Siachen’s Non-paper and the Non-people

#28 by zeemax

It was Pakistan`s aggression in Indian territory, no doubt, but all things having said and done and purely from a strategic point of view, when Pakistan was on a backfoot in Kargil, its defeat could have been turned into victory for both by Pakistan forcing a declaration of Siachen as a no man`s land due to the ambiguity in demarcation which you pointed out.

I`m sure Pakistan would have given thought to something along those lines, but that would have worked only if India had played along. From the very beginning, India`s intentions were clear; to vacate the occupied territory using full force.

#28 i somehow suspect indians would have created the tamasha (which they did) as soon as they discovered the incursions in spring..no blackmail would have helped. and the time for detection of incursion was limited..indians had temeprarily vacated the bunkers and were planning to get back there after snow-melting anyways.

Re: # 29
Jang is right here. There is no way, a violation of an ``agreed upon`` demarcated line will
ever be palatable to India. If anybody thinks that agression in kashmir would remain
confined to kashmir .... then I won`t be surprised by more 1965s happening.

#27 by harish_hyd

Yes Harish. I`m only saying that the Kargil conflict could have been used by Pakistan to break the Siachen deadlock. It was Pakistan`s aggression in Indian territory, no doubt, but all things having said and done and purely from a strategic point of view, when Pakistan was on a backfoot in Kargil, its defeat could have been turned into victory for both by Pakistan forcing a declaration of Siachen as a no man`s land due to the ambiguity in demarcation which you pointed out; and to save all those soldiers from both sides the minus 60 degree cold for no reason at all, instead of abandoning the entire effort and wasting the lives of so many of its own and the Indian side.

Do think objectively, not as Indian or Pakistani. If I was a military General, I would have done this and not get shamed and abandoned my own men to face the music, which Pakistan actually did. That would have been good for both sides and restarted the peace process and normalisation of relations right then. An apology by Pakistan also would have been in order.

#26 by zeemax

But, quite honestly, by Kargil, why wasn`t that the sole strategic goal of Pakistan instead of a caravan to Srinagar?

To be honest, Paki generals have always tried to overreach themselves. The Paki jawan may be as brave as the Indian jawan, but the officers have let them down each time and that is what separates the two Armies. I remember reading in the Time magazine an interview with one of the POWs captured during the Kargil war. He said the officers who were directing the operations were far removed from the frontlines inside heated fiberglass huts.

After all, when Pakistan was in control of the supply route before the sh** started flying around, Pakistan could have gone to the negotiating table while still in a position of strength and asked simultaneous withdrawal of both sides from Siachen in return for an unconditional Pakistan withdrawal from Kargil? I think India may have agreed.

Yaar there is a difference between Siachen and Kargil. In the case of Kargil, both sides had agreed upon a clear border and any violation would have attracted international censure (as had happened), whereas in Siachen, both sides had different interpretations of what the dreaded 5 words `thence north to the glaciers` (not sure if these are the exact words) meant in the cease fire agreement of 1948 (or was it 1949?).

Having said that, there is an equivalence in that both sides possessed land that the other believed was rightfully theirs, so who knows what could have happened?

#11 by harish_hyd

Agreed. If India foregoes Siachen, Pakistan will get a backdoor to Srinagar. That is what the Kargil operation was all about ... to cut-off the Siachen supply line and force India to climb down.

But, quite honestly, by Kargil, why wasn`t that the sole strategic goal of Pakistan instead of a caravan to Srinagar? After all, when Pakistan was in control of the supply route before the sh** started flying around, Pakistan could have gone to the negotiating table while still in a position of strength and asked simultaneous withdrawal of both sides from Siachen in return for an unconditional Pakistan withdrawal from Kargil? I think India may have agreed.

But I guess that would have been sanity, and not the actual madness which prevailed.

#14 by arjun_m

Yes agreed. The Indian side`s logistics are much more costly but India can afford it.

... then again, the money spent on the Indian army doesn`t embolden it to take over the government....

I guess not. As long as Aashwarya Rai keeps making those trips. But that`s really in a lighter vein.

But really, I think it is time to climb down for both sides. Enough is enough. These people are jeopardising the future generations for vanity alone.

Here`s another one from the Time magazine.

War at the Top of the World

Excerpt:

``Soon, the Indian expedition on Siachen was shadowed by the Pakistanis. At army headquarters in Rawalpindi, Pakistani generals decided they had better stake a claim to Siachen before India did. Islamabad then committed an intelligence blunder, according to a now retired Pakistani army colonel. ``They ordered Arctic-weather gear from a London outfitters who also supplied the Indians,`` says the colonel. ``Once the Indians got wind of it, they ordered 300 outfits—twice as many as we had—and rushed their men up to Siachen.`` When the Pakistanis hiked up to the glacier in 1984, they found that a 300-man Indian battalion was already there, dug into the highest mountaintops. The Indians control two of Siachen`s three passes, and two-thirds of the glacier.``

#22 by stuka

Yaar stuka, thanks for the link. I read it and felt as if I was there in person. Great read!

http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200302/200302_siachen_7.html

One of the best articles I have read on Siachen. Amazing B/W pics as well..

``In short order, Kumar got his hands on journal reports from the international expeditions that had traveled from Pakistan into the Siachen. In January 1978, he took his findings to Lieutenant General M. L. Chibber, India`s director of military operations. Chibber quickly obtained permission for Kumar to mount a reconnaissance expedition to the Siachen. That summer Kumar led 40 climbers and 30 porters up to the glacier`s halfway point, and from there a summit team of three completed an ascent of 24,297-foot Teram Kangri II. The team also came across the sort of evidence that Chibber was looking for.

``We found labels from tin cans and cigarette packs with Pakistani names, German and Japanese equipment,`` recalled Kumar. ``It was this that convinced the government of India that Pakistan was going where it should not have been.``

In the summer of 1981, Kumar went back with a 70-member team and completed a snout-to-source traverse of the glacier. In eight weeks, they climbed Saltoro Kangri I (25,400 feet) and Sia Kangri I (24,350), hiked to the top of Indira Col (the watershed at the north end of the glacier), and skied Bilafond La.

``There wasn`t a soul there,`` Kumar recalled of those adventures. ``There was so much to climb—so many uncharted high peaks! And those pinnacles—rock pinnacles going straight up! And small glacial streams—so blue and so cold! The view from Sia Kangri looking down on the Siachen was such a beautiful sight. Just like a great white snake... going, going, going. I have never seen anything so white and so wide.``

Later that year, Kumar published an account of his journeys in the newsmagazine Illustrated Weekly of India. This set off alarms in Pakistan, and by the summer of 1983 military expeditions were probing the glacier on both sides. By then Chibber had been sent to Leh and was running India`s Northern Command. He concluded that the only way to secure the glacier was to preempt the Pakistanis and seize Bilafond La and Sia La. In mid-April 1984, two platoons of Ladakh Scouts were airlifted onto the Siachen. On April 17, two Pakistani helicopters were sent out for reconnaissance, one of them piloted by Colonel Muhammad Farooq Altaf. They reached Sia La that afternoon.

``We could see a party of Indian soldiers,`` recalled Altaf, who is now retired and lives in Islamabad. ``I was in the number-two helicopter, and the number-one helicopter had just turned back when one chap started firing. In our postflight check after returning to Dansam, we found bullet holes near the tail rotor. These were the first-ever bullets fired in Siachen.`` He shook his head and smiled. ``They beat us by one week. Too bad.``

General Chibber`s strategy had worked. But he soon realized that if they wanted to retain control of the passes, Indian troops would have to spend the winter at altitude. This was a new kind of warfare, and Chibber used every trick he could think of to stack the odds in India`s favor. He flew in prefabricated fiberglass igloos designed for Antarctic expeditions. He persuaded the Dalai Lama to confer a special blessing on a set of silk bracelets for the Ladakhi troops. In February 1985, the Pakistanis attacked Bilafond La but failed to dislodge the Indian troops. When spring arrived, Chibber`s men were still in place.

``And that`s when the race started,`` recalls Brigadier Muhammad Bashir Baz, who commanded a Pakistani helicopter unit in the Siachen theater from 1987 to 1989. ``Each side started climbing any peak they could. Then the other side would go and occupy a neighboring higher peak. And so on, and so on, until they reached 22,000 feet. That is how this war unfolded.``

Fuzair:

``There were NO Pakistani plans to take over any part of Siachen; ours were completely reactive moves.``


What is your view on the Indian claim of ``Cartographic aggression``, which is what the GOI percieved as the motivation to act first? Specifically, Indian claims are that Pakistan issued visas for mauntaineering expeditions to what as considered no man`s land and started portraying an LOC reflecting its own interpretation of the extension across the glacier?


`` I knew a fair bit at the highest level of PakArmy planning during the 1980s and I can categorically state that we were not about to initiate anything. This is Indian BS propaganda. In this case we are not guilty.``

I don`t think the Indians have advocated a Pakistani military takeover was imminent, but both countries did start making to moves to capture the area at around the same time. Will post some material if I can find it.

`Pakistan have restored all possible land, rail and air links between the two countries, they have even gone on to open an unprecedented number of crossing points between the most troubled parts of Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir, yet calls for restoring road links between Baltistan and Ladakh, two perfectly peaceful places, have so far fallen on deaf ears in Delhi and Islamabad`

Mr Ismail Khan; Would you like to tell me the highways or the crossing points which ever existed between Ladakh and Baltistan and which the Pakistanis now refuse to open ?

I am surprised at the verbosity of the author and the manner he has tried to diffuse the truth with utter non sense.

#17 Delhiwala,

That is completely wrong. There were NO Pakistani plans to take over any part of Siachen; ours were completely reactive moves. I knew a fair bit at the highest level of PakArmy planning during the 1980s and I can categorically state that we were not about to initiate anything. This is Indian BS propaganda. In this case we are not guilty.

@harish
a) it is widely know that India has been encouraging Indian citizens to settle in
part of Jammu & Kashmir in order to change the demography of the area - as we
continue discussing this topic , I will give you references which would be neutral

b)It would be good if India gives part of Kashmir to the United States - we want Kashmir
to be separated from Indian Occupation anyway -

@delhiwala,
Indian Fauj occupied Siachin in a `pre-emptive` move because they were concerns that
Pakistani Fauj is planning to take over the peaks - some Indian give references that
Pakistan Army ordered special suits & that the KGB alerted Indians which is a excuse
you wrote,
`There is no solution to Kashmir problem until one of the party is silenced(sad but truth)`
first things first could you explain who are the parties to this issue?
Indian stand is that Pakistan is the only other party
Pakistan`s stand is that Kashmiris & Indians apart from them are the party

it seems that you taking your module , India silences Pakistan as a party then
India will be silenced as well - which obviously means a full fledge nuclear war -
Pakistan is one of the only Nuclear Nations which believes in a `pre-emptive nuclear strike policy`
further you wrote ,

`Last time this territory saw peace and secularism was under Hari Singh Nalwa`
well peace was there because it was enforced & there was no popular movement
like `Pakistan Movement` which gathered Muslim support against the Raj or the
Maharaja was there -

comming back to the topic , I am pretty much sure there will be geographic changes in
this area soon - Siachen is a war of ego and nothing more -

Indian Fauj grabbed Siachin in 1984 because Pakistan had already sold its counterpart Northern areas to China.
India feared that it will loose last connection to this are of they did not grab it.

There is no solution to Kashmir problem until one of the party is silenced(sad but truth).

Last time this territory saw peace and secularism was under Hari Singh Nalwa.

Give it back to what belongs to Sikhs.....you will have peace....

one thing can be done to avoid much fuss from either of the sides..

declare siachen a nuclear testing ground for the 3 countries..China Pakistan India..

Bumb sey ura do..!!!!!!!!!

Na rahay ga baans..Na bajay gee bansurya..