headquarters and Defence Minister George Fernandes. Both refused to acknowledge that any Indian post is in Pakistani control.

Anand, who was elected to the Upper House as a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, said, even Parliament has been told that there are no peaks under Pakistani occupation.

He said Point 5353 is "300 to 500 metres inside our territory".

"It looks like our army commanders are wrongly briefing the defence minister," he said when Fernandes' statement was pointed out. "The defence minister mislead Parliament on the basis of the briefing by army officers," Anand said, while demanding action against senior army commanders.

He said the Director General of Military Operations had no idea what was happening along the LoC. Similarly the corps commander during Operation Vijay too had no idea of the dimensions of the Pakistani gameplan. The army chief too is unaware of the situation, he said.

"Instead of holding them responsible, you promote them and give them awards," he said.

Whe asked why the army and government was allowing Pakistan to occupy the peaks, and did not regain it last year, Anand said there were various reasons. "They wanted to finish the war as early as possible as elections were coming. And they thought nobody will come to know," he said.

On the army's reluctance, he said if they launch operations to take back these peaks, there will be a full-fledged war with Pakistan.

However, he said Indian forces should take immediate steps to protect national integrity. Besides, a fact-finding team of five Parliamentarians should be constituted to go to the LoC to verify the facts.

Anand has repeatedly served notices for calling attention motions, special mentions in the Rajya Sabha on these intrusions by Pakistan. But despite repeated attempts the matter was not taken up for discussion, he said.

Anand said he also wrote to Fernandes calling his attention to the matter. But he did not get any reply.

*The army too has been struggling to convince the media that Pakistan does not occupy even a single post on the Indian side of the LoC. In fact senior army officers have been holding special briefings for select groups of journalists after reports appeared that Point 5353 of India is with Pakistan.
*
Officials at army headquarters said they were studying Anand's statement.


----------



## Rafi

With artillery observers - we have the capability to close this strategic highway anytime we want


----------



## alphamale

why some Pakistanis jump with joy over those 4 or 6 small peaks. after that grand operation in kargil what pak got just 4-6 small peaks(which is itself questionable). compare it with india's operation in siachen where india gained 700 square km of area. just compare vast area of 700 sq km with 4-6 small peaks.


----------



## Rafi

alphamale said:


> why some Pakistanis jump with joy over those 4 or 6 small peaks. after that grand operation in kargil what pak got just 4-6 small peaks(which is itself questionable). compare it with india's operation in siachen where india gained 700 square km of area. just compare vast area of 700 sq km with 4-6 small peaks.


 
Don't cry like a little girl, or we will close your important highway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## @speaks

If you guys want this kind of winning...like you had in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999...thn i wish you to win always that ways...may be your country's dictionary tells Winning = get screwed by someone


----------



## Windjammer

John Doe said:


> Where Brian lives? Why, he was my room-mate in Hicksville, Alabama till last month. Then when I moved to Pune, he missed my home's daily idli-dosa breakfast so much, he followed my family here. So we live right next to each other here in Shivaji Nagar, Pune.


 Damn, considering Brian's age, you must be much older than one assumes, any wonder you sound like an out of tune bag pipe. 


> I mentioned you to him and what he said about you is unprintable. What I can repeat is that he called you a 'liar' and that he never, ever wrote any such thing. Why don't you remind him whether he wrote this or not, whether this was in a book, or a magazine article, etc, etc.?


 Trust me a no body like you will ever come up with my conversation with Brian, after all he is an Australian and only talks about worthy creatures. 


> Oh, he asked you to do something with your Rubiks' cube. I didn't understand what he meant.......


 You wouldn't understand now would you, since you are an expert by your own disclosure for intimidating three year olds. 
BTW, how is the affair with..... err Gondola tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

fateh71 said:


> Will you accept a painting of a delivery rep reading the article?


 
Highly doubt such facilities are available in a cage.


----------



## @speaks




----------



## Rafi

@speaks said:


>


 
Don't forget Babur, Timur, Ghaznavi, Ghauri and a thousand years of rule by us over you.


----------



## alphamale

Rafi said:


> Don't cry like a little girl, or we will close your important highway.


 
you & not me is crying like a little girl over & over again over those small hills. i just explained what u didn't knew.


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> Don't forget Babur, Timur, Ghaznavi, Ghauri and a thousand years of rule by us over you.


 
*Why, were they Pakistani?*


----------



## Windjammer

YouTube - Air Defenders of Pakistan Army Who Shot down Two Indian Fighter Jets in Kargil War -


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> *Why, were they Pakistani?*


 
Of course - they were rulers of our land, and belong to us.  They enabled the Sufis to extend their missionary work to the area, and were instrumental in making the area Islamic. My own Jatt clan was converted by a Sufi who came with Babur's Warriors.


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> Of course - they were rulers of our land, and belong to us.


 
By that logic even the Britishers, Greeks, Mongols ruled over your lands ..were they also Pakistanis ?


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> By that logic even the Britishers, Greeks, Mongols ruled over your lands ..were they also Pakistanis ?


 
They were not Islamic and the reason why my Jatt people read the Kalima the Islamic article of Faith.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> Of course - they were rulers of our land, and belong to us.  They enabled the Sufis to extend their missionary work to the area, and were instrumental in making the area Islamic. My own Jatt clan was converted by a Sufi who came with Babur's Warriors.



So from you edit I get..for a person to be declared a Pakistani he has to first rule over your area and second spread Sufi Islam in your area?..so was* Porus a Pakistani?*


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> So from you edit I get..for a person to be declared a Pakistani he has to first rule over your area and second spread Sufi Islam in your area?..so was* Porus a Pakistani?*


 
Of course - he belonged to the Geographical Area of Pakistan ie the Indus Valley. As I have mentioned before - my village is planning to build a monument in Jhelum to Porus, with a large Pakistani Flag.


----------



## Windjammer

ares said:


> *Why, were they Pakistani?*


 
BTW, These are also names for Pakistan's nuclear capable missiles.
God forbid, a fore taste of things to come.


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> Of course - he belonged to the Geographical Area of Pakistan ie the Indus Valley.


 
Then why Porus and why not Greeks?..Even they ruled that area..and as far as I know Porus never spread any Islam either.

PS: your criteria for declaring some one Pakistani is extremely complex!!


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> Then why Porus and why not Greeks?..Even they ruled that area..and as far as I know Porus never spread any Islam either.
> 
> PS: your criteria for declaring some one Pakistani is extremely complex!!


 
Gandh&#257;ra (Sanskrit and Hindi: &#2327;&#2344;&#2381;&#2343;&#2366;&#2352;, Punjabi: &#1711;&#1606;&#1583;&#1726;&#1575;&#1585;&#1729; , Pashto: &#1707;&#1606;&#1583;&#1607;&#1575;&#1585;&#1575;, Urdu: &#1711;&#1606;&#1583;&#1726;&#1575;&#1585;&#1575;, Gand&#7717;&#257;r&#257;; also known as &#1608;&#1740;&#1607;&#1740;&#1606;&#1583; Waihind in Persian)[citation needed] is the name of an ancient kingdom (Mahajanapada), located in northern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan. Gandhara was located mainly in the vale of Peshawar, the Potohar plateau (see Taxila) and on the Kabul River. Its main cities were Purushapura (modern Peshawar), literally meaning City of Man[1] and Takshashila (modern Taxila).[2] 

*The decline of the Empire left the sub-continent open to the inroads by the Greco-Bactrians. Southern Afghanistan was absorbed by Demetrius I of Bactria in 180 BC. Around about 185 BC, Demetrius invaded and conquered Gandhara and the Punjab. Later, wars between different groups of Bactrian Greeks resulted in the independence of Gandhara from Bactria and the formation of the Indo-Greek kingdom. Menander was its most famous king. He ruled from Taxila and later from Sagala (Sialkot). He rebuilt Taxila (Sirkap) and Pushkalavati. He became a Buddhist and is remembered in Buddhists records due to his discussions with a great Buddhist philosopher, N&#257;gasena, in the book Milinda Panha.*

The Greek Gandhara Civlization was an exclusively Pakistani and Afghan one, they also belong to us.


----------



## ares

Windjammer said:


> BTW, These are also names for Pakistan's nuclear capable missiles.
> God forbid, a fore taste of things to come.


 
It is funny you say that .. because when these names invaded..the first people they killed and subjugated were yours.. even so much that now you consider yourself as a part of them.


----------



## Windjammer

ares said:


> It is funny you say that .. because when these names invaded..the first people they killed and subjugated were yours.. even so much that now you consider yourself as a part of them.


 
What, did they invade Pakistan. ???
Damn, I must have missed 90 minutes.


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> It is funny you say that .. because when these names invaded..the first people they killed and subjugated were yours.. even so much that now you consider yourself as a part of them.


 
That is false, they did not kill anyone, they ruled as just kings, and the Sufi's converted the people to Islam. 






Watch this beautiful Sufi composition, this and others like this - encouraged Million's of Indus people to convert, including my Jatt Clan.


----------



## blackops

Rafi said:


> Don't forget Babur, Timur, Ghaznavi, Ghauri and a thousand years of rule by us over you.


 
then dont forget how they were burnt alive by this lady

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> Gandh&#257;ra (Sanskrit and Hindi: &#2327;&#2344;&#2381;&#2343;&#2366;&#2352;, Punjabi: &#1711;&#1606;&#1583;&#1726;&#1575;&#1585;&#1729; , Pashto: &#1707;&#1606;&#1583;&#1607;&#1575;&#1585;&#1575;, Urdu: &#1711;&#1606;&#1583;&#1726;&#1575;&#1585;&#1575;, Gand&#7717;&#257;r&#257;; also known as &#1608;&#1740;&#1607;&#1740;&#1606;&#1583; Waihind in Persian)[citation needed] is the name of an ancient kingdom (Mahajanapada), located in northern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan. Gandhara was located mainly in the vale of Peshawar, the Potohar plateau (see Taxila) and on the Kabul River. Its main cities were Purushapura (modern Peshawar), literally meaning City of Man[1] and Takshashila (modern Taxila).[2]
> 
> The Greek Gandhara Civlization was an exclusively Pakistani and Afghan one, they also belong to us.


 
So Greeks Gandharas were indeed Pakistanis..but why not Monglos they also almost exclusively ruled in your part of the subcontinent?


----------



## Rafi

What was she one of the many Princesses given to conquerors as concubine's.


----------



## ares

Windjammer said:


> What, did they invade Pakistan. ???
> Damn, I must have missed 90 minutes.


 
See I told you have almost forgotten your history ..you don't even know that all these rulers came as invaders and Hindu Kingdoms based in Pakistani were the first to invaded and converted.


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> So Greeks Gandharas were indeed Pakistanis..but why not Monglos they also almost exclusively ruled in your part of the subcontinent?


 
The Mongol's that stayed and lived and died there, and have their descendant's in Pakistan are certainly Pakistani


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> See I told you have almost forgotten your history ..you don't even know that all these rulers came as invaders and Hindu Kingdoms based in Pakistani were the first to invaded and converted.


 
The kingdom's were converted by Sufi's and Pakistan was largely Buddhist as the name for idol to this day in the area comes from the word Budd.


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> That is false, they did not kill anyone, they ruled as just kings, and the Sufi's converted the people to Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this beautiful Sufi composition, this and others like this - encouraged Million's of Indus people to convert, including my Jatt Clan.


 
Really don't you know.. how many millions Taimur the lame murdered?


----------



## Rafi

blackops said:


> then dont forget how they were burnt alive by this lady


 
Is she 1,000 years old, that she managed to burn Babur and Ghazanavi -


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> The Mongol's that stayed and lived and died there, and have their descendant's in Pakistan are certainly Pakistani


 
But why not their ruler Genghis Khan..after all Taimur the lame never lived and died in Pakistan..but you still consider him Pakistani?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> Really don't you know.. how many millions Taimur the lame murdered?


 
Timur was a man of his time, it is useless to equate a medieval person, from the enlightened 21st Century, he killed people who resisted him, city's that surrendered were treated well.

---------- Post added at 01:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 AM ----------




Rafi said:


> The Mongol's that stayed and lived and died there, and have their descendant's in Pakistan are certainly Pakistani


 
The ones that settled in our land's belong to us.


----------



## HinduAtheist

Rafi said:


> Of course - he belonged to the Geographical Area of Pakistan ie the Indus Valley. As I have mentioned before - my village is planning to build a monument in Jhelum to Porus, with a large Pakistani Flag.


 
Right  Porus belonged to what is *Modern day pakistan* However anything beyond the Indus was called "India" *before partition*


Indian Subcontinent  ring a bell? That includes... India, pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc... 
Hence Colombus' travel to find India

*The English term is from Greek &#7992;&#957;&#948;&#943;&#945; (Indía), via Latin India. Iindía in Byzantine (Koine Greek) ethnography denotes the region beyond the Indus (&#7992;&#957;&#948;&#972;&#962 river, since Herodotus (5th century BC) &#7969; &#7992;&#957;&#948;&#953;&#954;&#942; &#967;&#974;&#961;&#951;, h&#275; Indik&#275; ch&#333;r&#275;; "Indian land", &#7992;&#957;&#948;&#972;&#962;, Indos, "an Indian", from Avestan Hindu&#353; (referring to Sindh, and listed as a conquered territory by Darius I in the Persepolis terrace inscription). The name is derived ultimately from Sindhu, the Sanskrit name of the river, but also meaning "river" generically. Latin India is used by Lucian (2nd century).

The name India was known in Old English, and was used in King Alfred's translation of Orosius. In Middle English, the name was, under French influence, replaced by Ynde or Inde, which entered Early Modern English as Indie. The name India then came back to English usage from the 17th century onwards, and may be due to the influence of Latin, or Spanish or Portuguese.

Sanskrit indu "drop (of Soma)", also a term for the Moon, is unrelated, but has sometimes been erroneously connected, listed by, among others, Colonel James Todd in his Annals of Rajputana. Todd describes ancient India as under control of tribes claiming descent from the Moon, or "Indu" (referring to Chandravanshi Rajputs)*

Tenjiku (&#22825;&#31482;?) (meaning "center of heaven") is the obsolete Japanese word for ancient India.


_Five Indies Xuanzang c.650_ The circumference of &#20116;&#21360; (Modern Chinese: W&#468; Yìn, the Five Indies) is about 90,000 li; on three sides it is bounded by a great sea; on the north it is backed by snowy mountains. It is wide at the north and narrow at the south; its figure is that of a half-moon."

*Indoi, Indou c. 140 Arrian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia* *The boundary of the land of India towards the north is Mount Taurus. It is not still called Taurus in this land; but Taurus begins from the sea over against Pamphylia and Lycia and Cilicia; and reaches as far as the Eastern Ocean, running right across Asia. But the mountain has different names in different places; in one, Parapamisus, in another Hemodus; elsewhere it is called Imaon, and perhaps has all sorts of other names; but the Macedonians who fought with Alexander called it Caucasus; another Caucasus, that is, not the Scythian; so that the story ran that Alexander came even to the far side of the Caucasus. The western part of India is bounded by the river Indus right down to the ocean, where the river runs out by two mouths, not joined together as are the five mouths of the Ister; but like those of the Nile, by which the Egyptian delta is formed; thus also the Indian delta is formed by the river Indus, not less than the Egyptian; and this in the Indian tongue is called Pattala. Towards the south this ocean bounds the land of India, and eastward the sea itself is the boundary. The southern part near Pattala and the mouths of the Indus were surveyed by Alexander and Macedonians, and many Greeks; as for the eastern part, Alexander did not traverse this beyond the river Hyphasis. A few historians have described the parts which are this side of the Ganges and where are the mouths of the Ganges and the city of Palimbothra, the greatest Indian city on the Ganges. (...) The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name; each of these is greater than the Nile of Egypt and the Scythian Ister, even were these put together; my own idea is that even the Acesines is greater than the Ister and the Nile, where the Acesines having taken in the Hydaspes, Hydraotes, and Hyphasis, runs into the Indus, so that its breadth there becomes thirty stades. Possibly also other greater rivers run through the land of India."*


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> Timur was a man of his time, it is useless to equate a medieval person, from the enlightened 21st Century, he killed people who resisted him, city's that surrendered were treated well.
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> The ones that settled in our land's belong to us.


 
*My question remains why Taimur is a Pakistani and Geghis is not?*


----------



## blackops

Rafi said:


> Is she 1,000 years old, that she managed to burn Babur and Ghazanavi -


 
LOL ASK the dead soldier who died while trying to get her land she was the bravest woman of gond dynasty no muslim ruler was able to conquer her either there hands were choped of or they were burnt alive


----------



## Rafi

There were two civilizations that unfortunately get lumped together, the Indus based and the Ganges based, the Ganges based is yours and the Indus based is ours, india is not and has never been a nation. It was a geographic term, like middle east.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## blackops

Rafi said:


> Is she 1,000 years old, that she managed to burn Babur and Ghazanavi -


 
and yeah one more thing she was the daughter of Vidyadhar who repulsed the muslim attacks of Mahmud Ghaznavi.


----------



## Rafi

blackops said:


> LOL ASK the dead soldier who died while trying to get her land she was the bravest woman of gond dynasty no muslim ruler was able to conquer her either there hands were choped of or they were burnt alive


 
She was the exception rather the rule.

---------- Post added at 01:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 AM ----------




blackops said:


> and yeah one more thing she was the daughter of Vidyadhar who repulsed the muslim attacks of Mahmud Ghaznavi.


 
Nothing to do with us, that is your history, our's is the Indus Valley.


----------



## Windjammer

Guys, aren't we drifting a little.
Who came, conquered, converted, claimed or collapsed doesn't matter in today's scenario.
What counts is who climbed contested and conquested in today's game. 
Thanks.


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> There were two civilizations that unfortunately get lumped together, the Indus based and the Ganges based, the Ganges based is yours and the Indus based is ours, india is not and has never been a nation. It was a geographic term, like middle east.


 
Tell that to Asoka or Akbar or even Britishers.
PS: you din't answer my query in the previous post.


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> Tell that to Asoka or Akbar or even Britishers.
> PS: you din't answer my query in the previous post.


 
Next time I meet them in the pub, will ask them. Regarding your query anybody who has lived on our soil belong's to us, hope that answers your question.


----------



## HinduAtheist

Rafi said:


> She was the exception rather the rule.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with us, that is your history, our's is the Indus Valley.


 
The Indus Valley Civilization is pretty much linked with Punjabis (both India and pakistan), Haryana, Delhi, Sindh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, etc... 

There was no India-pakistan boundries some 100 + years ago.. everything that included *Modern Day* India, pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka was called the *Indian Subcontinent*


----------



## Rafi

HinduAtheist said:


> The Indus Valley Civilization is pretty much linked with Punjabis (both India and pakistan), Haryana, Delhi, Sindh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, etc...
> 
> There was no India-pakistan boundries some 100 + years ago.. everything that included *Modern Day* India, pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka was called the *Indian Subcontinent*


 
More than 74% of Punjabi's are Muslim Pakistani's.


----------



## HinduAtheist

Rafi said:


> Next time I meet them in the pub, will ask them. Regarding your query anybody who has lived on our soil belong's to us, hope that answers your question.


 
Muhammad Iqbal lived in our soil and even died before partition however your national poet is an Indian 

---------- Post added at 03:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------




Rafi said:


> More than 74% of Punjabi's are Muslim Pakistani's.


 
Congrats that's not relevant to anything I was talking about though


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> Next time I meet them in the pub, will ask them. Regarding your query anybody who has lived on our soil belong's to us, hope that answers your question.


 
But he never lived on your soil..he lived in Delhi ..that too for a very brief period of time..so why is he a pakistani?


----------



## Rafi

HinduAtheist said:


> The Indus Valley Civilization is pretty much linked with Punjabis (both India and pakistan), Haryana, Delhi, Sindh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, etc...
> 
> There was no India-pakistan boundries some 100 + years ago.. everything that included *Modern Day* India, pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka was called the *Indian Subcontinent*


 
india is a geographical term, there is too much difference in culture, religion from region to region for india to be a single country. Partition proved that, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

HinduAtheist said:


> Muhammad Iqbal lived in our soil and even died before partition however your national poet is an Indian
> 
> He was the father of the two nation theory, and a citizen of the British Empire and the King Emperor and not a indian.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats that's not relevant to anything I was talking about though


 
Thank's mate - indian Punjabi's are just 3% of your population.


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> But he never lived on your soil..he lived in Delhi ..that too for a very brief period of time..so why is he a pakistani?


 
You have answered your own question, well done son.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HinduAtheist

ares said:


> But he never lived on your soil..he lived in Delhi ..that too for a very brief period of time..so why is he a pakistani?


 
Same goes for Muhammad Iqbal who died before pakistan was created, Tipu Sultan*Birth place Devanahalli* *Place of death Srirangapattana* whom pakistanis have named a missile from an Indian ruler.


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> You have answered your own question, well done son.


 
What now even Delhi is a part of pakistan?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

india as a nation state has not existed till August of 1947.


----------



## HinduAtheist

ares said:


> What now even Delhi is a part of pakistan?


 
 I was just about to say that..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

HinduAtheist said:


> Same goes for Muhammad Iqbal who died before pakistan was created, Tipu Sultan*Birth place Devanahalli* *Place of death Srirangapattana* whom pakistanis have named a missile from an Indian ruler.


 
The question why india has not named it's ships or missiles after Tipu, who we claim because of Islam.


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> india as a nation state has not existed till August of 1947.


 
And Pakistan did??..considering you are calling all these guys as Pakistanis.


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> What now even Delhi is a part of pakistan?


 
He came through land's that he helped become Muslim, by allowing Sufi Missionaries to preach the *"Good Word"*


----------



## HinduAtheist

Rafi said:


> The question why india has not named it's ships or missiles after Tipu, who we claim because of Islam.


 
Ahh that explains everything. Now all muslims in India are considered pakistanis?


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> And Pakistan did??..considering you are calling all these guys as Pakistanis.


 
The Indus Valley Civilization is a cohesive civilization it's Ancient Pakistan


----------



## StingRoy

ares said:


> And Pakistan did??..considering you are calling all these guys as Pakistanis.


 
Oh you didn't know that? 
Probably because the Hindus and their White masters never spread the word that a Pakistan was there all along since the Indus Valley days. 

EDIT: See above ^^ ... I told you

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

HinduAtheist said:


> Ahh that explains everything. Now all muslims in India are considered pakistanis?


 
Pakistan was created on the basis of religion same as the Jewish state.


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> He came through land's that he helped become Muslim, by allowing Sufi Missionaries to preach the *"Good Word"*


 
I dout that ..all he did was raped , pillage, plunder and murder..there was Sufi angle to him.


----------



## Rafi

StingRoy said:


> Oh you didn't know that?
> Probably because the Hindus and their White masters never spread the word that a Pakistan was there all along since the Indus Valley days.
> 
> EDIT: See above... I told you


 
Correct kid, I have schooled you well, just needs a prompt from me, to revive your memory. 

aut viam inveniam aut faciam


----------



## Paan Singh

Rafi said:


> india as a nation state has not existed till August of 1947.


 
and u r saying,indus as part of ancient pakistan
are u clear or not???


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> I dout that ..all he did was raped , pillage, plunder and murder..there was Sufi angle to him.


 
He was a man of his times, like I said, you can't judge people from hundreds of years ago to today, regarding the Sufi they came with the Warrior's and spread the Good Word.


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> The Indus Valley Civilization is a cohesive civilization it's Ancient Pakistan


 
Chohesive with what? ..Turkish Delhi based sultanates, Agra based Mughals..or Delhi based British?


----------



## StingRoy

Rafi said:


> Correct kid, I have schooled you well, just needs a prompt from me, to revive your memory.
> 
> aut viam inveniam aut faciam



You might have missed or skipped some classes on showing respect to elders, but considering this is an internet forum, I shall excuse you.


----------



## Rafi

Prism said:


> and u r saying,indus as part of ancient pakistan
> are u clear or not???


 
Of course.






Yei Saada Virsa ai, Asa nu Musalman bannanan da. 

---------- Post added at 02:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:04 AM ----------




ares said:


> Chohesive with what? ..Turkish Delhi based sultanates, Agra based Mughals..or Delhi based British?


 
*Islamic Civilization. *

---------- Post added at 02:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 AM ----------




StingRoy said:


> You might have missed or skipped some classes on showing respect to elders, but considering this is an intern forum, I shall excuse you.


 
*bis pueri senes *


----------



## Paan Singh

Rafi said:


> Of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yei Saada Virsa ai, Asa nu Musalman bannanan da.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 02:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:04 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> *Islamic Civilization. *


 
there was no pakistan b4 47,but there was bharat


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> The Indus Valley Civilization is a cohesive civilization it's Ancient Pakistan


 
Are you one of those, who believes that Pakistan was established since Mohd Bin Qasim's invasion..because word around is, that is what is written in your textbooks.


----------



## Rafi

Prism said:


> there was no pakistan b4 47,but there was bharat


 
bharat does not refer to the Indus Valley, and it's cohesive civilization

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> Are you one of those, who believes that Pakistan was established since Mohd Bin Qasim's invasion..because word around is, that is what is written in your textbooks.


 
Pakistan has been around in one form or another, even when they were no human's. 

*Pakicetus*







*Pakicetus is a genus of extinct terrestrial carnivorous mammal of the family Pakicetidae which was endemic to Pakistan from the Eocene (55.8 ± 0.2&#8212;40 ± 0.1 Ma). Pakicetus existed for approximately 15.8 million years.[1] Many paleontologists regard it as a close relative to the direct ancestors of modern day whales.*

Pakicetus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Rafi

bis vincit qui se vincit in victoria  

Pakistan nulli secundus

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> Pakistan has been around in one form or another, even when they were no human's.
> 
> *Pakicetus*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pakicetus is a genus of extinct terrestrial carnivorous mammal of the family Pakicetidae which was endemic to Pakistan from the Eocene (55.8 ± 0.2&#8212;40 ± 0.1 Ma). Pakicetus existed for approximately 15.8 million years.[1] Many paleontologists regard it as a close relative to the direct ancestors of modern day whales.*
> 
> Pakicetus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 
So Pakistan must be oldest nation on the face of the Earth..considering it existed 16 million years ago and pakiscetus resided in it?


----------



## Rafi

Pakicetus when it was discovered - there was a strong indian attempt to name it after india, but Pakistani paleontologists successfully fought and succeeded in naming this animal after Pakistan.


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> Pakicetus when it was discovered - there was a strong indian attempt to name it after india, but Pakistani paleontologists successfully fought and succeeded in naming this animal after Pakistan.


 
So conclusion is Pakistan was established 16million yrs ago and India wasn't up untill 1947?


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> So Pakistan must be oldest nation on the face of the Earth..considering it existed 16 million years ago and pakiscetus resided in it?


 
It is common to name ancient animal's after the ancient landmass they are discovered in, by the way Pakicetus is very special as Pakistani and foreign paleontologists have discovered that this animal is the ancestor of all whales and dolphin's extinct and around today.


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> So does that mean Pakistan was established 16million yrs ago and India wasn't up untill 1947?


 
Pakistan is a nation, whereas india is a term for a geographic area, such as middle east, or south east asia, it is not a single cohesive civilization.


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> It is common to name ancient animal's after the ancient landmass they are discovered in, by the way Pakicetus is very special as Pakistani and foreign paleontologists have discovered that this animal is the ancestor of all whales and dolphin's extinct and around today.


 
What it has to do Pakistani nation?..by this logic ..Indian ocean has known as Indian ocean for centuries ..but still you argue India came into existence in 1947.


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> What it has to do Pakistani nation?..by this logic ..Indian ocean has known as Indian ocean for centuries ..but still you argue India came into existence in 1947.


 
The term indian ocean is named after the Indus Valley, which is Pakistan - *the nation state india did not exist before 1947. *


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> What it has to do Pakistani nation?..by this logic ..Indian ocean has known as Indian ocean for centuries ..but still you argue India came into existence in 1947.


 
Was discovered in the land of Pakistan, and therefore is named after that country. The international science community decided it belonged to us, and therefore named it after this ancient landmass. If you disagree take it up with them. But know this Pakistani palaeontologists fought and won the battle to have it named after Pakistan.


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> Pakistan is a nation, whereas india is a term for a geographic area, such as middle east, or south east asia, it is not a single cohesive civilization.


 
I am unable to undertand your logic..present day Pakistan which was some times part of Hindu kingdoms, sometimes Greeks, Afghans, Mughals, Mongols or british is a cohesive nation but India is geographic entity.

No wonder you people turnout such..it is what you are taught in schools ..its clearly the *Murder of history in Pakistan. *


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> I am unable to undertand your logic..present day Pakistan which was some times part of Hindu kingdoms, sometimes Greeks, Afghans, Mughals, Mongols or british is a cohesive nation but India is geographic entity.
> 
> No wonder you people turnout such..it is what you are taught in schools ..its clearly the *Murder of history in Pakistan. *


 
Najam Sethi does not have any credibility, but as a person living in a democracy with a free press, is allowed to speak his mind, even if it is total garbage, I'm sure you have similar people who sink similar assertions about your nationhood. 

Try again son.


----------



## Rafi

*The murder of history.* Is in india, were you are taught, that this landmass had a mono culture or a single language to unite the myriad people's and ethnicities of the region.


----------



## Rafi

Rafi said:


> *The murder of history.* Is in india, were you are taught, that this landmass had a mono culture or a single language to unite the myriad people's and ethnicities of the region.


 
Nice to see, indian's watch our television channels and our news talk show's so religiously, does explain the massive inferiority complex inherent in the majority of indian's when it comes to Pakistan.


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> *Najam Sethi does not have any credibility,* but as a person living in a democracy with a free press, is allowed to speak his mind, even if it is total garbage, I'm sure you have similar people who sink similar assertions about your nationhood.
> 
> Try again son.


 
And you do??

I am sure this exactly the kind of brainwahing, you have been brought up upon..no wonder your sense of history is so messed up..but can't blame you..thats is what is written in your text books.

PS: don't use patronizing tone with me!!


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> *The murder of history.* Is in india, were you are taught, that this landmass had a mono culture or a single language to unite the myriad people's and ethnicities of the region.


 
You don't know your own history..you better not get into guessing our's cause that gonna mess you even more.
Read some neutral, international historians..*it help you bring you on even keel.*


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> And you do??
> 
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> I am sure this exactly the kind of brainwahing, you have been brought up upon..no wonder your sense of history is so messed up..but can't blame you..thats is what is written in your text books.
> 
> What us brainwahing and what does it have to do with my sense of history. lol
> 
> PS: don't use patronizing tone with me!!


 
Meant it - as a term of endearment, don't get so emotional, maybe it's that time of the.........


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> Meant it - as a term of endearment, don't get so emotional, maybe it's that time of the.........


 
I see you have no sane response.

but do tell did you read this version of history in your school?


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> You don't know your own history..you better not get into guessing our's cause that gonna mess you even more.
> Read some neutral, international historians..*it help you bring you on even keel.*


 
Keel, huh - you are bringing nautical terms into a discussion on history, what about ahoy, or the jolly roger.


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> I see you have no sane response.
> 
> but do tell did you read this version of history in your school?


 
I actually read it in a indian school, on one of my many travels, in one of your teeming cities.


----------



## ares

Rafi said:


> I actually read it in a indian school, on one of my many travels, in one of your teeming cities.


 
I guess you are out of sensible answers and have gone in to nincompoop mode...but anyways it hilarious while it lasted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

ares said:


> I guess you are out of sensible answers and have gone in to nincompoop mode...but anyways it hilarious while it lasted.


 
Why are indian people and schools not sensible, and talking about poop on an defense forum is hardly appropriate is it, hilarity does come easily to one with a simple nature, as I have heard.


----------



## John Doe

Windjammer said:


> Trust me a no body like you will'.........BTW, how is the affair with..... err Gondola tanks.



Can somebody please translate this? Please? 

I don't know if this person is insulting himself or reminding everyone to check his fraud claims?

By the way, we are still waiting for your admission that you lied about seeing the article. Make it quick. 



> Damn, I must have missed 90 minutes



Trying to use English idioms now, are we? Well, the correct phrase is '60 minutes' referring to a US TV show. Have you ever seen a TV news show that is 90 minutes long, genius? Crawl, walk, run. Thats how children learn everything, even languages.

How much damage have you done to the image of the PAF and the pilot on your avatar? What's his name, Paracha, right? I bet he would be so embarrassed at being dragged through the mud by your comments. But then you also ran away (as usual) when I asked you whether you understand the concept of Izzat...... 

At least show guts online, if not in real life. I can't do anything physical to you, you ARE hiding behind a monitor, no?

Now enough beating around the bush, I asked you 4 times already, where is the source of your claim. Put up or crawl back.


----------



## John Doe

Rafi said:


> Why are indian people and schools not sensible, and talking about poop on an defense forum is hardly appropriate is it, hilarity does come easily to one with a simple nature, as I have heard.


 
Rafi, maybe your English teacher disliked you and gave you little attention, but I won't treat you that way

Here , read and improve yourself. Dont correct others , when your education is at fault:

nin·com·poop/&#712;nink&#601;m&#716;po&#862;op/
Noun: A foolish or stupid person

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

John Doe said:


> Can somebody please translate this? Please?
> 
> I don't know if this person is insulting himself or reminding everyone to check his fraud claims?
> 
> By the way, we are still waiting for your admission that you lied about seeing the article. Make it quick.
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to use English idioms now, are we? Well, the correct phrase is '60 minutes' referring to a US TV show. Have you ever seen a TV news show that is 90 minutes long, genius? Crawl, walk, run. Thats how children learn everything, even languages.
> 
> How much damage have you done to the image of the PAF and the pilot on your avatar? What's his name, Paracha, right? I bet he would be so embarrassed at being dragged through the mud by your comments. But then you also ran away (as usual) when I asked you whether you understand the concept of Izzat......
> 
> At least show guts online, if not in real life. I can't do anything physical to you, you ARE hiding behind a monitor, no?
> 
> Now enough beating around the bush, I asked you 4 times already, where is the source of your claim. Put up or crawl back.


 
Mr doe - it seems as if Mr Jammer has stolen your girlfriend or something, calm down.


----------



## Rafi

John Doe said:


> Rafi, maybe your English teacher disliked you and gave you little attention, but I won't treat you that way
> 
> Here , read and improve yourself. Dont correct others , when your education is at fault:
> 
> nin·com·poop/&#712;nink&#601;m&#716;po&#862;op/
> Noun: A foolish or stupid person


 
So you are one of those poor English teacher's that are employed by rich successful people to impart grammar on the little darling's.


----------



## John Doe

Very basic error here: There is a difference between 'your' and 'you are'.

Why did your English teacher hate you so? Were the naughtiest boy / girl in your Madrassa? You are in luck, I will make you speak better English than Windjammer in 25 years flat !!! Sign up now!

Soon you will be able to come up with your own replies, instead of pasting youtube videos.....


----------



## Rafi

John Doe said:


> Very basic error here: There is a difference between 'your' and 'you are'.
> 
> Why did your English teacher hate you so? Were the naughtiest boy / girl in your Madrassa? You are in luck, I will make you speak better English than Windjammer in 25 years flat !!! Sign up now!
> 
> Soon you will be able to come up with your own replies, instead of pasting youtube videos.....


 
So you are a English teacher, by the bitterness in your tone, you must have been on the receiving end of many a stern talking to. Don't worry mate, just be happy, try to get out more, may be you will meet the one special girl or boy (what ever's your poison) that will complete you, and your bitter, lonely day's will come to an end.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mech

Rafi said:


> So you are a English teacher, by the bitterness in your tone, you must have been on the receiving end of many a stern talking to. Don't worry mate, just be happy, try to get out more, may be you will meet the one special girl or boy *(what ever's your poison*) that will complete you, and your bitter, lonely *day's *will come to an end.


 
so...uhh....spot the error. Anyone game?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Rafi

Mech said:


> so...uhh....spot the error. Anyone game?


 
People with low self esteem, would let something like that bother them, then again I'm not an indian.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bossman

Karthic Sri said:


> Why dont you englighten your experience on how you came to decide that "Southern Hindus" are indecent and less self-respecting . BTW when you ppl were nomads hunting for food we were growing our own grains,building cities and wearing clothes made of silk. So it is but natural we (South Indians) have a condescending attitude towards you.
> 
> - A Southern Indian Hindu


 
Under the long Muslim rule in northern Indian some of the more deviant Hindu pratices were eliminated or controlled but in the South they continue to be practised even today. For example there is no or little prevalence of Kama Sutra in Northern Indian but it is displayed proudly in Southern Hindu temples. Some of the reliefs on these temples show unmentionable acts, which go beyond human relationships. The practise of Devdasi which is nothing but instutionalised prostitution under the guise of religion is still very prevalent in the South. The impact of all this deviant behaviour is that Tamil Nadu is the center of India's growing **** industry. The worse and totally unexcusable thing is that this industry give its so called actresses Muslim sounding names. This is unforgivable. This is such one example and there are many many more.


----------



## Bossman

Now to more serious matters. The question being debated is what is India and who is a Pakistani. The answer is simple. It was Muslims rulers, particularly the Mughals, who united India in the first place. This India was bigger than todays India as it include Afghanistan and the whole of Bengal and even parts of Deccan. India never existed as single unit before that. The British, more or less continued with this geographical unit minus Afghanistan. This is a historical fact and nobody can deny it. So Indians have to be thankful to it Muslims rulers for creating it. 

The second question is who is a Pakistani. The answer is very simple and has two parts. First anyone who belongs to and is born in the region which is now Pakistan irrespective of religion is a Pakistani as long as they accept the state of Pakistan. I am sure Indian poster on this site don't know about pushto speaking Sikhs or Baluchi speaking hindus. I know we have issues but on the whole the relationship between communities on a personal level is very good. What you hear in the media are political acts perpetuated by vested intersts both domestic and foreign. Secondly, Pakistan is an idelogical state created for Muslims of the Indian sub continent so anyone who believes in that idealogy is a Pakistani. So yes, by this defination, Ghaznavi, Babur, Tipu, Iqbal and millions others like them are all Pakistanis. If any of them were alive today they would be Pakistanis and not Indians. I have known South African Muslims of Indian Gujrati origin who have never set foot on India let alone Pakistan who identify themselves with Pakistan. We have third generation childern of immigrants on this forum who have lived in the West all their lives becuase they identify with Pakistan. You can take a person out of Pakistan but you cannot take Pakistan out of them. I know we are going through a bad patch these days, we have our own internal leaderships issues, there are a lot of external forces who are hoping, wishing and working to ensure that Pakistan simply disapears from the face of the Earth, but the underlying concept of Pakistan remains strong as ever and infact it is becoming more viable by the day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## toxic_pus

Bossman said:


> Now to more serious matters. The question being debated is what is India and who is a Pakistani. The answer is simple. It was Muslims rulers, particularly the Mughals, who united India in the first place. This India was bigger than todays India as it include Afghanistan and the whole of Bengal and even parts of Deccan. India never existed as single unit before that. The British, more or less continued with this geographical unit minus Afghanistan. This is a historical fact and nobody can deny it. So Indians have to be thankful to it Muslims rulers for creating it.
> 
> The second question is who is a Pakistani. The answer is very simple and has two parts. First anyone who belongs to and is born in the region which is now Pakistan irrespective of religion is a Pakistani as long as they accept the state of Pakistan. I am sure Indian poster on this site don't know about pushto speaking Sikhs or Baluchi speaking hindus. I know we have issues but on the whole the relationship between communities on a personal level is very good. What you hear in the media are political acts perpetuated by vested intersts both domestic and foreign. Secondly, Pakistan is an idelogical state created for Muslims of the Indian sub continent so anyone who believes in that idealogy is a Pakistani. So yes, by this defination, Ghaznavi, Babur, Tipu, Iqbal and millions others like them are all Pakistanis. If any of them were alive today they would be Pakistanis and not Indians. I have known South African Muslims of Indian Gujrati origin who have never set foot on India let alone Pakistan who identify themselves with Pakistan. We have third generation childern of immigrants on this forum who have lived in the West all their lives becuase they identify with Pakistan. You can take a person out of Pakistan but you cannot take Pakistan out of them. I know we are going through a bad patch these days, we have our own internal leaderships issues, there are a lot of external forces who are hoping, wishing and working to ensure that Pakistan simply disapears from the face of the Earth, but the underlying concept of Pakistan remains strong as ever and infact it is becoming more viable by the day.


 
Ever though of a career in creative writing? You seem to have knack for writing fiction. I know I will buy, if you write.


----------



## notorious_eagle

toxic_pus said:


> Ever though of a career in creative writing? You seem to have knack for writing fiction. I know I will buy, if you write.


 
Instead of writing a useless post like that, how about you refute what he said. I find nothing wrong with what Bossman has written, its all factual and you are more than welcome to refute it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## toxic_pus

notorious_eagle said:


> Instead of writing a useless post like that, how about you refute what he said. I find nothing wrong with what Bossman has written, its all factual and you are more than welcome to refute it.


These have been refuted many many times right on this forum. No need to refute these over and over again.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------

