• Sunday, January 26, 2020

A few Siachen facts and bluffs!

Discussion in 'Indian Defence Forum' started by Levina, May 24, 2015.

  1. GURU DUTT

    GURU DUTT BANNED

    Messages:
    14,366
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Ratings:
    +7 / 20,097 / -84
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    so your happy for loss of innocent lifes no wonder your nation is so confused about its own enemies & assets....rahi baat kerne ki to miya hamme jo kerna hai hum to wo ker hi rahe hain aap apni socho ;)
     
  2. SarthakGanguly

    SarthakGanguly BANNED

    Messages:
    18,420
    Joined:
    May 10, 2013
    Ratings:
    +16 / 30,452 / -9
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    It's Tipu's own letter that is preserved. :) Yeah, okay...as a Muslim you may choose to take pride in his actions.
     
  3. Shan-e-ibrahim

    Shan-e-ibrahim BANNED

    Messages:
    1,142
    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Ratings:
    +0 / 412 / -1
    Country:
    Germany
    Location:
    Pakistan
    aey rasgulla this is about Kashmir not Mysor
     
  4. SarthakGanguly

    SarthakGanguly BANNED

    Messages:
    18,420
    Joined:
    May 10, 2013
    Ratings:
    +16 / 30,452 / -9
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    LOL.
     
  5. Stephen Cohen

    Stephen Cohen BANNED

    Messages:
    8,458
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2014
    Ratings:
    +2 / 10,759 / -39
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    Dear friend

    You are a young man so you can only talk with passion

    Your passion is commendable but you also need a dose of reality

    Till today we have killed thousands of terrorists and captured several thousand Guns and grenades

    These little things dont bother us

    The FACT is that Pakistan Army cannot capture Kashmir

    SO it supports these freedom fighters / infiltrators / terrorists

    But you CANNOT DEFEAT INDIA ; no matter what you do

    Regarding Kashmir there is NOTHING that Pakistan has NOT TRIED

    Every trick has failed ; You just cannot get Kashmir
     
  6. Shan-e-ibrahim

    Shan-e-ibrahim BANNED

    Messages:
    1,142
    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Ratings:
    +0 / 412 / -1
    Country:
    Germany
    Location:
    Pakistan
    we already have azad kashmir and gilgit under our admin, you cannot get it back.
     
  7. Xeric

    Xeric PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Messages:
    8,310
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Ratings:
    +42 / 10,578 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    As being said earlier, did you actually bother to go through the slide i posted, before carryout what you think is 'research'? i guess, no!

    Here, read:

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    The fol three slides amply explains what your tiny brains have failed to register uptill now. The phrase 'thence North' have been used umpteenth times inside the Karachi Agreement-1949 (even your own 'research' shows that), but then you like to believe that the world revolves around you, which indeed is untrue.

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    Now, as for your claim that there's no page # 38 or Chapter 5. Just because something is not available online, doesnt mean it do not exist! See this:

    Capture.PNG

    As a function of commonsense, it is generally understood that when there is a One-Pager document, you dont put page number 1 on that Single page. No number on that page infact is an indication that the it's a lone page! Similarly, when there's a document that contains ONLY One Chapter, you dont number the Only Chapter as '1' (as shown in the above snapshot of the first page of Karachi Agreement-1949).

    You'd only divide a document in Chapters when there are more than One Chapters and only then you'd put Chapter numbers. You guys like to claim that there's only One Chapter in KA-1949, if that be the case, which idiot would put a Number to that Chapter (above snapshot)?

    i have yet to see a book or a document containing only ONE Chapter, Section or Volume, but still being numbered? Just because the explanation part of the Karachi Agreement is not available online, give no credence to your claims.

    Source of the slides above: Truth/Facts About Pakistani Claim Over Siachen Glacier
     
  8. Levina

    Levina BANNED

    Messages:
    15,289
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2013
    Ratings:
    +60 / 37,143 / -1
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United Arab Emirates
    Yes I did. Remember page 38???
    So stop jumping conclusions.
    I take those who resort to personal attacks as galoots with no argument to put forward. Nowhere in my thread have I attacked a nationality and a person, so you must give me a reason as to why you would resort to this kinda language?
    Apology would be a far fetched dream. And so am not expecting it.
    The words are "THENCE NORTH TO GLACIERS". Did you miss it? or did it evade you ?
    2.JPG
    To this part in your slide.........

    upload_2015-5-25_22-35-16.png


    I have already mentioned in my OP that.....

    upload_2015-5-25_22-36-26.png
    In short the karachi agreement was silent about the point beyond NJ9842
    So now, if theres a page 38 then the burden of proof is shifted on your shoulders, but then again we both have expressed the same point in 2 diff ways so I dont think this(your slide) proves anything, unless you expect me to take your words as god's words.

    Now I guess you've not read this part in my OP which talks about Shimla agreement and absence of protests from Pakistani side.

    upload_2015-5-25_22-44-43.png

    Now another fact is...

    The factual position of troops on the day of the ceasefire, i.e. January 1, 1949, was to be the basis for delineating the ceasefire line. India and Pakistan had conflicting claims. As the UN had accepted India’s legal status in Kashmir , India used the argument that no-man's land would be taken as Indian territory and got the 200 square mile Tilel Valley precisely on that basis. Pakistan desperately tried for this Valley, eventually bidding for equal share, but failed. The principle of no-man's land being India's territory was thus established and the Siachen glacier would be normally deemed as part of Indian territory using that argument.

    "This meant that the onus of proof to convince the commission of any factual position, on the date of ceasefire, in any disputed territory, rested with Pakistan. Sinha (Lt.Gen. S.K. Sinha, the only surviving member from those talks) remembered: “In the absence of any such convincing proof, and even if India had no troops on the date of ceasefire in that area, the disputed territory should automatically come under Indian control… Based on this, we obtained control of several hundred square miles of State territory.’"
    Thank you @Bang Galore

    and that link is your thread on pdf.
    Thanks!
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Xeric

    Xeric PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Messages:
    8,310
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Ratings:
    +42 / 10,578 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Read, yes. Understood, no.
    My reference to 'tiny brians' stands valid, just go through my reply ahead.

    i have said in my previous reply, the phrase 'thence North' is mentioned many times inside the KA-1949, i never disagreed with that, but then what evades you is the fact that you are unable to understand the explanation part of it which FURTHER clarifies the connotation of 'thence North' i.e. pt NJ 9842 is the TERMINAL point of the CFL. Simple. And thus the claim the CFL extended beyond NJ 9842 is a lie. Simple.


    Sir, by underlining the slide, you just recomfirmed my claim that the CFL was only UPTO NJ9842, not beyond it, and thus your claims are false.


    Correct!
    but..
    Wait! i am confused.

    Just a second ago you were hell bent to prove that Siachen is yours because the CFL extends beyond NJ 9842 'thence North-wardly' thus putting the Glacier towards your side of the CFL and you are trying to counter my point with what i am trying to say already? Wicked!


    Sure the burden of proof is with me, but what about the burden of commonsense when the following snapshot explains that there is indeed more Chapters (and thus page 38) to the 6-page Karachi Agreement available online?

    Capture.PNG


    Sir, why dont you first decide that whether you want discuss the contents of Karachi-1949 or the Simla Agreement? Everybody knows that the Simla Agreement converts the CFL into LoC and thus TEMPORARILY granting you the gains made during the war as it did grant us Azad Kashmir in 1948. The difference being that we made our gains into an independent Kashmir, but you try to include your gains as part of your own. Irrespective of that, the discussion that i am carryout in connection to Karachi Agreement-1949 relates to the CFL and NOT the LoC and that according to KA-1949, the CFL terminated at NJ9842 and thus leaving the area North of it unclaimed and NOT part of India as you people like to say by quoting the same agreement and harping 'thence North, thence North'.

    So, if you want to discuss the LoC's alignment and its effects, feel free to open a new thread, but please dont prove that you indeed have a tiny brain by mixing two agreements when the debate is related to the explanation, understating and effects of the first agreement (KA-1949).

    Let's say, tomorrow, India attacks our part of Siachen and the LAC changes further. Then, even though you could claim that all of Siachen is now under your "control" but it wont change the basic (and simple) fact that as per KA-1949, Siachen was NEVER your part at the first place!! Savvy?


    As for your second part where you say that Pakistan never protested in 1956-58 (2 x years), i ask, why the fcuk did India not protest when the International Atlases, US Geo Survey, and numerous others were showing Siachin part of Pakistan from 1947 to 1984 (for 37 x years) till you occupied it by force?

    Like i have already said above, we are discussing 1949 Karachi Agreement and the fact that it clearly says (at page 38) that Siachen was not part of India, and that any (deliberate) misinterpretation by India of KA-1949 and the subsequent aggression by her in 1984 based on that misinterpretation is just plain stupid. So, your above quoted post is just another way of you diverting attention from the real issue (the fact that Siachen was NEVER part of India) and no amount of military aggression (1984) to occupy territories will make that fact invalid!

    So, if you want to discuss the situation post 1965 or 1971, open up another thread, as i have not gone through this thread from the beginning nor did i bother reading your posts here prior to when i was tagged in this thread. i am just answering to your misinterpretation of Karachi Agreement-1949 and your claim when you wrote in this thread that the slides i have posted in another thread were just my opinion and not facts just because you could not find the page # 38 online?!

    Yes, Einstein, it does. The aim was to provide a link to the remaining slides.


    BTW, you didnt answer why the KA-1949's first chapter is numbered if it was indeed the only chapter?
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2015
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  10. OrionHunter

    OrionHunter ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    13,820
    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Ratings:
    +15 / 23,075 / -19
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    @levina why are you wasting your time arguing with this fellow, Xeric? He's clutching at straws to try and prove that North is North East!! Like trying to prove that a square is a circle! It's no use.

    The fact is that they are dead wrong in their interpretations. Period!
     
  11. Levina

    Levina BANNED

    Messages:
    15,289
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2013
    Ratings:
    +60 / 37,143 / -1
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United Arab Emirates
    I
    Haha
    Since "Brian" means high and noble, I'll take "tiny BRIAN" as a compliment. Thanks!

    Was I banging my head against the wall when I said Karachi agreement was silent on points beyond NJ9842???
    Albeit "thence north to glacier" does give an idea to whom the glaciers belonged.
    But for some reason you choose to ignore the words "north to glaciers".


    Ma'am,
    I have posted a map in my OP, but then I guess you chose to ignore it too.


    Very!!


    Unless you prove what is it that is written on "page 38", till then don't expect me to take your slides seriously. Even if you did, you will not be able to prove that the point beyond NJ9842 belonged to Pakistan during any point in history.

    I can see that our debate is headed nowhere. So let me reinstate my points....
    1) I was talking about "thence North to GLACIERS".
    2) It takes an iota of common sense to understand that the most recent agreement is always considered valid, ergo I brought Shimla agreement into discussion.
    3) so why were we discussing discussing Karachi agreement? To prove that Siachen never belonged to you.
    4) According to Shimla agreement siachen became a part of India when India captured the Turtok salient.
    5) According to the watershed principle of demarcating borders and lines of control in mountains region, the high crest separating the two watersheds is considered the natural demarcation. Now north of NJ-9842 there are two glaciers namely the Siachen Glacier and Baltoro Glacier which is divided by the Saltoro Ridge, which also forms a natural watershed between the two glaciers.
    2.JPG

    6) Care to explain the lack of protests from Pakistani side when when in 1956 (through 58) an Indian scientific team led by the Geological Survey explored the upper Nubra and Shyok Valleys, mapped and measured the Siachen and other glaciers and publicly recorded its findings???

    Lol
    yes, I know they're trying old hats on me.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2015
  12. Capt.Popeye

    Capt.Popeye ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    11,951
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Ratings:
    +24 / 14,993 / -12

    LOLL, just go through that other thread that Xeric started on this subject. On cross-examination of his claims, he was unable to substantiate them by any reference to "original source material"...... his interlocutor on that particular point has been ejected from this forum..... he was just getting too "prickly" to handle.
    @levina, go through that thread; its illuminating on the areas where people are simply unable to throw any further light, notwithstanding any exertions and fulminations thereon.


    Better to talk about Bovines and Culture...... :D
     
  13. toxic_pus

    toxic_pus SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,852
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Ratings:
    +1 / 2,240 / -5
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    Silly argument.

    There are no chapters in that agreement. The total agreement had at least 2 parts. Part I consists of the body text of the agreement and Part II consists of a map pointing out the locations mentioned in the body text. At this moment I can't remember if there were Annexures to the Agreement.

    Part I can be downloaded from this UN site. Part II is not available on-line.
     
  14. Xeric

    Xeric PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Messages:
    8,310
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Ratings:
    +42 / 10,578 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    i believe you, really. :-)
    No wonder we cant find the remaining parts either.

    Instead of talking about me, i'll appreciate if you'll actually contribute something to the discussion.
     
  15. toxic_pus

    toxic_pus SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,852
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Ratings:
    +1 / 2,240 / -5
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    There are no remaining parts.

    As with 'I' that you had highlighted - which I forgot to address - is entirely something else. The body text itself is divided in 2 parts. Part I is 'Introduction' and Part II is 'Agreement'. Due to scanning issue, the Part II got cropped in this document.

    Just download UN document S/1430/Add.1 and go to Annexure 26. Alternatively, here is UN Treaty Series, Vol. 81.

    Edit: Corrected document name and added link to 'UN Treaty Series'
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2015