Truth/Facts About Pakistani Claim Over Siachen Glacier

[VCheng]

@Xeric Sir, another question: Are there any glaciers south of NJ9843, between it and Khor?

 

[Xeric]

@Xeric Sir, another question: Are there any glaciers south of NJ9843, between it and Khor?

Icy peaks, yes. Glacier, no.

Icy peaks, yes. Glacier, no.

Here:

 

[VCheng]

Yeah, i tried to get the reference # 70 but the damn google books wont show it in the preview.

You know, f**k it.

Just a month ago, Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema was in a conference which i was attending, had i known that this would become such an issue i would have asked him there

Still, last i heard he was a professor or head of department or something at the National Defence University. i can right now just pick up my PASCOM telephone and call him to ask about the reference. But then me being a fauji and he being a civilian who is around faujis alot, i dont want to sound 'insulting.'

Moreover, knowing him, i know what he's going say; 'Sir, why dont you buy the book'

Oh, i can already 'hear' his Amercanized accent.

May be next time i would visit NDU, i can go ask him personally. Yep, this goes in my To Do list.

So I have the book, and it makes for interesting reading. However, the Reference #70 is not a primary source either. It is another book that refers to a quote, that is all. There seems to be no robust primary official source for claiming that NJ9842 is the terminus thus far. (I will try to put all this information in a more organized format as time permits.)

70. Quoted in A.G. Noorani, "CBMs for the Siachen Glacier, Sir Creek and the Wular Barrage", in Crisis Prevention, Confidence Building, and Reconciliation in South Asia, eds. Michael Krepon and Amit Sevak (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), p. 81.

 

[Xeric]

So I have the book, and it makes for interesting reading. However, the Reference #70 is not a primary source either. It is another book that refers to a quote, that is all. There seems to be no robust primary official source for claiming that NJ9842 is the terminus thus far. (I will try to put all this information in a more organized format as time permits.)

70. Quoted in A.G. Noorani, "CBMs for the Siachen Glacier, Sir Creek and the Wular Barrage", in Crisis Prevention, Confidence Building, and Reconciliation in South Asia, eds. Michael Krepon and Amit Sevak (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), p. 81.

So?

 

[VCheng]

So?

Nothing so far, but I will try a summation of the evidence at some point. No conclusions as of yet, but it is important to note that there seems to be no robust primary official source for claiming that NJ9842 is the terminus as was claimed earlier.

 

[VCheng]

So I have the book, and it makes for interesting reading. However, the Reference #70 is not a primary source either. It is another book that refers to a quote, that is all. There seems to be no robust primary official source for claiming that NJ9842 is the terminus thus far. (I will try to put all this information in a more organized format as time permits.)

70. Quoted in A.G. Noorani, "CBMs for the Siachen Glacier, Sir Creek and the Wular Barrage", in Crisis Prevention, Confidence Building, and Reconciliation in South Asia, eds. Michael Krepon and Amit Sevak (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), p. 81.

What is written on Page 81 of this book is not a primary reference either. It refers pages 89 to 95 of "Siachen - an untold story" by ML Chibber.

So one can see that primary references are lacking in the story thus far, as I suspected. One then can conclude that a careful and precise referral to primary sources is mandatory if the veracity of either side's claims is to be assessed properly, and not from Powerpoint presentations alone.

 

[surya kiran]

What is written on Page 81 of this book is not a primary reference either. It refers pages 89 to 95 of "Siachen - an untold story" by ML Chibber.

So one can see that primary references are lacking in the story thus far, as I suspected. One then can conclude that a careful and precise referral to primary sources is mandatory if the veracity of either side's claims is to be assessed properly, and not from Powerpoint presentations alone.

The problems arise from perception. Ground verification beyond a certain point, I do not think were ever carried out. For the very then perceived practical point of who would be there.

Now, to the point that is discussed, its a ceasefire line. Not an international border. Just like, in 1999 there was an attempt on Kargil (because, Pakistan does not believe LoC and Kashmir is not a part of India).

Now, this thing can keep going round in circles. But, no sane GoI is going to withdraw from Siachen. Irrespective of what world opinion says or wants to say. Ground realities are that, the glacier is under Indian control. India is not going to let go of the feature. I am further saying, in the future, I will not be surprised if in the eventuality of a conflict, attempt will be made to go further in to Pak administered Kashmir.

If there were baskets with 'Fix' 'Cannot fix' 'Too Difficult' . This is too difficult. Also, there is another issue. If Pak agrees that Siachen is Indian territory, then the issue of Kashmir is intricately linked to it. Its better to fix fixable things first, than try to go after dug in positions.

 

[VCheng]

The problems arise from perception. Ground verification beyond a certain point, I do not think were ever carried out. For the very then perceived practical point of who would be there.

Actually, there is no problem. The primary sources are actually quite clear. The twisted perceptions are there to suit the side making them.

 

[shuntmaster]

Its obvious that pakistan has no special claim to siachen glacier...

 

[Chak Bamu]

Great! sit tight and eat ice.

And that ice costs thousands of dollars per kilo. Good for India.

I am glad that Pakistanis did not get to occupy it. We would be loosing soldiers and money for a bunch of ice.

Its obvious that pakistan has no special claim to siachen glacier...

It is obvious that you did not read this thread.

 

[shuntmaster]

Great! sit tight and eat ice.

And that ice costs thousands of dollars per kilo. Good for India.

I am glad that Pakistanis did not get to occupy it. We would be loosing soldiers and money for a bunch of ice.



It is obvious that you did not read this thread.

As per indo-pak Karachi agreement of 1949, india has control of siachen glacier.
Pakistans only claim to the glacier is some vague 1963 sino-pak agreement, which india is not party to. Also, pakistan has not right to illegally cede kashmiri territory to china.

 

[Chak Bamu]

As per indo-pak Karachi agreement of 1949, india has control of siachen glacier.
Pakistans only claim to the glacier is some vague 1963 sino-pak agreement, which india is not party to. Also, pakistan has not right to illegally cede kashmiri territory to china.

Nobody cared about a chunk of ice in 1949. Bring proof that spells out "Siachen glacier" or stay quiet.

 

[VCheng]

Nobody cared about a chunk of ice in 1949. Bring proof that spells out "Siachen glacier" or stay quiet.

It would be prudent to seek out the primary references to read for yourself. Just a thought, Sir.

 

[toxic_pus]

So I have the book, and it makes for interesting reading. However, the Reference #70 is not a primary source either. It is another book that refers to a quote, that is all. There seems to be no robust primary official source for claiming that NJ9842 is the terminus thus far. (I will try to put all this information in a more organized format as time permits.)

70. Quoted in A.G. Noorani, "CBMs for the Siachen Glacier, Sir Creek and the Wular Barrage", in Crisis Prevention, Confidence Building, and Reconciliation in South Asia, eds. Michael Krepon and Amit Sevak (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), p. 81.

What is written on Page 81 of this book is not a primary reference either. It refers pages 89 to 95 of "Siachen - an untold story" by ML Chibber.

So one can see that primary references are lacking in the story thus far, as I suspected. One then can conclude that a careful and precise referral to primary sources is mandatory if the veracity of either side's claims is to be assessed properly, and not from Powerpoint presentations alone.

I doff my hat to your indomitable spirit.

But like I said earlier, the 'claim' is nonsense.

Great! sit tight and eat ice.

And that ice costs thousands of dollars per kilo. Good for India.

I am glad that Pakistanis did not get to occupy it. We would be loosing soldiers and money for a bunch of ice.

Oh grapes, why must you always be so tart?

 

[Chak Bamu]

Oh grapes, why must you always be so tart?

Because a Chunk of ice 20K feet up in the mountains is not worth it. I do not know what the planners on both sides were thinking.

Had Pakistanis been occupying those heights, I would have questioned the wisdom of their doing so. It is simply not worth the treasure and human cost.

May be I am wrong, but I see no strategic benefit in being there.

But one thing is for sure. I do not see that Indians have a case at all. It is just a function of them occupying that area. There is no justification at all, just maintenance of occupation and stalemate at the expense of manpower and treasure.

It would be prudent to seek out the primary references to read for yourself. Just a thought, Sir.

I would let the person who made a claim do that.