Oh so needed spoon feeding.. i thought you would be able to read between the lines also.. There you go..
On the strategic plane, Pakistan has superior orientation in the area and it suits Pakistan to have Indian troops on ground in Siachen rather than be available for employment elsewhere.
(Ref: INDIA-PAKISTAN DIALOGUE ON CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND PEACE BUILDING, INSTITUTE OF PEACE AND CONFLICT STUDIES, New Delhi)
Now substantiate your claims.
That is not spoonfeeding, because that (very weak) point could not have been divined from your post, in which this implication was not made.
And that is as weak a justification as it comes. India is not short on manpower, and having one brigade on Siachen does not make any dent in our capability to deploy sufficient numbers elsewhere. A brigade is not so large as to be called a strategic formation anyway. If an entire mountain corps had to be diverted, then maybe this argument would hold. And by the way, this non argument can be made about troops deployed anywhere - that they are not available elsewhere.
About my claims - I did not make any claims, I only asked you to substantiate yours. Heck not even that, I didn't even ask you to substantiate them, I merely asked for an explanation. I at least wanted to hear what tactical or strategic benefits Pak can have because India captured high ground. That sounds like making a virtue out of necesity, like saying the grapes are sour when you lost them. Waging a war to get Siachen, losing, making numerous attempts by commando units under mushy himself, losing, and then when you know you wont get it, pretending that it is a strategic victory for Pak that India holds Siachen. Wishful thinking at its worst.
If you want to know why it is important for India to hold Siachen glacier, plenty has been written about it:
Why India cannot afford to give up Siachen - Rediff.com India News
India will not give up tactical advantage over Pak in Siachen - The Times of India
India to continue tactical advantage over Pak in Siachen
The tactical advantage to India is obvious, because we occupy and control the "commanding heights" in the region, which is key to succesful area domination in mountainous areas. There are some strategic benefits as well, since they can observe Pakistani activity with impunity and act as a launching pad for future wars, since it is easy to come down the slopes than to climb up them. It is so important for India that the Indian army (under General VP Malik) flatly refused Prime minister IK Gujral's order to vacate Siachen - a disobedience unheard of in civil-military relations in India before or after.
Here are some stragegic benefits for India, explained by an Indian army officer, that I am copying from BR:
1) Keeping the Pakistanis off Siachen is critical to maintaining the security of the Nubra Valley. If the Pakistanis were to somehow secure the village of Dzingrulma at the snout of the glacier, they would be able to put the entire Nubra Valley within artillery range.
2) Holding the Saltoro Ridge on the west of the Siachen Glacier opens up the possibility of interdicting any Pakistani moves towards the Indian town of Chalunkha. The town of Chalunkha has very little depth due to its geography on the Indian side; the loss of Chalunkha would impose immense costs on the main lines of communication in the region.
3) By deflecting the threat to Chalunkha and Dzingrulma, we protect key passes (the Khardung Pass and the Saser Pass) in the region and close the gap that existed between the Shyok and Nubra rivers. This is essential to preserving the security of Leh and other key military positions along the Northern end of the Line of Actual Control with China.
