Siachen News & Discussion

[ramana]

Are you ex-NFI

[sudeepj]

Are you ex-NFI

? Whats NFI
?

[partha]

Northern Light Infantry.

[sudeepj]

[nachiket]

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.

So the hardships faced by the BSF in the Rajasthan desert are not important? And BSF deployment also costs money. The situation is no different. All pakistan has to do is claim that the territory as theirs (which means it automatically becomes disputed) and then as per the cost benefit analysis, we'll have to give it up.

First thing is, a disengagement is not the same as giving up!

No, it is just a euphemism for giving up. At least in this case. Because the pakis won't debate about whether India gave up or "disengaged", they'll walk in and occupy our territory whenever it suits them.

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.?

But then, that means when we decide to voluntarily withdraw from some territory (after negotiations of course) we are voluntarily losing the war.

[ramana]

NFI = Northern Flight Infantry

They are famous for withdrawls

[partha]

ha! Never noticed that it's F instead of L!!

[sudeepj]

So the hardships faced by the BSF in the Rajasthan desert are not important? And BSF deployment also costs money. The situation is no different. All pakistan has to do is claim that the territory as theirs (which means it automatically becomes disputed) and then as per the cost benefit analysis, we'll have to give it up.
Hardly the same level as in Siachen. Also, there to protect crime, smuggling, infiltration etc. No such advantage in Siachen. The terrain is aweful

First thing is, a disengagement is not the same as giving up!

No, it is just a euphemism for giving up. At least in this case. Because the pakis won't debate about whether India gave up or "disengaged", they'll walk in and occupy our territory whenever it suits them.
Well thats certainly one point of view.

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.?

But then, that means when we decide to voluntarily withdraw from some territory (after negotiations of course) we are voluntarily losing the war.
You are giving far less credit to the negotiating babu that he deserves Pakistanis dont cry tears of blood when they talk about Indian negotiating tactics for nothing And why cant there be a monitoring of the Glacier? If there is a violation and say, shelling of people in the Nubra (they cant mount a full scale invasion that route), why wont we respond in say, Neelam valley? We have a lot more levers than you think..

[brihaspati]

sudeepj ji,
oh no you rubbed the correct way! thank you for pointing the way to counter your agenda. I sympathize with your condition - parasitic infestations and Zaid Hamid and interviewing for bodyguard jobs could be a bit overwhelming. But I was not sure before this post that you also lied through your teeth : it was you who actually started by sarcastically remarking on "verbiage". You started on the high horse of cost-benefit monetary analysis and then chickened out on actual quantitative values on risk. Then you suggested there were nonnegotiable situations too and for you that was "populated areas". I merely suggested using your logic and make whole of the state - in its inhabitable surrounding zone - north and west, populated by Indians. Also suggested that if a military commanders opinion on non-military affairs was so sacrosanct, non-military person's opinion on military personnel should have similar importance. This opened your abuse diarrhoea.

As for past contributions, military or otherwise - no one becomes sacrosanct because of his or her past contributions. For people like you - person may stand above the nation. Not for me. Why don't you leave it to the future Indians then to decide what is treason or not? I have simply expressed my desire for the future.

Your agenda is about helping the Pakis maintain their territorial legitimacy claims - which they are continuously doing, using even the access given to international mountaineering teams to the general area. It is about claiming the whole of J&K - and slumabad will never give up on that demand until the very last day it is chased out by talebs, who will take up that demand anyway.

India is militarily increasingly gaining leverage in comparison to Pakistan and hence the propaganda to force IA to give up the strong points. In the event of a conflict, Pakis will have to rely on China for their major resupply [India simply has to go for the Pindi corridor and Pakis will have to divide forces] and for this the tactical position is crucial.

Giving that point up is for those who have given up on the NA and reabsorbing the whole of J&K. Not giving up is for the rest of us who want to see Pakistan non-existent and no territorial space left outside Indian sovereignty for a third party to stir up mischief in that crucial salient towards AFG and CAR.

You can explode in abuse, but that will not change thoughts one single bit.

PS: when you finally find time away from Zaid Hamid, go over carefully as to what I have posted. I have mocked your arguments - but not you, not your posting handle and nothing about your personal intestinal flora and fauna. You on the other hand showed how fragile a person you are. Your fight is personal and against individuals - pretending to hide behind a logic which you yourself trash.

[Virupaksha]

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.

Interesting use of adjectives, giving a peek into your pakistan view.

explicitly not rogue - as that will mean their intent itself is wrong.

dysfunctional - doesnt talk of intent.
failing - again intent can be either way.
paranoid - again fearful of others, but actually intent might be good.

[sudeepj]

NFI = Northern Flight Infantry

They are famous for withdrawls

As far as I am concerned, I have been saying pretty much the same thing all along. If others misinterpret it, well.. I cant do much to help it.

[nachiket]

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

Interesting use of adjectives, giving a peek into your pakistan view.

explicitly not rogue - as that will mean their intent itself is wrong.

dysfunctional - doesnt talk of intent.
failing - again intent can be either way.
paranoid - again fearful of others, but actually intent might be good.

Indeed. I wonder which one of those states of mind the ISI handlers of the 26/11 attackers were in.

[abhishek_sharma]

Indeed. I wonder which one of those states of mind the ISI handlers of the 26/11 attackers were in.

Well, Paki generals like Talat Masood wrote after 26/11 that we should think about the fall of Dhaka to explain these events. ShauryaT has already pointed out that the "mistrust" is "mutual" due to events like 1971 war.

[nachiket]

So the hardships faced by the BSF in the Rajasthan desert are not important? And BSF deployment also costs money. The situation is no different. All pakistan has to do is claim that the territory as theirs (which means it automatically becomes disputed) and then as per the cost benefit analysis, we'll have to give it up.

Hardly the same level as in Siachen. Also, there to protect crime, smuggling, infiltration etc. No such advantage in Siachen. The terrain is aweful

But all that crime-fighting can be done even if the border is several km to the east, right at the westernmost villages no? No need to hold on to the harsh desert.

You are giving far less credit to the negotiating babu that he deserves Pakistanis dont cry tears of blood when they talk about Indian negotiating tactics for nothing

They will stop crying and start smiling when we start "negotiating" away territory based on doing cost-benefit analyses of holding it.

And why cant there be a monitoring of the Glacier? If there is a violation and say, shelling of people in the Nubra (they cant mount a full scale invasion that route), why wont we respond in say, Neelam valley? We have a lot more levers than you think..

Do we? Because none of these levers were visible after 26/11. What's a few artillery shells compared to that?

[sudeepj]

A point of view is expressed by Virupaksha, Rohit and also in the BRM article on a past siachen discussion, that by being on the Saltoro, we protect ingress of a Pakistani attack into the Nubra Valley.

The opposing view to this is:

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 to be any better (since there will still be monitoring of the Glacier and the entire region after disengagement)..

We have a 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 fire fights themselves, but request corrected 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, and is exposed to Pakistani shelling

Is there any truth to this, or is it simply nonsense from a military point of view?

[Kanishka]

sudeepj ji,
oh no you rubbed the correct way! thank you for pointing the way to counter your agenda. I sympathize with your condition - parasitic infestations and Zaid Hamid and interviewing for bodyguard jobs could be a bit overwhelming. But I was not sure before this post that you also lied through your teeth : it was you who actually started by sarcastically remarking on "verbiage". You started on the high horse of cost-benefit monetary analysis and then chickened out on actual quantitative values on risk. Then you suggested there were nonnegotiable situations too and for you that was "populated areas". I merely suggested using your logic and make whole of the state - in its inhabitable surrounding zone - north and west, populated by Indians. Also suggested that if a military commanders opinion on non-military affairs was so sacrosanct, non-military person's opinion on military personnel should have similar importance. This opened your abuse diarrhoea.

As for past contributions, military or otherwise - no one becomes sacrosanct because of his or her past contributions. For people like you - person may stand above the nation. Not for me. Why don't you leave it to the future Indians then to decide what is treason or not? I have simply expressed my desire for the future.

Your agenda is about helping the Pakis maintain their territorial legitimacy claims - which they are continuously doing, using even the access given to international mountaineering teams to the general area. It is about claiming the whole of J&K - and slumabad will never give up on that demand until the very last day it is chased out by talebs, who will take up that demand anyway.

India is militarily increasingly gaining leverage in comparison to Pakistan and hence the propaganda to force IA to give up the strong points. In the event of a conflict, Pakis will have to rely on China for their major resupply [India simply has to go for the Pindi corridor and Pakis will have to divide forces] and for this the tactical position is crucial.

Giving that point up is for those who have given up on the NA and reabsorbing the whole of J&K. Not giving up is for the rest of us who want to see Pakistan non-existent and no territorial space left outside Indian sovereignty for a third party to stir up mischief in that crucial salient towards AFG and CAR.

You can explode in abuse, but that will not change thoughts one single bit.

PS: when you finally find time away from Zaid Hamid, go over carefully as to what I have posted. I have mocked your arguments - but not you, not your posting handle and nothing about your personal intestinal flora and fauna. You on the other hand showed how fragile a person you are. Your fight is personal and against individuals - pretending to hide behind a logic which you yourself trash.

[krisna]

Karan ji
<snip>

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.

<snip>

why should I believe you.
when you dont believe yourself.

[sudeepj]

Reading the BRM article, a summary of the last big brouhaha about Siachen, (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... achen.html) here are the things that come to mind:

[As an aside, I am assuming that when big names like say, Gen Chibber claim that significance of Siachen is an invention, there is possibly some truth to that. I am trying to see what lies behind this claim in an open minded spirit.]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... acier.html

The following claims are were put forward by former members of the forum.

• 1) Keeping the Pakistanis off Siachen is critical to maintaining the security of the Nubra Valley. If the Pakistanis were to somehow secure the village of Dzingrulma at the snout of the glacier, they would be able to put the entire Nubra Valley within artillery range.
  2) Holding the Saltoro Ridge on the west of the Siachen Glacier opens up the possibility of interdicting any Pakistani moves towards the Indian town of Chalunkha. The town of Chalunkha has very little depth due to its geography on the Indian side; the loss of Chalunkha would impose immense costs on the main lines of communication in the region.
  3) By deflecting the threat to Chalunkha and Dzingrulma, we protect key passes (the Khardung Pass and the Saser Pass) in the region and close the gap that existed between the Shyok and Nubra rivers. This is essential to preserving the security of Leh and other key military positions along the Northern end of the Line of Actual Control with China.

For the purpose of examining these points, lets assume that after the disengagement,

• 1. Pakistanis sneak in and take over Bilafond/Sia/Gyong, and same for most of the Saltoro.
  2. 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.

Claim1. Nubra valley is controlled by the party that controls the Glacier.
Prima facie, the claim that Pakistanis will be able to station arty at Dzingrulma (or somewhere around the snout of the Glacier) and dominate the entire Nubra valley appears true, as the Nubra valley is quite straight and broad down the glacier. But once again, the question of how the pakistanis do this arises. To station an Arty battery at Dzingrulma, (to be clear, even we have only one bofors battery around the Siachen base camp, and we have a roadhead!) The Pakistanis will need to dismantle and xport via chopper the arty pieces, *and* the rounds. They will also need to support infantry needed to protect the battery. There is no other way.
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 to be any better (since there will still be monitoring of the Glacier and the entire region after disengagement)..

We have a 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 fire fights themselves, but request corrected accurate arty fire on any observed attack from the medium battery at Kumar base (or thereabouts).

Whether the Pakistanis will be able to sustain their battery/invasion force in the Nubra valley using the mountain passes, under Indian air superiority, or even manpads defenses is questionable.

Further, how will they do this in bad weather? In winters, all the passes close up, and all transport will be via choppers *only*. While winters and storms mean no operations up on the ridge, and therefore no operational support from Pakistani Army theoretically sitting there, Dzingrulma is very much in operational conditions..

Claim2. Saltoro ridge positions help interdict Pakistani moves up the Shyok valley.
For point 2, i.e. Saltoro ridge positions will help interdict any move down the Shyok valley.. Chalunka, Turtok etc. are shown in the map below.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&m ... 460c2b3628

Chalunka lies to the east of Turtok, which is at the LoC in the Shyok valley. Presumably, the invasion of Chalunka can happen along the Shyok valley road. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the Shyok valley road runs, well, in the Shyok valley.. Is it possible to bring down corrected/observed fire on it from the Medium battery at Kumar base? To me, it appears doubtful for most of the road, because
(a) The road runs in the Shyok valley and movement on the road is likely hidden by the valley walls. Other than that, the road itself hugs the eastern bank of the valley. Sensibly, the same road on our side, hugs the western bank of the valley. I doubt very much that itll be visible at all from Saltoro, though one can bring down unobserved fire on it, I am sure. How effective it might be in stopping Pakistani logistics movement in the Shyok valley is debatable. The Pakistani fire on NH1A during the Kargil operation lost its bite after their observation posts along the mountains were cleaned up.
(b) The distance from the ridge to the Shyok valley road and the ridge, for most of the way is close to 30-35kms. It reduces only when the road turns to Turtok. Visible only in good weather?
(c) Pakistani positions on this latitude, are farther to the east as compared Northern parts of the Glacier, as you point out, we are only on the mouth of the Gyong La, as it opens onto the Siachen glacier.

Is there another line of advance on the town, other than the Shyok road? The Pakistanis can sneak in some men along the mountains, rather than using the road. But again, we will have better logistics, because of the road. They can harrass Chalunka, but not take it!

Further, you assume that Pakistanis, if (and a big if at that) they come into the Nubra and Shyok valleys, will simply roll up right to KhardungLa. But if its a simple matter of rolling down a valley once a ridgeline is taken, they are already present in the Shyok valley! If it was simply a matter of rolling up along the valley, what stops them today from doing so in the Shyok valley, starting at Turtok?

So to my mind, Dzingrulma and Chalunka are not an invasion threat that can be prevented by occupying Saltoro.

[sudeepj]

Karan ji
<snip>

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.

<snip>

why should I believe you.
when you dont believe yourself.

To paraphrase someone much smarter than me, when the facts change, when I learn new arguments, when I find new evidence, I change my mind.

What do you do?

*And I am not asking you to believe me..

[krisna]

To paraphrase someone much smarter than me, when the facts change, when I learn new arguments, when I find new evidence, I change my mind.

What do you do?

*And I am not asking you to believe me..

1) no one wins arguments- both are losers
2) change of mind occurs when the mind is open.
3) when mind is open then new evidence becomes visible.
4) new evidence makes arguments futile
5) when arguments become futile then facts will change to the concerned person.

[Virupaksha]

A point of view is expressed by Virupaksha, Rohit and also in the BRM article on a past siachen discussion, that by being on the Saltoro, we protect ingress of a Pakistani attack into the Nubra Valley.

The opposing view to this is:

Is there any truth to this, or is it simply nonsense from a military point of view?

See the distance from the pass to the village, is it within shellable region with the area under their control (This is what India does to Pak army) - then yes it is nonsense.

For your other post, in short - you are okay nubra valley being shelled every summer and you seem to never heard of the term stock piling for winter.

[Kashi]

For your other post, in short - you are okay nubra valley being shelled every summer.

I think you are being a little harsh there. He certainly does not wish to see Nubra valley being shelled every summer...only when the ceasefire breaks down.

[ShauryaT]

Is there any truth to this, or is it simply nonsense from a military point of view?

Completely possible, if the following conditions are true!

- The IA fails to detect and monitor any major military movement in the DZ or CZ. Remember, for a swift action in the area, it has to be an air bridge, who's logistics trail is more difficult to hide
- The sensors in MZ fail to detect movement
- All space SAR based assets going up fail to detect these movements and logistics trails
- The joint monitoring team fails to detect any movements
- All MI, and base activity monitoring that we do, fails to detect movements
- Having failed these detections, the team that comes across the passes is so strong that they are able to overwhelm defenses in Nubra
- Assume having failed detection, PA manages to occupy approximately 70 KM long ridge line with about a battalion - does not come down, stays at those stupid ridges.
- Assume IA would be stupid enough not to use air assets and cross LOC to target supply camps and target their logistics
- Assume PA does not feel threatened by the IA
- Assume our political masters are completely weak kneed and will not defend an agreement
- Assume IA does not have enough assets to launch a mission to restore status quo (forget gains) and does not have assets to defend an army supplied my mule packs

Yes, PA is brave enough to do all of these and kick our asses to link up with the KK pass and threaten Leh, as the Shyok valley defenses, Thoise, Nubra, all of them have been toast and we are defending at Khardung La and Zanskar! We indeed should dhoti shiver!

Please assume all of the above and you have PA winning. I will go drink something now.

[sudeepj]

See the distance from the pass to the village, is it within shellable region with the area under their control (This is what India does to Pak army) - then yes it is nonsense.

For your other post, in short - you are okay nubra valley being shelled every summer and you seem to never heard of the term stock piling for winter.

The question is, how will they stockpile?

Remember, this is a sneak attack, on a Glacier thats undefended, but monitored intensely. They can possibly get the Guns and rounds for a few days of firing across, but what then? The Indians can just as easily roll up their medium guns to say, Warshi and hammer them back. (or elsewhere along the LoC) Hell, in winter, we can probably roll tanks/BMPs up the Nubra valley. For e.g. in this account, BMPs are being inducted at thoise via IL76! How will a pitiful arty battery, or a company or a battalion march down the Glacier? and down the valley? They will be slaughtered!

http://airmarshalashokgoel.blogspot.com ... il-76.html

(20 BMPs, by 2IL76, in 4 days time, back in 87! when the Thoise runway was 1700 meters long. Today the Thoise runway is 3500 meters long and presumably, the Il76 can land with greater loads.)

** (added later) Also remember, that the stockpiling after detection will be contested.

[manjgu]

Ok..lets see sudeepJ if u change ur mind ...

Everything changed in india after 1962 ! chacha nehru and others like him who were doing a cost benefit analysis of spending on defence realised that it was not a wise policy and admitted to their folly. One cannot part with ones land or not protect it just because of some stupid cost benefit analysis. Its a 365*24*7 work to guard and protect ones land even if its barren, snow bound, deviod of any population/habitation. Spending to protect and save ones house is beyond cost benefit analysis. Ask Chacha Nehru, krishna menon , BM Kaul, Brig Dalvi etc what changed in India and also ask the families of thousands of soldiers who were killed or injured what changed after 1962. The '62 debacle also scarred the psyche of the whole nation something which continues till date unless ofc these things dont matter to you. The humiliation and anger which generations of soldiers and countrymen have suffered on account of this cost benefit analysis of chacha nehru and others.

I would recommend u once again to read Harish Kapadias book on siachen to understand what is "link up"?

and for one last time..i will explain u why a paki presence at snout of glacier or on the saltoro is bad. U can defend a area when u have a continous line of defence. If your enemy ( and we here on BRF consider Pakistan, CHina as an enemy) drives a 'wedge' between ur defensive line then there is a very strong possibility of ur defences becoming 'unhinged'. This break in your defensive line becomes a place where an offensive lever can be applied to prise open the defences.

arey samajh mein aaya ki nahi? baap

Rohitvats will probably explain it with maps..i dont have the energy or patience to go further.

[sudeepj]

Added a rough estimation of AGPL, joining Indira Col-Sia La - Bilafond La - Junction of Siachen Glacier-Gyong La - NJ9842 to the map.
Siachen Map

If only someone could add some topography details.. :-( Beyond the heights of prominent points, I cant find references to how easy/hard moving military material across these passes would be. What is known is, that material is hard to move down the Glacier without Snow mobiles/man packs/mule packs.

[shyamoo]

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.?

This is the heart of the problem...
We win territory through war but give it away in negotiations. Our netas/babus suck at these negotiations. Why would we want to use this option?

Remember Haji Pir pass agreement. TSP occupied it literally before the ink dried. Per Islamic philosophy, not adhering to signed agreements is par for the course.

What guarantee do we have that they will honor the agreement?

Regardless of one's stand on the strategic importance of Siachen Saltoro Range, removing our forces from these heights should not be an option.

Give this a thought for a second.. Why does TSP want us to with draw from Saltoro heights? What is in it for them? They couldn't care less how much it costs us. They wouldn't have tried to dislodge our forces unsuccessfully multiple times if this piece of real estate was not important.

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.

Doing nothing in Siachen is one way of ignoring TSP. We simply don't do anything. No negotiations and no withdrawing troops.

[Kanishka]

Ok..lets see sudeepJ if u change ur mind ...

Everything changed in india after 1962 ! chacha nehru and others like him who were doing a cost benefit analysis of spending on defence realised that it was not a wise policy and admitted to their folly. One cannot part with ones land or not protect it just because of some stupid cost benefit analysis. Its a 365*24*7 work to guard and protect ones land even if its barren, snow bound, deviod of any population/habitation. Spending to protect and save ones house is beyond cost benefit analysis. Ask Chacha Nehru, krishna menon , BM Kaul, Brig Dalvi etc what changed in India and also ask the families of thousands of soldiers who were killed or injured what changed after 1962. The '62 debacle also scarred the psyche of the whole nation something which continues till date unless ofc these things dont matter to you. The humiliation and anger which generations of soldiers and countrymen have suffered on account of this cost benefit analysis of chacha nehru and others.

I would recommend u once again to read Harish Kapadias book on siachen to understand what is "link up"?

and for one last time..i will explain u why a paki presence at snout of glacier or on the saltoro is bad. U can defend a area when u have a continous line of defence. If your enemy ( and we here on BRF consider Pakistan, CHina as an enemy) drives a 'wedge' between ur defensive line then there is a very strong possibility of ur defences becoming 'unhinged'. This break in your defensive line becomes a place where an offensive lever can be applied to prise open the defences.

arey samajh mein aaya ki nahi? baap

Rohitvats will probably explain it with maps..i dont have the energy or patience to go further.

That dude is not here to learn. He has an agenda and that is why is so worked up.

[sudeepj]

Ok..lets see sudeepJ if u change ur mind ...

Everything changed in india after 1962 ! chacha nehru and others like him who were doing a cost benefit analysis of spending on defence realised that it was not a wise policy and admitted to their folly. One cannot part with ones land or not protect it just because of some stupid cost benefit analysis. Its a 365*24*7 work to guard and protect ones land even if its barren, snow bound, deviod of any population/habitation. Spending to protect and save ones house is beyond cost benefit analysis. Ask Chacha Nehru, krishna menon , BM Kaul, Brig Dalvi etc what changed in India and also ask the families of thousands of soldiers who were killed or injured what changed after 1962. The '62 debacle also scarred the psyche of the whole nation something which continues till date unless ofc these things dont matter to you. The humiliation and anger which generations of soldiers and countrymen have suffered on account of this cost benefit analysis of chacha nehru and others.

Most of this I can agree with, what I wanted to say was, that economically, culturally - the war did not have much effect in India. What it did change was a pacifist *external/foreign* policy. Politically, it changed the domestic relations between Army/GoI, and also changed our external 'standing' in the world. Another thing is, much of the land that was 'lost', was never in our possession. For e.g. Aksai Chin wasnt, so much so, that China constructed a road across it, and we did not know for three years. That was my point about the war not affecting India. Also, the effects on India were much less than major territorial wars in Europe or the colonial wars in India.

I would recommend u once again to read Harish Kapadias book on siachen to understand what is "link up"?

I dont have the book, and I dont think Ill be able to buy/borrow it. Since you understand the concept, why dont you flesh it out?

and for one last time..i will explain u why a paki presence at snout of glacier or on the saltoro is bad. U can defend a area when u have a continous line of defence. If your enemy ( and we here on BRF consider Pakistan, CHina as an enemy) drives a 'wedge' between ur defensive line then there is a very strong possibility of ur defences becoming 'unhinged'. This break in your defensive line becomes a place where an offensive lever can be applied to prise open the defences.

arey samajh mein aaya ki nahi? baap

Such 'wedges' 'bulges' and so on in defense lines were created through all the wars in history. In fact, on the IB with Pakistan, One exists as the 'ShakarGarh bulge', and the second as the 'dagger area' pointed at India in Akhnoor. There are quite possibly many more. These can only be exploited if a breakthrough occurs, and the enemy is able to pour his forces through, *and* maintain a logistics train to these breakthrough forces.

Ofcourse, (added later: to me) all this is nonsensical in a mountain battlefield, where no breakthrough can occur, as the enemy wont be able to concentrate his forces, and no logistics trail can be maintained across the Glaciers and the high passes.

Rohitvats will probably explain it with maps..i dont have the energy or patience to go further.

Sure, I am looking fwd to it.

[sudeepj]

This is the heart of the problem...
We win territory through war but give it away in negotiations. Our netas/babus suck at these negotiations. Why would we want to use this option?

Remember Haji Pir pass agreement. TSP occupied it literally before the ink dried. Per Islamic philosophy, not adhering to signed agreements is par for the course.

What guarantee do we have that they will honor the agreement?

Regardless of one's stand on the strategic importance of Siachen Saltoro Range, removing our forces from these heights should not be an option.

Give this a thought for a second.. Why does TSP want us to with draw from Saltoro heights? What is in it for them? They couldn't care less how much it costs us. They wouldn't have tried to dislodge our forces unsuccessfully multiple times if this piece of real estate was not important.

To be sure, there is no guarantee that any disengagement agreement will be honored. But if Pakistan is to be trusted at some point in time, Siachen is possibly a good location to start, as at least some generals think that the place has no strategic significance, and also because its not populated.

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.

Doing nothing in Siachen is one way of ignoring TSP. We simply don't do anything. No negotiations and no withdrawing troops.

Except you are not doing nothing, you are fighting a war, which currently has a ceasefire going on, positioning your men in an extremely dangerous and unpleasant terrain. Lastly, there is also a monetary cost to doing nothing..

[abhishek_sharma]

Aksai Chin was not in our "possession" because we did not know about the Chinese road. That is why its loss did not affect India. Using that logic, Maoist-controlled villages should not bother us. Some of them are not in our maps. There is no presence of GoI in those regions. Why do we send CRPF to those villages?

Moreover, any war which causes less destruction than European wars is not a big deal. We should not bother too much about them.

Of course, people with room-temperature IQ might not understand these issues. At this stage, they probably need medical help.

[Kanishka]

Except you are not doing nothing, you are fighting a war, which currently has a ceasefire going on, positioning your men in an extremely dangerous and unpleasant terrain. Lastly, there is also a monetary cost to doing nothing..

I am defending my territory and yes the terrain is difficult and costly but i am happy to do it.
It is like an insurance policy, no one likes to pay yet we all need it. Comprende?

[shyamoo]

To be sure, there is no guarantee that any disengagement agreement will be honored. But if Pakistan is to be trusted at some point in time, Siachen is possibly a good location to start, as at least some generals think that the place has no strategic significance, and also because its not populated.

The general perception in this forum is that TSP can never be trusted. Their record in this area doesn't help either.
Siachen is a good start for what? Resolving J&K issue? Do really believe that there is a political solution to the issue? If so, please let us know what it would be like? After 60 years we are exactly where we had started.

Except you are not doing nothing, you are fighting a war, which currently has a ceasefire going on, positioning your men in an extremely dangerous and unpleasant terrain. Lastly, there is also a monetary cost to doing nothing..

Prevention is better than cure.. If we have to spend money to prevent a situation where we might have to spend far more ( to regain our territory ), I think it is prudent and I'm all for it.

[Ashutosh Malik]

[/quote]

Sudeep,

1. How is Saltoro issue separate from the larger J&K issue?
To me it appears separate as the dispute there arose in a different time frame and since populations are not involved, the political importance is much less than Kashmir valley.
2. Why should it be solved separately from J&K?
Oh this has been the GoI position for ever! Kashmir is the most difficult problem, lets solve other issues first.
3. What makes us think that solving it separately will lead to a J&K solution?
I am not sure anyone is under any illusions that J&K will be easy to solve
4. If Saltoro is an issue for Pakistan why should Gilgit/ Baltistan not be solved first?
5. In fact why should not the Shaksgam region issue be solved first - it happened before we stopped Pakistanis from moving into Siachen as well?
If you feel so strongly about it, you should petition the govt. This govt. and govts. before it, including BJP govts., have gone nearly on record to state that LoC be made the final border.

Best regards,
Ashutosh[/quote][/quote]

Sudeep,

With due respect, I disagree with you on the Saltoro issue being different from J&K. The whole thing, even Op Meghdoot, started because Pak was moving into this area in early 80s. And they were moving in because they wanted to enhance their larger presence in J&K from the negotiating point of view, whenever the larger solution were to emerge.

On my point number 3 - I think that GOI is changing its position to connecting Saltoro to the larger J&K. My sense - they should have done it long back. The wisdom of solving Saltoro region issue separately, since late 80s when Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was the PM, seems rather suspect to me.

On my point number 5 - Here, I can only say that you have used a rhetorical argument, about me petitioning GOI! And rhetoric is not something I and you can indulge in to discuss this issue - I don't think our intentions are to get into a polemic exchange, ala politicians or two sides in a debate scoring points against each other. My sense is we are pointing out what we may think are the flaws in each others' reasoning and then trying to see whether we can move ahead. I made the point about Shaksgam to bring home the point that nothing in erstwhile J&K is independent of each other. And there will be no solution without thinking through the larger geography of the state. This is no longer about just India & Pakistan, particularly after Chinese are becoming even bigger an issue with their presence in Gilgit/ Baltistan and with getting across to the Gwadar port being important for them - notwithstanding the issue of Balochistan which is leading Chinese to be a bit circumspect about the Gwadar port, as of now.

Even when GOI talks of LOC being made the final border, it does not say that AGPL on Saltoro ridge will not be made the final border. Further, the issue, with China coming in, is going to get more complicated - so even from the negotiating point of view. And we need to have our cards in place to bring home the final solution.

Also, nations can and should change their negotiating positions as their strength increases. What we may have considered okay to give-in, or not protest too much about in 60s/ 70s/ 80s, may not be necessary to give-in now. We should negotiate taking into account how we get the best deal, even if there has to be a give and take.

Best regards,
Ashutosh

[sudeepj]

The general perception in this forum is that TSP can never be trusted. Their record in this area doesn't help either.
Siachen is a good start for what? Resolving J&K issue? Do really believe that there is a political solution to the issue? If so, please let us know what it would be like? After 60 years we are exactly where we had started.

Quote:
Except you are not doing nothing, you are fighting a war, which currently has a ceasefire going on, positioning your men in an extremely dangerous and unpleasant terrain. Lastly, there is also a monetary cost to doing nothing..


Prevention is better than cure.. If we have to spend money to prevent a situation where we might have to spend far more ( to regain our territory ), I think it is prudent and I'm all for it.

All I am saying is, whenever the time comes to do a rapprochement with Pakland, Siachen is a good candidate as it has a much lower stake than Kashmir valley.

Anyway, I added the route via Saser La to Karakoram pass at the Indo-China border. This route connects Nubra valley to the China border. As you can see, up till the Burtsa and Depsang plains, the terrain is aweful! Also, we have a road halfway to Saser La
Siachen map

Burtsa and Depsand plains dont have any natural line of defense, but the ridgeline above Saser La is an excellent defensible position to stop any Chinese movement. Such Chinese movement will not be stopped by anybody on Saltoro, but only someone sitting atop the ridge that Saser La crosses! Evidently, the Army thinks so too, so it has made a road halfway up the ridge! that did not exist in this travelogue by Harish Kapadia in 88/89.
http://www.himalayanclub.org/journal/east-of-saser-la/

[partha]

Sudeepji,

On that map, your (if you have added it) description of point NJ 9842 is not correct. As per Simla agreement, it should be "thence north to glaciers". Please rectify it.

[sudeepj]

Sudeep,

1. How is Saltoro issue separate from the larger J&K issue?
To me it appears separate as the dispute there arose in a different time frame and since populations are not involved, the political importance is much less than Kashmir valley.
2. Why should it be solved separately from J&K?
Oh this has been the GoI position for ever! Kashmir is the most difficult problem, lets solve other issues first.
3. What makes us think that solving it separately will lead to a J&K solution?
I am not sure anyone is under any illusions that J&K will be easy to solve
4. If Saltoro is an issue for Pakistan why should Gilgit/ Baltistan not be solved first?
5. In fact why should not the Shaksgam region issue be solved first - it happened before we stopped Pakistanis from moving into Siachen as well?
If you feel so strongly about it, you should petition the govt. This govt. and govts. before it, including BJP govts., have gone nearly on record to state that LoC be made the final border.

Best regards,
Ashutosh

Sudeep,

With due respect, I disagree with you on the Saltoro issue being different from J&K. The whole thing, even Op Meghdoot, started because Pak was moving into this area in early 80s. And they were moving in because they wanted to enhance their larger presence in J&K from the negotiating point of view, whenever the larger solution were to emerge.

Well, lets agree to disagree here then.

On my point number 3 - I think that GOI is changing its position to connecting Saltoro to the larger J&K. My sense - they should have done it long back. The wisdom of solving Saltoro region issue separately, since late 80s when Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was the PM, seems rather suspect to me.

Well, its certainly possible, but historically, thats not been the approach of the GoI

On my point number 5 - Here, I can only say that you have used a rhetorical argument, about me petitioning GOI! And rhetoric is not something I and you can indulge in to discuss this issue - I don't think our intentions are to get into a polemic exchange, ala politicians or two sides in a debate scoring points against each other. My sense is we are pointing out what we may think are the flaws in each others' reasoning and then trying to see whether we can move ahead. I made the point about Shaksgam to bring home the point that nothing in erstwhile J&K is independent of each other. And there will be no solution without thinking through the larger geography of the state. This is no longer about just India & Pakistan, particularly after Chinese are becoming even bigger an issue with their presence in Gilgit/ Baltistan and with getting across to the Gwadar port being important for them - notwithstanding the issue of Balochistan which is leading Chinese to be a bit circumspect about the Gwadar port, as of now.

Apologies if it came across that way. My point in saying that was simply, that even the GoI does not protest more than perfunctorily about Shaksgam valley. If you think its important, you should put the reasons fwd. why it is so. To me, it appears another icy wasteland, that is completely indefensible. How will we supply anyone stationed to protect the ridges there? Once again, as per my system of political/strategic/cultural/economic/cost of maintaining operations criteria, it passes not even a single criterion. You may disagree (and its your right and I respect that right), but this is why I think its a completely indefensible wasteland. If we send our soldiers there, they will die, either from weather, or by being logistically impossible to sustain. The only way to gain this valley, is by negotiation and a mutual settlement with China/Pak/India or a war, with substantial moves elsewhere, on easier terrain. But once again, you will have to negotiate, and also negotiate about Siachen there. Also, why would you want to trade terrain thats easily accessible with something that you cant use like Shaksgam?


Even when GOI talks of LOC being made the final border, it does not say that AGPL on Saltoro ridge will not be made the final border. Further, the issue, with China coming in, is going to get more complicated - so even from the negotiating point of view. And we need to have our cards in place to bring home the final solution.

Even I am not saying that AGPL not be made the final border. In fact, any final settlement will be very close to the AGPL, as Indian claim is more to the word and letter of the LoC demarcation, "Thence North to the Glaciers". But it doesnt hurt to disengage before that

Also, nations can and should change their negotiating positions as their strength increases. What we may have considered okay to give-in, or not protest too much about in 60s/ 70s/ 80s, may not be necessary to give-in now. We should negotiate taking into account how we get the best deal, even if there has to be a give and take.

Here I disagree. We will be seen as unprincipled people, who negotiate in bad faith (like the Pakistanis) - and it will not be Dharmic.

Best regards,
Sudeep

[sudeepj]

Sudeepji,

On that map, your (if you have added it) description of point NJ 9842 is not correct. As per Simla agreement, it should be "thence north to glaciers". Please rectify it.

I see your point. Ill change it.

[Rahul M]

sudeepj, why don't you make up a list of all uninhabited areas of India and petition GOI for gifting them to our lovely neighbours to prove our peaceful intentions ?

by the logic you used about akshai chin, that govt didn't know of the chinese building a road there, similar thing happened in abujhmad. that means it's not a part of India and should belong to naxals in perpetuity, correct ?

[brihaspati]

Also, nations can and should change their negotiating positions as their strength increases. What we may have considered okay to give-in, or not protest too much about in 60s/ 70s/ 80s, may not be necessary to give-in now. We should negotiate taking into account how we get the best deal, even if there has to be a give and take.

Here I disagree. We will be seen as unprincipled people, who negotiate in bad faith (like the Pakistanis) - and it will not be Dharmic.

Dharma comes to the rescue of the unprincipled too it seems. When one is bent on adding to the territorial claims of India's enemies, even "dharma" can be cited. In India "dharma" is nebulous, typically used by "not even grass grows there so let it go"-ers [after sending in poorly equipped forces to be chopped up before - the soldiers were to blame actually, why didnt they rpeort earlier that not even grass grows there?!] but the literal meaning is that which holds, and in which is "held". So to do exactly opposite of "holding" - dharma can be cited too.

Why this great urge suddenly to be "dharmik" only when it is about conceding territorial points to the enemy? It is entirely dharmik to uphold dharma - which in this case is about getting back our territory, preventing mischief by third party using lack of Indian sovereignty, finishing Pak off and rolling China back - both of which has caused and shows every intention of causing immense pain and losses to our people.

Asutosh's point is valid, if we really want to see all that territory back into Indian fold after all. The entire point revolves around India occupying all of the NA, and every advantage, every change of situation in our favour - has to be used to obtain that ultimate goal. Incrementally, or at one go - the aim is to get it all back. To cut China off from Pak. The aim is not to stop just there, but to roll China back from the Indian territory China occupied. There is no stopping in geopolitics. Borders are only temporary compromises in space and time. Trying to make current occupation lines a permanent border is to allow China a permanent presence into Pakiland. Until China is rolled back and we have a buffer to the east - everything has to be done to push up to the whole of NA.