Siachen News & Discussion

[nachiket]

If the place was populated, I would tend to agree with it more, but not one persons will go from being an Indian to some other nationality.. I doubt itll mean anything to the separatists in other places.

Cut the BS. You made it perfectly clear that you care nothing for populated areas when you questioned the need for protecting Dzingrulma and the Nubra valley on the previous page.

[rohitvats]

rohitvats ji,
do you really want to lay all the reasons - tactical and terrainwise - about the real reasons for the need to hold on to that ridge, [in fact the need to hold more if possible in a certain direction] out in the public? I request that you reconsider

Bji,

First and foremost, please to drop this "ji" from this mango-abdul's name. Whatever little I know is nothing when compared to the vast ocean of knowledge at your disposal for varied subject matters. You truly do justice to the handle of brihaspati.To receive "ji" from you is much embarrassing for me .... Please to keep lajja of this shishya...

Coming to details about the strategic importance of Siachen and my proposed write-up on the same - well, all the knowledge that I have is gathered from open source and after reading as many sources possible (Indian/Pakistani/Others). So, rest assured, there is not going to be any operational secret leaked in my understanding and opinion of the situation. In fact, there has been one instance before where a very detailed analysis of the entire Siachen situation was done with very learned protagonists on both side...the thread is still there in BRF archives. Alas, such well informed posters are not part of debates today.

People with exposure to himalayan glaciers, and similar territory - from Ladakh and HP side, should understand, given the actual topology as to why it is militarily and strategically important.

I belong to one such mountainous area....

[manjgu]

and just one last clarification for ShauryaT / SudeepJ ...

Karakoram pass is approx 70 km from central siachen gl...

approx 51 from Teram seher glacier peaks and about 40 from Rimo gl peaks...

[sudeepj]

and just one last clarification for ShauryaT / SudeepJ ...

Karakoram pass is approx 70 km from central siachen gl...

approx 51 from Teram seher glacier peaks and about 40 from Rimo gl peaks...

That would be in the ball park.. take a look at this map, the points are marked out fairly correctly.
*But* The route from Pakistan or India for that matter, across the Karakoram pass is pretty difficult. For Indians, we will have to go through Saser La, and for Pakistanis, (if via the Saltoro) one of Bilafond/Sia/Gyong, and if via the Shyok valley (in our control) then again through Saser La.

Karakoram pass is considered to be an easy pass, because of the gradual ascent, but Saser La is another story. Supposedly, that route is littered with bleached bones of mules, camels, and unfortunate hajjis who were travelling from Central Asia to Mecca.

Siachen Map

* Edited later: Actually incorrect, Karakoram highway is 100-200kms away from different points on the Saltoro ridge. Farther from the glacier. Its pretty obvious from the map.

[sudeepj]

If the place was populated, I would tend to agree with it more, but not one persons will go from being an Indian to some other nationality.. I doubt itll mean anything to the separatists in other places.

Cut the BS. You made it perfectly clear that you care nothing for populated areas when you questioned the need for protecting Dzingrulma and the Nubra valley on the previous page.

Nonsense.. thats your extrapolation, not mine. I am saying it in as many words, I am against any transfer of nationality from one country to another. Transfer of populated areas is out of the question. But for other areas, we should be open to talk.
*This is pretty much the current (and past) GoI position too.
**J J Singh goes further in saying, that India must stop saying its territory is non negotiable to solve border issues. He does not use any qualifiers like populated/non populated.

[Amitabh]

None of your other points IMO contradicts my main thesis about actual Chinese policy.

Really? Why are they wasting their money on huge hikes in defense budget? They could focus on growth, no?

Er, they do focus on growth. In fact they are the most successful growth story of the late 20th century as I am sure you have noticed. Which is what has allowed them to increase military spending. Which was my original point to begin with.

[abhishek_sharma]

Er, they do focus on growth. In fact they are the most successful growth story of the late 20th century as I am sure you have noticed. Which is what has allowed them to increase military spending. Which was my original point to begin with.

Your original point was "Long term profits ---> growth ---> great power status". What %age of their GDP is spent on defense? Is it less than what India spends on defense? If no, then India focuses more on non-military matters.

Secondly, they have an ally like Pakistan which takes care of their concerns w.r.t. India. Fostering Hafiz Sayeed in UNSC is not the best way to show that you care for "long term profits".

[sudeepj]

China can be assertive on Demchok and AP because its economy is bigger than ours and we cant be assertive on siachen !!! isnt our economy also bigger than Pakistan? nice logic sudeepJi.

No, I said YOU cant be assertive with China on Demchok, not that itll be a good idea for China to be assertive. In fact itll be a pretty bad idea, I think, fixing for decades to come an enemy across its southern border.

and for the last time let me explain u , a link up does not mean a 6 lane highway !! I would advise u to read Harish kapadias book on Siachen to understand what is link up !!

So why not define what it means in military terms? Since you are such a military expert and I am merely writing from my AC home, I am sure you will have a good grasp of what this link will mean.

Yes, all OUR land under OUR occupation is non negotiable. ( for a majority of us, I cant say how you the JNU jholawallas feel abt it). I explained u that India is a status quo power. will never go to take POK militarily but the same cant be said abt Pakistan and chinese...samajh mein nahi aa raha bhai ?

I give up....

Why draw the arbitrary line about OUR occupation? If its your land, its your land. You want to fight over barren hills, but not over economically productive and strategic areas like PoK? I mean that would snap the Pakistani/China land route, and with our Navy on Karachi doorstop, that would complete a strategic encirclement of Pak. Sitting on Siachen does no such thing, I am afraid. Other than getting our soldiers killed, our money spent, and giving jollies to some baat bahadur.

If SudeepJ sees Pillo Modis words as masterful repartee and OT , then i have nothing more to say. (psssst.. he meant that Indian territory even if its a barren, hostile land it is not something u can lose/give away under any circumstance or for any reason or justification...does it not sound familiar with the topic under discussion)

Actually theres a subtle difference in what Modi is saying here and your interpretation. He is equating Nehru's head with the land lost to the Chinese in Aksai chin etc. Which is patent nonsense. Afterall if Nehru looses his head, he ceases to be Nehru, he ceases to be anything! No such thing can be said about the loss of territory to China. India still remained the same.. the likes of Modi, by making the defeat sound much bigger than it was actually, did India a disservice. What India got in 62 was a haircut, and Modi thinks its a 'head cut'.

Bhains ke aage been bajana ho gaya hai sudeepJi !!
ram ram bhaya ji...

FWIW , the feeling is mutual ram ram to you too!

[abhishek_sharma]

Afterall if Nehru looses his head, he ceases to be Nehru, he ceases to be anything! No such thing can be said about the loss of territory to China. India still remained the same..

India remained the same? This type of logic is rarely heard from sane people.

[sudeepj]

Afterall if Nehru looses his head, he ceases to be Nehru, he ceases to be anything! No such thing can be said about the loss of territory to China. India still remained the same..

India remained the same? This type of logic is rarely heard from sane people.

So what was the economic/cultural/ loss to India?

There were definitely political losses, and possibly strategic losses as well (I am not familiar at all with the 62 war and who won what, so wont comment)..

But at the end of the day, life for Indians did not change much because of the war. Comparing it with European territorial wars, or even Colonial wars that really shook things up, the 62 clash was merely a border skirmish. For e.g. in WW1 France lost around 1 in 25 of its population. The Ottoman empire lost more than 1 in 10 ! I would say the wars of Plassey, panipat, haldi ghati, the mysore wars, Anglo Sikh wars, Anglo Afghan wars were more important in determining what India became, than 62.

All this is OT, btw, and I am surprised that mods are not stepping in.. After all, this is the Siachen thread and the focus should be that.

[abhishek_sharma]

So what was the economic/cultural/ loss to India?
There were definitely political losses, and possibly strategic losses as well (I am not familiar at all with the 62 war and who won what, so wont comment)..

What is the problem with you? You claimed that "India remained the same" even though India lost Aksai Chin. Then you changed the topic to "economic/cultural" loss?

[Yayavar]

Economic argument has been the undoing of India a few times - Sindh and Bengal. The Jagat Seth and Amirchand saw only that and lost Bengal to Clive, and then the rest of India.

Like I said before, all this talk of monitoring and response needs to consider all the folks who objected to Op. Prakaram with the economic, and bhaichara argument. Will the government have support to launch a retaliation or is a withdrawl going to be tantamount to loosing the territory forever.

[nachiket]

Cut the BS. You made it perfectly clear that you care nothing for populated areas when you questioned the need for protecting Dzingrulma and the Nubra valley on the previous page.

Nonsense.. thats your extrapolation, not mine. I am saying it in as many words, I am against any transfer of nationality from one country to another. Transfer of populated areas is out of the question. But for other areas, we should be open to talk.

You did question the need for having a base camp at Dzingrulma (which is a village AFAIK). And also questioned the usefulness of the Nubra valley on page 17. The Nubra valley is also populated. Even though holding it may not have have any "economic" benefit according to people used to doing cost-benefit analyses on Indian territory. So what exactly am I extrapolating?

[sudeepj]

So what was the economic/cultural/ loss to India?
There were definitely political losses, and possibly strategic losses as well (I am not familiar at all with the 62 war and who won what, so wont comment)..

What is the problem with you? You claimed that "India remained the same" even though India lost Aksai Chin. Then you changed the topic to "economic/cultural" loss?

Yes, Aksai Chin.. in culture, the Kolkata, in commerce, the Mumbai, in universities, the Bangalore, in monuments, the Agra, in religion, the Benaras, in duty, the Pune of the North. It was such a pure region, in fact, that people decided not to despoil it by living there.

It was so much a part of our nations mainstream, that the Chinese constructed a road across it and merrily rolled their trucks and whatever it is that Chinese roll, and we did not know for three years! Such a jewel was lost by India!

Quit trolling, the topic is Siachen and how it impacts our military posture in J&K, stop bringing in other irrelevant side issues.

[sudeepj]

Nonsense.. thats your extrapolation, not mine. I am saying it in as many words, I am against any transfer of nationality from one country to another. Transfer of populated areas is out of the question. But for other areas, we should be open to talk.

You did question the need for having a base camp at Dzingrulma (which is a village AFAIK). And also questioned the usefulness of the Nubra valley on page 17. The Nubra valley is also populated. Even though holding it may not have have any "economic" benefit according to people used to doing cost-benefit analyses on Indian territory. So what exactly am I extrapolating?

Dzingrulma is populated, and any population transfers in this age will end up destabilizing wider India. The status of this village should be non negotiable for India, and it should be in Indian terrain.

Its possible that eventual border agreement may place this village in a militarily disadvantageous position. But that is not new.. People in the Shyok/Turtok valley live under constant fire by the Pakistanis (at least till the ceasefire was signed in 03). Amritsar, is within medium Arty range of the Pakistanis. So is Akhnoor and any number of villages, towns and cities.

But they are this side of an established border.

How will the status of people in Nubra valley and Dzingrulma be any different from status of people in Akhnoor or Amritsar?

You did question the need for having a base camp at Dzingrulma (which is a village AFAIK).

The village can continue to exist, with a strong garrison to protect it in case of any misadventures. But whats the need for a base camp, which exists only to supply the outposts on the Glacier? This was the point I was trying to make.

*All this is not to say that I agree that there is a credible threat to Dzingrulma and Nubra valley from Pakistanis rolling down Gyong/Sia/Bilafond. There is a bigger threat of them rolling up Shyok valley..

[abhishek_sharma]

Yes, Aksai Chin.. in culture, the Kolkata, in commerce, the Mumbai, in universities, the Bangalore, in monuments, the Agra, in religion, the Benaras, in duty, the Pune of the North. It was such a pure region, in fact, that people decided not to despoil it by living there.

It was so much a part of our nations mainstream, that the Chinese constructed a road across it and merrily rolled their trucks and whatever it is that Chinese roll, and we did not know for three years! Such a jewel was lost by India!

Quit trolling, the topic is Siachen and how it impacts our military posture in J&K, stop bringing in other irrelevant side issues.

So India "remained the same" even though we lost land in Aksai Chin. Because the concept "India" does not include the territorial boundaries of the country. Even kids in second grade understand these issues.

And then you started talking about "culture" and "commerce".

You have shown very high levels of honesty in this discussion.

Trolling, you say? You had the gall and chutzpah to talk about poverty in this thread. And now you are pontificating on what is OT here?

[skganji]

India shouldn't leave Siachen . It is a strategic point and it is currently enjoying an advantage over Pakistan here. Why should India loose such advantageous position ?. 1000 crores is nothing . So much money is wasted by the government in other ways. Indian army learnt the art of survival at Siachen and has explored ways to survive there. Why should everything be sacrificed at this point to just save some money which could any way be going into wrong hands in the government ?.

Liked these points by fellow bloggers.

"So far, Siachen is being managed well by the Indian Army, but is bleeding the Pakistanis because their economy suffers. Its actually a plus for us" - Karan M.

[sudeepj]

So India "remained the same" even though we lost land in Aksai Chin. Because the concept "India" does not include the territorial boundaries of the country. Even kids in second grade understand these issues.

Evidently, thats where your level of comprehension ends.

Trolling, you say? You had the gall and chutzpah to talk about poverty in this thread. And now you are pontificating on what is OT here?

Yes, Yes.. Gall and chutzpah and I am doing it without so much as a by your leave! after all, you OWN and OCCUPY the forum (as opposed to simply OWNing the forum, when all transgressions are AOK).

Anyway, no more responses to you from me, but my posts on this thread will continue to bother you as I am not going to stop and the posts expose deeply rooted insecurities within your character.
(a). Obsession with land, even if barren and uninhabitable, even if you couldnt survive 24 hrs there without specialized equipment,
(b). Deeply uncomfortable when someone points out that India remains a very poor country (Shiv jis analysis applies here..)
(c). Incoherent rage and an inability to stay calm if someone has a different opinion than you.

Jai Ho and all that bhai saab, since you are such a big patriot, and I can afford it, Ill even buy you some land in Siachen, provided you go to live there. Let me know if you make up your mind. Ill be here.

[abhishek_sharma]

Evidently, thats where your level of comprehension ends.

There was another guy who used to talk about "comprehension". You share many attributes with him (e.g, level of prevarication).

[Vivek K]

[groan] How much longer do we have to put up with the drivel generated by this confused mind[/groan]

Why don't you add all lands that will be drowned by the coming increases in sea levels (Andaman & Nicobar, Lakshadweep...). My friend, do not exercise your brain so much 'coz it will hasten Global Warming.

[Thomas Kolarek]

He who befriends a man whose conduct is vicious, whose vision impure, and who is notoriously crooked, is rapidly ruined. - Chanakya

[Prasad]

Eh. India shouldnt vacate siachen just because it causes the pukis to get their panties in a bunch. Thats good enough justification.

[Virupaksha]

The village can continue to exist, with a strong garrison to protect it in case of any misadventures. But whats the need for a base camp, which exists only to supply the outposts on the Glacier? This was the point I was trying to make.

*All this is not to say that I agree that there is a credible threat to Dzingrulma and Nubra valley from Pakistanis rolling down Gyong/Sia/Bilafond. There is a bigger threat of them rolling up Shyok valley..

Err, have you seen the map which you yourselves presented? If Bilafond is in the hands of Pakistan, I really want to see your plan to protect Dzingrulma (which you in a previous birth that is less than 24 hours wanted to give away to pakistan).

[brihaspati]

Very interesting points raised.

(1) If a military commander's opinions on political strategy and decisions about engagement with any hostile entity is binding on us, or is to be treated with utmost importance, politician's opinions on military strategy and decisionmaking should be similarly binding or should be treated with equal utmost importance. So in the future as and when we have the relevant political power and voice we will try those who have talked of gifting more land to China and Pakistan, as traitors to the nation and people - regardless of their previous military contribution.

(2) Exchange of population "at this stage" will destabilize "wider" India! Wonderful points indeed. So what is the time delimitation that marks "this stage"? When did it start? Will it end? Since we dont know what the future is about "destabilization", are we allowed to go by precedence? Now was there any destabilization in "wider India" before when populations virtually exchanged?

On what evidence is this claim that "wider India" will be destabilized?

Also if Indian populated areas are all that prevents "disengaging" - then there is a clear route! Occupation of land and presence is a crucial aspect of any territorial claim confirmation "at the current stage", the reason Pakis and Chinese and their sympathetic HMV's pretending Indianness to make batting for pakis and the Chinese more authentic are so keen on establishing Paki and Chinese presence around Siachen.

We should take back the entire area, and "populate" it. Not necessarily on the glacier - where a "science station" can easily be established, but the territory around it further to the north, west and north-east.

Thanks to the disengagers for this pointer. "Populate the north" is going to be our slogan. If ground reality is used for propaganda in favour of disengagement, aka Paki-Chini-appeasement policy, we will have to change ground reality then. Once "populated" anything that leads to exchange of "population" will destabilize wider India - so cannot be allowed.

[nachiket]

Its possible that eventual border agreement may place this village in a militarily disadvantageous position. But that is not new.. People in the Shyok/Turtok valley live under constant fire by the Pakistanis (at least till the ceasefire was signed in 03). Amritsar, is within medium Arty range of the Pakistanis. So is Akhnoor and any number of villages, towns and cities.

But they are this side of an established border.

How will the status of people in Nubra valley and Dzingrulma be any different from status of people in Akhnoor or Amritsar?

So because people in other villages near the LOC are within paki arty range, your plan is to put more Indians within that range by letting the pakis occupy Siachen.

The village can continue to exist, with a strong garrison to protect it in case of any misadventures. But whats the need for a base camp, which exists only to supply the outposts on the Glacier? This was the point I was trying to make.

Thank you for deciding to let the village exist. Its inhabitants must be relieved that they fit into your cost-benefit analysis.

Now look at what rohitvats had said originally

(a) is it possible for PA to airlift and move troops (and mountain guns in pieces) through Bilafond La, bring them onto Siachen glacier and threaten the Indian base camp in Dzingrulma? Please look at the location of Kumar Base opposite Bilafond La and Indian Gun position. Can PA establish their gun position at the same location? What areas can they cover from this gun position?

You haven't replied to this while continuing to claim that holding on to IA's current positions and thereby the Siachen glacier offers no benefit.

[sudeepj]

The village can continue to exist, with a strong garrison to protect it in case of any misadventures. But whats the need for a base camp, which exists only to supply the outposts on the Glacier? This was the point I was trying to make.

*All this is not to say that I agree that there is a credible threat to Dzingrulma and Nubra valley from Pakistanis rolling down Gyong/Sia/Bilafond. There is a bigger threat of them rolling up Shyok valley..

Err, have you seen the map which you yourselves presented? If Bilafond is in the hands of Pakistan, I really want to see your plan to protect Dzingrulma

Possibly I am missing something, but say after the disengagement, Pakistanis sneak in and take over Bilafond/Sia/Gyong, and same for most of the Saltoro. So, basically, the glacier is in their possession, as they are able to dominate it with the light weapons on the ridge, and bring down observed/corrected medium arty fire anywhere on the Glacier itself.

Can they simply roll down the glacier and occupy Nubra valley?

The passes across the Glacier are not even jeep territory in summers, and close up in winters. So they will have to arrange logistics on manpack/mulepack across the passes, and only in summers. Evidence you ask?

Well, this is how Indian army logistics work across the Glacier today! One cant expect a sneak attack be any better.. Roadhead at Dzingrulma, mulepack to Kumar base, snowmobiles further along the glacier and choppers/manpack to the ridge. All this to support 80 posts, with 6-18 people on each post. Around a battalion strength supported on the ridge, who rarely do actual fights, but bring down accurate arty fire on any observed attack from the medium battery at Kumar base (or thereabouts).

So say, Pakistanis decide to launch an attack on Dzingrulma.

Who will have the better logistics support? Who will be able to bring up forces faster up to the point of conflict?
- India, that has a road to Dzingrulma, a fwd landing strip at Thoise, connected to the Nubra valley by a short 20-30 kms driving.
- Or Pakistan, that has to mule pack/man pack its supplies across the passes, and across the Glacier! (With its Crevasses, ice falls, rock falls, avalanches...) Further, this supply route will close up in winter! and they can only be supported via helicopters, which will be very vulnerable to Indian manpads

We will need to maintain well acclimatized soldiers at Turtok anyway, since the Shyok valley can be an infiltration route.

Dzingrulma , (which you in a previous birth that is less than 24 hours wanted to give away to pakistan).

Come on, stop being ridiculous..

What I have been saying all along is, demarcate the border and disengage from the Glacier, iff the glacier does not have any strategic impact on our defense posture in Ladakh. Its pretty clear that it does not have any economic/cultural significance. How does this become handing over Dzingrulma, or any part of Siachen to Pakistan?

* Admittedly, Pakistan has shorter supply lines to Saltoro ridge, but not beyond that. Beyond the Ridge and across the Glacier, it is India that has the advantage of shorter lines.

[brihaspati]

Mule packs across glaciers? With military supplies on mules?! Or are Pakis == mules? By the way what is the economic and cultural significance of Ladakh for India? is the village exceptionally culturally and economically barren compared to Ladakh?

[sudeepj]

Very interesting points raised.

(1) If a military commander's opinions on political strategy and decisions about engagement with any hostile entity is binding on us, or is to be treated with utmost importance, politician's opinions on military strategy and decisionmaking should be similarly binding or should be treated with equal utmost importance. So in the future as and when we have the relevant political power and voice we will try those who have talked of gifting more land to China and Pakistan, as traitors to the nation and people - regardless of their previous military contribution.

Who is this pompous we? You and your tapeworm? Aj jyada bhang pi li kya..? "You (and your tapeworm) will prosecute people who have talked of gifting more land.. irrespective of their prior military contribution".. Waise, Congratulations, you are halfway to becoming a Pakistani Zaid Hamid type of person, who thinks he is the sole owner and protector of the nations identity. This type of thinking leads to Qadris.. You are not fit for being even a simple bodyguard with this kind of thought, and you grandly call yourself Brihaspati!

Also if Indian populated areas are all that prevents "disengaging" - then there is a clear route! Occupation of land and presence is a crucial aspect of any territorial claim confirmation "at the current stage", the reason Pakis and Chinese and their sympathetic HMV's pretending Indianness to make batting for pakis and the Chinese more authentic are so keen on establishing Paki and Chinese presence around Siachen.

Just as the Pakis accuse people of being agents of Jews and Americans, you accuse others of being HMVs pretending to be Indians. Another pt of similarity with the Zaid Hamid types.

Thanks to the disengagers for this pointer. "Populate the north" is going to be our slogan. If ground reality is used for propaganda in favour of disengagement, aka Paki-Chini-appeasement policy, we will have to change ground reality then. Once "populated" anything that leads to exchange of "population" will destabilize wider India - so cannot be allowed.

You are probably not going to believe it, but I agree with repealing 370, so Indians can buy land in the valley and jammu. But again, what has this to do disengagement on Siachen? except they are connected in your twisted world view.

[brihaspati]

So the real urge is to "demarcate the border"? That is the real underlying objective then? Set things for Paki and Chini bhais in stone? Secure the borders for Pakis and Chinese and legitimize their claims on Indian territory by right of occupation?

This is coming then from the Good Friday programme! That explains a lot.

[sudeepj]

Brihaspati ji

You are here to accuse, abuse and do some grandiloquent drama. You are least interested in trying to figure out how, the physical occupation of Siachen glacier is important to Indian security in Leh/Ladakh.

You, along with Abhishek Sharma, join the ignore list.

[sudeepj]

Its possible that eventual border agreement may place this village in a militarily disadvantageous position. But that is not new.. People in the Shyok/Turtok valley live under constant fire by the Pakistanis (at least till the ceasefire was signed in 03). Amritsar, is within medium Arty range of the Pakistanis. So is Akhnoor and any number of villages, towns and cities.

But they are this side of an established border.

How will the status of people in Nubra valley and Dzingrulma be any different from status of people in Akhnoor or Amritsar?

So because people in other villages near the LOC are within paki arty range, your plan is to put more Indians within that range by letting the pakis occupy Siachen.

If the border is settled, why will they need to fear Paki arty?

(a) is it possible for PA to airlift and move troops (and mountain guns in pieces) through Bilafond La, bring them onto Siachen glacier and threaten the Indian base camp in Dzingrulma? Please look at the location of Kumar Base opposite Bilafond La and Indian Gun position. Can PA establish their gun position at the same location? What areas can they cover from this gun position?

You haven't replied to this while continuing to claim that holding on to IA's current positions and thereby the Siachen glacier offers no benefit.

Actually, I was trying to do a more comprehensive post, trying to compare logistics of such a Pakistani battery with Indian opposition via the roadhead and Dzingrulma.. I ended up making that point anyway in the reply to Virupaksha. See if it makes any sense... To me, it seems that battles are decided by logistics, and we will have shorter supply lines as compared to any advance by the Pakistanis across the Sia/Bilafond/Gyong La and down the Glacier.

[Virupaksha]

Dzingrulma , (which you in a previous birth that is less than 24 hours wanted to give away to pakistan).

Come on, stop being ridiculous..

What I have been saying all along is, demarcate the border and disengage from the Glacier, iff the glacier does not have any strategic impact on our defense posture in Ladakh. Its pretty clear that it does not have any economic/cultural significance. How does this become handing over Dzingrulma, or any part of Siachen to Pakistan?

* Admittedly, Pakistan has shorter supply lines to Saltoro ridge, but not beyond that. Beyond the Ridge and across the Glacier, it is India that has the advantage of shorter lines.

I wonder where is Dzingrulma?

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1277331

Once again, what does upper Nubra valley support? To me, it only protects a route to the Siachen.

I really wonder why Pakistan having the shortest supply lines could not dislodge India from the passes, when Indian logistics has to clearly pass through the whole glacier. Possibly, is it possible that height can negate the advantages in logistics?

and since according to your own logic and clearly the post indicates should be vacated and does not need to be protected - which means you are ok with it being occupied by Pakistan.

Mirror mirror, who is the fairest of them all.

FYI, nubra valley starts from Dzingrulma.
http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army ... chen1.html

The Siachen measures approximately 75km in length and 4.8km in width, and rises to about 4,800m. The glacier originates near the Indra Koli Pass on the Pakistan-China border, about 70km southeast of K-2 (Chogori), the second highest peak in the world; From here it runs along the Saltoro Range in a southeasterly direction till it turns into the Nubra River near Dzingrulma, a small village in Indian-held Kashmir (IHK) near Ladakh.

[brihaspati]

Very interesting points raised.

(1) If a military commander's opinions on political strategy and decisions about engagement with any hostile entity is binding on us, or is to be treated with utmost importance, politician's opinions on military strategy and decisionmaking should be similarly binding or should be treated with equal utmost importance. So in the future as and when we have the relevant political power and voice we will try those who have talked of gifting more land to China and Pakistan, as traitors to the nation and people - regardless of their previous military contribution.

Who is this pompous we? You and your tapeworm? Aj jyada bhang pi li kya..? "You (and your tapeworm) will prosecute people who have talked of gifting more land.. irrespective of their prior military contribution".. Waise, Congratulations, you are halfway to becoming a Pakistani Zaid Hamid type of person, who thinks he is the sole owner and protector of the nations identity. This type of thinking leads to Qadris.. You are not fit for being even a simple bodyguard with this kind of thought, and you grandly call yourself Brihaspati!

Good! Good! you see you reveal a lot about your own psyche actually! So the first things that comes to your mind is "tapeworm"? You are suffering from this infestation for a long time, is it? Makes sense. Thank you for the kind consideration for the post of bodyguard. But of course, since you are obviously experienced in the profession so that you can judge candidates for the post online from their political opinion, I think I will let you take up the job. Why are you so angry at Zaid Hamid? After all, your disengagement proposal is designed to help such characters - for they routinely claim that Kafir Indians do not have the b**** to hold onto territory that is for Pakis. I can understand your bile at being called out on your agenda.

Also if Indian populated areas are all that prevents "disengaging" - then there is a clear route! Occupation of land and presence is a crucial aspect of any territorial claim confirmation "at the current stage", the reason Pakis and Chinese and their sympathetic HMV's pretending Indianness to make batting for pakis and the Chinese more authentic are so keen on establishing Paki and Chinese presence around Siachen.

Just as the Pakis accuse people of being agents of Jews and Americans, you accuse others of being HMVs pretending to be Indians. Another pt of similarity with the Zaid Hamid types.

Obviously you would know Zaid Hamid rather closely to find similarities with other individuals on every count. I am wondering why this obsession with Zaid Hamid? Was there no better icon to fixate on? or how deep the "close" knowledge of Zaid Hamid goes for you?

Thanks to the disengagers for this pointer. "Populate the north" is going to be our slogan. If ground reality is used for propaganda in favour of disengagement, aka Paki-Chini-appeasement policy, we will have to change ground reality then. Once "populated" anything that leads to exchange of "population" will destabilize wider India - so cannot be allowed.

You are probably not going to believe it, but I agree with repealing 370, so Indians can buy land in the valley and jammu. But again, what has this to do disengagement on Siachen? except they are connected in your twisted world view.

Oh I am mightily chastized by your grace's kind condescension and concession on article 370! I understand that parasitic infestations and obsession with Zaid Hamid probably is muddling up your own thoughts on what you have said before. But you were claiming that those territories which were already populated by Indians cannot be given up to others. For you and GOI - this is non-negotiable. I simply suggested making the entire state of J&K non-negotiable by making surrounding areas of Siachen too - in relevant forms of "occupation" - currently occupied by Pakis and Chinese , as populated by Indians.

By your logic disengaging from that entire territory would become non-negotiable. Territorial contiguity arguments, which was used to trash Jinnah's GV corridor and Nizami Hyderabadi separatism - would then nullify any claims on Siachen by non-Indians.

PS: You are beyond even realizing that you are yourself abusive. I guess too much of Zaid Hamid may do that.

[sudeepj]

What I have been saying all along is, demarcate the border and disengage from the Glacier, iff the glacier does not have any strategic impact on our defense posture in Ladakh. Its pretty clear that it does not have any economic/cultural significance. How does this become handing over Dzingrulma, or any part of Siachen to Pakistan?

* Admittedly, Pakistan has shorter supply lines to Saltoro ridge, but not beyond that. Beyond the Ridge and across the Glacier, it is India that has the advantage of shorter lines.

I wonder where is Dzingrulma?

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1277331

Once again, what does upper Nubra valley support? To me, it only protects a route to the Siachen.

I really wonder why Pakistan having the shortest supply lines could not dislodge India from the passes, when Indian logistics has to clearly pass through the whole glacier. Possibly, is it possible that height can negate the advantages in logistics?

and since according to your own logic and clearly the post indicates should be vacated and does not need to be protected - which means you are ok with it being occupied by Pakistan.

Mirror mirror, who is the fairest of them all.

FYI, nubra valley starts from Dzingrulma.

I am sorry I wasnt clear enough in that post, though I still dont see how what I said could be construed as an argument for withdrawal from the Nubra valley! The Nubra valley is populated, with the northernmost point of Civil inhabitation being Dzingrulma. So obviously it needs to be protected. I simply am not able to see (and perhaps this is a mistake on my part) how occupation of the Saltoro ridge provides this protection. (It does take the 'front' farther from some of the northern villages in the valley, but thats about it. There are orders of magnitude more number of Indians who live in much more proximity to the Pakistani Guns. People in Kargil, Jammu, Punjab, villages in Rajasthan and so on..)

Though there is a possibility that Pakistanis will occupy the ridge, and then try to sneak down the glacier, any Pakistanis sneaking down the Glacier will be canon fodder for the Indian Army.

[Karan M]

Sudeep, the maximum aggression in most of the posts here in this discussion is in yours... Comparing Brihaspati to Zaid Hamid, plus the multiple jabs at many posters ..
Whats the point?

That aside, the basic fact is this:

There should not be any withdrawal without authentication. Ground that has been won by blood on the ground, deserves at least a line on paper.

While you may consider that ok, many here think otherwise that this line on the paper is not worth much, if the Pakistanis decide to play different. That is exactly what has happened multiple times with Pakistan. For trivial things they drag us to international arbitation even when they know they are wrong (IWT), they do not respect any treaty or agreement ..

Next:
Your claim is that a) occupying physically tough terrain in remote places w/o proper population is meaningless...just paraphrasing since looking through the many pages of back and forth is tiresome..

- in which case, why are we stationing people at Kargil and many other places? Harder than Siachen in some ways - requires very expensive logistics, specialized equipment (imported snow suits, weaponry etc). So why don't we withdraw from Kargil?

Even operations in the Rajasthan desert are a money soak. The average vehicle gets so hot that people get heat stroke within and serious burns on touching the bare metal.

Technically, we can give up vast amounts of our territory on account of being a) located in logistically expensive, hard to reach places b) not being heavily populated.

So why don't we?

-b) 1000 crores is a big amount, money better spent etc.

Actually Abhishek's point is correct. These costs need to be factored in with regards to a nations economic capability. Consider the Indian defence budget. Its actually somewhere around a 5th of India's overall budget but its comparisons by analysts are done via looking at it as a percentage of overall GDP, wherein its pretty small. Basically, every year, we can manage the expenses of a Siachen better. It is in our interest to keep Siachen going as we can afford it. The Pakistani economy is suffering, and it is a proven method - forcing your enemy to spend when he is tight for funds. The money they spend on Siachen means less bombs, less bullets for them, and worsening civil-military relations (since they starve the economy for their army). So what's the hurry? We are not losing any men either.

Also, the costs of having to retake these heights need to be factored in both economic and human. What Pande's mean did to get to these heights and retain them is not different from what we'd have to do today.

Last, the argument that if 1000 Crores were not spent on Siachen, x state would be better off, falls flat I'm afraid to several of us. From your view, I daresay, you are not residing in India. Basically, this money if it was "saved" from Siachen, would be promptly sunk into some useless money pit by the current Govt. with very little societal or long term productivity gains and with a significant component lost to corruption as well. If there was a very efficient delivery mechanism and track record of utilizing fund allocations available, then I'd totally agree with you that this money could be better spent. Right now, its all about robbing Peter to pay Paul, and Paul usually is related to some Politico..

Another thing - you quoted JJ Singh about AP - well sorry, again his "belief system" does not resonate with many Indians - I daresay the majority. This business of compromising on land far away, to buy peace is a slippery slope...the majority of people seem to understand this, he was given much grief on that..

The thing is this, any convincing argument has to win over detractors. So far, consider whom you have been able to sway to your point of view.

If I am not mistaken, I can't see many if not any (bar Shourya who is on his own "sama" path to "forgive" Pakistan). So either your message is wrong or how you are communicating is, or both factors together come into play.

[Karan M]

Its possible that eventual border agreement may place this village in a militarily disadvantageous position. But that is not new.. People in the Shyok/Turtok valley live under constant fire by the Pakistanis (at least till the ceasefire was signed in 03). Amritsar, is within medium Arty range of the Pakistanis. So is Akhnoor and any number of villages, towns and cities.

But they are this side of an established border.

How will the status of people in Nubra valley and Dzingrulma be any different from status of people in Akhnoor or Amritsar?

So, if some people are vulnerable - and this is not a good thing - its ok if others too are vulnerable? Why move from an advantageous position to a worse one?

If the border is settled, why will they need to fear Paki arty?

[/quote]

Why would a settled border prevent Pakistan from doing mischief? What prevents some wisemind in PA AHQ from being the next Musharraf and doing this to grab more territory and provoke yet another border war?

[Yayavar]

Sudeepj: the economic argument is full of peril. I'll repeat what I wrote earlier : the Jagat Seth and Amir Chand thought of the economic argument and joined with Clive. The rest is history.

The belief that Pakis will not be paki and attempt to gain territory, or that we can monitor and stop them is full of peril too. We physically monitor much of the border and yet infiltrators get through. Secondly, where is the political will or economic will to go all out for an all out war of punishment on Pakis? It will, at a maximum be another Kargil type attempt and in much more difficult terrain.

[ShauryaT]

What you said is absolutely right. There does not exists a complete rational view and people do tend to make emotional decisions and then rationalize them. Hence we both need to be careful, especially when the dispute is about national security. After all what we want is better future for our children and we surely don't want to burden them with our misjudgment at this point.

I am afraid that inaction is not the answer. Let me provide some examples for costs of inaction. During NDA administration when George Fernandes was the defense minister, some issue had erupted and he had to resign. He was wrongly accused and when GF was back, he used to refer every defense proposal to the central vigilance commission. Suffice to say, matters suffered. He was eventually replaced by Jaswant Singh, who tried to move things forward, but did not have enough time as the govt was voted out. Now our dear AKA also acts in a similar manner. In an effort to keep his name squeaky clean procurement suffers. The net result is our security suffers and when an opportunity for a Parakram type operation or a Kargil is presented to us, it is these wounds that come to bite us resulting in us taking defensive actions.

GF and AKA, kept their personal reputations clean, however did not do their jobs well enough. My point is waiting for Pakistan to die, sit with out hands tight, let the world move and we will move with the world - cannot even dream of setting a direction for the world are ALL defeatist arguments. Act we must. Honest leaders will learn from mistakes and improvise. It is history's job to judge and they shall judge - on results!

What I guess is that you want to make a friendly gesture at pakistan so that they feel secured and at the same time it should not cost us strategically. Am I right?

Let us put it this way. I want to control the evolution of Pakistan to the degree possible and remove any outside interference. I can do that only if I engage with them.

and yes, do you agree that pakistan is a rogue state?

"rogue" sounds too American an adjective. Dysfunctional, failing, paranoid are the words that come to my mind.

[Karan M]

Sudeepj: the economic argument is full of peril. I'll repeat what I wrote earlier : the Jagat Seth and Amir Chand thought of the economic argument and joined with Clive. The rest is history.

Unfortunate fact: defense costs money. Anything important usually does.

The belief that Pakis will not be paki and attempt to gain territory, or that we can monitor and stop them is full of peril too. We physically monitor much of the border and yet infiltrators get through. Secondly, where is the political will or economic will to go all out for an all out war of punishment on Pakis? It will, at a maximum be another Kargil type attempt and in much more difficult terrain.

Plus, who ensures/arbitrates this monitoring and acts as a neutral party? Getting 3'rd parties involved is bad..
Retaking Siachen will be very painful. Economically, but more important humanly.

[sudeepj]

Karan ji

That is certainly possible that I have mistakenly rubbed someone the wrong way, it was certainly not my intention! but from my pov, Brihaspati ji started it, and then ended with an outlandish threat, that he and some others will prosecute people who in their minds support ceding territory to Pak/China, and he adds the qualification, that he will not consider peoples past military services to the nation! To me this was beyond ridiculous, after all, its Bharat Rakshak, not only "certain points of view" Rakshak.

As for persuading others, I dont think many people on internet discussions really change their minds. BR is also a self selecting audience of hard liners, so that doesnt bother me too much. People have the right to hold different opinions and will never agree on anything. In fact, I dont agree 100% with what I said a few days ago.. opinions, information, everything keeps changing. Thats the nature of things.

- in which case, why are we stationing people at Kargil and many other places? Harder than Siachen in some ways - requires very expensive logistics, specialized equipment (imported snow suits, weaponry etc). So why don't we withdraw from Kargil?

I assume you mean the heights along Kargil, this does not meet the no strategic value test. Kargil heights are strategic as they can be used to protect/observe NH1A, and cut off Leh Srinagar link. So no withdrawal there.

Even operations in the Rajasthan desert are a money soak. The average vehicle gets so hot that people get heat stroke within and serious burns on touching the bare metal.

The army does not sit on the border in Rajasthan, that is the BSF. Army bases are in Jodhpur, Kota, Bikaner, smaller one at Jaisalmer (that I know of..) These are hardly hardship positions! Most of these are peace stations, with family residences etc.

Technically, we can give up vast amounts of our territory on account of being a) located in logistically expensive, hard to reach places b) not being populated.

So why don't we?

First thing is, a disengagement is not the same as giving up! Secondly, you are missing two more important points in that list, (c) strategic importance (d) cultural/political importance. All I am saying is, if an area is under active war (which Siachen is, even though there is a ceasefire there), and if its expensive, not populated, strategically unimportant, culturally/politically unimportant, then we should be able to negotiate about that territory. Negotiation is simply war, that happens across the table! Just as war is a nastier form of negotiation! How does that equal vacate/give up etc.?

-b) 1000 crores is a big amount, money better spent etc.

Actually Abhishek's point is correct. These costs need to be factored in with regards to a nations economic capability.

I agree that Indian economy is large, and can sustain extra 1000 crores indefinitely. But its still a large amount (since money is fungible, its equal to a large improvement in the lives of many Indians), and if we can save it, why not? And its not even the deciding factor in seeking disengagement.. Its simply one of five issues (in no particular order):-
a. Strategic
b. Cultural
c. Political
d. Economic/Trade
e. Cost of sustaining operations.

It is in our interest to keep Siachen going as we can afford it. The Pakistani economy is suffering, and it is a proven method - forcing your enemy to spend when he is tight for funds. The money they spend on Siachen means less bombs, less bullets for them, and worsening civil-military relations (since they starve the economy for their army). So what's the hurry? We are not losing any men either.

I feel that this is a Pakistani centric argument, "its bad for us, but its worse for them". Even if Pakistan turns around an economic miracle and starts growing at 6% an year, they will never be able to catch up with us. Therefore, we should ignore Pakistan, and improve our lot whichever way we can, so we can catch up with China.

Lastly, we may not be losing any men now, but they are in very dangerous locations. Its only a matter of time before something on the scale of Gyari happens. Afterall, large events in nature are the rule, not the exception, and they can make redundant our best laid plans.

**
If I have rubbed anyone off the wrong way (Except Brihaspati, and Abhishek Sharma - you guys deserved it) I am sorry, I didnt mean to do so. It simply happened in the heat of the argument. Being a war nerd, My primary motivation is to simply better understand our posture in Siachen/Ladakh and the costs/benefits of a continuing Siachen/Saltoro deployment.