Siachen Glacier, Fighting On The Roof Of The World

[Blackpearl]

Status Quo is unacceptable to Pakistan, 'cause, it means
1. we are accepting the 1984 aggressive actions of India.
2. As India now commands the heights in northern part of glacier, so It will keep on overlooking our positions.

3. It means that troops will continue to man all present posts, which are as high as 23,000 ft. So troops will continue to suffer from harsh climatic conditions.

If Pakistan stance is analyzed, it merits, due to following,

1. That wil be a 'Nobody Loses' situation, as both Pakistani and Indian troops will be pulled backfrom heights.

2. The area will be de-militarized. Since 1984, ecosystem of the glacier has suffered a lot, due to war. ammunition crates, tinfood wastes and unconsumed fuel and its containers litter the area. The whole are needs to be cleaned as this area is feeding water to River Indus and we dont want a contaminated water, comming all from Siachen.

3. If troops are pulled back and they are stationed at reletively, lesser heights, i think it will be a moment of triumph for humanity.

It is very easy to say , to maintain 'Status Quo' , one should not forget the soldiers, who are facing the toughest of living conditions, just maintaining Status quo.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Looking into the genesis of Siachen conflict, It is India which started that all in 1984. Although, there is now a tense ceasefire prevailing all over the LOC including the Siachen, however, India and Pakistan are sticking to there respective positions.

To resolve the issue, Pakistan stance is more realistic:
Pakistan wants India to go back to pre 1984 positions on ground. This means both India and Pakistan will withdraw their troops from present positions and will redeploy where they are not in direct contact with each other, eyeball to eyeball.

However, India has proved itself more stubborn. India donot want to relinquish present positions and want status que to be maintainrd. This implies that all the mountain peaks which India has occupied, Pakistan must concead to this, which is unacceptable. Interestingly, Govt of India, wants redeployment of troops, yet it is Indian Army, which donot want to leave posts and thus does not want settlement of conflict.

Kashmir, as per Pakistan, is a disputed country.

Therefore, if there is a part of Kashmir that is vacant and which is rightfully Indians, as per India's point of view, how is it that India started the show?

There is nothing about India being stubborn. Just because India beat Pakistan to the draw, it doesn't mean that the action was wrong. If Pakistan occupied it before India, would you then say that it was a wrong action?

One could even argue, given your slant of argument, Pakistan should quit Kashmir, since she started it!

Obviously, the logic is flawed, when observing with the background of the issue.

If you understood military operations in High Altitude, you would realise why the Indian Army is not keen to quit the heights.

Ask a military person to explain it to you.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Status Quo is unacceptable to Pakistan, 'cause, it means
1. we are accepting the 1984 aggressive actions of India.
2. As India now commands the heights in northern part of glacier, so It will keep on overlooking our positions.

In other words, you are suggesting that India should do everything that is in Pakistan's favour and she sits back sucking her thumb!

Hardly logical.

3. It means that troops will continue to man all present posts, which are as high as 23,000 ft. So troops will continue to suffer from harsh climatic conditions.

If this harsh climate is causing sufferance to the Pakistani troops, then no one is stopping them from leaving!

It is not making any difference to the Indian trroops and so they are quite willing to hang around!

If Pakistan stance is analyzed, it merits, due to following,

1. That wil be a 'Nobody Loses' situation, as both Pakistani and Indian troops will be pulled backfrom heights.

Do you think that in Kashmir, it is a "Nobody Loses" military scenario?

I wonder why should India be so concerned as to ensure Pakistan does not lose. India surely loses because it will lose what it has occupied as her right.

2. The area will be de-militarized. Since 1984, ecosystem of the glacier has suffered a lot, due to war. ammunition crates, tinfood wastes and unconsumed fuel and its containers litter the area. The whole are needs to be cleaned as this area is feeding water to River Indus and we dont want a contaminated water, comming all from Siachen.

If one is that concerned about the ecosystem, let them take on the US since they are supposed to be the ones who are doing the greatest damage to the environment!

3. If troops are pulled back and they are stationed at reletively, lesser heights, i think it will be a moment of triumph for humanity.

It is very easy to say , to maintain 'Status Quo' , one should not forget the soldiers, who are facing the toughest of living conditions, just maintaining Status quo.

Unfortunately you do not understand High Altitude Warfare or the Acclimatisation regime.

By going down to lower heights will not serve anyone's interest and instead will be very disadvantageous.

It is very easy to say "Status Quo" for the simple reason that the Indian Army is not afraid to face the toughest of living conditions and India has the 'loose change' to maintain what is up there on the Siachen!

 

[blain2]

If this harsh climate is causing sufferance to the Pakistani troops, then no one is stopping them from leaving!

It is not making any difference to the Indian trroops and so they are quite willing to hang around!

I am sure you are fully aware that the feelings are exactly mutual on the Pakistani side as well.

Unfortunately you do not understand High Altitude Warfare or the Acclimatisation regime.

By going down to lower heights will not serve anyone's interest and instead will be very disadvantageous.

It is very easy to say "Status Quo" for the simple reason that the Indian Army is not afraid to face the toughest of living conditions and India has the 'loose change' to maintain what is up there on the Siachen!

Not understanding High alt. warfare does not negate the fact that many who are there would rather not be even if having enough acclimatized troops is not an issue (which for Pakistan and India is really not a problem due to very many of the units and troops being deployed at the LoC which in itself is a good acclimatisation exercise prior to undergoing further acclimatisation training at even higher altitudes). But in any case (and as the ground realities are), if the IA is there, you sure as hell can bet that Pakistanis will be there as well till kingdom comes (reminds me of a great article in the mountaineering magazine "Outside" about Siachen in which they profiled a young Pakistani and Indian Army officer deployed on Siachen. Both were pretty sure that they needed to stay up there for the same reasons) ....I guess the whole discussion is a moot point since both sides are fine maintaining status-quo. Like you say about no problems in IA continuing on as is, at least in the PMA, there is no shortage of officers willing to volunteer for stints on the glacier, so I think motivation is not a problem on this side either (and I am sure you would say the same about your boys).

While the two Armies may be willing to carry on indefinitely, of all the other ongoing issues, this may be the easier of the bunch between the two countries to be solved by civilians, although if history is something to go by, I am not very optimistic...but in any case life goes on.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I am sure you are fully aware that the feelings are exactly mutual on the Pakistani side as well.

I wouldn't know for sure.

The Lament is from the Pakistani members.

Maybe they are expressing the popular view.

Personally, I find that there is no reason for the Pak Army having consternation because they are on lower heights and their lines of communication is way better and easier!

Not understanding High alt. warfare does not negate the fact that many who are there would rather not be even if having enough acclimatized troops is not an issue (which for Pakistan and India is really not a problem due to very many of the units and troops being deployed at the LoC which in itself is a good acclimatisation exercise prior to undergoing further acclimatisation training at even higher altitudes). But in any case (and as the ground realities are), if the IA is there, you sure as hell can bet that Pakistanis will be there as well till kingdom comes (reminds me of a great article in the mountaineering magazine "Outside" about Siachen in which they profiled a young Pakistani and Indian Army officer deployed on Siachen. Both were pretty sure that they needed to stay up there for the same reasons) ....I guess the whole discussion is a moot point since both sides are fine maintaining status-quo. Like you say about no problems in IA continuing on as is, at least in the PMA, there is no shortage of officers willing to volunteer for stints on the glacier, so I think motivation is not a problem on this side either (and I am sure you would say the same about your boys).

I am yet to know of those who do not want to go to Siachen.

It is an experience of a lifetime.

Understanding High Altitude Warfare is important. If the Indian Army goes to lower altitudes it will take a stages of Accilmatisation before they come to where they were. And if someone occupies those heights in the interim, then whatever was with India will be gone!

Siachen is not a volunteer assignment in India. It is a normal routine turnover.

There is a very good financial compensation for this tenure.

You are right. Both will hang around till Kingdom Comes. Therefore, I find it odd that to find the lament amongst some posters with such, if you don't mind, childish reasons as to what India or Pakistan should do.

Conflicts rarely bows to humanitarian or ecological reasons. In fact, conflicts are an antitheses of such lofty morality!

While the two Armies may be willing to carry on indefinitely, of all the other ongoing issues, this may be the easier of the bunch between the two countries to be solved by civilians, although if history is something to go by, I am not very optimistic...but in any case life goes on.

Not until a solution, acceptable to both sides, on Kashmir is arrived at.

It is also kiteflying and a pipedream that either India or Pakistan can win by force the whole of Kashmir.

But then there are many kiteflyers on forums.

 

[blain2]

Personally, I find that there is no reason for the Pak Army having consternation because they are on lower heights and their lines of communication is way better and easier!

Agreed!

I am yet to know of those who do not want to go to Siachen.

It is an experience of a lifetime.

Understanding High Altitude Warfare is important. If the Indian Army goes to lower altitudes it will take a stages of Accilmatisation before they come to where they were. And if someone occupies those heights in the interim, then whatever was with India will be gone!

Siachen is not a volunteer assignment in India. It is a normal routine turnover

.

Its normal on this side as well. Was just pointing to the fact that there is no shortage of people willing to feel out Siachen on the Pakistani side, many of those who are getting a commission from the PMA into Infantry units love to head out if they can even before the chance of their unit being rotated comes around.

Your point about acclimatisation is not lost on me. Thus I mentioned that there obviously is a system in place for acclimatizing troops for higher altitudes. Both have troops deployed on fairly comparable altitudes and both have significant manpower (from most accounts, IA has almost double the size of the Pakistani units operating there so if anyone is to risk the loss of acclimatized troops after a climb down, then its the Pakistani side). So I am not suggesting a one-sided withdrawal where only one side risks losing acclimatized manpower.

You are right. Both will hang around till Kingdom Comes. Therefore, I find it odd that to find the lament amongst some posters with such, if you don't mind, childish reasons as to what India or Pakistan should do.

Conflicts rarely bows to humanitarian or ecological reasons. In fact, conflicts are an antitheses of such lofty morality!

Well yes but these are public forums and you have posters from all backgrounds and levels of exposure to the topic or subject matter on hand. So I am not surprised if someone comes up and posts "siachen hamara hai" type of a thing...have seen it on the Pakistani forums and have seen it on Indian ones.

Not until a solution, acceptable to both sides, on Kashmir is arrived at.

I would not disagree. I for one at least would never suggest that only the Pakistan side walks away with everything. Even a suggestion of that would be a non-starter even before we start talking.

It is also kiteflying and a pipedream that either India or Pakistan can win by force the whole of Kashmir.

I agree with this statement as well. Force has been tried and has failed. Time to evaluate new solutions to this 6 decade old problem.

 

[Blackpearl]

I think everybody will agree that Pakistan and India should be at peace with each other. People of both the countries want this. However, there has to be a start point on way to peace.

Lets not mix with Siachen with Kashmir. The matter of Kashmir is to sensitive and complcated, as it involved the people in Kashmir valley. Asi remember, Paksitan, in recent past has shown flexibility towards, its traditional stance of claiming the whole of Kashmir, wherein, now govt talks of division across River Jehlum, more or less a status quo. Anyway, both govt are refraining to come openly on this issue.

Siachen is a good start point. It is totally unhabitat area. local people inspirations are not as involved as in case of Kashmir. Resolving Siachen will boast confidence building between the two countries.

I think we have to give credit to each other (India and Pakistan), trust each other as responsible country, and have faith in peace. Both countries if withdraw, from present positions, should trust each other as nobody will be palying foul with each other and stabb in the back. What India and Pakistan have gained in these 25 years.

 

[JK!]

What heavy weapons have been deployed at Siachen if any?

 

[Blackpearl]

130 mm guns

 

[blain2]

What heavy weapons have been deployed at Siachen if any?

Roughly speaking, on the glacier itself, 105mm howitzers (problems with logistics and elevation etc. limit bigger guns, however T-59 130mm guns have been used considerably but from bases further down) , 81mm and smaller caliber Mortars, TOW ATGMs for specific operations. That is the typical medium-heavy hardware at least on the Pakistani side.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I think everybody will agree that Pakistan and India should be at peace with each other. People of both the countries want this. However, there has to be a start point on way to peace.

True.

Lets not mix with Siachen with Kashmir. The matter of Kashmir is to sensitive and complcated, as it involved the people in Kashmir valley. Asi remember, Paksitan, in recent past has shown flexibility towards, its traditional stance of claiming the whole of Kashmir, wherein, now govt talks of division across River Jehlum, more or less a status quo. Anyway, both govt are refraining to come openly on this issue.

Why should Kashmir and Siachen not be clubbed. It is Kashmir.

India claims whole of Kashmir and I am not aware of the new Pak stance.

To my mind, the LC would be the answer since it has hardly changed over the years and has become the de facto dividing line!

Siachen is a good start point. It is totally unhabitat area. local people inspirations are not as involved as in case of Kashmir. Resolving Siachen will boast confidence building between the two countries.

Inhabitation or otherwise does not matter. Territory does.

I think we have to give credit to each other (India and Pakistan), trust each other as responsible country, and have faith in peace. Both countries if withdraw, from present positions, should trust each other as nobody will be palying foul with each other and stabb in the back. What India and Pakistan have gained in these 25 years.

That is utopia given the history of the conflict.

As of going there, and to know the conditions there, i think i am bit qualified to comment on that, as i have been to Siachen.

And so have I and heights higher than you!

Here is what my friend has to say:

Why Siachen matters

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

BTW, Athale is a peacenik!

 

[Blackpearl]

India has deployed 155mm FH77 guns, and man!!!
they are quite effective

It is believed that India is also using reconniasance and targetting UAVs in over the glacier.

As far as i am concerned i have deep respect for Indian troops deployed in glacier for their professionalism.

 

[blain2]

India has deployed 155mm FH77 guns, and man!!!
they are quite effective

It is believed that India is also using reconniasance and targetting UAVs in over the glacier.

As far as i am concerned i have deep respect for Indian troops deployed in glacier for their professionalism.

I do not believe that the FH-77s have been deployed "on" the glacier itself (although its possible). I am sure some of the Indians can comment on this aspect.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I have deep respect for all who are deployed on the Siachen for the sake of their country.

Be they Indians or Pakistanis.

We only do our duty!