Why India Occupied Siachen?

[Bang Galore]

The utility of staying on at Siachen

Nitin Pai


Staying put on Siachen makes sense precisely because it involves extreme hardship and cost for a mere barren block of ice.

An avalanche buried 124 people, mostly soldiers but also some civilians at a Pakistani army camp at Gyari near Siachen. Even if the missing and the dead are soldiers who are lingering manifestations of an original invasion, repeated aggression and an long-drawn but still ongoing war against India, our humanity makes many of us lament the human toll.

The tragedy has triggered two understandable but misguided reactions among the public and in the media. The first blames the tragedy (and by extension, the costs, the injuries and loss of lives) on the rivalry between Pakistan and India, contending that both sides could avoid wasting blood and treasure if they were to avoid such futile confrontations, if not solve their all differences. The logical implication is that India is partly responsible for the loss at Gyari. Reasonable as it may appear to be, it is untenable. The Pakistani soldiers were deployed at Gyari on the orders of their military and government leaders. If the Pakistani leadership prized the lives of these soldiers than whatever they have at stake at Siachen then they could have ended the deployment. They can do so even today.

There is nothing to stop either side from unilaterally pulling their troops out of the ‘world’s highest battleground’. Ergo, the moral responsibility for whatever happens to their troops lies solely with the leadership that sent them there. This applies as much to India as it does to Pakistan.

The second reaction laments an expensive confrontation over a remote, barren and uninhabitable region and sees it as useless and futile. But staying put on Siachen makes sense precisely because it involves avoidable expense and extreme hardship for a huge block of ice. It essentially tells the other side “if we can go to such lengths to keep a big, useless block of ice, imagine what lengths we’d go to keep something more valuable.” Again, this applies to both sides. Both India and Pakistan signal their commitment by staying in the region. The difference is that Pakistan is signalling its strategic commitment to an invasion it started in 1947 and India is signalling its strategic commitment to defending against the same.

This difference makes all the difference. It is morally perverse to preach the “futility of war” to the side that has been invaded. In fact, if potential aggressors do not believe your commitment to defend your territory as credible, they are less likely to accept the futility of war. They might calculate that the benefits of aggression will outweigh the costs—and like General Musharraf in 1999—decide to try their luck. After the Kargil war, Indian troops are stationed in the Dras area, in conditions similar or worse than those at Siachen. The expense of defending the Line of Control in winter and the hardship Indian soldiers go through deters another Kargil-like war.

So, showing commitment to defend is one of the best ways of persuading potential aggressors of the “futility of war”. Yes, this causes others to suspect aggressive intent and act in ways that would further appear threatening to us, causing us to strengthen our commitment and so on. This “security dilemma” sets off arms races that raise the proportion of national income allocated to defence. Unfortunately, it cannot be wished away. It must be managed.

None of this is to say that demilitarisation of the Siachen area is a bad idea. Rather, it is to debunk the notion that India is engaged in a unnecessary, wasteful or futile exercise over the glacier. If the conditions on the ground change such that it is no longer necessary to show this commitment, then the Indian army can descend to warmer climes. The real question everyone ought to ask is what might those conditions be.

The utility of staying on at Siachen | The Acorn

 

[Abhishek_]

Accept....don't accept... nobody in India cares. You are the guys who want this demilitarised, we will agree if our conditions are met. Otherwise status quo suits us just fine. It is not as if Pakistan is our "best friend" that we need to concern ourselves with what you think. If you have nothing to offer in return, all you are are doing is whining. We are not interested in humouring you. In any case Pakistani assertions that India must do this or that is bewildering, why must we do anything for you? Where our interests collide, out leaders & our military officers are paid salaries to look out for our interests, not yours or anyone else's. Time to wake up & smell the coffee !

 

[deckingraj]

I have cut down some parts to reduce the size...

No this part of your post doesn't make sense since you have no rational reasons for not including third party for the solution of this conflict. You have done it once and their is no harm in doing it again.

That is your perspective...We don't adhere to it...My only point is that this doesn't mean we are not interested in solving the conflict...This is wrong conclusion because even if we look around third party mediation has not brought i rosy results...b/w what will a third party bring in that we(both) don't have???

With all these long standing issues pending I doubt things can improve with all the ceremonial CBM's. We have seen what have we achieved with these CBM's and I am not a big fan of them.

That is where you and your likes make the big mistake...CBM's are the pre-requisite for any conflict resolution...Thankfully your govt. has understood the importance of it...High time you should also learn its importance...Without CBM's no third/fourth party can do anything...

China-India border is not a threat to peace of this region. I doubt any war is possible between the two countries in near future. On the other hand we have us who have failed to resolve our conflicts despite taking heavy human casualties and economic burden.Well that isn't happening right now.

Point is not about which part is more volatile...Point is no third party doesn't mean one is not interested in resolving the issue...Please don't miss the point while replying...

Lol why would we consult India about our territory? It was you who were being offended by Pakistan's "aggression". Not us. Do we consult you when we consider Baltoro or other Glaciers from the same region as part of Pakistan.

See that is the problem...and then you blame it on india..How is Siachen your territory??? On what basis are you claiming this???

We consider all the glaciers of that region part of Baltistan. You might invade east on Baltoro from Siachen and can ask the same question in the future that how did you consider Baltoro to be part of Baltistan?

I have already explained it...Tomorrow you can consider Delhi as part of your land...it will not mean anything...I am talking about Shimla agreement and the defined LOC which both sides were supposed to respect...Siachen is one such area which was not clearly defined...Rest of the glaciers clearly falls under both the sides...Now let's not keep circling on such a basic thing that we both understand clearly....

Or shall I say it was just in 1984 India realized Pakistan's "aggression".

Listen...i believe you need to read a bit about it...Nobody jumps on the gun right from the day 1...Things build up and finally conclusive action was taken....Allowing expeditions was one thing, showing the entire area under your map was another...Slowly steadily even international maps started showing this area under your map...Indian side got the air about it in 78...And that's when a counter exercise was done where our colonel took an expedition there...Now i can ask the same thing where was Pakistan then??

All about the Siachen Glacier: the conflict, perspectives of India and Pakistan, geography, history and the possible resolutions - About

If there were any plans like these it would have been in response of your aggression. Not ignoring it but I am having hard time ignoring the fact that on ground it was India who reached no man's land first.

Now this is sounding stupid...You don't know about it and are making assumptions, yet you say you are not taking one sided view??? We reached there first, but that doesn't mean Pakistan had similar plans...

No they were not protected. But after Indian invasion of Siachen Pakistan realized the threat that India can pose from Siachen hence took precautionary measures later to secure our territory. On the other hand India was busy securing the territory it occupied. Who knows after securing Siachen India's next target would have been any of the above glaciers.

Agians these are mere assumptions of yours without any iota of proofs...I am not going to keep explaining the same point again and again..Other glaciers clearly lie on both sides...This one was not..Period.

The only reason for your invasion of Siachen was absence of Pakistani troops to defend it not Pakistan's "aggression".

Listen here...You are accusing us of aggression which has no grounds...Just because we reached there first is not good enough a reason...Firstly it is your incompetence that we reached their first..Secondly you can consider anything but there is not an iota of substance which says that Siachen belonged to you...Thirdly we considered only Siachen as ours and that's why action was taken on that glacier..Fourthly - If it was a no man's land as claimed by you why were you allowing those expeditions there??? Who were you to give permits for those expeditions...It is quiet convenient to put blame on the other party but reality is different...

Then why are you in favor of all those CBM's?

LoL...It was in reference to our discussion...Look CBM's are the building blocks for any conflict resolution...Wake up dude...you seem to be better than this...you should know how important CBM's are...

 

[Areesh]

That is your perspective...We don't adhere to it...My only point is that this doesn't mean we are not interested in solving the conflict...This is wrong conclusion because even if we look around third party mediation has not brought i rosy results...b/w what will a third party bring in that we(both) don't have???

Look the truth is we have failed to solve issues like Siachen by bilateral dialogue and all that stuff. Now on thing is we continue with such useless dialogue and keep maintaining status quo which can result in the escalation of hostilities in future which might lead to a war between two nuclear states. So if it is proved that we can't resolve our issues by bilateral dialogue then why not bring a third party in it to get to some kid of acceptable solution.

That is where you and your likes make the big mistake...CBM's are the pre-requisite for any conflict resolution...Thankfully your govt. has understood the importance of it...High time you should also learn its importance...Without CBM's no third/fourth party can do anything...

Fine CBM's might be the pre-requisite for any conflict solution but question is how long we are going to continue with these CBM's with practically nothing happening on ground for the solution of conflicts. If we start doing trade and all these and on other hand India continues it's rant of Siachen belongs to us then this CBM's aren't going to take us anywhere.

Point is not about which part is more volatile...Point is no third party doesn't mean one is not interested in resolving the issue...Please don't miss the point while replying...

Bold part. Who says that no third party is interested in resolving the issue. In fact after Gayari sector tragedy US announced that it can help India and Pakistan in the solution of Siachen conflict. We can also ask other countries for help if we(or India) is interested in resolving the conflicts.

See that is the problem...and then you blame it on india..How is Siachen your territory??? On what basis are you claiming this???

Pakistan always considered Siachen to be Pakistan's territory. According to Pakistani definition of cease fire line of 1949 Siachen was well inside Pakistani territory. And not only Pakistan but also other countries considered Siachen to be part of Pakistan. It is a fact that all foreign expeditions coming into the area applied for permission from Islamabad, not New Delhi.

I have already explained it...Tomorrow you can consider Delhi as part of your land

Lol we won't do anything like that. Believe me.

.I am talking about Shimla agreement and the defined LOC which both sides were supposed to respect...Siachen is one such area which was not clearly defined

But according to Pakistani definition of 1949 ceasefire Siachen was part of Pakistan. And that's why for years Pakistan gave permits to foreigners for ascent on the peaks of Siachen. All the other countries also accepted Pakistan's claim. India itself remained in slumber for decades till it realized Pakistan's so called aggression. In fact if we extend the cease fire line of 1949 Siacehn would still be on the west of the line that is in Pakistan. You can check the map for it.

Siachen is one such area which was not clearly defined

Yeah just the border line wasn't demarcated but still as I said logically and also legally Siachen should be part of Pakistan unless the border takes a huge curve to include Siachen in India.

Rest of the glaciers clearly falls under both the sides...

If not being demarcated is the reason for India's aggression then India can invade the other glaciers too which aren't far away from Siachen. In fact Baltoro is seperated from Siachen by a pass know as Conway Saddle. Siachen would have been on Pakistan side if we extend the line of control/cease fire line all the way to the China in the same direction as it is going.

Listen...i believe you need to read a bit about it

I have read about it.

Allowing expeditions was one thing, showing the entire area under your map was another...Slowly steadily even international maps started showing this area under your map...

Humm...

And that's when a counter exercise was done where our colonel took an expedition there

Good. So you admit that the first "military" expedition in the Siachen glacier was sent by Bharat?

Now i can ask the same thing where was Pakistan then??

Pakistan never had any aggressive designs. In fact whenever Pakistan acted militarily in Siachen it was is defense or in response to some Indian military aggression/ingress.

Now this is sounding stupid...You don't know about it and are making assumptions, yet you say you are not taking one sided view??? We reached there first, but that doesn't mean Pakistan had similar plans...

No it isn't and neither I am making assumptions about it. According to officers of PA, PA knew about previous military expeditions by IA in Siachen region and knew that in the summer of 1984 IA would be coming back with more guys and more preperations. Their expectations proved to be true. This what you will hear from PA officers if you ask them about Siachen conflict. So it isn't my assumption.

Agians these are mere assumptions of yours without any iota of proofs

This isn't something that needs proofs. It is obvious that Indians were preoccupied with combat with Pakistani forces, hence had no chances of moving further into other glaciers. Yeah but after some years when Indians would have consolidated their presence on Siachen they might have invaded Baltoro or other glaciers if Pakistan didn't take precautionary measures like building posts on conway saddle to check any Indian aggression on Baltoro.

Other glaciers clearly lie on both sides...This one was not..Period.

Pakistan believes that if we extend the ceasefire line/LOC towards north then Siachen would fall on the western side of the border i-e Pakistan.

You are accusing us of aggression which has no grounds...Just because we reached there first is not good enough a reason

You yourself said India was ingressing in Siachen militarily since 1978-79. Still we shouldn't accuse you aggression? Strange.

.Firstly it is your incompetence that we reached their first

Incompetence. One can say Pakistan din't want to start another conflict for a wasteland.

Secondly you can consider anything but there is not an iota of substance which says that Siachen belonged to you...

Answered above.

Thirdly we considered only Siachen as ours and that's why action was taken on that glacier..

Would have to ask the same thing. Where were you when Pakistan allowed 72 expeditions to Siachen, 52 of whom were before Simla aggreement. Why Indian foreign office didn't protested to Pakistan?

Fourthly - If it was a no man's land as claimed by you why were you allowing those expeditions there???

Pakistan always considered Siachen to be part of Pakista as said above. We didn't mantain military presence because of the terrain and weather difficulties.

It was in reference to our discussion...

Fine. I thought you said solution of Siachen isnt possible. Anyways CBM's are welcome if they really result in the resolution of issues or else nobody would like this waste of time.

By the way I think you can understand Urdu. Do check this video and give your input about it.

I don't think you would have problem in accepting historical facts mentioned in the program like the Indian participant.

 

[airmarshal]

Siachen

The Indian cyber Gog and Magog tell us that India acted in Siachen because Pakistan had plans to occupy the area. Let me reconstruct the story from the account of Lt-Gen Dr M L Chibber (retd), GOC-in-C Northern Command in 1984.
1978, Gen Chibber is DMO: India notices that Pakistan is permitting mountaineering expeditions into the area. (NB: Pakistan had traditionally allowed expeditions west of the imaginary line that extended from NJ9842 “thence north to the glaciers”.)
“We sent a patrol next year and it was confirmed that Japanese expeditions had visited the Siachen Glacier. So routine patrolling started. Similarly routine protest notes used to be exchanged. The problem precipitated on 21st August 1983 when a protest note from Northern Sector Commander of Pakistan was handed over to his counterpart in Kargil stating that Line of Control joins with the Karakoram Pass, also that all the area West of this extended line belongs to Pakistan. When Army Headquarters saw this and also got information that Pakistan [sic] troops had occupied [sic] Bila Fond Pass, they ordered [the] Northern Command to prevent the occupation [sic] of the Glacier area by Pakistan during the mountaineering season in 1984 (italics mine).”
The italics show that Pakistan was not attempting to alter any ground reality. It was Pakistan’s clear understanding that the area, according to the 1972 delineation and demarcation of the LoC, belonged to her. It is a matter of record that all foreign expeditions coming into the area applied for permission from Islamabad, not New Delhi. Gen Chibber’s use of the word “occupation” for the deployment in Bilafond La was therefore inaccurate. That deployment was the result of Indian patrols that had begun to ingress in the area. Beyond this lies realpolitik. The best account of the run-up to the Siachen conflict is by General Jahandad Khan (Pakistan leadership challenges) and is fully corroborated by Gen Chibber (General Chibber spoke about it in May 2000 when he was visiting Pakistan. For his complete interview and detailed excerpt from Gen Khan’s book, see An Interview with Padma Bhushan Lt Gen (Retd) Dr M.L Chibber)
The initial deployment at Bilafond La was a 10-day sojourn by an SSG company which was asked to withdraw because the personnel had no equipment to survive when it began snowing in the first week of September. Indian troops, comprising the Ladakh Scouts, had camped in the Siachen area. Seeing Pakistani troops they “left their location in a great hurry abandoning all their rations and tentage”.
Increased Indian patrol activity led to meetings in the GHQ to decide the “plan of action for the summer of 1984 when the Indians were bound to come in greater numbers”. Gen Jahandad realised that “whoever succeeded in occupying the passes first” would be the winner because dislodging him would be almost impossible. As Corps Commander, his assessment to the GHQ was: “Next year (1984), India is most likely to pre-empt the occupation of the main passes of Baltoro Ridge with two-battalion strength for occupation and a third battalion as reserve. It would need another brigade to provide them with logistic support. Maximum helicopter force will have to be utilised for logistic support. Their air force will be available for air cover and also air drop of supplies/equipment.”
He estimated that Pakistan would require a “brigade group with a battalion plus to occupy these passes and the rest of the force to provide relief and logistic support. We would also need maximum porter force to carry supplies and ammunition from Goma to the glacier position. All our helicopters force, both Aloutte and Puma, will have to be mobilised for recce and logistic cover. The PAF has to stand-by to provide air cover. I had also cautioned GHQ that this operation will be very costly in logistic support. Our Military Intelligence must be alerted to keep us informed of all enemy movements beyond Leh to forestall their occupation of the glacier area.” However, at a meeting held in December 1983, General Ziaul Haq thought the operation would be on a limited scale. His assessment of both the “quantum of force required” and “the logistic problem of this operation” was incorrect. The Indians were quicker. We miscalculated the timing of the Indian ingress and also failed to notice a brigade-size movement from Leh in the second half of April 1984. By the time our troops arrived, the Indians had already occupied Gyong La in the south “strategically important because it could interfere with the enemy’s line of logistic support”.
Fact 1: India aggressed. Fact 2: We didn’t plan any presence until India began patrolling the area. Fact 3: Our intelligence failed and our deployment was late.
Lesson: lower the guard and be prepared to face the consequences.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 14th, 2012.

 

[deckingraj]

Again i am cutting the details to keep the length in check. Please let me know if i miss any important point...

Look the truth is we have failed to solve issues like Siachen by bilateral dialogue and all that stuff. So if it is proved that we can't resolve our issues by bilateral dialogue then why not bring a third party in it to get to some kid of acceptable solution.Fine CBM's might be the pre-requisite for any conflict solution but question is how long we are going to continue with these CBM's with practically nothing happening on ground for the solution of conflicts.Bold part. Who says that no third party is interested in resolving the issue. In fact after Gayari sector tragedy US announced that it can help India and Pakistan in the solution of Siachen conflict.

This is where you are making the biggest mistake...As said earlier what will third party bring in that we both don't already have?? UN(read US) is also a third party mediator in Israel and Palenstine conflict...DO we have any result...Listen you are missing the basic point here...Both of us have enough expertise to resolve the issue amicably...However it is a very very complex issue....and we have fought 4 wars for it...CBM's are no magic wand that will bring in results quickly....However there is no other way out...As said third party is not going to bring in any iota of benefit to this issue...if you think they can then kindly suggest what benefit are they going to bring???

Pakistan always considered Siachen to be Pakistan's territory. According to Pakistani definition of cease fire line of 1949 Siachen was well inside Pakistani territory. And not only Pakistan but also other countries considered Siachen to be part of Pakistan. It is a fact that all foreign expeditions coming into the area applied for permission from Islamabad, not New Delhi.

Again this is what you consider..I never challenged that part...I will once again bring your attention to Shimla Agreement of 71...That is the root of the problem..Both sides had their own interpertations....You consider Siachen yours, we consider it ours...I am only contesting your accusation which is "India started this madness" whereas truth of the matter is that we reached there just 4 days before you...

But according to Pakistani definition of 1949 ceasefire Siachen was part of Pakistan. And that's why for years Pakistan gave permits to foreigners for ascent on the peaks of Siachen. All the other countries also accepted Pakistan's claim. India itself remained in slumber for decades till it realized Pakistan's so called aggression. In fact if we extend the cease fire line of 1949 Siacehn would still be on the west of the line that is in Pakistan. You can check the map for it.

Factually wrong....There is a reason that in 71 this area was not clearly demarcated which was - this area was inhabitable.....Also i am not sure about ceaser fire line of 49 but everything changed in 71...so i am not sure if it is right for us to discuss based on 49...71 was the time when LOC came into being and i am basing my discussion on that...let me know if you differ...

Yeah just the border line wasn't demarcated but still as I said logically and also legally Siachen should be part of Pakistan unless the border takes a huge curve to include Siachen in India.

Once again this is your interpertation...I am not challenging it...But your interpertation doesn't mean you are right..Again the root of the problem is the ill-defined LOC post that infamous point..

Good. So you admit that the first "military" expedition in the Siachen glacier was sent by Bharat

Yes...Was anybody denying that?? However how does it negate the fact that it was a move to show India's authority on the glacier and in response to your mountaineering expeditions???

Pakistan never had any aggressive designs. In fact whenever Pakistan acted militarily in Siachen it was is defense or in response to some Indian military aggression/ingress.

Now this is getting a little annoying...I have already explained this point very clearly in pervious posts..

No it isn't and neither I am making assumptions about it. According to officers of PA, PA knew about previous military expeditions by IA in Siachen region and knew that in the summer of 1984 IA would be coming back with more guys and more preperations. Their expectations proved to be true. This what you will hear from PA officers if you ask them about Siachen conflict. So it isn't my assumption.

????...I am sorry but this is heights...Our military expedition was in 79...Your army knew we will come with more men in 84 and yet they missed us by 4 days...and that too something which they believe was theirs...Incompetence??? Listen buddy we need to sometime question things instead of accepting them on face value...

This isn't something that needs proofs. It is obvious that Indians were preoccupied with combat with Pakistani forces, hence had no chances of moving further into other glaciers. Yeah but after some years when Indians would have consolidated their presence on Siachen they might have invaded Baltoro or other glaciers if Pakistan didn't take precautionary measures like building posts on conway saddle to check any Indian aggression on Baltoro.

Or may be there is a remote possibility that IA never consider these glaciers as theirs since there is no ambiguity over their position and might have no plans for it...Is is a possible scenario by any stretch of your imagination???

Pakistan believes that if we extend the ceasefire line/LOC towards north then Siachen would fall on the western side of the border i-e Pakistan.You yourself said India was ingressing in Siachen militarily since 1978-79. Still we shouldn't accuse you aggression? Strange.

Strange is that you still are not able to grasp the entire issue...As said that you can consider whatever you want...That doesn't mean it becomes fact....You were giving permit to expeditions of glacier which you consider yours...We did an expedition to the glacier which we consider as ours...How is former not an aggression but later is????

Incompetence. One can say Pakistan din't want to start another conflict for a wasteland.

COmon dude...You just said that you guys were aware that IA will come with more mens of their...and yet you are denying incompetence??? You do have some weird nerve man!!!!...Listen this is a known fact that PA ordered some gears and other material from an agency who had close links with RAW...This is the basic reason we reached their 4 days before you...Now let's accept some simple things that we can and move on...Please!!!

Would have to ask the same thing. Where were you when Pakistan allowed 72 expeditions to Siachen, 52 of whom were before Simla aggreement. Why Indian foreign office didn't protested to Pakistan?

I am not aware of expeditions before Shimla agreement...Mind sharing something to read...
Anyhow as said what happened before Shimla agreement is least of my interest...Shimla agreement and its faulty demarcation of LOC is the root cause of this issue....
Also this argument is circular...Our expedition was in direct reponse to the premits given by you...I have no problems in saying that both sides are at fault...it is you who is pointing finger in only one direction...

Fine. I thought you said solution of Siachen isnt possible. Anyways CBM's are welcome if they really result in the resolution of issues or else nobody would like this waste of time..

CBM's are the only way out...We can have entire UN sit here and can act as third/fourth party it is not going to change an iota of thing here...

By the way I think you can understand Urdu. Do check this video and give your input about it.
I don't think you would have problem in accepting historical facts mentioned in the program like the Indian participant.

No i have no problem...in fact the participant is also saying what i was...it was the cartographic aggression that triggered our response...He is clearly saying that interpretations of the facts are different from both sides...Even participants from your side are saying that we started assuming(though not in tacit words) because of lack of India's objection...Doesn't that vindicate my stand that both made the mistake???....Anyhow lot of insight into the issue...I am amazed you still have a hardline view that it is only India who is at fault...

 

[Screambowl]

It is a glacier which belongs to India .. so for its security we have sent troops. simple.

 

[Uchiha]

No mutual dialogue is needed, if indians have the least bit of humanity in them they'll read the history and ask th people there for their vote, democracy style. Siachen is Pakistan

 

[Areesh]

Again i am cutting the details to keep the length in check. Please let me know if i miss any important point...

Was a bit busy hence the late reply. Anyways.

This is where you are making the biggest mistake...As said earlier what will third party bring in that we both don't already have?? UN(read US) is also a third party mediator in Israel and Palenstine conflict...DO we have any result...Listen you are missing the basic point here...Both of us have enough expertise to resolve the issue amicably...However it is a very very complex issue....and we have fought 4 wars for it...CBM's are no magic wand that will bring in results quickly....However there is no other way out...As said third party is not going to bring in any iota of benefit to this issue...if you think they can then kindly suggest what benefit are they going to bring???

Look third party mediators have worked well in context of Indo-pak. Indus water treaty was also the result of third party mediation and also the 1949 cease fire line. Just because it didn't work in the case of Israel or Palestine doesn't mean it won't work in our case too. As I said we have a history of third party meditation and it worked well somehow. On the other hand we have a pathetic record of resolving our issues bilaterally. I would have to repeat the same thing that till now I am yet to find a good reason for not including third party to resolve issues like Siachen. By the way Tashkhant diclaration can also be taken as an example of successful third party mediation.

.71 was the time when LOC came into being and i am basing my discussion on that...let me know if you differ...

Yeah but even if we extend the LOC of Simla agreement all up to the China the result would be same. Siachen would fall on the Pakistani side of LOC. To include Siachen in India we would need to give LOC some strange curve.

However how does it negate the fact that it was a move to show India's authority on the glacier and in response to your mountaineering expeditions???

But then difference remains our expeditions were purely civilian which you or your govt didn't protest. While yours one was military one which I think our military did protested.

Now this is getting a little annoying...I have already explained this point very clearly in pervious posts..

Yes you did but the fact is the first military expedition was sent by India and first civilian expedition was sent by Pakistan. The difference of civilian and military expeditions has importance here.

Incompetence??? Listen buddy we need to sometime question things instead of accepting them on face value...

Well there is lot of debate on this issue here in Pakistan. Many people criticised PA for this, I on the other hand accept the fact that Siachen was all a new conflict zone for PA and so it required preperations and arrangements.It is only in 1983 that PA realized that IA would be coming in the summer of 198 to occupy Siachen.We both tried and you got earlier by a few days. Still even though Indians held the tactical advantage of occupying heights our soldiers did their best to stop Indians from achieving more gains in this sector. We gained control of Gyong la pass which overlooks Ladakh. We stopped you from coming down to occupy more parts of Siachen or Baltoro for that matter. We also stopped several Indian attempt to occupy more peaks. Chumik operation can be taken as an example.

Or may be there is a remote possibility that IA never consider these glaciers as theirs since there is no ambiguity over their position and might have no plans for it...Is is a possible scenario by any stretch of your imagination???

It is hard to believe anything like this since Baltoro is in the same region and is separated by Siachen by a pass as mentioned above. Only logical reason that comes in mind that why IA didn't invade Baltoro is that Indians were already busy fighting PA and since PA already made posts on the pass that connects Siachen and Baltoro, IA decided to hold the heights it occupied instead of taking more risks which can proved to be too costly in that region.

Strange is that you still are not able to grasp the entire issue...As said that you can consider whatever you want...That doesn't mean it becomes fact....You were giving permit to expeditions of glacier which you consider yours...We did an expedition to the glacier which we consider as ours...How is former not an aggression but later is????

Already explained above. Even if I assume that Pakistan was the one who started this conflict still the fact remains India never protested to Pakistan for those permits or expeditions. Unlike Pakistan who did protested to India for entering nto their territory. It is also mentioned in the program that I shared in the previous post.

Listen this is a known fact that PA ordered some gears and other material from an agency who had close links with RAW...

OK fine. It was a blunder that we ordered the gears from that agency and it can be considered as incompetence on part of PA. But still they were preparing for an invasion from IA.

I am not aware of expeditions before Shimla agreement...Mind sharing something to read...

It is mentioned in the video that I shared. According to Ijaz Haider about 50 expeditions(civilian) were sent to Siachen by Pakistan before Simla agreement. 20-22 were sent after Simla agreement.

Anyhow as said what happened before Shimla agreement is least of my interest...Shimla agreement and its faulty demarcation of LOC is the root cause of this issue....

Yeah one can say that too. Still the point that goes against India is that India never objected to those expeditions before or after Simla agreement until they occupied it in 1984.

CBM's are the only way out...We can have entire UN sit here and can act as third/fourth party it is not going to change an iota of thing here...

I will be glad if these CBM's succeed in resolving issue like Siachen. Let's see how they go. Our past doesn't give us a very good picture about these CBM's.

I am amazed you still have a hardline view that it is only India who is at fault...

Well even if I change this hardline view then still I will be forced to believe that greater responsibility for this conflict remains on India. No???