The Siachen reality

[Rafi]

glad to hear that.
coming back on topic: My 2 cents as follows.
PA is not present on Siachen and we control all heights on the glacier.

The issue will not get resolved for one key reason, IA wants PA to recognize and sign documents detailing the current positions i.e.acknowledge that we hold all siachen peaks right now.
PA is unwilling to admit it, hence the deadlock.

Our motherland is sacred, we cannot be disloyal to our mother can we.

 

[Abhishek_]

Our motherland is sacred, we cannot be disloyal to our mother can we.

i don't expect PA to budge either buddy. therefore my opinion that the issue will remain.
gladly IA has developed the expertise for high altitude warfare and our loss of life has dropped significantly.
the financial toll is rather insignificant at this point.

 

[Rafi]

i don't expect PA to budge either buddy. therefore my opinion that the issue will remain.
gladly IA has developed the expertise for high altitude warfare and our loss of life has dropped significantly.
the financial toll is rather insignificant at this point.

No the PA will never budge - every inch of Pakistani land is sacred to me and my comrades.

 

[Abhishek_]

No the PA will never budge - every inch of Pakistani land is sacred to me and my comrades.

i understand and admire that. the feelings are the same this side of the border.

 

[Rafi]

i understand and admire that. the feelings are the same this side of the border.

There you go, it is - what it is.

 

[Abhishek_]

There you go, it is - what it is.

sorry for the tragic loss. cant imagine what the families are going through.

 

[Rafi]

sorry for the tragic loss. cant imagine what the families are going through.

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

This poem is what a soldiers life's all about.

 

[batmannow]

Well my all dear mates,
Let me tell, you guys loud & clear, after looking at indian army head,s statment!
India doesn't, have the power to fight, a war!
There would be , no troops withdrawls from both sides, & why?
Both of them can't tell the truth!

Even they lose more mens, on this cold HELL?
Let me remind, all of you tht! there are some, peoples on the thread, pushing their agenda,s to make an excuse of pakistans economical, conditions a exAmple for pakistan to accept, the indian point of interst, I have a advise for them, we belive in one god, & we belive in martydom,by our belives, anyone of us , if dies durring the safegurding our land from the enemy, is called a maryter, & our soilders love,s that!
Army means risking your, life, if you can't do that, thn go do something else!
Its only 140 soilders, there! Belive me, thousands are still, ready to be therE!

 

[shelly]

This is an Indian drawn map and clearly shows how Indian advanced into Pakistani territory on Siachen. Just ask yourself -- why did Indian advanced and are still holding the ridge despite so much losses? what do they wish to achieve ?

Indian army is now holding the Saltoro ridge inside Pakistan and if our forces withdraw, India would advance further and capture the K2 also!! Do we want to give K2 to India and also Karakorum highway, Gilgit Baltistan, Sakardu and land borders and road links with China??? No dignified Pakistani would even dream of doing this.

That is why we are there for the last 22 years fighting and blocking the Indian advance. Instead of asking the Indians to withdraw to the line of control, our traitors in SAFMA and NS want us to withdraw further handing over entire north to India. Haramkhor !!!

It will eventually happen. The first step is strengthening civil leadeership of Pak, then substanitally weaken army influence, then strengthn economy so that trade with india is more valuable than kashmir issue then take over these areas. i think thats the plan. may or may not work , but one should try

 

[shelly]

You really know how to talk manure dont you? Both our nations have millions starving and you "big" your nation by saying "its peanuts for your economy" - dont you feel ashamed to make such dim statements? Why do you like in an imagionary bubble thinking your nation is a multi billionaire when in fact you have millions that go hungry every night. The same situation exists in our nation and i would be ashamed to make dumb statements to say military expenditure on a project was just "peanuts" when i know kids will be hungry thoughout my land.

Good try, if what you say holds tru then there would be no armies in the world cause first world countries like US, Japan have hungry people

Enough of the evil hordes have died over the years, some of them, even in ice slides, have you been to Siachen, indians and their moronic personalities.

ouch so you insult soldiers who died in Siachen..

india is a peace loving country . definitely fighting war is not our most important strength

dear sir, let me add a bit, about richy rich! india & its army!
reality bites?right!

India’s army unfit to fight a war, army chief says
www.washingtonpost.com/foreignpolicy

By Rama Lakshmi,

NEW DELHI — India’s tanks do not have enough shells to fire, its air defenses are obsolete and its ill-equipped infantry can’t fight at night, the country’s army chief told the prime minister in a letter this month, an Indian newpaper reported Wednesday.

Excerpts from the letter from army chief V.K. Singh to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh were published in the Mumbai-based newspaper Daily News & Analysis. The revelations prompted condemnation of both the government and the army among lawmakers, who demanded the army chief’s immediate dismissal over the letter’s publication and other incidents and accused the government of neglecting national security.
In January India celebrated its 62nd Republic Day with parades across the country.
An embarrassed A.K. Antony, India’s defense minister, confirmed to Parliament on Wednesday that V.K. Singh had sent the letter and pledged to “protect every inch of our motherland” by speeding up steps to modernize the country’s million-man army.

Amid tensions with neighboring China and Pakistan, India has shopped aggressively for weapons in recent years in an effort to transform what has long been a corrupt and bureaucratic force into a lean, lethal army fit for 21st-century warfare. A Swedish research group said this month that between 2007 and 2011, the country had emerged as the world’s largest weapons importer.

In his letter, however, Singh said the army’s major combat weapons are in an “alarming” state, alleging that its tank fleet is “devoid of critical ammunition to defeat enemy tanks” and that India’s air defenses are “97 percent obsolete.”

There was no immediate response from the prime minister’s office.

In October, the weekly magazine India Today ran a story titled “Not Ready for War,” which argued that years of neglect had rendered the army unfit to fight a war.
Antony’s criticism was not directed at Singh for sending the letter but focused instead on its publication. “By the very nature of these issues, they cannot be a matter of public debate,” he said, adding, “I have made serious note of the observations.”
Retired Gen. Ved Prakash Malik, who headed the Indian army in a limited border war with Pakistan in 1999, concurred with that view Wednesday. “Every army in the world faces shortages,” he said, “but how did a classified letter of this kind come into the public domain?”

Malik also declined to take issue with the letter’s allegations. “There is no doubt that our weapons procurement procedures in the civil and military bureaucracy are very, very slow, and it does affect decision-making,” he said. “Corrective steps must be taken immediately, especially because of the kind of environment India lives in today.”
Earlier this year, V.K. Singh claimed that he had one more year of tenure and urged the Supreme Court to change his recorded date of birth. The court warned that it could rule against him, and Singh withdrew his case. On Monday, Singh told the Hindu newspaper in an interview that he had been offered a bribe of almost $3 million a year ago by a retired army officer to approve the purchase of trucks from a particular company. Singh said he refused the bribe and reported the incident to the defense minister.

Laloo Prasad Yadav, a lawmaker, told reporters that Singh was “depressed” and “frustrated” and that his actions had hurt the army and the country.
The army chief is scheduled to retire in May.

 

[Comet]

Siachen: ten questions

Dr Maleeha Lodhi


It was in April twenty-eight years ago that the seeds of the Siachen conflict were sown. This April nature struck a cruel blow when an avalanche hit the area, burying 139 Pakistani soldiers and civilian workers. The tragedy is a poignant reminder of the need to settle a long-standing, costly dispute.

Because facts have been sparse in recent TV discussions of Siachen it would be useful to recall the dispute’s military, political and diplomatic history. One way to do this is to ask ten key questions even if they are not exhaustive.

1. What is the source of the dispute?

Agreements between Pakistan and India that followed the wars of 1948 and 1971 did not demarcate or determine a dividing line in Kashmir’s northeastern reaches – one of the world’s most inhospitable and desolate regions. The July 1949 Karachi agreement established a ceasefire line, which after minor modification became the Line of Control under the 1972 Simla Agreement. This went as far as a point known by its grid reference NJ9842, south of the Siachen Glacier. From here on, the agreement said, the line continues “thence north to the glacier”. The area beyond NJ9842 was not delineated because it was deemed too harsh and inaccessible for habitation. Neither side at that time thought the region had any military or strategic importance. It was not anticipated that the glacier would later become a contentious issue and that modern mountain warfare or shifting strategic calculations would make it disputed.

In the mid 1970s Pakistan began to allow international mountaineers and expedition teams to visit the glacier’s peaks. Pakistan’s administrative control of the area also received cartographic backing. International map publishers started showing the Line of Control proceeding north-eastward towards the Karakorum Pass and the Siachen area in Pakistani territory. Because of the treacherous terrain Pakistan established no permanent posts. Only scouting missions periodically went there.

How did the conflict start?

With India occupying key peaks in April 1984 in a major airborne operation named ‘Meghdoot’. A failure of intelligence meant that Pakistan discovered this and dispatched troops only to find Indian forces occupying almost all the high ground positions along the Saltoro range. Pakistan’s efforts to dislodge the Indians did not succeed. Both sides gradually came to deploy more soldiers and create more posts.

2. When did diplomatic efforts start to resolve the conflict?

Soon after the first clashes. But it wasn’t until the December 1985 meeting in Delhi between General Ziaul Haq and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi that a serious effort was made to pursue a settlement. Since then twelve rounds of talks have taken place, the last in May 2011.

3. Was agreement for military disengagement ever reached?

Yes, in the fifth round held in June 1989 after the advent of Benazir Bhutto’s government and an upswing in relations with India. The joint statement issued after talks on June 17, 1989 outlined the core elements of a settlement: “There was agreement by both sides to work towards a comprehensive settlement, based on redeployment of forces to reduce the chance of conflict, avoidance of the use of force and the determination of future positions on the ground so as to conform with the Simla Agreement and to ensure durable peace in the Siachen area”. It added: “the army authorities of both sides will determine these positions”.

4. How significant was the June 1989 breakthrough?

It produced the outlines of a solution. For the first time the Indians agreed to relocate forces away from the disputed heights although in subsequent talks between military officials in 1989 differences emerged over where they would pull back. The language ‘redeployment of forces’ rather than ‘withdrawal’ was a Pakistani concession aimed at enabling Rajiv Gandhi to sell the agreement to his military and to political opponents in an election year. The agreement was endorsed by Prime Ministers Bhutto and Gandhi during the latter’s July 1989 visit to Islamabad.

5. Was Pakistan keen to turn this understanding into an agreement?

Absolutely. Pakistan’s defence secretary was mandated for the sixth round of talks in November 1992 to discuss modalities for implementation of the 1989 agreement.

6. What prevented an accord?

Indian backtracking on the 1989 understanding and subsequently changing the terms for a settlement largely on the urging of its military, which continues to oppose a pullout. The 1992 talks ended in deadlock when Delhi insisted on ‘complete’ authentication of ‘current’ positions prior to redeployment and sought to reopen previously settled issues. Pakistan saw this as resiling from the 1989 agreement that obliged both sides to stand down to pre-1972 positions. Pakistan held that India violated the Simla agreement by occupying an area that may have been undemarcated, but was under Pakistan’s administrative control. The Simla Agreement prohibited unilateral alteration of the status quo whatever the differing legal interpretations.

7. Has ‘authentication’ been the main sticking point?

Yes. The 1989 joint statement made no mention of marking ‘current positions’, referring only to determining ‘future positions.’ Pakistan rejected authentication because a) it meant legitimising an illegal act and b) provided India the basis for a legal claim in negotiations later to delineate the area beyond NJ 9842.

India’s demand for authentication of an Agreed Ground Position Line (AGPL) on the map and on the ground rested on the argument that this would provide a legal or diplomatic safeguard if Pakistan later went back on commitments and captured the Saltoro ridge. Other than being a vehicle to formalise ‘current positions’, authentication has, over the years, served as an alibi for the Indian army to resist military disengagement. Former Indian officials have argued that withdrawal from Siachen will facilitate Pakistan’s access across Saltoro to the Karakoram Pass on the Chinese border. In what reflects the defence establishment’s thinking, they have also presented a strategic rationale for the LOC’s delineation beyond NJ9842 that provides India both a key location on the Chinese border and permanent control of heights overlooking Gilgit and Baltistan.

8. Were there other missed opportunities in the 1990s?

Possibly. In the November 1992 talks Pakistan showed readiness to record ‘present’ positions on an annexure to the agreement provided the main text contained the proviso that this would not constitute the basis for a legal claim or justify any political or moral right to the area. But the Indians insisted on ‘complete’ authentication and exchange of maps. Pakistan refused. Thereafter the January 1994 talks explored ideas about a Zone of Complete Disengagement based on an Indian non-paper. Delhi continued to press for acceptance of the AGPL before demilitarisation. The dialogue began to run out of steam. The mid 1990s saw BJP leaders calling to retain Siachen for ‘strategic and security reasons’ while Pakistan started to link Siachen to resolving Kashmir.

9. Did the 1999 Kargil episode have implications for talks on Siachen?

Inescapably. Any escalation of tensions or confrontation inevitably sets back diplomatic efforts, but Kargil did more. It gave Delhi an added how-can-we-trust-Pakistan justification to toughen terms for a Siachen settlement and put Islamabad in the dock for violating the Simla accord. It helped the Indian army argue that disengagement would risk Pakistan seizing the posts it vacated.

10. Did the last round in May 2011 make progress?

No. Pakistani officials detected a hardening in the Indian position. Delhi insisted that the line beyond NJ 9842 be delineated before any disengagement or withdrawal. This reversed the sequence proposed by Pakistan and earlier agreed by India: disengagement and moving outside the zone of conflict followed by talks on demarcation. A package proposal was conveyed in a Pakistani non-paper handed during the twelfth round. This reiterated redeployment and joint monitoring of the disengagement process. It also reiterated that once withdrawal schedules were prepared, ‘present’ and ‘future’ positions could be incorporated, subject to the earlier proviso. The talks ended in an impasse.

This unedifying diplomatic history should not however dampen efforts for a settlement but instead intensify the search for imaginative ways to untie the Siachen knot. Not only will this end a confrontation that exacts such a high price but it will also set a powerful precedent to solve other more vexed disputes.

Siachen: ten questions - Dr Maleeha Lodhi

 

[rockstarIN]

It is plain as anything, that you are indian, please do not deny the tricolor.

According to the indian army chief, they have only two days worth of ammunition, and most of their equipment is obsolete, these are his words not mine.

If that is the case, do attack us. I will tell you the route...Morning break fast at Longewala..lunch at Jaipur and dinner at Delhi..

The next day, start broadcasting radio Pakistan from New Delhi

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Indian army is reluctant to move from siachen, cos we occupy in heights, where we can easily olibirate the enemy in case of war...
And anothe reason is, when the glacier melts, there will be a water problem, and it states its presence will indicate that the water body will be in control of india...

 

[SQ8]

Stick to the topic..
The best move is demilitarization and getting out of that inhospitable hell hole which we put sons,brothers and fathers through.
Leave it for the adventurous thrill seekers to try scale those heights on weekends.
and stop damaging the critical environmental balance in that region due to our presence.

 

[third eye]

[QUOTE

This is an Indian drawn map and clearly shows how Indian advanced into Pakistani territory on Siachen. Just ask yourself -- why did Indian advanced and are still holding the ridge despite so much losses? what do they wish to achieve ?

Indian army is now holding the Saltoro ridge inside Pakistan and if our forces withdraw, India would advance further and capture the K2 also!! Do we want to give K2 to India and also Karakorum highway, Gilgit Baltistan, Sakardu and land borders and road links with China??? No dignified Pakistani would even dream of doing this.

That is why we are there for the last 22 years fighting and blocking the Indian advance. Instead of asking the Indians to withdraw to the line of control, our traitors in SAFMA and NS want us to withdraw further handing over entire north to India. Haramkhor !!![/QUOTE]

I cannot understand the sense of indignation in this post.

It seems to stem from lack of knowledge of the terrain, the past , the Shimla Agreement amongst other issues.

To me the roots & blame of the siachen issue goes to the mandarins who drafted the agreement post 71 war at Shimla. They left it vague by signing on a line that showed the LOC to be upto a point and ' then Northwards'. To say they did not expect this to be a bone of contention is stupid. Both Indian & Pak stalwarts agreed on this & our PMs signed it. Leaving the generations to follow to suffer.

As regards the post No 1 of this thread, why shouldnt India hold the Saltoro Ridge ? As regards what we wished to achieve the ans is simple - Deny it to Pakistanis and in so doing take advantage of whatever the terrain offers. What is so astronomical about this ?

The region forms a part of J&K which acceded to India, it was a no ' no mans land' which at some stage Pak tried to creep into, India learnt of this thru its agents worldwide when Pak started placing orders for extreme High Altitude clothing etc beyond its routine requirements. Add to this was an attempt to gain international acceptance by organizing trips into the region.

India pre empted this by placing troops in the region.

The rest is history.