Siachen was accepted as Indian Territory in 1949!

[Imran Khan]

NO, because they are two different places. What do you call karachi and lahore together? Is there a name when you add the two places together?

There is siachen, there is saltoro to the west of siachen.

nope the area called siachin just look all maps and news of whole world call it siachin . all 9 glaciers included sir jee. 6 of them which Pakistan control and three india

look what world call it siachin .whole world call these 9 glaciers siachin

 

[janon]

So , you agree Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan is not part of J&K , right ?

I don't see the logic there. Of course indian kashmir and pak kashmir are parts of a region called kashmir. Both India and pakistan would agree to that. (Though they may not agree on who it should belong to.) But Saltoro and siachen are not part of a larger part called siachen, saltoro is to the west of siachen. Read anywhere about saltoro.

 

[Secur]

No, I asked who did the indian army fight in op meghdoot "and the subsequent siachen conflict".

The second statement of yours is not quite true. You don't need to have control to "give up". If you claim it, and someone takes it from you, one can say you had to give it up - irrespective of whether you put up a fight for it or not. Pakistan was claiming that region to be its, and hosting mountain expeditions, and printing maps showing it as pakistan's. India took it. Just because you couldn't put up a fight doesnt mean you didn't give it up. Which is what I pointed out to that fellow, that pakistan has given up a lot more than one inch when India tried last time.

No one , again ... What is so hard to comprehend here ? Sorry , there was no " subsequent " in your question ...

Various countries claim Antarctica too , so ? Does any of them maintain a permanent military presence there ? What if some country tries to control it ? Would it result in losing land for others ? ... Claiming doesn't mean you lose the area , because you do not control it in the first place so to lose it !

BTW , India lost 84,000 km2 of J&K to Pakistan and other 38,000 km2 to China too ...

 

[Imran Khan]

I don't see the logic there. Of course indian kashmir and pak kashmir are parts of a region called kashmir. Both India and pakistan would agree to that. (Though they may not agree on who it should belong to.) But Saltoro and siachen are not part of a larger part called siachen, saltoro is to the west of siachen. Read anywhere about saltoro.

are you calling baltoro ??????? . its baltoro the top glacier which pakistan hold in upper siachin .

 

[Secur]

I don't see the logic there. But Saltoro and siachen are not part of a larger part called siachen, saltoro is to the west of siachen. Read anywhere about saltoro.

I can ... The whole area is collectively known as " Siachin " ... Check every single map ! Enlighten me , wont the passes of a glacier be considered as part of it ? ... Even though you control the upper part and we lower doesn't mean Pakistan doesn't administer nothing there ...

 

[janon]

No one , again ... What is so hard to comprehend here ? Sorry , there was no " subsequent " in your question ...

Various countries claim Antarctica too , so ? Does any of them maintain a permanent military presence there ? What if some country tries to control it ? Would it result in losing land for others ? ... Claiming doesn't mean you lose the area , because you do not control it in the first place so to lose it !

BTW , India lost 84,000 km2 of J&K to Pakistan and other 38,000 km2 to China too ...

Umm...please check my question again. It is in post number 32. I can clearly see the word "subsequent" there. I don't know why you can't. It is also there when you quoted me to reply. Sorry, there was a "subsequent" in my question, it is there for all to see.

If a country shows antartica to be part of it in its maps, and someone else comes and takes it, and occupies that part, and the first country can't go there anymore, then yes, the first country had to give up that land, or its claim to that land. Which is the same thing - you don't physicalyy take a piece of land an give it by hand, when one says "give up land", it means give up your claim to that land.

 

[Imran Khan]

I can ... The whole area is collectively known as " Siachin " ... Check every single map ! Enlighten me , wont the passes of a glacier be considered as part of it ? ... Even though you control the upper part and we lower doesn't mean Pakistan doesn't administer nothing there ...

nope they are not in upper its equally go up from LOC and then reach at peak .some sides they have peaks some sides we have .but its not slide at all .

 

[Secur]

Many here would advocate that holding some tops at Siachan gives Indian Army any strategic advantage over Pakistan....in reality though...Pakistan Army has locked Indian Army on the top by occupying Gyong La pass ....hence negating ANY strategic advantage to I.A.

Even the most biased of all Indian sources admits it -

In two ways, India ’s position has already been compromised, as Pakistan controls the Gyong La pass overlooking Shylok and Nubra rivers, along with the road that links mainland India to Leh, and China ’s de facto hold over Aksai Chin. - BR

nope they are not in upper its equally go up from LOC and then reach at peak .some sides they have peaks some sides we have .but its not slide at all .

Yes it is no way equal , Pakistan controls the highest peak on the Saltoro Mountains - Gasherbrum I ...

 

[janon]

Even the most biased of all Indian sources admits it -

In two ways, India ’s position has already been compromised, as Pakistan controls the Gyong La pass overlooking Shylok and Nubra rivers, along with the road that links mainland India to Leh, and China ’s de facto hold over Aksai Chin. - BR

Nobody denies that pak controls gyong la pass. What we deny is you claiming it to be part of siachen, while in reality it is in saltoro, which is not siachen, but situated to the west of siachen.

 

[Secur]

If a country shows antartica to be part of it in its maps, and someone else comes and takes it, and occupies that part, and the first country can't go there anymore, then yes, the first country had to give up that land, or its claim to that land. Which is the same thing - you don't physicalyy take a piece of land an give it by hand, when one says "give up land", it means give up your claim to that land.

The first country didn't give up anything since it didn't control it ... Merely claiming something doesn't do the trick ... Many countries claim many areas of other's ... Siachin was " no man's land " if you understand what is meant by that word ...

How can I give up something which I do not own / administer / control / have or whatever ?

Nobody denies that pak controls gyong la pass. What we deny is you claiming it to be part of siachen, while in reality it is in saltoro, which is not siachen, but situated to the west of siachen.

Why is the whole region named " Siachin " in every single map though ? Passes constitute parts of the glacier , right ?

Umm...please check my question again. It is in post number 32. I can clearly see the word "subsequent" there. I don't know why you can't.

Ok , even if i accept ... If you started with OP Meghdoot , you were no fighting no one back then ...

 

[janon]

The first country didn't give up anything since it didn't control it ... Merely claiming something doesn't do the trick ...

How can I give up something which I do not own / administer / control / have or whatever ?

(Well this is a debate on semantics. If you claim a piece of land, but the other country disagrees, sends its soldiers there and occupies it, and you can't do anything about it, thats called having given up that land. Or having had it taken from you. I think thats obvious.)


Why is the whole region named " Siachin " in every single map though ? Passes constitute parts of the glacier , right ?



Ok , even if i accept ... If you started with OP Meghdoot , you were no fighting no one back then ...

(EVEN if you accept? Are you really still reluctant to accept that the word "subsequent" was there in my question? Jeez! No we didn't have to fight anyone during op meghdoot, but we did have to fight subsequently. But whether we fought or not, the fact is that Indian soldiers took away land that pak was claiming. And you did try to do some administering/controlling there, by sending and hosting mountaineering expeditions etc. You dindt have a military presence, but you were claiming it, and you had to give it up. You did claim to own it, couldnt claim it anymore after op meghdoot. Thats called giving up a claim to the land, which in other words is giving up land - because giving up land doesnt mean doing so physically, as i said before.)

My replies in red.

 

[Secur]

What is more obvious is that I have to own/control something to give it up ? Can you steal a million dollars from me ? Simply , because I do not have it !

I didn't check that post again that is why " if " condition was used in the last post ...

Holy molly. So who did the indian army fight during operation meghdoot and the subsequent siachen conflict, martians?

Except for the subsequent part , you fought no one during the main operation because it was " no man's land " ...

Yeah , we claimed it and even mountaineering expeditions were sent by our permission , but we never controlled it and hence no question of losing it ... Sorry , we never gave up the claim , did you give up the claim to the rest of the Siachin under our control ? ...

P.S There is a big difference between " claiming " and " claiming to own " ... Ponder over it ...

 

[janon]

What is more obvious is that I have to own/control something to give it up ? Can you steal a million dollars from me ? Simply , because I do not have it !

Wrong analogy. If there really is a million dollars lying near our homes, and you say its yours, but I take it away, and you cant do anything about it, then you have given up your claim to that money. Thats the right analogy.

In your analogy, you are talking about a million dollars that don't exist, but the land in siachen actually did exist. Thats the point you are missing, and thats why you made this flawed analogy.

 

[Secur]

Wrong analogy. If there really is a million dollars lying near our homes, and you say its yours, but I take it away, and you cant do anything about it, then you have given up your claim to that money. Thats the right analogy.

In your analogy, you are talking about a million dollars that don't exist, but the land in siachen actually did exist. Thats the point you are missing, and thats why you made this false analogy.

Even if they are thrown in my neighborhood and you take it regardless of any claim that I make on it , how can you say I lost it even though I never owned it ?

I know , I was just trying to explain " you cant lose what you dont have already " ... Its fictional , that is why it is a " analogy "

 

[Darth Vader]

lol if siachen is part of INDIA then why every tourist who goes to siachen take permission from Pak and in world map why it shows in Pakistan
its never was part of india same as kashmir
1980s India just jumped into a worst mess =))) now which a bone in indian armys mouth lol =)) nor they can throw it nor the swallow it =)) so =)))