Siachen Glacier, Fighting On The Roof Of The World

[Xeric]

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!

 

[Xeric]

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.

 

[bandit]

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’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.

 

[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]

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’t going anywhere. But if you’re happy with this state of affairs, then you’re welcome to it, your men, your money.

 

[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]

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’t distort what I’ve said. It’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’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.

 

[bandit]

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 ‘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.