Truth/Facts About Pakistani Claim Over Siachen Glacier

[VCheng]

Are you smoking something, sir?

The CFL/LoC was demarcated on ground by both the forces. The BPs are recorded and present on ground, details of which are held by both sides. i am sorry if you didnt get a memo of the same from the either side.

The only major difference between LoC and international border is that the former is violable.

So if the LoC is "violable" then what is the problem? Both India and Pakistan raced to grab whatever they could in the undemarcated area. Claiming any side to be in the right or not cannot be determined in such a case.

CFL upto NJ 9842 was demarcated in detail. Detail maps are available at UN. Mind you, this map was the basis for demarcating LoC during 1972. LoC is CFL with minor adjustments.

So what is the exact wording in this official UN record that clarifies the status of NJ9842 as the terminus or beyond?

 

[VCheng]

Nothing.
NJ 9842, as you may have noticed is not mentioned in the body text of the Agreement. It is a mere mark on the map as the last delimited point.

That is an important distinction. Whether NJ9842 was declared a terminus or not, and whether the CFL was supposed to go north or not from thereon, as described in the official UN record, is key. This needs a primary source verification given its importance. Without it, it is all hot air from both sides.

 

[Xeric]

So, although Part B/2(a)/III(d) of Karachi Agreement, 1949, states that CFL, shall run 'north to the glaciers', from 'Khor' it is still irrelevant simply because troops of either countries were not stationed there at the time of Agreement.

Thankyou genius for exactly repeating what the slides have already said:

The only logical reason why area beyond NJ-9842 was neither delineated / demarcated nor even ref to as CFL or LOC at any place in the docus of Karachi and Simla Agreements is because terms Cease Fire Line (CFL) or Line of Con (LOC) are only relevant to those areas where the tps of either side are depl on that line. Termination of CFL and LOC both at NJ-9842 is also documented acceptance of the fact by both India and Pakistan that there were no troops deployed in the area north ofNJ-9842 by either side​

and

Both Karachi and Simla Agreements clearly indicate NJ-9842 as the terminal pt of CFL and LOC and nothing is mentioned for the area beyond this pt because there was no mil presence of either side north of this pt. Therefore to restore the sanctity of both Karachi and Simla Agreements presently occupied posns in Siachen area have to be vacated by both sides thereby demilitarizing the area.​

Hence there was no reason for Op Meghdoot and all this Indian 'claim' over the glacier is nothing but a toxic pus:

Slide13 by Khakiate, on Flickr

Slide14 by Khakiate, on Flickr

And Pakistanis wonder why they loose almost all international legal cases against India.

 

[toxic_pus]

That is an important distinction. Whether NJ9842 was declared a terminus or not, and whether the CFL was supposed to go north or not from thereon, as described in the official UN record, is key. This needs a primary source verification given its importance. Without it, it is all hot air from both sides.

Correct.

NJ 9842 is not the terminus. It was the last point that was demarcated. The body text, however is clear that the CFL will not terminate at Khor, north of which is NJ 9842, but continue northward. It is this 'northward' portion that was not demarcated on ground.

 

[Xeric]

There, fixed it for you.

Precisely: Operation Meghdoot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kompromat]

@Manticore @Chak Bamu

Pls clean this up and keep it under your watch. Cheers

 

[toxic_pus]

Thankyou genius for exactly repeating what the slides have already said:

[-]

Hence there was no reason for Op Meghdoot and all this Indian 'claim' over the glacier is nothing but a toxic pus:

Except that our physical occupation prevented you from leaving us with a fait accompli.

Precisely: Operation Meghdoot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was no violation of LoC

 

[Xeric]

Correct.

NJ 9842 is not the terminus. It was the last point that was demarcated. The body text, however is clear that the CFL will not terminate at Khor, north of which is NJ 9842, but continue northward. It is this 'northward' portion that was not demarcated on ground.

Wrong!

i am amused by your ignorance and stubbornness.

Here's why:

KARACHI AGREEMENT

Chapter 1. In Sec 1 (which describes the Karachi Agreement and its interpretation), Sub Sec II, Sub Sub Sec B describes the gen alignment of CFL in para 2(d), defining the CFL from Khor to NJ - 9842 by fol words, “Khor, thence North to the glaciers”​

Which is further explained on the following map:

Slide7 by Khakiate, on Flickr



Further:

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

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

Slide9 by Khakiate, on Flickr


Therefore:

Therefore, as per the Karachi Agreement NJ-9842 is the terminal pt of CFL. Hence any ref / mention of delineation / demarcation beyond NJ-9842 whether “NORTH” or “NORTHWARDS” is neither correct nor relevant​

Moreover, the Simla Agreement further explains the issue:

SIMLA AGREEMENT
In description of the northern most part of the LOC, the Simla Agreement at Page 43 states, “ ----- thence northwards to NJ – 844380, thence SE to a pt on bdry at NJ-973330, thence along the bdry line to NJ-980420”​

Which if again plotted on a map and shown to someone who can actually read maps would show the CFL's alignment as follows:

Slide12 by Khakiate, on Flickr


Hence, you can now stop acting stupid.

 

[VCheng]

Correct.

NJ 9842 is not the terminus. It was the last point that was demarcated. The body text, however is clear that the CFL will not terminate at Khor, north of which is NJ 9842, but continue northward. It is this 'northward' portion that was not demarcated on ground.

What you say can only be regarded as an unproven counter claim to what @Xeric has claimed for the Pakistan side, unless either side's position can be verified against the official UN record of the detailed demarcation referred to in the text of the Cease Fire Meeting on this important point.

 

[Xeric]

What you say can only be regarded as an unproven counter claim to what @Xeric has claimed for the Pakistan side, unless either side's position can be verified against the official UN record of the detailed demarcation referred to in the text of the Cease Fire Meeting on this important point.

Everything is quite clear, only if one wants to understand. The sole purpose of posting this presentation was to nullify the following stance:

LOC beyond NJ 9842 will be extended to “North” or “Northwards”.

The slides explains this amply.

They even elaborate the statements of Karachi and Simla Agreements on simple maps, which actually require no further explanation as once plotted, they are self explanatory.

Still, i have further tried to make it easy in my post # 26, i am sure a person of your caliber will take note and not fall for the dude who is deliberately trying to confuse the issue as he has been caught with his hands inside the cookie jar.

 

[VCheng]

Everything is clear, only of one wants to understand, the sole purpose of posting this presentation was to nullify the following stance:
LOC beyond NJ 9842 will be extended to “North” or “Northwards”.

The slides explains this amply.

They even elaborate the statements of Karachi and Simla Agreements on simple maps, which actually require no further explanation as once plotted, they are self explanatory.

Still, i have further tried to make it easy in my post # 26, i am sure a person of your caliber will take note and not fall for the dude who is deliberately trying to confuse the issue as he has been caught with his hands inside the cookie jar.

Sir, I understand your points completely, but only request that you consider further fortifying your very well argued and documented position with the primary source from the UN for the detailed demarcation, if at all possible. That would be the correct and undeniably robust thing to do here, IMHO.

 

[Xeric]

Sir, I understand your points completely, but only request that you consider further fortifying your very well argued and documented position with the primary source from the UN for the detailed demarcation, if at all possible. That would be the correct and undeniably robust thing to do here, IMHO.

May be i am missing something here.

What exactly are you asking for? As mentioned earlier, the explanation of CFL/LoC are amply available in the text of Karachi and Simla Agreements which are universally accepted documents. Second, as for your query if the demarcation actually took place on ground, i have told you that it did, because both India and Pakistan were involved TOGETHER in this act of demarcation as otherwise it was not possible that one side could do it at its own without satisfying the claims of the opponent side.

Sure, the UN reps were present all the time and they are still present on both the sides of the LoC. If you happen to visit the LoC, you ay visit any military HQ and there you would find the UN observers with all their paraphernalia. Same is the case on the Indian side. Now that's a separate issue if India does not allow them access to the LoC as it claims that the area is not disputed
But we do.

Now if you are asking for the exact documents where the BP positions have been recorded, so sir, this aint America where everything is available online. Though these BP position are no secret at all.

BTW, who killed Kennedy?

 

[VCheng]

May be i am missing something here.

What exactly are you asking for? As mentioned earlier, the explanation of CFL/LoC are amply available in the text of Karachi and Simla Agreements which are universally accepted documents. Second, as for your query if the demarcation actually took place on ground, i have told you that it did, because both India and Pakistan were involved TOGETHER in this act of demarcation as otherwise it was not possible that one side could do it at its own without satisfying the claims of the opponent side.

Sure, the UN reps were present all the time and they are still present on both the sides of the LoC. If you happen to visit the LoC, you ay visit any military HQ and there you would find the UN observers with all their paraphernalia. Same is the case on the Indian side. Now that's a separate issue if India does not allow them access to the LoC as it claims that the area is not disputed
But we do.

Now if you are asking for the exact documents where the BP positions have been recorded, so sir, this aint America where everything is available online. Though these BP position are no secret at all.

BTW, who killed Kennedy?

Yes Sir, I think you are correct in saying that the detailed demarcation referred to in the Agreement must have taken place. But to prove (or disprove) the claim of either side about the meaning and status of NJ9842, this primary source verification is all-important.

Things do not have to be online. After all, important documents have existed in physical forms for hundreds of years before the invention of the Internet. Surely the key documents and multiple copies exist somewhere. Given the implications for such a costly battlefield, all I can hope is that someone with the right connections can inquire about.

 

[Xeric]

Yes Sir, I think you are correct in saying that the detailed demarcation referred to in the Agreement must have taken place. But to prove (or disprove) the claim of either side about the meaning and status of NJ9842, this primary source verification is all-important.

Things do not have to be online. After all, important documents have existed in physical forms for hundreds of years before the invention of the Internet. Surely the key documents and multiple copies exist somewhere. Given the implications for such a costly battlefield, all I can hope is that someone with the right connections can inquire about.

So you want to say that the following documents do not exist:

- Karachi Agreement

- Simla Agreement

- Papers holding record of BPs demarcating the LoC formally known as CFL countered check by India, Pakistan and the UN Observers

Right!

Now i really need that stuff you have been smoking since you started participating in this thread.

 

[VCheng]

So you want to say that the following documents do not exist:

- Karachi Agreement

- Simla Agreement

- Papers holding record of BPs demarcating the LoC formally known as CFL countered check by India, Pakistan and the UN Observers

Right!

Now i really need that stuff you have been smoking since you started participating in this thread.

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