VIEW : Siachen: a costly war for Pakistan and India

[karan.1970]

Here is the link. It is bit old but thought should share a source that is neither Indian nor Pakistani:

Siachen Glacier / Operation Meghdoot

Since 2003 there is a truce in affect therefore most of the deaths have been because of weather.

This does not talk of casualty figures post 1997

 

[third eye]

how is kargil & siachen different to each other. without trolling if someone can shed light it would be really good.

There is no difference. Both are a part of India.

What is it that you want to know ?

If you elaborate one can explain.

 

[ice_man]

Its under Indian Flag.. Reason enough.. Possession is 90% ownership ..

so posession is enough. so if pakistan kept kargil it would have been claimed as its own. hmm interesting means that LOC is fluid crossing

There is no difference. Both are a part of India.

What is it that you want to know ?

If you elaborate one can explain.

well clearly siachen is disputed and clearly an attack in siachen wouldn't make the indian army mobilize the way it did with kargil

 

[third eye]

so posession is enough. so if pakistan kept kargil it would have been claimed as its own. hmm interesting means that LOC is fluid crossing

well clearly siachen is disputed and clearly an attack in siachen wouldn't make the indian army mobilize the way it did with kargil

Firstly along the LC its - takers keepers.

Next, you are the first Pakistani who by this post admits that Kargil is not disputed. Thank you.

Lastly, an attack on Siachen will invite complete retaliation will all resources in command along with options of opening up along the IB by land , sea & air as well at a time & place of own choosing.

Pak has always made this silly mistake of assuming that India will play to ther plan of keeping the war localised to J&K.India on the other hand rightfully considers an attack along the LC at par with that across the IB and retaliates accordingly as it did in Lahore during OP Gibraltar.

 

[karan.1970]

so posession is enough. so if pakistan kept kargil it would have been claimed as its own. hmm interesting means that LOC is fluid crossing

Kargil was a typical case of sneaking in by Pakistani forces but not having the staying power.. so Pakistan couldnt have KEPT Kargil, because it was pushed back from it (militarily and diplomatically). Unfortunately, Pakistan could not manage that in Siachen..

Also, LoC ends much before Siachen. The line on the map is not demarked in the region of Siachen glacier, unlike in case of Kargil..

well clearly siachen is disputed and clearly an attack in siachen wouldn't make the indian army mobilize the way it did with kargil

I thought the complete land of P0K, j&k and G&B are considered disputed by Pakistan.. And an attack on Siachen will probably see a greater deployment than what happened in Kargil..

 

[SamantK]

so posession is enough. so if pakistan kept kargil it would have been claimed as its own. hmm interesting means that LOC is fluid crossing

Pakistan can surely try.. this time around, Lahore will become part of India too

well clearly siachen is disputed and clearly an attack in siachen wouldn't make the indian army mobilize the way it did with kargil

It will, actually it will also give another reason to India never to negotiate with Pakistan on anything

 

[Bang Galore]

how is kargil & siachen different to each other. without trolling if someone can shed light it would be really good.

Kargil is on the Indian side of the LoC which is a signed treaty between India & Pakistan, acknowledging each others positions. Under the Shimla accord, it was agreed that no side should violate the LoC. Siachen is on the LoAC where there is no demarcation & no agreement on positions. simple difference.

why does india claim siachen on what logic???

A link might be a good explanation.

The Siachen tangle

S.K. Sinha

As an old soldier who served at high altitudes for years, having seen closely how devastating avalanches can be, I fully sympathise with the families of the unfortunate 138 Pakistani soldiers who perished in the recent avalanche in Siachen. Human beings are helpless against such natural disasters. I am sure that Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the taciturn Army Chief of Pakistan, must have felt overwhelmed during his visit to Siachen. For the first time he spoke the language of peace. This is welcome, but we should not get carried away by the mere expression of desire. Pious intentions mean little unless matched by concrete and credible proposals.
In July 1949, the UN delegation led by Hernando Sampiers from Columbia convened an Indo-Pak conference at Karachi to delineate the ceasefire line in Kashmir. Lt. Gen. Maurice Delvoie of the Belgian Army was the UN military adviser. The Indian delegation led by Gen. Shrinagesh comprised Vishnu Sahay, H.M. Patel, Gen. Thimayya and Gen. Manekshaw as members. Although very junior in rank, I was the secretary of the delegation. The Pakistan delegation, led by Gen. Cawthorn, had two civilian and two Army officers. Gen. Nazir Ahmed and Gen. Sher Khan were its military members. The latter was member-secretary. Today, I am the only surviving person who was present at that conference.
Jawaharlal Nehru held a meeting to brief the Indian delegation. Girija Shankar Bajpai, Nehru’s principal foreign affairs adviser, was also present at the meeting. I took down the salient points of the briefing. The UN Resolution of August 13, 1948, recognised the legality of Kashmir’s accession to India. Pakistan had to withdraw all its forces from Kashmir before plebiscite, while India could retain her forces till plebiscite was complete. The factual position of troops on the day of the ceasefire, i.e. January 1, 1949, was to be the basis for delineating the ceasefire line. India and Pakistan had conflicting claims. As the UN had accepted India’s legal status in Kashmir we should have bid for the no man’s land to be made inclusive to us.
At Karachi, Gen. Delvoie presented a notional line as the basis for discussion. We were horrified to find that this line was almost a complete reproduction of the line claimed by Pakistan. We had a Herculean task contesting against both Gen. Delvoie’s notional line and Pakistan’s claim line. It took us seven days of hectic discussions to delineate an agreed 740 km ceasefire line on a quarter-inch map, from Lalealli in the south to NJ 9842 in the north. By and large, we managed to get an agreement on our claimed line except for minor adjustments. Using the no man’s land argument, we succeeded in getting the 200 square mile Tilel Valley. Pakistan desperately tried for this Valley, eventually bidding for equal share, but failed. The MiniMarg area beyond the ceasefire line but south of the Burzilbai pass was to be kept demilitarised to deny Pakistan infiltration routes into Tilel Valley. No one at that time thought that military operations could take place at the forbidding heights beyond NJ 9842. In any case, the ceasefire line was only something temporary. After plebiscite it would become irrelevant. Thus, we drew a straight line running north from NJ 9842 to the glaciers. It is easy to be wise after the event. It would have been better if the line beyond NJ 4982 had not been left vague. On the basis of the no man’s land argument the entire Siachen glacier should have been made inclusive to India. A straight line north from NJ 9842 makes half the region, including parts of the Saltoro ridge, inclusive to us.
Pakistan soon violated the clause of MiniMarg’s demilitarisation. This was in keeping with Pakistan’s practice of violating all written and verbal agreements, as in the case of the Standstill Agreement in 1947, the Karachi Agreement (ceasefire agreement) of 1949, the Tashkent Agreement of 1966, Simla Accord of 1972, Lahore Declaration of 1999 and the joint statement of 2004 to not allow cross-border terrorism from Pakistan or Pakistan-controlled territory. In view of this, an agreement on Siachen without Pakistan categorically accepting the Actual Ground Position Line, and without a realistic punitive clause, makes little sense.
For nearly half a century till 1984, Siachen had no military presence from either side, not even during the 1965 or 1971 wars. Mountaineering expeditions towards K2, the second highest peak in the world, and other peaks were taking place. From the late 1960s, Pakistan started cartographic aggression by showing Siachen as a Pakistani territory. Some US maps followed suit, favouring a most friendly non-Nato ally. Apart from Siachen providing Pakistan access to Nubra and Shyok Valley, this region also provides access to Gilgit from the illegally gifted Shaksgam Valley by Pakistan to China. There was a sharp increase in foreign mountaineering expeditions into this area from the Pakistan side. Pakistan started giving permits to expeditions to show its administrative control over this region. In 1984, we received confirmed intelligence of the Pakistan Brigade at Skardu commanded by Pervez Musharraf launching a commando operation to occupy the Saltoro ridge. We preempted Pakistan by 48 hours and beat back its attack. The approach to the ridge from the Pakistan side involves a steep climb from 12,000 to 22,000 feet, making defences on the ridge impregnable. Operation Meghdoot conducted on April 13, 1984, in small helicopters, was a most hazardous operation which was successful. In the next nearly 20 years, Pakistan launched four major and several minor attacks till 2004 when a ceasefire came about. As the governor of Kashmir, I visited Saltoro positions in 2004. No doubt living at those forbidding heights is most difficult, but with improved technology for living and excellent medical cover, our casualty figures have not been too high. We have suffered about 1,000 casualties in Siachen since 1984, with a ratio of nine to one of non-battle to battle casualties. Our current casualty figure is about 10 per year. For the Pakistan Army, living at 12,000 feet and repeatedly attacking those dominating defensive positions, the ratio of battle and non-battle casualties is in reverse. I recall that in November 1948 during the battle of Zojila at a height of about 10,000 feet, when we had no snow clothing at all, due to sudden heavy snowfall we suffered 200 cases of frost bite in one night. Many had to be amputated. In the mid ’60s, commanding a battalion at the height of 16,000 feet for two years, I found our casualty figures not much less than now in Siachen as we did not have comparable living facilities or medical cover.
Although our positions on the Saltoro Ridge are impregnable, Pakistan has the advantage of better communication from the plains. Its forces can trek to Saltoro in a week, while we will take three weeks. If Pakistan does a Kargil there, it will be totally impossible to evict Pakistan. In the circumstances, a step-by-step approach to peace in Kashmir with Siachen as the first step can be suicidal. Demilitarisation of Siachen should only be a part of the complete peace arrangement in Kashmir.

The writer, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as governor of Assam and J&K

The Siachen tangle | The Asian Age

 

[Bang Galore]

well clearly siachen is disputed and clearly an attack in siachen wouldn't make the indian army mobilize the way it did with kargil

No need for mobilisations. Your soldiers have no chance of ousting IA from their positions. They have tried, tried and tried again. Even the SSG. Got absolutely nowhere, Your army has long given up the ghost in Siachen. Which is why it wants out.

 

[ice_man]

No need for mobilisations. Your soldiers have no chance of ousting IA from their positions. They have tried, tried and tried again. Even the SSG. Got absolutely nowhere, Your army has long given up the ghost in Siachen. Which is why it wants out.

that was then and this is NOW. the arctic gear as well as arms & airdrops and everything have improved. however, currently keeping the status quo is the smart thing to do.

either both sides withdraw or buth just keep sitting there.


currently the south asian EGO on both sides won't let either of them pullback. so atleast in our age we won't see any pull out. but i hope someday Siachen becomes a tourist paradise and people from all over the world flock to it like they do with Jangfrau in switzerland!

 

[Fireurimagination]

how is kargil & siachen different to each other. without trolling if someone can shed light it would be really good.

Kargil was crossing of LOC, Siachen wasn't

 

[SQ8]

No need for mobilisations. Your soldiers have no chance of ousting IA from their positions. They have tried, tried and tried again. Even the SSG. Got absolutely nowhere, Your army has long given up the ghost in Siachen. Which is why it wants out.

The fact is, the article by S.K Sinha puts it in a fairly simple light..
It is actually more difficult for India to mount a comprehensive attack into Pakistan from Siachen than it is for Pakistan to do the same.
Any mobilization by India will be picked up in the time it takes to get to their positions, while those by Pakistan(like Kargil before) can be done quicker and with less chances of suspicion.

In as such, Siachen is at a standstill..
There is literally no point in contesting that piece of icy trash unless or until Pakistan wants to launch an all out attack on Kashmir. Since that is not happening, there is simply no need to worry about the AGPL.
The AGPL may not be strategically suited to Pakistan, but as such.. it poses no immediate tactical threat either.

 

[Contrarian]

The fact is, the article by S.K Sinha puts it in a fairly simple light..
It is actually more difficult for India to mount a comprehensive attack into Pakistan from Siachen than it is for Pakistan to do the same.
Any mobilization by India will be picked up in the time it takes to get to their positions, while those by Pakistan(like Kargil before) can be done quicker and with less chances of suspicion.

In as such, Siachen is at a standstill..
There is literally no point in contesting that piece of icy trash unless or until Pakistan wants to launch an all out attack on Kashmir. Since that is not happening, there is simply no need to worry about the AGPL.
The AGPL may not be strategically suited to Pakistan, but as such.. it poses no immediate tactical threat either.

That is also the Army's point. If GoI asks Army to vacate, it will be almost impossible to take it back like Kargil. And that if Pakistan is in posession of Siachen, it can be used in a war against India.

So better to be there when it hardly costs anything. The alternative doesnt save that much for India as the human cost is now close to zero.

 

[Ticker]

The fact is, the article by S.K Sinha puts it in a fairly simple light..
It is actually more difficult for India to mount a comprehensive attack into Pakistan from Siachen than it is for Pakistan to do the same.
Any mobilization by India will be picked up in the time it takes to get to their positions, while those by Pakistan(like Kargil before) can be done quicker and with less chances of suspicion.

In as such, Siachen is at a standstill..
There is literally no point in contesting that piece of icy trash unless or until Pakistan wants to launch an all out attack on Kashmir. Since that is not happening, there is simply no need to worry about the AGPL.
The AGPL may not be strategically suited to Pakistan, but as such.. it poses no immediate tactical threat either.

If you read the statement of Indian Northern Command Commander, it clearly indicates that India has been the aggressor in this case and invaded Siachen, "if in the excuse of expeditions they come and occupy that area, it would cause a lot of threat to us. So we occupied it in '84." The occupation was carried out without any military threat and as such, this statement of a very high ranking Indian Army officer is of highest significance.

NewsWarrior: Pakistan welcome to withdraw from Siachen, says India's Northern Army Commander

It is not perceiving a tactical or strategic threat from AGPL that is important, it is the official acceptance of Indian ground positions which is important here. If we accept the AGPL and sign on the maps as the Indians want us to, this would tantamount to accepting and rewarding the Indian aggression. And this should never be done under any circumstances.

JN Dixit, in one of his books states that Indian's biggest victory was converting the CFL into LOC, as it is easier to convert the LOC in to an international border as compared to a CFL. AGPL is infact a CFL.

We need to understand these nuances before making our comments/suggesting measures. Such measures may have serious repercussions down the line and may put us in a difficult situation while negotiating settlements.

 

[karan.1970]

If you read the statement of Indian Northern Command Commander, it clearly indicates that India has been the aggressor in this case and invaded Siachen, "if in the excuse of expeditions they come and occupy that area, it would cause a lot of threat to us. So we occupied it in '84." The occupation was carried out without any military threat and as such, this statement of a very high ranking Indian Army officer is of highest significance.

NewsWarrior: Pakistan welcome to withdraw from Siachen, says India's Northern Army Commander

It is not perceiving a tactical or strategic threat from AGPL that is important, it is the official acceptance of Indian ground positions which is important here. If we accept the AGPL and sign on the maps as the Indians want us to, this would tantamount to accepting and rewarding the Indian aggression. And this should never be done under any circumstances.

JN Dixit, in one of his books states that Indian's biggest victory was converting the CFL into LOC, as it is easier to convert the LOC in to an international border as compared to a CFL. AGPL is infact a CFL.

We need to understand these nuances before making our comments/suggesting measures. Such measures may have serious repercussions down the line and may put us in a difficult situation while negotiating settlements.

Yes.. We decided to capture it and went right ahead.. We were the aggressor.. What next ??

 

[MandarK]

It is not perceiving a tactical or strategic threat from AGPL that is important, it is the official acceptance of Indian ground positions which is important here. If we accept the AGPL and sign on the maps as the Indians want us to, this would tantamount to accepting and rewarding the Indian aggression. And this should never be done under any circumstances.

You guys have your share of aggression and that is why you still have some part of kashmir. Apart from that, why will India leave Siachen?? If theory of aggression is applied then you should vacate whole Kashmir unconditionally.

We are commanding heights and we have soldiers who are ready to serve there. Accept the actual position or dont bother us.