Siachen News & Discussion

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 02 May 2012 08:52

Sudeepj...

I have not been to Saltoro but have talked extensively with Gen Hoon ( i hope u know him atleast) and others. He has crisscrossed the glacier 100 times and stood on indra col . I am recounting his observations in this thread.

And Yes on a clear day, parts of KKH can be observed...

The reason we are there because its important for the defence of India, defence of Ladhak ! Do u think its reason enough or not ( YES/NO)? and which has been explained in some detail. if u cant comprehend it, then i cant do much abt it.

Do u think we can defend Saltoro/siachen sitting in Leh?

ShauryaT... I am not getting personal. But when u compare Vietnam with Siachen, this is too much really for this forum. I never heard any Vietnamese go into USA to kill Americans? I never heard Vietnamese occupy parts of USA? I never heard Vietnam call for destruction of USA? I never heard Vietnam say that State of Connecticut is vietnamese territory? Pl bring something useful to the discussion is my humble request. Dont shoot off without knowing the topography or history !! I dont have any problems if u have a contrarian view but be reasonable. No offence meant...

It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion!!

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 02 May 2012 10:03

Ashish S wrote:
sudeepj wrote:
The lives and the money that we spend. There has to be a cost to benefit analysis. I just dont see the benefits from occupying that area.

Rite. Please go ahead and perch yourself on K2. Last I heard, noone was there, and K2 also belongs to us.
More bunk to support a non argument. I didn't go perch myself (most of us didn't) at Kargil in 1999 either so perhaps we don't have locus to keep that either.

Well it was your argument that "Its our land, and thats all there is to it". The reasonable conclusion to draw is that you are such a maha patriot, that you want to throw out intruders from all of our sacred land, irrespective of the costs involved. Since K2 belongs to India, you must be willing for India to throw out Pakistanis from K2 also..

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 02 May 2012 10:18

manjgu wrote:Sudeepj...

I have not been to Saltoro but have talked extensively with Gen Hoon ( i hope u know him atleast) and others. He has crisscrossed the glacier 100 times and stood on indra col . I am recounting his observations in this thread.

And Yes on a clear day, parts of KKH can be observed...

Good that you have talked to Gen Hoon. Having hiked a few miles into one or two (comparatively tame) glaciers myself, I feel that it will be folly for any army to use a glacier as an infiltration or invasion route. Itll probably be easier to support an airborne invasion.

Ill take your word for it, that KKH can be observed from some of our Saltoro posts. The next question is, can it be 'dominated'? Can you bring down arty fire on it? On clear days, visibility can go as far as a 100kms. So simply seeing it does you no good, as far as dominating something goes.

The reason we are there because its important for the defence of India, defence of Ladhak ! Do u think its reason enough or not ( YES/NO)? and which has been explained in some detail.

if u cant comprehend it, then i cant do much abt it.

Do u think we can defend Saltoro/siachen sitting in Leh?

Well IMHO, any talk of invasion via the Saltoro ridge is simply poppycock. So the question of Leh's defense resting on the occupation of Saltoro is again nonsense.

You need to lighten up a bit. Its not as if GoI is following this discussion on BR and will take a decision based on the outcome of our cage fight. Take it easy, and keep it civil.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 May 2012 10:24

The level of ignorance on the geography of the area and long term consequence of vacating AGPL is quite amazing!!! This when there is enough literature on the subject and when geography favors PA in more ways than one not only in this sector but in adjoining sectors as well.....still more funny is the line about "Strategic Importance" of Siachen...the fact that it is Indian territory coveted by your enemy and hence, needs to be defended is lost on the public. And that too, an enemy which has repeatedly shown penchant for subterfuge and treachery...

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 02 May 2012 10:53

sudeepj wrote:
Its our land. Whats the issue?
The lives and the money that we spend. There has to be a cost to benefit analysis. I just dont see the benefits from occupying that area.

I am pretty sure, I can do a cost-benefit analysis on many things.

I wonder what the cost-benefit analysis which Gandhi did before throwing off his lawyer's coat or when Bhagat Singh/Alluri Seeta Rama Raju/ SCB did what he did. The cost-benefit analysis when Bana Singh fought at the bana post, the analysis for losing 2000 men for giving freedom to Bangladesh. The cost-benefit analysis of the CRPF soldier who died at the hand of maoist or the cost benefit analysis when Chanakya started his work against the Greek invasions. The cost benefit analysis which Bhishma did taking his vow.

I am sure the cost-benefit and the guns-bread analysis which people did when defence industries started producing consumer durables worked to their advantage in 1962, only at the cost of 3000 soldiers.

Shall I do some more as everything has a cost-benefit analysis?

It will not be family friendly for sure.

Regardless, it's pretty inane to ask, "why be there?' Saying that this territory doesn't bestow any strategic advantage is no argument for abandoning it. Things might change tomorrow in ways we cannot anticipate presently.
Rite. Please go ahead and perch yourself on K2. Last I heard, noone was there, and K2 also belongs to us.

If it was under Indian control and if somebody threatens to occupy it, we should....

The saying still rings true, "jab raja bane vyapari, to praja bane bhikari" - when the king becomes a merchant, the people become beggars.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 02 May 2012 11:19

rohitvats wrote:The level of ignorance on the geography of the area and long term consequence of vacating AGPL is quite amazing!!!

Rohit, there are commentaries by more than one Indian General on Siachen, with diametrically opposing views. For e.g. Lt. Gen Chibber has said at least once that "Siachen is of no strategic significance". Lt. Gen Raghavan says something similar. If there are equally brilliant military minds taking opposing positions, I need to use my own "experience", however minuscule. To me, it appears exceedingly difficult to support an offensive war with a logistics trail that stretches over that kind of terrain. The Indian army can easily concentrate division sized formations in Leh/Ladakh. You can imagine what force levels the Pakistanis will need to overcome such an Indian formation, and whether such an offensive can be supported via the Sia/Bilafond/Gyong Las and over the Siachen glacier.

still more funny is the line about "Strategic Importance" of Siachen...the fact that it is Indian territory coveted by your enemy and hence, needs to be defended is lost on the public. And that too, an enemy which has repeatedly shown penchant for subterfuge and treachery...

I agree that the enemy is not trustworthy, but I disagree about the worth of land. Even in the 18th 19th and early 20th century, when wars were fought over land, emperors and generals looked at the relative worth of the land when planning invasions. It had to have something worthwhile for them to fight over it - minerals, agriculture, a population with some affinity to own population, access to trade routes/ports etc., wealth and so on. At the end of the day, the land if taken over by the victors would bring some tangible benefit to the conquerors.

In todays world, when nations and economies dont need territory to prosper the way they did earlier, the significance of some barren piece of land goes down even further. In fact, this is the position of GoI too, a sensible position, IMO - which says, settled populations are not to be disturbed by border adjustments. What follows is, borders without any populations are open for give and take.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 02 May 2012 11:28

Virupaksha wrote:
sudeepj wrote: The lives and the money that we spend. There has to be a cost to benefit analysis. I just dont see the benefits from occupying that area.
I am pretty sure, I can do a cost-benefit analysis on many things.

I wonder what the cost-benefit analysis which Gandhi did before throwing off his lawyer's coat or when Bhagat Singh/Alluri Seeta Rama Raju/ SCB did what he did. The cost-benefit analysis when Bana Singh fought at the bana post, the analysis for losing 2000 men for giving freedom to Bangladesh. The cost-benefit analysis of the CRPF soldier who died at the hand of maoist or the cost benefit analysis when Chanakya started his work against the Greek invasions. The cost benefit analysis which Bhishma did taking his vow.

You said you were going to give a cost benefit analysis, but proceeded to indulge in some table thumping rhetoric

Talk is cheap my friend.

Virupaksha wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Rite. Please go ahead and perch yourself on K2. Last I heard, noone was there, and K2 also belongs to us.
If it was under Indian control and if somebody threatens to occupy it, we should....

So all Indian land is sacred, except for Indian land that is occupied by a foreign invader

Some logic. Extending this, if the Pakistanis had managed to take over Saltoro in 84, that land would not be under our occupation and there it wouldnt be on your list of place of occupy.

The saying still rings true, "jab raja bane vyapari, to praja bane bhikari" - when the king becomes a merchant, the people become beggars.

I dont think you understand what that saying is trying to convey.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 02 May 2012 11:51

Sudeepj,

Why does the "cost-benefit analysis" apply only to Siachen but not to the points I mentioned. Please do a cost-benefit analysis of how each of them worked out to the actors mentioned & why each of them voluntarily worked for that knowing fully what a mercentalist mentality of cost-benefit analysis would provide. After all whats good for the goose is also good for gander.

Regarding the saying, thought so too. I didnt think you will get it. It needs going a little more than penny pinching & penny wise pound foolishness.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 02 May 2012 12:18

the cost-benefit is not about that individual tract of land, but the implications of losing that land on the rest of the land that adjoins it

Ashutosh Malik · Post by **Ashutosh Malik** » 02 May 2012 12:30

A few questions have been nagging me while I read on this forum and when I see discussions happening on Saltoro.

The most important one:

1) How is Saltoro issue independent of the larger J&K issue?

Pakistan's cartographic aggression in early 80s, and the mountaineering expeditions that it was getting done, which led to Op Meghdoot, were all about enhancing its position in J&K. So how can we treat Saltoro issue independently of J&K? What the line beyond NJ9842 should lead to is related to what happens in J&K and is a part of the original problem itself.

Has Pakistan changed its position on J&K, which should lead us to solve Saltoro first, when Saltoro itself is not independent of J&K issue?

Do those suggesting solving Saltoro first think that it will lead to J&K moving towards a solution faster?

We are sitting on the Saltoro ridge because we don't want Pakistan to enhance its position in those areas. Similarly we are sitting in Kargil so that it does not outflank us on Siachen. This account here is an interesting read -

http://majorlyprofound.wordpress.com/20 ... n-problem/

And this one by Air Cmmde Tufail. I think this has been posted earlier as well, but still instructive to read:

http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.in/2009 ... force.html

2) With China now sitting even in Gilgit etc, how is it just an issue between India and Pakistan?

I think the judgement to be made is on whether solving the Saltoro question separately brings the issues between India and Pakistan to a solution. I have doubts on that one. This Saltoro thing is just a red-herring to show some movement - more important to Pakistan than to India, when nothing really gets resolved and in fact may lead to more problem.

Best regards.
Ashutosh

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 02 May 2012 21:47

manjgu wrote:Sudeepj...

I have not been to Saltoro but have talked extensively with Gen Hoon ( i hope u know him atleast) and others. He has crisscrossed the glacier 100 times and stood on indra col . I am recounting his observations in this thread.

And Yes on a clear day, parts of KKH can be observed...

The reason we are there because its important for the defence of India, defence of Ladhak ! Do u think its reason enough or not ( YES/NO)? and which has been explained in some detail. if u cant comprehend it, then i cant do much abt it.

Do u think we can defend Saltoro/siachen sitting in Leh?

ShauryaT... I am not getting personal. But when u compare Vietnam with Siachen, this is too much really for this forum. I never heard any Vietnamese go into USA to kill Americans? I never heard Vietnamese occupy parts of USA? I never heard Vietnam call for destruction of USA? I never heard Vietnam say that State of Connecticut is vietnamese territory? Pl bring something useful to the discussion is my humble request. Dont shoot off without knowing the topography or history !! I dont have any problems if u have a contrarian view but be reasonable. No offence meant...

It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion!!

Manjgu: Gen Hoon is one voice. There are many voices. Here is an example:

"I took over as Corps Commander in 03 Aug 1983. In Sep-Oct, I briefed Prime Minister Indira Gandhi about the strategic importance of Siachen and Pak design to capture Khardungla and dominate Leh by bringing artillery and rockets etc. in Nubra valley and then link up with Chinese at Aksai Chin."

– Lt Gen PN Hoon, GOC 15 Corps

An incorrect and farfetched appreciation thus landed India into occupation of Siachen Glacier or more correctly Saltoro Ridge in April 1984. It was realised only later that no large scale military operations can be carried out by either side across Saltoro Ridge and Siachen Glacier. This bleeding ulcer has cost us nearly 20,000 casualties in over twenty years and an estimated daily expenditure of two crores. Lt Gen ML Chibber, who was Northern Army Commander at the time of occupation of Siachen, realized, but alas much later that occupation of Saltoro was a mistake.

“India’s military occupation of Saltoro passes in spring 1948 was meant only to deter the Pakistanis from getting there first. The Indian Army had no plans for permanent occupation. At the end of the day, the Siachen conflict was a mistake.”

– Lt Gen ML Chibber in June 1990

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/geop ... achen.html

First, I think there is a typo in the above, the number of casualties is wrong. Also, a similar quote of Gen. Chibber can be traced to 1985, when he retired. Now, who do we choose to believe? Why is Gen Chibber not right and Gen Hoon is. Again, the above is just an example. One has to traverse many such view points to come to an understanding of the facts. I will readily concede that this understanding will differ based on one's own biases, that one has to guard against. What we do not have the right to do is cast aspersions on the motivations of these men who have served, without any credible proofs. Who am I to question General Prakash Katoch or Brig: Kanwals motivations or cast aspersion on their credibility or associations, without any reasonable support. Who am I to question the livelihood of a retired Brigadier and suggest that they may be compromised. One does not have to agree with every military officer and their view points. They themselves do not agree with each other and hence the debate continues.

Gen Hoon's assessment of a threat to Khardung La and Nubra Valley, through the Siachen. His assessment of an "imminent" pakistani design to occupy the ridges in 1984 and a deep seated plan to link up with China has been questioned. I have chosen in this case to believe the skeptics of the above assessment as a "post facto rationalization" of events. This does not mean Pakistanis had no desire to occupy the ridges and their cartographic aggressions are justified and to be accepted. Gen. Chibber agreed to the Saltoro operation, being in command of the area, but realized that his assessment at the time was flawed. It takes courage to admit to mistakes. All said and done, facts on the ground should now determine a future course. Our polity's course is markedly towards a peace effort. IMO: Siachen is a good test ground, where risks can be managed.

I think, you and I have miscommunicated on the geography issue where I have read your North to mean North of 9842, which points towards China, it did not have to go personal. I am no expert and have claimed no expertise on history and feel free to question any specific issue, but no need to make blanket statements. Again on Vietnam example, there was a point being made. You ignored the point of mistrust between enemies leading to disastrous results. Jaswant Singh had a similar point, in his book on the partition. The point was not about comparing Vietnam and America to Siachen. So, hope we can reset, differ and debate, put our points across, without any prejudice or personal attacks.

One last thing, for this mistrust of Pakistanis. The mistrust is mutual. As an Indian, I can choose to not believe them as many do here or say, OK, you have your perspective, there is an issue on the table, what is the conciliation or Sama that is possible, especially if I have unilaterally ruled out bheda and danda as tools available for resolution. What are the strengths for me to leverage in this process of Sama, weaknesses and opportunities to exploit and risks to manage.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 02 May 2012 22:07

Ashutosh Malik wrote: I think the judgement to be made is on whether solving the Saltoro question separately brings the issues between India and Pakistan to a solution. I have doubts on that one. This Saltoro thing is just a red-herring to show some movement - more important to Pakistan than to India, when nothing really gets resolved and in fact may lead to more problem.

Best regards.
Ashutosh

I think it is a fair concern. One has to judge the envisioned end goal of such a process. You shall not get any "concrete" proofs and only speculations. So, here is one. India has no appetite to consume PoK and neither does the PA have the capacity to take our held areas of Kashmir from us. India desires for the LoC to be the effective border. Pakistan has to figure a way to sell this internally. Demilitarization of Siachen is a step from TSP's perspective that will show India's eventual intention to reduce military presence in Kashmir and move the two parts of Kashmir towards some normalcy of relations across the borders eventually. Siachen is considered to be the low hanging fruit to build this trust for both sides. So, Siachen is intrinsically linked to the larger J&K issue. But, not in any big bang settlement type of scenario. I do not think, anyone can wave a hand and solve the issues on the table. It will be a long drawn out process.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 May 2012 22:14

ShauryaT, Both the officers seem to have different value systems. Based on that each is right. Lt Gen Chibber values lives and costs. Lt Gen Hoon values land/territory and does not want TSP to gain anymore.

To me any withdrawl form Saltoro Ridge will lead to TSP to occupy them for that is their nature. And that will stabilize their sorry state.

Let me state a parable.

There was drought on one side of a deep river. The only way out for the small animals was to hitch a ride on a swan. The swan ferried many small animals till only a crab was left. The crab too wanted the ride. The swan demurred saying "You might choke me midway!" The crab swore on all that was holy and said he "Wouldn't do nay such thing." The swan took him on his back and started the ride. Midway the crab choked the swan. The swan said "But you promised not to choke me!" The crab replied"I did, but my nature took over my mind and I had to choke you even if I die in the river!"
So see for yourself who is who in this parable.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 May 2012 22:18

>> The mistrust is mutual

Why do Pakis mistrust us? Are they worried that we might give them more than what they want?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 02 May 2012 22:21

ShauryaT wrote: You ignored the point of mistrust between enemies leading to disastrous results. Jaswant Singh had a similar point, in his book on the partition. The point was not about comparing Vietnam and America to Siachen.

Have anyone heard of mutual trust between enemies and to what end?? The comparison was misplaced even if not admitted.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 02 May 2012 22:49

I just hope that the Indian government is sufficiently suspicious about Pakistan to NOT trust it to keep its word in any such agreement.

We just may be not giving Manmohan Singh as much credit as he deserves.
He is getting US pressure to small-brotherize Pakistan and help it via trade and economics.

That's fine in its own place. At the same time, I am damn sure that the Indian establishment, babu's and most Neta's are sufficiently cynical about Pakistan to NOT bend too much to peace making.

See, the govt HAS TO appear to be paceful towards Pakistan. We are deluding them that we trust them, as much as they are deluding us about their non-malicious intent.

A good way and a popular way of thinking about Pakistan, is to imagine it as a large piece of Gobar stuck in the middle of the road.

You can't do shite about it without dirtying your hands.

But, you can certainly acknowledge it and demarcate it and appear to be happy with it for the public audience that wants it cleaned up.

Indians are heavily status quo-ist. We don't have a forward policy. We are not going to de-escalate on Kashmir, or Siachen or anywhere else.

Some posters are getting unnecessarily worried. Nopes. We are passive people as a government. We will maintain what we have, and that includes Siachen, the AGPL in Kashmir and the LOC.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 00:12

FWIW, finally, I found a map of the Saltoro/Siachen area with all the prominent passes and peaks called out. Unfortunately its embedded in a pdf, that bandwidth starved may have difficulty accessing. Take a look at Pg25 of the paper here http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/cmc-papers/sand20075670.pdf

Its a paper by Gurmeet Kanwal (ex IA) and Asad Hakeem (ex PA). Title is "Demilitarization of the Siachen Conflict Zone: Concepts for Implementation and Monitoring".

Ill try to find a way to upload just that map somewhere.. But from what I can make of the terrain, its impossible for any offensive military operation to be carried out across the Glacier.

Those who say, that Chinese will roll down Indira Col and be at KhardungLa and Leh, are talking nonsense. It cant be done without airborne logistics maintenance, and if you are going to airlift your material, why make the men trek the treacherous 50 km long glacier?

This is borne out by the maintenance of the Indian positions on the Saltoro. The roadhead is a bit farther than Dzingrulma, from where there is a kerosene pipeline to Kumar base.

Excerpt:
"India, in contrast, has only a single land route to the Saltoro Range through Dzingrulma. Since there is no road beyond the base camp, soldiers and porters have to walk to and from their posts. The Indian Army has established a series of intermediate camps on the path to the Saltoro Range and a major logistics base on the Siachen Glacier known as Camp Kumar (elevation 15,840 feet). Snow scooters (also known as snow mobiles) are used to ferry supplies to forward areas from Camp Kumar and other logistic camps. The Indian Army has also constructed a small pipeline to deliver kerosene and aviation fuel to Camp Kumar from Dzingrulama.

Supplies are regularly air dropped to some posts that are largely inaccessible. The soldiers then carry the cargo packages to their posts from the drop zones. ... The Indian Army relies much more heavily on aerial resupply than the Pakistan Army, given the 72- km distance from Dzingrulma to the top of the Siachen Glacier.

India uses both fixedwing aircraft, such as the AN-32, and cargo helicopters, such as the Mi-17. Dzingrulma is
used as a forward base for helicopter operations while Leh and Thoise are used for fixedwing aircraft. Pakistan also uses the Mi-17 for resupply of its highest posts near Conway Saddle from the airbase at Skardu. Land routes supply the rest. The Mi-17 can land, hover, or conduct running drops of supplies in excess of 18,000 feet elevation. However, it typically does not land because of operational safety rules and the difficulty in maintaining a large landing pad near Conway Saddle."

So we have had the Glacier in possession for the past 27 years or so, and we could not build a road or even a jeep/mule train across the terrain. At best, what we can do is to perch a few soldiers atop their mountain posts, and have then direct arty fire on attacks if any. How then, can an offensive operation be maintained down the glacier? How can we mount an offensive operation across the glacier?

IMHO, therefore, I think Lt Gen Chibber's thought, that
(a). "Siachen does not have any strategic significance," and "The strategic significance being talked about is all invention."

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 03 May 2012 00:20

ShauryaT wrote:
Gen Hoon's assessment of a threat to Khardung La and Nubra Valley, through the Siachen. His assessment of an "imminent" pakistani design to occupy the ridges in 1984 and a deep seated plan to link up with China has been questioned.

Read Vikram Sood's article (something tells me you've already read it and chosen to conveniently ignore it):
http://soodvikram.blogspot.com/2012/04/ ... ve-up.html

He describes a meeting between Gen. Hoon and the RAW station chief. He also mentions that the IG govt was concerned about paki activities in the region. He also gives his own assessment for why maintaining the Saltoro ridge positions are important.

It is obvious that Gen. Hoon wasn't the only one making the assessment about paki designs in 1984.It is also obvious from the repeated attempts made by the pakis after 1984 to recapture the Saltoro positions (despite losing a large number of soldiers) that the pakis also consider those positions strategically important. Gen. Hoon was dead right.

Why it is so hard to understand that if the IA's current positions on Saltoro were strategically insignificant, the pakis wouldn't be creating so much hungama about them is beyond me.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 May 2012 00:55

>> Why it is so hard to understand that if the IA's current positions on Saltoro were strategically insignificant, the pakis wouldn't be creating so much hungama about them is beyond me.

This is another "chankian" strategy to appease Pakis.

We have seen at least five types of "chankian" theories:

1. We are sooooo weak, we can't do anything. Let us not punish Pakis.

2. We are sooooo strong, Pakis will die if we lift our finger. Let us not punish Pakis.

3. Actually, we are already punishing Pakis. Can't you look at all those green-on-green violence? Those are our operations. Evidence, you say? It is classified.

4. Punishing anyone is not in our culture. Let us forgive them. We can't become like them. Moreover, most Pakis are like us.

5. We are punishing Pakis by succeeding. Think about infrastructure.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 01:23

Are you putting forward the Pakistani Armys actions as proof that your strategic point of view is valid?

Reading Soods article, it appears an adhoc attempt to justify something done in the fog of war. Going over the article point by point:

Let it be said here that no war over one's own territory that is futile.

There is no point fighting a war over territory that has no economic, political or strategic purpose. Even in days when territorial wars were fought by the tyrants and colonial powers in Europe, the land being fought over had some significance. Mineral wealth, agriculture, linguistic or cultural affinity to some group living in that land or proximity to trade routes. Even if we were in the days of territorial wars of the 18th century, Siachen would have had no consequence. In todays world, when importance of territory is much less significant to a nations well being and economic health, it matters even less.

It is certainly less futile than the US campaign in Iraq. The United States, unable to solve its own problems in the region or for that matter anywhere else, and seeking an early exit from Afghanistan by obliging Pakistan, has offered to assist India and Pakistan in a dialogue. There are reports that the two defence secretaries will meet shortly to discuss Siachen and Sir Creek.

The US is already out of Iraq. They may withdraw out of Afghanistan, but will continue a presence there for the foreseeable future. Karzai will not be a Najibullah. In any case, what has the US to do with the strategic significance of Siachen?

It seems that there is some great urgency to strike a deal and this is more than the usual periodic urge to concede something to Pakistan to look good. There are some Indian commentators who have even argued that India should now forget 26/11 and move forward. Nations that do not remember their past can have no future.

Once again, nothing to do with the benefits of sitting on Saltoro. I am no peacenik, but fail to see how disengagement from Siachen impinges on 26/11 or anything else. Are we punishing the Pakistanis by sitting on Saltoro? We are spending more than they do, and there is a ceasefire in force since 2003! In any case, there are better places to punish Pakistan, Neelam valley comes to mind immediately.

One of the arguments being given is that the cost of retaining Siachen/Saltoro is prohibitive. This is rubbish. At approximately Rs two crores a day it means only Rs 730 crores annually out of a budget that is in the range of Rs 80,000 crores. Even if it were more than this, is there a fixed price for security and freedom? The loss of soldiers to harsh conditions has become minimal for the last many years and the hot war has long been over.

Vikram Sood is feeling rich today, 730 crores annually feels like peanuts to him. You can educate a million children an year with that kind of money and that would be an investment that pays for itself.

An agreement might have been possible but Pakistani refusal to sign the Agreed Ground Position Line on a specious argument only leads to the suspicion that they would want to alter the position at first dawn. General Pervez Musharraf's Kargil adventure in 1999 was Pakistan's last attempt to change the ground position militarily and politically and also to negate the advantage of Saltoro with India.

This I agree with. There cant be any withdrawal without an authentication and continuing verification of AGPL line.

The continuing mindset is depicted not only in the rants of Lashkar-e-Tayiba chief Hafiz Saeed [ Images ] but also by what appears in the English press in Pakistan, which include songs in praise of The Hafiz. The Nation in an editorial on March 12 said "We must never lose sight of the fact that Kashmir is a left over issue of the Partition, gifted to us by the British. Unless it is settled in accordance with the Partition Plan, neither the division of India would be complete, nor would the state of Pakistan be complete."

Whats new? Most people know by now the nature of Pakistani society. But how are we punishing them, what are we gaining by sitting on Siachen, other than causing some heart burn in the PA at having "lost Siachen".

There has not been any evidence of a change of heart in the Pakistan Army -- the institution that calls the shots in Pakistan especially on issues relating to India. Everyone knows that. Thus withdrawal from these strategic heights without any iron clad guarantees that do not extend beyond declarations of intent would be the height of folly. This strategic advantage in Siachen should not be given up for apparent short-term political gains.

Agreed. No Authentication, no withdrawal.

The China factor cannot be ignored in this cockpit of the world. It was not so evident in 1984 although the Karakoram Highway had been built by the Chinese by then and Pakistan had illegally ceded a portion of the territory under their control, Shaksgam to them. Today, the Chinese footprint is much larger. In its own strategic interests in the region, China would be interested in greater Pakistani control over Gilgit and Baltistan.

It has been investing $150 million (abour Rs 750 crore) for widening the KKH from 10 metres to 30 metres, to be used by all weather heavy vehicles, the kind that brought strategic material for Pakistan through the Khunjerab.

A rail link was also planned, to be connected with Pakistan's main rail grid, and fiber optic cables were being laid in 2007. If China had a port in Gwadar that they could use, this would cut down the distance from Xinjiang to the Arabian Sea to merely 2,500 km. Today Xinjiang is 4,500 km away from the east coast of China. Gas and oil pipelines through from Gwadar and Xinjiang make sense only if Gilgit and Baltistan is secured. It is not a question of a glacier in the Himalayan heights; it is a question of India's security.

How does sitting on Saltoro prevent China from 6 laning Karakoram highway, laying fiber optic cables and what not. If it were somehow doing all this, preventing a land link between Pakistan and China, I would agree that there is military and strategic use in being on Siachen. But there is no evidence, that sitting on the Saltoro ridge prevents China from using the Karakoram highway to access Gwadar and the Arabian sea!

Giving up Siachen as a gesture of friendship would also mean that its recapture would be extremely expensive to India in men and material.

The recapture would be expensive, but there is an established cost of being on the Saltoro ridge year after year! Further, what will we loose if the Pakistanis take over Siachen? Nothing other than Siachen! We already have the apple in J&K (the Kashmir valley), and we already have the berry (Leh/Ladakh), why the urge to grab the nettles of J&K? If you want to grab something, grab Skardu, grab Haji Pir.. Kuch kaam to aaye!

Today, as the other side continues to arm itself with newer nuclear weapons, has not called off its jehadi hordes and the only 'concession' it can offer us is an MFN at a future date or lunch at Lahore and dinner at Islamabad.

To me, it appears that we will be better off saving some money and men on Siachen and investing it in war making capabilities where they matter and are of some economic/cultural/strategic/political significance. The thought that it hurts Pakistan more, appears incorrect. There is a ceasefire on Siachen since 2003, and we arent interested in taking over more of that territory. Pakistanis can maintain a very small defensive posture if they want..

The standoff at Saltoro appears to be more of the same old peacock strutting that goes on at Wagah. Vacating Siachen will have a similar impact as having a pandu havaldar slamming the gates at Wagah shut every evening.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 May 2012 02:34

A presentation version of the document linked by sudeepj was linked by me couple of pages back.

I have wanted to rebut this idiotic proposal for some time and finally, I have time today. Before falling hook-line and sinker for anything with “peace” written on it, one should at least look at the entire thing in detail - as they say, beware of the Greeks bearing gifts. The same applies to Pakistanis in double measure.

The biggest draw-back of the above proposal is that it plays to PA strength in terms of geography and there is de jure acceptance of Pakistan claim to the glacier. What some on this forum naively believe to be an exercise in "de-militarization" of Siachen is in fact reversing the clock to pre-1984 days and indirectly accepting disputed nature of Siachen and claim of Pakistan to the area - PA is trying to do through peace negotiations what it could not achieve militarily.

Here is why the whole things is lop-sided in favor of Pakistan (please refer to figure 9 on page 32 of the document attached in previous post by Sudeepj):

1.The Uninhabited Zone - Please look at the southern boundary of the Uninhabited Zone (UZ) – this is exactly along the claim line of Pakistan as far as the Siachen Glacier is concerned. It runs from NJ9842 to KK Pass in north-east. This is how the maps and atlases used to show Siachen area before we went up the glacier in 1984. By showing AGPL along Saltoro as western part of the UZ, it shows the dual claim to the area and de-facto establishing it as disputed territory – it is India which is the biggest looser here. In spite of us doing all the hard work and suffering in terms of money and manpower, we end up with reversal of status quo so assiduously achieved over the years.

2.All this while, we’ve maintained that Pakistan had undertaken cartographic aggression by showing alignment from NJ9842 to KK Pass in eastern Karakorum. It was to negate this alignment actually taking shape on ground that we went up the glacier – and to buttress the point that the alignment ran “thence north to the glacier” from NJ9842.By accepting any such alignment of the "Peace Park" we make our claim to the region as a matter to dispute - contrary to the position held all this while.

3.By including the original claim line into the picture through this ‘peace proposal’ PA intends to get the foot back into the door.

4.In any future negotiations on the subject, this southern boundary of the UZ will come back to haunt us.

5.The Civilian Zone – This part of the argument takes the cake. I am bit surprised, and saddened, that someone like GK agreed to this part and is proposing this along with an ex-PA officer. Look at the sheer chutzpah of the proposal. The CZ impacts the security angle of two sectors. Let me explain in parts:

a.Khalsar-Sasoma-Warshi axis – the main access route to the glacier for Indian Army - As per the proposal, no military activity is permitted in the Civilian Zone. For India, the CZ extends from Warshi (south of Dzingrulma) to right up to Khalsar (where Shyok and Nubra meet). So, Indian forces recede by almost 70kms from their base camp – the Siachen glacier is further 76kms from the base camp in Dzingrulma. So, in all IA moves down by good 140kms from the present positions. This is reaching the same status as in 1984 or pre-1972 even.

b.Let us compare this with the withdrawal by the Pakistan Army – from Dansam (east of PA 323 Siachen Bde HQ at Khaplu) to Ghyari is ~30kms and from Ghyari to Bilafond La would be another 15kms. And this is not as the crow flies but actual distance. So, a side with more difficult access to the Siachen (with up to 3 weeks marching time from base camp) retreats more than 3 time the distance than PA which has much easier access to Siachen and much better infrastructure. PA troops can reach Ghyari by road and thence, it is 15kms to Bilafond La – Indian troops reach Dzingrulma by road which 40kms from the Lolofond Glacier – this glacier leads from Siachen to Bilafond La. Anyone who controls Bilafond La can ensure that no opponent can move further up the Glacier.

c.In short, if tomorrow yellow matter hits the fan, IA will move 40kms from base camp to strategically important Bilafond La through more treacherous terrain while PA will move 15kms from base camp at Ghyari through much easier terrain.

d.The Conway Saddle – this is the most absurd part of the entire proposal. For India to access and maintain Siachen there is only one South-North axis along the Siachen which begins at Dzingrulma. Which means that Indian soldier manning the area opposite Conway Saddle in northern most part of the glacier begins his journey at base camp. Indian controlled area consists of Sia La pass on Saltoro and Indira Col, Indira Saddle and Turkestan La along the Karakorum mountain axis.

e.In case of PA – their axis to maintain this part of the glacier starts from Skardu, goes through Shigar Valley, then to Askole and finally to Baltoro Glacier further east. It has nothing to do with Dansam/Khaplu. PA can literally sit at the snout of the Baltoro glacier and be outside of the so called CZ. When push comes to shove, all that PA has to do is move up in couple of day’s time to capture the area in the northern glacier section – Indian troops will need to move all the way from their base camp – provided they can do that. This is because if PA decides to take Sia La and southern face of Karakoram watershed, rest assured, Bilafond La would have been taken.

So, rather than meet the objective of demilitarization of Saltoro, all that we will end doing to reinforcing the disputed status of the Siachen Glacier and accepting PA claim to the area. PA is trying to achieve trough diplomatic means what it could not do through the barrel of the gun - since it knows that it cannot capture the glacier and with IA occupying it, India will always be considered as under de-facto owner. By removing the IA from the forward positions under "Peace Park" pretext, it creates opportunities for two things to happen in the future -

(a) By including its alignment of India and Pakistan claim line (from NJ9842 to KK Pass) as boundary of UZ in Siachen, it creates a foot in the door and reinforces disputed nature of the conflict. In short, no one definitely owns the glacier - something which is contrary to our views and situation on the ground.
(b) If the balloon goes up, it uses its advantage in geography to preempt another 1984.

So, this is not about ensuring that the guns fall silent and everyone goes back home happy but to bring a dispute back from the status-quo to active discussion level which will be raked in the future. For PA which has been never able to do anything about the Indian on the Saltoro, this is the best possible solution - they will go back and claim that the demilitarization is as per Pakistan's claim on the area and both sides have agreed on the disputed nature of the area.

If PA is so sincere about the demilitarization of Siachen, then let them sign AGPL maps and go back to base camp in Khaplu as India would to Dzingrulma - but with a caveat that India can maintain a very small body of troops on glacier/passes to keep monitoring the situation.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 May 2012 02:55

What about the role of International scientists in the "peace park"?
Isnt it like the cat eats the cake while the monkeys fight?

What are your views about referring to UNSC if TSP violates the agreement?

Whose interests are served by this proposal and where was it originated?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 May 2012 03:34

http://dawn.com/2012/05/02/the-folly-that-is-siachen/
The folly that is Siachen
Naj muddin A Shaikh

I remember having long discussions separately with two retired foreign secretaries of India during a visit to Delhi about the possibility of a bilateral agreement on Siachen being reneged upon or breached by Pakistan.
I suggested that in making policy or in deciding upon the merits of an agreement one could try and cater for a one-in-a-hundred possibility but that given the relative conventional strength of the two countries did the possibility of a breach appear to be more than a one in a million?One agreed immediately that even while the possibility of a breach may not be seen to be as remote as I made it out to be the benefits of disengaging far outweighed what was admittedly a minimal risk. The other was more circumspect, pointing out that for the Indian security forces the risk loomed larger after Kargil even though foreign policy experts might be inclined to agree with my argument.was not then associated with policymaking but Indian officials with whom a degree of informal contact had been maintained even during the official ‘freeze’ on talks identified two items on which progress could be made immediately — Siachen and Sir Creek. This even while progress on other items then identified as primarily of interest to India — expanding people-to-people exchanges, enlarging trade and economic ties — would be slower.What has happened subsequently suggests that using Kargil and terrorism and the heightened distrust this has engendered as the reason, India has in effect reneged on the understanding on which the dialogue resumption was based. It is ironic that in pursuing relentlessly an expansion of trade and economic ties — admittedly of benefit to both sides — India has not been inhibited by distrust. In asking for transit facilities similarly, India does not seem to be distrustful. Equally importantly today, Indian participants in Track II dialogues present cogent arguments for India and Pakistan to work together to ensure peace and stability in Afghanistan because on that depends peace and stability in the region as a whole.Writing on this subject in 2002 I had said: “Even in times of tension and distrust some degree of rationality must come into play. We must realise that cutting off the Indian nose to spite the Pakistani face or vice versa is really cutting off the nose of the South Asian region as a whole.
“As in other regions but more so in South Asia, ‘beggaring thy neighbour’ is ‘beggaring thyself’. In South Asia, one does not have to invoke the ‘interdependence flowing from globalisation’ for substantiation; our overwhelming and common dependence on water from the Himalayas is enough

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 May 2012 03:50

Najimuddin Shaikh writes:

I suggested that in making policy or in deciding upon the merits of an agreement one could try and cater for a one-in-a-hundred possibility but that given the relative conventional strength of the two countries did the possibility of a breach appear to be more than a one in a million?

It goes with the probabilities and consequences. Even if the probability is 1 in a million, the consequence is that India loses more territory to TSP. This not acceptable any more after 1947.
No more.

Further as to intentions and capabilities. For TSP even a 1 in a million chance, they will take.

Its not for no reason Cheney ennunciated the 1 percent doctrine. If TSP is involved even 1% the US cannot take a chance to ignore it.

When even a super power lowers the odds to 1 in a hundred when TSP is involved, what about India!
Therefore India given TSP past record even a 1 in a million chance cannot risk with TSP.

Besides thise "peace park" proposal makes all the demands on India which violates the first point of negotiation, never give up your advantage however marginal.

Only with INC in charge one can dream of such proposals.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 May 2012 03:55

ramana wrote:What about the role of International scientists in the "peace park"?

letting in the so called scientists would be like handing over the keys to the area to other parties - and god knows what kind of report they might generate - something on the lines of ecological disaster/water situation impact (as this glacier feeds Nubra and Shyok)/pollution etc could be used to pressurize India permanently give up the claim to the area or enter into some stupid agreement. Also, we must never loose sight of the fact that easier access to glacier is through Pakistan - so most of the expeditions (mountaineering and otherwise) are expected from come from Pakistan side. Over a period of years, this will have its own consequence in terms of "better" claim to glacier

Isnt it like the cat eats the cake while the monkeys fight?
Correct.

What are your views about referring to UNSC if TSP violates the agreement?
Well - then we make the whole strategy about Kashmir dispute come undone at the hinge. After all, AGPL is extension of LOC and through it, the Kashmir conflict. If India can refer Siachen to UN (which should be read as US), next step will be to refer Sir Creek to UN and then the Kashmir dispute as a whole. Whatever will happen to "No Third Party" mediation? Why give opportunity to others to meddle in our affairs. As a weaker power it suits Pakistan to cry UN but why India? It will be Kashmir-1947 redux all over again. It will become important tool to box India in - the US and China may well do a tango for their vassal and box India in. This UN thing is a non-starter from the word go. It has the potential of initiating a domino effect which will be difficult to control.

Whose interests are served by this proposal and where was it originated?
US and only US - it gives leverage to the US on India. And this has the potential to give US backdoor entry into the Kashmir dispute. Lets assume a hypothetical scenario - India approaches UN in case of violation by PA and gets a vote in its favor. Now, there are no free lunches in international diplomacy - India will end up doing a quid-pro-quo for US on some other matter when it would have only received what was rightfully its own in the first place. And another thing - what prevents Hurriyat or some other proxy from asking for UN intervention with Siachen as a template?

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 03 May 2012 05:24

Did GK say that in case of Pakistan breaking the agreement and moving in after an Indian withdrawal, the UN Security Council will side with India and get Pakistan to withdraw?

All I can say is: did he forget that China has a veto in the UNSC?

Also, for those in the west who are shouting that IA is causing an ecological disaster in Siachen -- I understand that Mt.Everest and its approaches have been turned into a garbage dump by (mostly western) mountaineering expeditions. So why don't they go and clean up Mt. Everest and set up a 'Peace Park' there, instead of bugging India about Siachen?

As for trusting Pakis and making a start -- how many times have we heard this song before?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 May 2012 05:30

sudeepj wrote: Vikram Sood is feeling rich today, 730 crores annually feels like peanuts to him. You can educate a million children an year with that kind of money and that would be an investment that pays for itself.

Vikram Sood does not have to pay that money *alone*. It has to be paid by all tax-paying citizens of India. Given the large middle+upper class, 730 crores is a small amount. (Divide it by the number of middle+upper class Indians to see how much each person has to pay).

So Vikram Sood's argument is absolutely sound. Maybe you should think more deeply about these issues.

but the two (INC corruption and money saved on Siachen) arent related.

But both issues are related to the topic you raised --poverty. Money saved by reducing/stopping corruption can be used to fund education and reduce hunger. So if you think that poverty can be discussed here, then maybe discussion on corruption is relevant too.

The president of India spent more than 200 crores on her foreign trips. Are her trips more important than reducing hunger? The PM, VP and President have their own private planes. They are surrounded by hundreds of servants. Crores are spent on official dinners of foreign leaders. Are these luxuries more important than funding education? The elites of this country wear diamond watches and live in palaces. Can they sacrifice a bit more for reducing hunger?

So it is possible to keep soldiers safely on Siachen *and* care for the poor. We don't need to worry about expenditure on Siachen for solving the problem of poverty. However, introspection on how we spend our wealth/income is absolutely essential.

member_20645 · Post by **member_20645** » 03 May 2012 05:47

Gen Sinha's article has been reproduced below
http://reportmysignalpm.blogspot.com/20 ... sinha.html

As the only living member of the team that negotiated the LOC and having served as Governor of J&K lets see what he says

Quote:
A straight line north from NJ 9842 makes half the region, including parts of the Saltoro ridge, inclusive to us.

Pakistan soon violated the clause of MiniMarg’s demilitarisation. This was in keeping with Pakistan’s practice of violating all written and verbal agreements, as in the case of the Standstill Agreement in 1947, the Karachi Agreement (ceasefire agreement) of 1949, the Tashkent Agreement of 1966, Simla Accord of 1972, Lahore Declaration of 1999 and the joint statement of 2004 to not allow cross-border terrorism from Pakistan or Pakistan-controlled territory. In view of this, an agreement on Siachen without Pakistan categorically accepting the Actual Ground Position Line, and without a realistic punitive clause, makes little sense.
Unquote

So irresepective of anything this is the key point that has to be hammered home and I pray that our IFS mandarins do not snatch defeat from the mouth of victory as they have done in the past - Simla 1971 for instance.

The pronouncements by their Foreign Secretaries makes it clear that they do not intend to aunthenticate it

Suggestions of going to the UN are misplaced. Let alone upsetting the applecart of our principled stand, we open the door for half the world with an axe to grind to interfere in what is our land.

Either we believe in the Instrument of Accession or we don't- there are no half measures.

However we need to be pragmatic also as neither can we wage war to retake the parts of Kashmir that are currently in others hands. So the only option is to partition at the LOC. As others have mentioned the AGPL is part of the LOC and therefore has to be linked into it.

After that whether we keep our forces or not becomes a decision of the professionals who man our borders.

To the argument on costs Gen. Sinha again mentions the tragic casualties in 1948 due to frostbite:

quote
We have suffered about 1,000 casualties in Siachen since 1984, with a ratio of nine to one of nonbattle to battle casualties. Our current casualty figure is about 10 per year. For the Pakistan Army, living at 12,000 feet and repeatedly attacking those dominating defensive positions, the ratio of battle and non-battle casualties is in reverse. I recall that in November 1948 during the battle of Zojila at a height of about 10,000 feet, when we had no snow clothing at all, due to sudden heavy snowfall we suffered 200 cases of frost bite in one night. Many had to be amputated
Unquote

So if we have about 24 per year, I'd be curious to know why this is not "acceptable" given the overall national goals. As I mentioned we have more suicides of our farmers - IMHO - if I recall the newspaper reports correctly. Once again while it is tragic that many of our countrymen are poor, stopping our effort at Siachen is not going turn them rich or well to do. (Look at Mayawati with 114 crores declared wealth and a stunning number of useless tax payer funded statues littering UP.) If we believe in this argument then we should stop planning oil exploration in collaboration with Vietnam in their offshore waters nor should we have a station in Antartica etc. Look at UK being willing to wage war in the Falklands even now!
Then we will justify the prejorative aplleation given by the Chinese of being a "paper tiger". Poverty driven arguments should be kept out IMHO.

The bottom line is that nations respect power as can be seen by the reaction to our "nuclear tests". Keeping our views locked and our troops ready to defend our interests- until the AGPL is delineated is the only way out until a larger Kashmir solution is agreed to. Like China who does not see the size of Taiwan but the principle of it, we should not budge even if it takes another 50 years. We should be in an even better position to "afford" our forces stay on the Saltoro ridge. IMHO!

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 05:55

Rohit

I havent read the paper you critiqued as being unfair to India. My motive in putting up a link to that was only that it carried a map which put names to geographical points, that were previously not available on an regular civilian map, except in a crude hand drawing by Col. Pavan Nair. Ill try to read the paper tonight, and see if I can make sense of it.

Having said that, even if the agreement leaves the Pakistanis in a position where they can occupy heights along the Saltoro much faster than us in future, that still leaves open the question of the strategic importance of the Saltoro Ridge itself.

If ones end goal is to dominate the Glacier, the ridge is strategic to that goal. But to me it appears that:-

1. An adverse occupation of the Ridge/Glacier does not in itself constitute a threat to centers of population in Ladakh, and does not 'unhinge the defense of Leh'. I.e. occupation of the Ridge does not defend anything beyond the Glacier itself. No movement in scale is possible via the glacier, as shown by the airlifts necessary to sustain Indian posts on Saltoro ridge.
2. An occupation of the ridge does not give us any offensive advantage in that theater, as better axes of offensive deployment are readily available, and no offensive movement is possible across the Ridge, via the three passes.
3. An occupation of the ridge does not allow us to disrupt the Pakistani/China land handshake. That handshake is happening via the Karakoram highway and it cant be disrupted by occupying the Saltoro.
4. Politically, the situation North of NJ9842 does not impact the rest of the state of J&K.

*Ill state forthwith, that this is only my opinion, thats based on a few short hikes on two 'tame' glaciers, not a huge monster like Siachen. If someone who has been on Siachen, comes and says, "oh we can drive a jeep over the Sia Col/BilafondLa/SiaLa/GyongLa and across the glacier to reach Dzingrulma", Ill change my mind about the importance of an occupation of the ridge.
** To me, a far better axis of advance appears to be a lightening combined arms thrust along the Shyok valley from turtok, on to Skardu seems to have far better chances of success than anything across the Saltoro ridge.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 06:07

abhishek_sharma wrote:
sudeepj wrote: Vikram Sood is feeling rich today, 730 crores annually feels like peanuts to him. You can educate a million children an year with that kind of money and that would be an investment that pays for itself.
Vikram Sood does not have to pay that money *alone*. It has to be paid by all tax-paying citizens of India. Given the large middle+upper class, 730 crores is a small amount. (Divide it by the number of middle+upper class Indians to see how much each person has to pay).

So Vikram Sood's argument is absolutely sound. Maybe you should think more deeply about these issues.

but the two (INC corruption and money saved on Siachen) arent related.
But both issues are related to the topic you raised --poverty. Money saved by reducing/stopping corruption can be used to fund education and reduce hunger. So if you think that poverty can be discussed here, then maybe discussion on corruption is relevant too.

The president of India spent more than 200 crores on her foreign trips. Are her trips more important than reducing hunger? The PM, VP and President have their own private planes. They are surrounded by hundreds of servants. Crores are spent on official dinners of foreign leaders. Are these luxuries more important than funding education? The elites of this country wear diamond watches and live in palaces. Can they sacrifice a bit more for reducing hunger?

So it is possible to keep soldiers safely on Siachen *and* care for the poor. We don't need to worry about expenditure on Siachen for solving the problem of poverty. However, introspection on how we spend our wealth/income is absolutely essential.

All I am saying is, a military expenditure of 750-1000Crores annually, is not a small amount, and for a nation like India, needs to be a priority. You are exactly right that things like corruption and waste need to be a priority too, but we can have two priorities at the same time, cant we? These are two things that we would like to do, and doing one does not rule out the other. I would say that rooting out corruption via structural changes should probably be an even higher priority than a settlement in Siachen, as the monies involved are much bigger! But I dont set the agenda of the nation, so Ill take whats on offer..

Putting rooting out corruption and deescalation on Siachen in opposition to one another is like the husband saying to the wife, you waste money on the beautician, and the wife telling the husband, you waste money on beer. If they want to save money, they can save on both accounts, and saving money on one does not preclude saving money on the other!

So it is possible to keep soldiers safely on Siachen

Twenty-thirty casualties an year is still a big number. Apart from that, we are one big natural disaster away from something like what happened in Gyari. Massive events in nature are the rule, not the exception and anybody at those heights is in grave danger. Dont let a few years of low casualties fool you.. If we get too arrogant that we have tamed nature at those heights, nature will teach us a lesson we wont forget.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 May 2012 06:08

>> All I am saying is, a military expenditure of 750-1000Crores annually, is not a small amount,

And I am saying that it is a small amount.

Let me give an example. US has a debt problem, but it is not considered a big deal because it can be paid by a small increase in taxes. 1000 crores sounds like a huge number, but the per capita burden on citizens is minimal.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 03 May 2012 06:12

All this talk of "Siachen has no strategic value" reminds me of the folk tale where a bunch of thieves, by repetition, convinced a good man and his son that the lamb that they were carrying was actually a donkey.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 06:18

abhishek_sharma wrote:>> All I am saying is, a military expenditure of 750-1000Crores annually, is not a small amount,

And I am saying that it is a small amount.

Let me give an example. US has a debt problem, but it is not considered a big deal because it can be paid by a small increase in taxes. 1000 crores sounds like a huge number, but the per capita burden on citizens is minimal.

We'll just have to disagree there. Ill grant your point that India has much bigger centers of waste, corruption etc. but by itself, the figure is nothing to sneeze at.

Its only small if one gets lulled by the large GDP numbers. This amount, for e.g. can easily sustain the education of a million children in 20 teacher, 1000 student schools. Or it can provide clean drinking water via municipal supply to small towns of 50,000 people - one new town per year. Or the same brigade can be shifted over to the eastern border with Cheenistan.

Ill prefer these outcomes over some notional advantage any day. Ill change my mind if the advantage proves real, as the overall expenditure on military is still fairly low in India, but not for some peacock strutting wagah like sideshow.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 May 2012 06:21

I am not "lulled" by GDP numbers. That is how these costs *should* be compared. Really.

Your example just implies that it is fairly cheap to educate millions of students. We should invest in both -- security and education.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 06:30

Agreed that we should invest in both security and education, after all, poor people need security too!

*but* I dont see how being on Saltoro makes our positions in Kashmir more secure. Rohit and others have mentioned that vacating will open axes of advance down the Glacier to China and Pakistan, I simply think any (say, battalion sized) movement down the Glacier with its support elements, is a military impossibility.

The 1000 Crores etc. is simply the reason to consider the importance of the investment in Saltoro. Its most certainly not an argument to vacate the position.

Upon such consideration, I reached the conclusion, perhaps misguided

that the Saltoro investment is not worth the money. Thats why all along I have been trying to figure out the purpose of sitting on the ridge.. thats all.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 03 May 2012 06:33

sudeepj..

the adverse occupation of siachen does unhinge the defence of Ladhak... while its true that not much large movement is possible thru glacier espicially thru northers passes, its occupation protects the flanks of our defences of Ladhak. U must remember that Siachen is not some 365*24*7 unpassable mass of snow and mountain as u seem to believe...a regular trade route in old times used to pass thru siachen glacier.

and do u want the Pak china handshake to be at your doorstep with a clear road to ur main areas or at some distance away protected by a big wall?

and india has already suffered from your cost - benefit type of analysis during 1962 war. I would say rather we should be focussing on improving our economy quickly so that the expenses towards national defence become increasingly smaller % of our GDP. has spending humoungous amounts on defence made china any poorer. It has raised its stature as a serious international player both militarily and economically.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 07:19

Ill be grateful if you can provide any references on Siachen transforming into a militarily traversable terrain any time of the year. Also, the trade routes of old ages meant a few mules carrying silk rolls or salt or something like that. Once again, even if China comes across the Karakorum, can they make a militarily meaningful advance via Saser La? Please see a recentish report of this journey by some Indian mountaineers here:
Harsih Kapadia: Exploring Valleys east of Saser La

and do u want the Pak china handshake to be at your doorstep with a clear road to ur main areas or at some distance away protected by a big wall?

IMO, the so called handshake does not happen even if they take over Karakoram pass, and all of Siachen. For the handshake to happen, and to mean anything more than two mountaineers shaking hands, they will also have to occupy areas that are truly dominated by the IA, i.e. the Shyok and Nubra valleys south of the Siachen snout.

In any case, they have a proposed 6 lane, all weather Karakoram highway across the Khunjerab pass. What are you dominating by sitting at Saltoro?

and india has already suffered from your cost - benefit type of analysis during 1962 war

Yes yes. I totally travelled in a time machine to provide faulty advice to Chacha Nehru

I would say that the war and its disastrous outcome happened because not enough cost benefit analysis was done and poorly prepared troops were thrust into a disastrous war, defending some forelorn pass, with no population, no trade, no economic value and no bearing on the well being of the nation. Ofcourse the ensuing defeat humiliated us, changed our politics and for a long time put us on a lower pedestal to China.
* This is not to say that Nehru did not otherwise blunder into loosing Tibet as a buffer, but thats a completely different matter.
** Ill try to locate a map and see, that even if NJ9842 is linked to Karakoram pass, as the Pakistanis claim, will it amount to a transport link.
*** edited to correct some obvious typos

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 03 May 2012 07:57

Bit amused and dumbfounded by some brfites regarding the siachen issue at hand.

as an ordinary Indian my views are simple-
1) J&K is an Indian territory. Siachen comes under Indian land.
2) Putting cost on our land to defend is stupid.
3) Equating soldiers bravely for our land is foolish from dying in road accidents etc.
4) Equating money spent on poor people etc with soldiers in siachen is a BS.
5) saying the land is no use or no grass grows is another piece of shit.

Demilitarisation of siachen requires mutual trust.

1) How many of you really put your hand with 100% confidence and say it wrt TSP and pandaland.
2) Has TSP honored any UN resolutions or any other agreements with India so far. If it had J&K would have been a settled chapter.
3) what have been the 3.5 and other powers been doing to make tsp comply with resolutions.

Now why go to demilitarisation at all-- when whole of J&K is Indian land.
Why should demilitarisation occur in Indian land. why cant it happen in tsp land or panda land etc.

My point is simple-- no negotiations on our land.
At present due to history of partition and whatever has happened as of now, no need to vacate the siachen region to placate tsp and its friends.

1) hold onto whatever land is physically in our possession. we will surely get the rest in due course of time.
2) If tsp is in trouble due to cost of maintaining itself near siachen region it is their problem. At least some terrorists will die there instead of killing sdres like you and me inside our land.
3) if tsp has financial issues so what-- it does not concern India. let them rot in hell for making those terror strikes in India and killing our people.
4) Socio-economically India should improve as it is doing, if not better.
5) Defence and socio economic issue are interwined but at the same time both are a must. It cannot be either this or that sort of issue which some tend to make it.

Worst of all-- some tspian says vacate siachen, some of the sdres get into a tight lungi twist and placate tsp by taking their viewpoint.
Why was this not thought out earlier say few years ago-- !! guess may be tsp thought it could bleed India and may be retake it militarily.

with tsp going down the sewer, all things designed to keep tsp afloat abound---
1) vacate siachen
2) mfn status movement
3) electricity stuff and railways issue etc.
4) giving land to panda by tsp.
5) 3.5 friends placating tsp on af pak region.
6) oil pipelines etc
and many others small or big which all neatly tie in with the goal of keeping tsp relevant.

Keeping tsp relevant makes it easier to bog India down. Low cost option for other enemies to stymie India in its region.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 08:10

So somewhat foolhardily

I made annotated a map with the pass names, claim lines etc. If you click on this link and then select Google Earth to view the terrain, I think it will add to the understanding of the area under discussion.

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

If there are any errors, or I have missed interesting points, please let me know and Ill try to make the changes.

* To me, even if somehow the whole of Siachen area is occupied by Pakistan and China, the terrain simply does not allow its use for a military offensive purpose. Brig Gurmeet Kanwal, Gen Chibber and Col Nairs assertion, that this is wasteland of no strategic value, appears to ring true.
** For general interest, I have also put a marker on Karakoram highway, though as ShauryaT put it, it is
~150kms away from our positions on Saltoro ridge.
*** Once again, needless to say, Ill gladly change my mind if someone can point out, this is the strategic importance of the Glacier. So far, many arguments have centered on emotional appeals to "this is our land". I can understand that sentiment, though I dont agree with it.
**** Rohit ji, in light of this map, would you reconsider you statement that Chinese can roll down the Indira Col in an offensive move and the next defensive position is around the KhardungLa, or you think this is still possible?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 May 2012 08:26

This cost-benefit analysis is highly illuminating and educating for me! I have always wondered at how people manage to combine both monetary value and non-monetary value smoothly in one single sweep.

For example in the above discussion : I see X crores of rupees is significant because of the number represented by X. Then we are told that X crores of rupees buys occupation of a ridge which lacks A,B,C in direct economic exploitability [read immediate monetary profitability] etc and these very same X crores of rupees buys Y childrens education healthcare etc.

What I find profoundly illuminating is that investment in children's education is also an economic investment that has no obvious immediate monetary profitability - but the proponents of this logic are profoundly unaware of this aspect while implying that the ridge has no immediate monetary profitability.

Or even better perhaps, what we are seeing is the subconscious ascribing of individual values - when monetary values being equal for two products - the individual chooses one over the other, because he subconsciously prefers or monetarily assigns greater value/utility to one over the other.

The tragedy of monetary valuers - and cost benefit analysts - is that they start off with claiming that they are talking of and only comparing based on monetary values but always land up with kicking that monetary value justification off. They always have to bring in a qualifier that they cannot price - cannot put a monetary value on [well they can try - but by their own logical arguments any such exercise will be dubbed speculation].

There is a way of pricing according to the current economic pontiffs, what the value of investing in a child's education will be. Something like that would have made the "drop-siachen-save-our-children" campaign have a bit more lead in its pencil!

Let's see - SPG - which is entirely devoted to PM+NehruGandhi dynasty and extended immediate family costs more than 180 crores officially, [could be more unofficially], and more than 250 crores for other politicians around the legislative hub - leading to a collective cost for maintaining our political elites sense of protection to more than 430 crores per year. Now that's slightly less than half of the supposed budget on holding Siachen.

What do our cost-of-benefiters logical procedure yield for comparative valuation between these two - political elite's security and siachen?

I am trying to estimate the hidden value attribution system onlee.