A few Siachen facts and bluffs!

[Xeric]

With all this effort, you never answered why it should end at nj and not at china border.

You want a short answer?
How about because of commonsense?

 

[Sneaker]

You want a short answer?
How about because of commonsense?

Looks like commonsense dictates that the line was intended from Khor to China border.. to be demarcated to nearest geographical feature as area became accessible, as was done till NJ-9842. I mean, if it meant from Khor to NJ, NJ should have been directly north of Khor. But it isn't, it is slightly eastwards (or westwards from India) based on geographical features... so your argument doesn't make any sense... This is only possible if the line from khor joined china and demarcation would be to nearest west/east geo feature from that line.

 

[nForce]

It was unoccupied area over LoC. Both parties claimed it, one party beat another in the race to reach it, the other party lost - End of story.....

And people here are shedding more water in the form of sweat and tears than entire water in that godforsaken glacier.

 

[Sneaker]

It was unoccupied area over LoC. Both parties claimed it, one party beat another in the race to reach it, the other party lost - End of story.....

And people here are shedding more water in the form of sweat and tears than entire water in that godforsaken glacier.

That is one way to look at it. But it is not official version as per India. I have been observing people dispute our official version, "thence north" thing.. I just want to know how such clear thing can ever be disputed!

 

[nForce]

That is one way to look at it. But it is not official version as per India. I have been observing people dispute our official version, "thence north" thing.. I just want to know how such clear thing can ever be disputed!

I am well aware of the official version. Just told the practical one.

 

[Sneaker]

I am well aware of the official version. Just told the practical one.

But "Bull" said in many interviews that we interpreted that the area belonged to us, not that it was no-man's land. The whole game changed when a local commander handed a protest note after observing IA teams in the area which said the area belonged to pak...

 

[nForce]

But "Bull" said in many interviews that we interpreted that the area belonged to us, not that it was no-man's land. The whole game changed when a local commander handed a protest note after observing IA teams in the area which said the area belonged to pak...

And I don't disagree to the chain of events that you are depicting.

 

[Sneaker]

And I don't disagree to the chain of events that you are depicting.

And that is my curiosity. How can anyone spin something that is so clear, "to the north" to "to the north-east" and then preach about commonsense?

 

[nForce]

And that is my curiosity. How can anyone spin something that is so clear, "to the north" to "to the north-east" and then preach about commonsense?

North or North-West..I have seen how these regions are..Barren lands..Borders are usually drawn along the ridgeline, makes it easier. This place was unoccupied, thanks to US cartographic maps, we have yet another thing to fight over.

It's funny, British divided the country and we fight over that, the Americans came up with some map, we fight over that too.

 

[Sneaker]

North or North-West..I have seen how these regions are..Barren lands..Borders are usually drawn along the ridgeline, makes it easier. This place was unoccupied, thanks to US cartographic maps, we have yet another thing to fight over.

It's funny, British divided the country and we fight over that, the Americans came up with some map, we fight over that too.

Well, they must have been drunk when they did that..

 

[nForce]

Well, they must have been drunk when they did that..

not drunk, biased is what I suspect, after all Pakistan was the modern idea back then, and the mujahideens of Afghanistan were equivalent to the founding fathers of the great nation called United States of America according to Reagan, while India was the pagan country, old and obsolete.

 

[Xeric]

Aso it is clear that since the area was not accessible at that time, they defined a straight line to north till china and detail demarcation was carried out till nj (which was accessible) rest left to future, to be carried out based on actual terrain.

Bhai, first decide, was a straight line to be drawn or actual demarcation on ground was to be carried out basing on actual terrain, because these two are very different things.

After ground demarcation, the alignment of CFL would have been very very different from a straight line up north.

And please, i request please dont say that for the time being, and because the area was inaccessible at time, those penning the agreement thought it was alright to say 'thence north' and then carry out demarcation on the ground later. Because this is plain stupid. Why not just say demarcate the area based on the ground features at the first place?

Now, whereas i know that you guys would come up with yet another absurd reason to answer this question, but just so that you know, it was the UN demarcating borders of two countries, not a kindergarten sketching class.

If indeed the intention was to draw the line up north (till China or North Pole), the makers of the UN map i have posted in post # 273 could have actually drawn a line using a ruler, it could have been a dotted, double or whatever type of line making it different from the rest of the CFL thus denoting its temporal nature pending the on ground demarcation. But guess what, they did not! Why? because that was not their intention.

Lastly, a Ceasefire Line can only be demarcated when their are troops on ground on either side, there was no fighting at Siachen at that time and no troops were present there, you cant drawn a ceasefire line where there have been no firing!

In any case, how pak can claim from nj to karacoram is beyond me.

Ask this from the guys all over the world who have been showing it such in their maps.

Looks like commonsense dictates that the line was intended from Khor to China border.. to be demarcated to nearest geographical feature as area became accessible, as was done till NJ-9842. I mean, if it meant from Khor to NJ, NJ should have been directly north of Khor. But it isn't, it is slightly eastwards (or westwards from India) based on geographical features... so your argument doesn't make any sense... This is only possible if the line from khor joined china and demarcation would be to nearest west/east geo feature from that line.

Please go through my post # 263.

On one hand you argue that a line towards NJ would not exactly have been northly, i mean such precision, but at the same time you ignore that the Karachi Agreement after using approx 118 x landmarks/references to demarcate the CFL and 677 x words to explain it till Khor (precision), just fcuked up everything beyond Khor by using only 5 x words and NO reference point?

i mean, my dear, you cannot cherry pick precision as you want.

 

[Sneaker]

Bhai, first decide, was a straight line to be drawn or actual demarcation on ground was to be carried out basing on actual terrain, because these two are very different things.

I you didn't notice, I have clarified it earlier. Just repeating again, straight line as base and when actually demarcating, to nearest (east or west) geological feature if straight line is not possible. How hard is this to comprehend?

After ground demarcation, the alignment of CFL would have been very very different from a straight line up north

That is correct. It would have been along saltoro ridge. That is what India's position (both diplomatically and militarily) is.

And please, i request please dont say that for the time being, and because the area was inaccessible at time, those penning the agreement thought it was alright to say 'thence north' and then carry out demarcation on the ground later. Because this is plain stupid. Why not just say demarcate the area based on the ground features at the first place?

They did say that. Just refreshing your memory by re-posting what has been already posted. Can you spot where they said it? I mean, if this "thence north" line were to be till NJ, why would they say it will be demarcated in future sine CFL till NJ has already been demarcated? Make no sense, does it?

Now, whereas i know that you guys would come up with yet another absurd reason to answer this question, but just so that you know, it was the UN demarcating borders of two countries, not a kindergarten sketching class.

They weren't teaching kindergarden english class either. But it was their duty to "demarcate" boundary between india and pakistan, whatever it means.

If indeed the intention was to draw the line up north (till China or North Pole), the makers of the UN map i have posted in post # 273 could have actually drawn a line using a ruler, it could have been a dotted, double or whatever type of line making it different from the rest of the CFL thus denoting its temporal nature pending the on ground demarcation. But guess what, they did not! Why? because that was not their intention.

It could have been that, this or another thing. They even could have said the thence north line will stop at NJ and further north would be no-man's land or will belong to pakistan/india. They didn't. Guess they did not forsee that someone's english knowledge and commonsense would fall so low...

Lastly, a Ceasefire Line can only be demarcated when their are troops on ground on either side, there was no fighting at Siachen at that time and no troops were present there, you cant drawn a ceasefire line where there have been no firing!

No kidding. You mean to say through all the demarcated line there were soldiers forming a thin black line covering every inch of the land? My bet is there were lot many areas which didn't witness a single gunshot, till date. If CFL can pass through that area, it can go till chinese border. But curious to know what is the source of your "assertion". CF is between countries too, not just some troops.

Ask this from the guys all over the world who have been showing it such in their maps.

Read my question, how pakistan interprets north as north east. I am least interested in how rest of the world got that idea. For all I know, pakistan could have published the wrong map.

On one hand you argue that a line towards NJ would not exactly have been northly, i mean such precision, but at the same time you ignore that the Karachi Agreement after using approx 118 x landmarks/references to demarcate the CFL and 677 x words to explain it till Khor (precision), just fcuked up everything beyond Khor by using only 5 x words and NO reference point?

I can put the question in reverse to you too. I mean, the agreement lists so many points but fails to mention thence north line stops at NJ? Frankly, you have no argument here... They knew NJ, but did not mention it. However, they did not know where the line would intersect chinese border and it is commonsense that that would be northern most point of CFL between India and Pakistan. This would perfectly explain (the only explanation IMO) why there is no mention or no need of mentioning any place by name.

i mean, my dear, you cannot cherry pick precision as you want.

Sigh...

 

[Xeric]

View attachment 225294

Para B 2 (d) says as you have quoted:

From Dalunang eastwards the cease-fire line will follow the general line point 15495, Ishman, Manus, Gangam, Gunderman, Point 13620, Funkar (Point 17628), Marmak, Natsara, Shangruti (Point 1,531), Chorbat La (Point 16700), Chalunka (on the Shyok River), Khor, thence north to the glaciers. This portion of the cease- fire line shall be demarcated in detail on the basis of the factual position as of 27 July 1949, by the local commanders assisted by United Nations military observers.
​

How can the area beyond NJ9842 have 'factual positions' (of troops) and 'local commanders' when there have been no troops, no fighting over there?

i have been trying to point this out earlier, but left it believing that commonsense will take care of it but i guess it didnt.

If you actually think logically, this last sentence just proves my point that the CFL ended at NJ 9842, nothing else.

No kidding. You mean to say through all the demarcated line there were soldiers forming a thin black line covering every inch of the land? My bet is there were lot many areas which didn't witness a single gunshot, till date. If CFL can pass through that area, it can go till chinese border. But curious to know what is the source of your "assertion". CF is between countries too, not just some troops.

You need a serious education in terminologies like CFL, LoC, LAC, AGPL.

The subject of Karachi Agreement was not Siachen, but the troops fighting on ground.

Read my question, how pakistan interprets north as north east. I am least interested in how rest of the world got that idea. For all I know, pakistan could have published the wrong map.

See, that's the problem with you Indians.

You confuse hard facts with brainfarts.

I can put the question in reverse to you too. I mean, the agreement lists so many points but fails to mention thence north line stops at NJ?

Actually it did. NJ was the last known point, it was common knowledge, any reference made up north ended there. It is you guys who like extrapolate it to the North Pole. Wont happen.

 

[Sneaker]

Para B 2 (d) says as you have quoted:

From Dalunang eastwards the cease-fire line will follow the general line point 15495, Ishman, Manus, Gangam, Gunderman, Point 13620, Funkar (Point 17628), Marmak, Natsara, Shangruti (Point 1,531), Chorbat La (Point 16700), Chalunka (on the Shyok River), Khor, thence north to the glaciers. This portion of the cease- fire line shall be demarcated in detail on the basis of the factual position as of 27 July 1949, by the local commanders assisted by United Nations military observers.
How can the area beyond NJ9842 have 'factual positions' (of troops) and 'local commanders' when there have been no troops, no fighting over there?

i have been trying to point this out earlier, but left it believing that commonsense will take care of it but i guess it didnt.

This is all another prove that the this last para meant that the CFL ended at NJ 9842.

You have wrong emphasis, so I corrected it. Line till NJ 9842 has already been demarcated, by your own maps. Any future demarcation would be "undemarcated portion", meaning "thence north" line. It would have been based on factual positions as of mentioned date so that appropriate geological features can be selected. Nowhere it states it would be based on soldiers/positions on the glacier. It is just clarifying that any future change in position shouldn't alter demarcation beyond NJ 9842.

You need a serious education in terminologies like CFL, LoC, LAC, AGPL.

The subject of Karachi Agreement was not Siachen, but the troops fighting on ground.

You need some serious education on cease fire and national boundary. Karachi agreement was for ceasefire between India and Pakistan in J&K and Siachin is in J&K. So, you are half right, agreement is not about siachen, but it was also about siachen.

See, that's the problem with you Indians.

You confuse hard facts and brainfarts.

See, this is the problem with you pakistanis, you confuse hard facts and brainfarts and call north as north-east. worse, you try to convince rest of the world that north means north-east.

Actually it did. NJ was the last known point, it was common knowledge, any reference made up north ended there. It is you guys who like extrapolate it to the North Pole. Wont happen.

Actually it didn't (prove me wrong with a screenshot where it says line stops at NJ9842, not the "inference" that you make, in a very creative way). Since they did not mention "known" point, the point would not be a "known" point, but "unknown" one which is intersection with chinese border.