Siachin Chumik Operation 1989 - Pakistan Army

[Tayyab1796]

I remeber now these names Capt. Naveed and Capt. Sehgul from our matric english text books. real feat of bravery by Capt. Naveed

 

[ice_man]

indians fail to realize boasting about "siachen success" makes our kargil operation equally legitimate! infact indian advancesi n siachen made us realize that "limited mountain warfare" could be conducted between the 2 neighbors!

so i am glad you are proud of your so called "siachen back stabbing"!!

 

[bandit]

Your post has been taken from this below link, rather it has been referred to, and plz check the sources, it has multiple ones, 2 including from Indian sources, and the rest 2 references are given, one is Time and another of Musharaf's Book.

Siachen conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this above link, majority of the references are from Indian sources.

So next time, do more research rather then copy pasting and not knowing yourself from where you have posted or what the source is.

Their were two sources, the other was a book by Kenneth Conboy about SSG, that sound Indian too?

 

[karan.1970]

indians fail to realize boasting about "siachen success" makes our kargil operation equally legitimate! infact indian advancesi n siachen made us realize that "limited mountain warfare" could be conducted between the 2 neighbors!

so i am glad you are proud of your so called "siachen back stabbing"!!

There is one key difference. In case of Siachen, it was an overt successful operation by Indian army in response to Pakistan's expeditions in the area. Fully supported by the Political leadership....

In case of Kargil, Pakistan sent in armed terrorists/insurgents/non state actors (like in 1947) and refused to accept involvement of Pakistan armed forces almost to the end. To the extent that they refused to accept the dead bodies of fallen soldiers. It actually took a recorded conversation between Pakistani top military brass that India made public to International community for Pakistan to admit to that poorly planned misadventure.

And to top it, Pakistani Political leadership had no idea of what's happening. Atleast that's what they claimed.

 

[CONNAN]

and the siachin peaks..currently occupied by "friendly" neighbour!

yup bro and we ain't going no where

 

[baajey]

and keep getting killed in high numbers!

The Raid
On 30 April 1989 , a raiding party consisting of 11 persons including 4 officers was organized by Major Abdul Rehman Bilal. The party closed in with enemy machine gun position at approximately 1900 hours. The fire was opened which caught enemy by surprise. However, enemy soon retaliated with small arms and rocket fire. Own troops were relatively safe since Kamran Post was protected by a boulder. The raiding party in the meantime inflicted heavy damages to the enemy. This final blow forced enemy to withdraw asking for a meeting where almost all of our terms were accepted. The area was vacated and declared as de-militarized zone.

Dead Wounded
India 34 150
Pak 6 (Shaheed) 44

with all the bravado by PA its stil unable to get siachin....

 

[Coltsfan]

So what were the objectives of Op Chumik and were they achieved?

The video is pretty useless providing that information..........

 

[livingdead]

Is this another version of 'we won the battle but corrupt politicians/leaders did not let us win the war' again?

 

[The Great One]

Is this another version of 'we won the battle but corrupt politicians/leaders did not let us win the war' again?

What isn't?

 

[Amolthebest]

indians fail to realize boasting about "siachen success" makes our kargil operation equally legitimate! infact indian advancesi n siachen made us realize that "limited mountain warfare" could be conducted between the 2 neighbors!

so i am glad you are proud of your so called "siachen back stabbing"!!

Isn't is strange that army let down your nation in Kargil and Siachin both? Now dont start with usual rant that we won Kargil but our politicians backstab us.

 

[OrionHunter]

and keep getting killed in high numbers!

The Raid
On 30 April 1989 , a raiding party consisting of 11 persons including 4 officers was organized by Major Abdul Rehman Bilal. The party closed in with enemy machine gun position at approximately 1900 hours. The fire was opened which caught enemy by surprise. However, enemy soon retaliated with small arms and rocket fire. Own troops were relatively safe since Kamran Post was protected by a boulder. The raiding party in the meantime inflicted heavy damages to the enemy. This final blow forced enemy to withdraw asking for a meeting where almost all of our terms were accepted. The area was vacated and declared as de-militarized zone.

Now where did you get this from? If the the Indians suffered heavy casualties and were forced to withdraw, why did Pakistan agree for a meeting?

This isn’t the true story as is being portrayed. Indian troops weren’t ‘defeated’. What actually happened was a stalemate and subsequent disengagement on mutually agreed terms. To put it in perspective, here are the details:

The Chumik Glacier Disengagement​

India and Pakistan successfully disengaged their forces from the Chumik Glacier, which is located quite close to Siachen. Brig (retd) Asad Hakeem, one of the authors of this report, was personally involved in this disengagement process.

The Chumik Glacier disengagement was arrived at by field commanders and has continued to function and serve as a guide to what may be possible in the case of Siachen.

The Chumik Glacier (Chumik meaning spring in the Balti language) is an offshoot of
Bilafond Glacier, and is about 4 miles in length. The Saltoro Ridge separates the Chumik
Glacier from the Gyong and Siachen Glaciers. The heights east of the Chumik Glacier
had been occupied by Pakistani forces since 1986; the heights dominate the approaches to
Indian positions in the Gyong area.

In 1989 hostilities ensued between Indian and Pakistani forces, starting in February and ending in May. Both sides competed to occupy the highest points in the Chumik Glacier area to dominate each other’s positions on the Saltoro ridge and adjacent areas. After several helicopter drops by Pakistan of soldiers and artillery to high positions (in the area informally known as Naveed Peak) in April and subsequent military engagements, both sides entered into negotiations in May.

After unsuccessful negotiations at a flag meeting on May 6, Brigadier Bokhari (Pakistan) and Brigadier Nanawatty (India) reached concurrence on May 13 regarding the
withdrawal of both the forces from their current positions. Pakistani forces were allowed to keep positions they occupied in 1986. The respective headquarters subsequently ratified the agreement reached by the field commanders.

Operational aspects of disengagement were finalized at a Flag Meeting on May 20. The
disengagement process from the Chumik Glacier started on May 21 and the agreement
has held to the current time.

The May 13, 1989, Chumik Glacier Disengagement Flag Meeting between
Indian and Pakistani officers.
Photo: Asad Hakeem

Cheers!

 

[Areesh]

Now where did you get this from? If the the Indians suffered heavy casualties and were forced to withdraw, why did Pakistan agree for a meeting?

This isn’t the true story as is being portrayed. Indian troops weren’t ‘defeated’. What actually happened was a stalemate and subsequent disengagement on mutually agreed terms. To put it in perspective, here are the details:

What's so difficult about this story. You tried. We responded. You failed. And then both disengaged. End of story. Nothing contradictory or new from Pakistani side of the story.

 

[OrionHunter]

What's so difficult about this story. You tried. We responded. You failed. And then both disengaged. End of story. Nothing contradictory or new from Pakistani side of the story.

Your response flies in the face of logic! If we failed to capture the objective, as you imply, then what sense did it make for Pakistan to ask for 'disengagement' when Indian troops weren't there in the first place since they were 'defeated' as you say? Disengagement can only happen when two forces are locked in battle with neither side having an advantage over the other!

Is the Pakistani Army so foolish as to ask for a 'disengagement' if they had 'defeated' the Indians and sent them packing?

Trying the square the circle, what?

 

[Areesh]

Your response flies in the face of logic! If we failed to capture the objective, as you imply, then what sense did it make for Pakistan to ask for 'disengagement' when Indian troops weren't there in the first place since they were 'defeated' as you say? Disengagement can only happen when two forces are locked in battle with neither side having an advantage over the other!

Is the Pakistani Army so foolish as to ask for a 'disengagement' if they had 'defeated' the Indians and sent them packing?

Trying the square the circle, what?

Pakistanis responded to the Indian aggression. Occupying Chumik wasn't our prime objective or else we could have tried to occupy it after disengagement. That disengagement is still working well till today after so many year so it shows Pakistan had no plans to occupy it. It was just an operation in response to Indian aggression. Good thing you guys also realized that it is a futile exercise.

 

[PakShaheen79]

According to wikipedia Siachen page, Indian Army occupied Naveed top in 1999. Is it the same feature? If yes, then wherer is disengagement?