Siachen News & Discussion

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 08:29

So heres another thing, if you draw a line to true north from NJ9842 (see the blue line in the map linked above), almost all of Siachen Glacier and much of the ridge lie in India! By some compass made in Khyber durra, Pakistani true north runs north east to the Karakoram pass!

Even so, what is the strategic utility of this bit of land to the Indian military position in Ladakh? hmm..

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 May 2012 08:40

Can someone do a cost-benefit-analysis in pseudo-monetary terms of holding on to Arunachal Pradesh? What is the blistering economic export of Arunachal Pradesh? How does Ladakh contribute to Indian economy? How much does Indian economy have to put in these two areas and what is India's profit from holding these two areas? .

If the profitability of India's investing into these two areas is negative - is it not time to drop these two areas too? After all how does holding these two areas any way prevents China building roads and highways and connection close to them!

So lets drop these two areas too - and invest in something better, Z++ category security for the dynasty and political elite or childrens education! .

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 08:41

brihaspati wrote: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.
...
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.

Your verbiage would have carried more weight, if an argument was being made to vacate Siachen on the basis of the cost. The cost is simply a motivating factor to consider a disengagement process after verification of AGPL and setting up a process of monitering the glacier/ridge (as opposed to unilateral vacation). The reasons to do so, if at all, hinges on the utility of occupying the Glacier.

What purpose of ours does it serve to occupy that area?
How is the average Indian better off, because his/her army is sitting on the Saltoro ridge? Which of his/her security interests are being served?

As answered previously, go ahead and propose a reduction in SPG, (while at it, also think about corruption, investment in drinking water and so on), that may well be a good area of savings. But its not really related to the matter at hand for this thread, which is Siachen/Saltoro.

Afterall, after proper analysis, you may decide to not reduce both (SPG and Siachen reduction), do both or any other combination there of. One outcome does not hinge on the other.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 03 May 2012 08:43

ramana wrote: 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.

I can respect that view but put my faith and trust in the IA and GoI to enforce and protect an agreement and if broken take appropriate penalizing actions. Also, I do not think, we have a likely political appetite - across parties - to take the needed bheda and danda actions necessary to bring a transformation.

On the UN thing, Brg: Kanwal's report does not talk of UN intervention for agreement breakage. A UN coordinated environment clean up plan by the UNEP is one possibility discussed. It in fact clearly states that, if the agreement is broken all options are on the table and indeed not limited to the Glaciers/Saltoro.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 08:43

brihaspati wrote:Can someone do a cost-benefit-analysis in pseudo-monetary terms of holding on to Arunachal Pradesh? What is the blistering economic export of Arunachal Pradesh? How does Ladakh contribute to Indian economy? How much does Indian economy have to put in these two areas and what is India's profit from holding these two areas? .

If the profitability of India's investing into these two areas is negative - is it not time to drop these two areas too? After all how does holding these two areas any way prevents China building roads and highways and connection close to them!

So lets drop these two areas too - and invest in something better, Z++ category security for the dynasty and political elite or childrens education! .

We could do that, but it would be off topic, which is Siachen, not SPG. Secondly, GoI position on this is quite clear, which is, no changes in the status of populated areas. To me, it sounds a very wise policy. Makes sure that nation is defined by its people, and they have chosen once and for all to be Indians, which is non negotiable.

*You are also ignoring the hydel potential of Arunachal.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 May 2012 08:46

You started out with monetary value. It is your responsibility to price alternatives and show that they are less costly in overall price terms. Your verbiage has simply gone on to mention X,YZ... factors that according to you makes holding the ridge unprofitable - but you have not been able to put a price on to it.

Come on - with such great economic expertise in cost-benefit-analysis - you should be able to price alternatives - can't you? That was your bone of contention - its monetarily costlier than alteratives. You have to show it. Put a cost on each of the difficulties you mention and also prices on the uncertainties and risks on each of the alternative you mentioned.

Waiting.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 May 2012 08:48

sudeepj wrote:
brihaspati wrote:Can someone do a cost-benefit-analysis in pseudo-monetary terms of holding on to Arunachal Pradesh? What is the blistering economic export of Arunachal Pradesh? How does Ladakh contribute to Indian economy? How much does Indian economy have to put in these two areas and what is India's profit from holding these two areas? .

If the profitability of India's investing into these two areas is negative - is it not time to drop these two areas too? After all how does holding these two areas any way prevents China building roads and highways and connection close to them!

So lets drop these two areas too - and invest in something better, Z++ category security for the dynasty and political elite or childrens education! .

We could do that, but it would be off topic, which is Siachen, not SPG. Secondly, GoI position on this is quite clear, which is, no changes in the status of populated areas. To me, it sounds a very wise policy. Makes sure that nation is defined by its people, and they have chosen once and for all to be Indians, which is non negotiable.

*You are also ignoring the hydel potential of Arunachal.

Ah! Now we have "potential"s -I see! How did I miss that! Any cost on it? a price? How did we miss pricing "potential"'s for siachen too!

Then there are also things which you feel - in line with the GOI - that are "unnegotiable"? You mean no bargaining, no pricing? No monetary value? How can such things exist in the world of cost-benefit-analysis based on monetary value onlee?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 May 2012 08:49

sudeepj wrote: The reasons to do so, if at all, hinges on the utility of occupying the Glacier. .

And how do you estimate the utility of holding any territory? Please illuminate by giving a few examples. For example, what is the utility of holding the desert in Rajasthan?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 May 2012 08:52

sudeepj wrote: We could do that, but it would be off topic, which is Siachen, not SPG.

Well, money is fungible, isn't it? If poverty is relevant here then maybe we should discuss all ways in which poverty could be reduced. The expenditure/"utility" tradeoff of SPG sounds relevant.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 03 May 2012 09:02

sudeepj wrote:Even so, what is the strategic utility of this bit of land to the Indian military position in Ladakh? hmm..

Even for the sake of argument we assume that siachen has no strategic value, still giving up something only because it has no strategic impact is a highly absurd thought. Thats not how families, societies and ultimately nations are built. Do you put "strategic" and "usefulness" tag on everything in your life and then decides its value to you? Thats not how a healthy, normal and rational human mind works.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 03 May 2012 09:02

nachiket wrote: 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
...
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.

I did read that piece amongst many others and saw it as one more piece, where mistrust pervades and guides everything. Have decided to support those, willing to move the ball forward.

I have not taken a position on the "strategic" importance of Siachen per se. Quite frankly there is an over use of that word with no common definitions and context. My point is, it is not an invasion route for anyone and is a dead end for us. As for Pakis making hungama as in their view, our pre-emptive action on Siachen was a major violation of Shimla. I know, it is the Paki view, so FWIW. Also, it all depends on who do you choose to believe, Gen Hoon or Gen Chibber? Gen Bakshi or Gen Kaul? Gen Katoch or Brig Kanwal?

At the end of the day, civilians have to take a call based on what they see as their future guiding paths. I think, that choice has been clearly made by our polity. Sama is the way forward.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 03 May 2012 09:20

Ok ShauryaT lets agree that we need to demilitarize Siachen. My question would be, why now? why today is the most right time? Its not that Kargil, parliament attack, AI highjack, 26/11 etc happened many paki generations ago. Its the same generation and crop of people who are running pak now. So why not judge their sincerity in some other civil , social, economical and more importantly terrorism areas first before jumping on to military bases. Why so sudden haste? Lets the trust building take its own natural course and then demlitarization of not only Siachen but many other parts may also happen. We can definitely afford to stay put for a while. What do you say?

Meanwhile we have much more important areas to concentrate on to save money and human life which can add much more value to our country than demilitarizing a military base on the border.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 09:52

abhishek_sharma wrote:
sudeepj wrote: We could do that, but it would be off topic, which is Siachen, not SPG.
Well, money is fungible, isn't it? If poverty is relevant here then maybe we should discuss all ways in which poverty could be reduced. The expenditure/"utility" tradeoff of SPG sounds relevant.

Please continue if you find it relevant. I feel it would be OT and irrelevant to this thread. I have explained my reasoning in the past few posts. Its your prerogative to continue along these lines..

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 10:01

abhijitm wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Even so, what is the strategic utility of this bit of land to the Indian military position in Ladakh? hmm..
Even for the sake of argument we assume that siachen has no strategic value, still giving up something only because it has no strategic impact is a highly absurd thought. Thats not how families, societies and ultimately nations are built. Do you put "strategic" and "usefulness" tag on everything in your life and then decides its value to you? Thats not how a healthy, normal and rational human mind works.

Well everyone has non negotiable points on which they dont want to negotiate or reconsider at all. So called core issues and jugular veins etc. I feel that while understandable and perhaps even desirable in individuals, it sometimes leads to suboptimal policy choices for nation states.

In any case, many people have this point of view that "Its Indian Land, and thats all there is to it". I can respect where these people are coming from, but I dont agree with it, particularly when it concerns uninhabited, unexploitable, unusable land.

I will not even trying to convince people who hold this opinion ("Its Indian land, and thats all there is to it"), that they are wrong. Its after all their opinion, and they have a right to hold it.

What I am trying to find out, is what is the strategic utility of this area to the Indian posture in Ladakh etc. Many people advance the reasoning that somehow, the owner of this land can dominate region upto Khardunla and Leh. This, to me appears highly unlikely.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 10:05

abhishek_sharma wrote:
sudeepj wrote: The reasons to do so, if at all, hinges on the utility of occupying the Glacier. .
And how do you estimate the utility of holding any territory? Please illuminate by giving a few examples. For example, what is the utility of holding the desert in Rajasthan?

Not much (beyond unknown value of mineral resources) as its uninhabited, and vast areas of the desert have no use beyond an arty range for the Army. It certainly is less valuable than, say, the DoAba region in Punjab, or the land along the IB in the Akhnoor sector.

But all that is beyond the point, is this land under any kind of dispute?

Also, OT.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 May 2012 10:06

Please continue if you find it relevant. I feel it would be OT and irrelevant to this thread. I have explained my reasoning in the past few posts. Its your prerogative to continue along these lines..

Yes, things quickly become OT when problems in worldview are pointed out. I understand your takleef.

A few days ago, you were complaining about hand waving arguments. Maybe you should start following your own advice and think more concretely about your proposals.

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

sudeepj wrote: Not much (beyond unknown value of mineral resources)

Wonderful...so if Pakis occupy it in a war, we should not worry too much about it, right? After all, we could spend that blood and treasure in reducing poverty and improving education. Do you agree?

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

brihaspati wrote:You started out with monetary value. It is your responsibility to price alternatives and show that they are less costly in overall price terms. Your verbiage has simply gone on to mention X,YZ... factors that according to you makes holding the ridge unprofitable - but you have not been able to put a price on to it.

The monetary value of holding the Glacier is an approximately known quantity, from 750-1000 crores an year. To me, its an open question what the benefits are of holding it. Once that is known, people can come to decisions based on their own value systems, but right now, the benefits (beyond simply holding the glacier) are not known.

As for this that and the other, if you bring in random stuff unrelated to the thread.. well, its your choice.

Come on - with such great economic expertise in cost-benefit-analysis - you should be able to price alternatives - can't you? That was your bone of contention - its monetarily costlier than alteratives. You have to show it. Put a cost on each of the difficulties you mention and also prices on the uncertainties and risks on each of the alternative you mentioned.

Waiting.

Its going to be a long wait. Dont hold your breath.

partha · Post by **partha** » 03 May 2012 10:16

sudeepj wrote:
But all that is beyond the point, is this land under any kind of dispute?

Also, OT.

Nobody is stopping the Pakis from creating a dispute out of Rajastan. So it might happen.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 10:17

abhishek_sharma wrote:
sudeepj wrote: Not much (beyond unknown value of mineral resources)
Wonderful...so if Pakis occupy it in a war, we should not worry too much about it, right? After all, we could spend that blood and treasure in reducing poverty and improving education. Do you agree?

If that area is under dispute, however painful it may be, IMO we should consider carefully the costs of unending confrontation vs. trying to find a way out, and figure out a way to better the lives of our citizens.

In fact, this is the approach that the Indian govt. takes.. China and Pakistan are in possession of vast amounts of our land. We are quite willing to settle these issues in a spirit of give and take. If anyone thinks, that GoI is about to invade PoK or parts of Arunachal under adverse possession, I think you are quite mistaken.

If you think, that for any border under dispute, we should never compromise and find out ways to disengage, why do you get your hackles up about Siachen disengagement, when a quite similar approach is taken with the Chinese border?

In any case, I have simply stated the reasons why I disagree with you, theres no reason to get personal about this. My moral grounds (or lack there of) is of even less strategic value as compared to Siachen

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 03 May 2012 10:20

sudeepj wrote:
In any case, many people have this point of view that "Its Indian Land, and thats all there is to it". I can respect where these people are coming from, but I dont agree with it, particularly when it concerns uninhabited, unexploitable, unusable land.

how do you know what value a piece of geography will fetch say after 100 years? A land value cannot be decided on todays need.

And personally I dont understand why you are allowed to post on these lines which advocate disintegration of India!

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 10:22

abhishek_sharma wrote:
Please continue if you find it relevant. I feel it would be OT and irrelevant to this thread. I have explained my reasoning in the past few posts. Its your prerogative to continue along these lines..
Yes, things quickly become OT when problems in worldview are pointed out. I understand your takleef.

A few days ago, you were complaining about hand waving arguments. Maybe you should start following your own advice and think more concretely about your proposals.

Arre bhai, no takleef.. Its your opinion, just as I have one. Your saying it, holding it is not going to make mine less or more valid, and vice-versa. So yeah, if you want to proceed along these lines, go ahead.. Even for OT things, its the prerogative of the mods, not mine. At most Ill point out that its OT and step out of the way..

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 May 2012 10:23

And what makes you think I like GoI's approach towards China or PoK? I don't.

And I am not getting personal. I am just saying that you are very persistent in pointing out the costs of Siachen deployment. You passion for reducing waste is other areas is not very strong. This asymmetry makes me wonder what your real motivation is.

It is nice to know that the desert in Rajasthan is dispensable. What about Manipur and Nagaland? They hardly have any gold mines and insurgencies have continued there for many decades. What does your cost-benefit equation recommend?

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 10:31

abhijitm wrote:
sudeepj wrote:
In any case, many people have this point of view that "Its Indian Land, and thats all there is to it". I can respect where these people are coming from, but I dont agree with it, particularly when it concerns uninhabited, unexploitable, unusable land.
how do you know what value a piece of geography will fetch say after 100 years? A land value cannot be decided on todays need.

And personally I dont understand why you are allowed to post on these lines which advocate disintegration of India!

arre Jawan, shant ho! Gen J J Singh says publicly, "it is important to solve the India-China border dispute, and for that some give and take is necessary. India will have to move away from its position that our territory is non-negotiable".

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... l-governor

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 03 May 2012 10:42

sudeepj wrote:Please continue if you find it relevant. I feel it would be OT and irrelevant to this thread. I have explained my reasoning in the past few posts. Its your prerogative to continue along these lines..

I find it surprising that you bring in rhetoric to suppot your side of the argument and when called out o it, resort to even more rhetoric to sidestep the debate. Perhaps opinions are relevant only as long as they are coming from you, isn't it?

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 10:43

abhishek_sharma wrote:And I am not getting personal. I am just saying that you are very persistent in pointing out the costs of Siachen deployment. You passion for reducing waste is other areas is not very strong. This asymmetry makes me wonder what your real motivation is.

What was that about not getting personal again?

In any case, you hardly know my background or what I feel strongly about and what I advocate.

It is nice to know that the desert in Rajasthan is dispensable. What about Manipur and Nagaland? They hardly have any gold mines and insurgencies have continued there for many decades. What does your cost-benefit equation recommend?

This is simply more and more OT stuff. What I said amply demonstrates my position.. (i.e. settle territorial disputes by give and take, taking into account the monetary costs to us of maintaining the conflict).. What more can I say to make my position even more clear?

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 03 May 2012 10:46

sudeepj wrote: What I said amply demonstrates my position.. (i.e. settle territorial disputes by give and take, taking into account the monetary costs to us of maintaining the conflict).. What more can I say to make my position even more clear?

Thankfully there are not many who share your thinking.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 03 May 2012 10:48

Kanishka wrote:Thankfully there are not many who share your thinking.

You'll be surprised at how many share frightfully similar thinking. Where do you think the WKKs and the 'enlightened' comrades stand on this? I suspect not too far from this line of thought.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 May 2012 10:49

>> In any case, you hardly know my background or what I feel strongly about and what I advocate.

Really? Aren't your posts relevant for knowing what you are advocating. *sigh*

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 May 2012 10:50

sudeepj wrote: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.

Give me sometime, I'll share a detailed map and analysis of the geography of the entire area. I'm in the process of making couple of maps using Google Earth..will upload in couple of days time.

* 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.

Please read the article on BRF which summarizes a very informed discussion on the Siachen issue -- please pay special attention to the location of gun positions on the Siachen Glacier itself placed by India and its location with respect to Dzingrulma.

And ask yourself this -
(a) is it possible for PA to airlift and move troops (and mountain guns in pieces) through Bilafond La, bring them onto Siachen glacier and threaten the Indian base camp in Dzingrulma? Please look at the location of Kumar Base opposite Bilafond La and Indian Gun position. Can PA establish their gun position at the same location? What areas can they cover from this gun position?
(b) Without holding the heights towards west of Dzingrulma, can the Indian positions in upper Nubra Valley be maintained? Please look at the location of Gyong La which PA holds - this pass leads to middle Nubra Valley. As for the strategic importance of the pass, this is what Lt.General Jahan Dad Khan of PA (ex-Commander 10 Corps) had to say:

However, I learned later that when our troops approached the Baltoro Ridge passes during the third week of May 1984, the Indians were already in occupation of Gyong Pass in the south, strategically important because it could interfere with the enemy's line of logistic support.

Like I said earlier, it is PA which holds Gyong La now and we control the lower reaches of the pass to block any entry into the middle Nubra Sector; tomorrow can the PA send elements down this route to play spoil sport in the Nubra Valley?

And finally - any vacation of the heights especially in the southern glacier section has serious repercussions on the security of Sub-Sector West (SSW) and Sub-Sector Haneef (SSH). SSW is the area of Chalunka and Turtok while SSH is area south and west of it in the Chorbat La watershed area. PA as tried in the past to outflank the SSW by coming down the Chulung La - Chulung La is north of Chalunka in India (SSW). Please see the map here: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=34.8857015&lo ... 11&l=0&m=h

You can see Chalunka and a gorge going north from here - LOC passes through the Chulung La and both sides hold one side of the pass. NJ9842 terminates slightly north of the dotted line shown on the map.By dominating the area (called Bahadur and Gulab Complex by India) north of NJ9842, we ensure that PA cannot roll down Chulung La and outflank Chalunka. By us vacating the area just north of NJ9842 and Gyong La a bit further north, PA will get opportunity to outflank the entire SSW and roll down towards middle Shyok sector west of Thoise. India will still need to defend these higher areas if it vacates Saltoro. The geography in the area is interlinked and one area cannot be seen in isolation.

I'll put up a more detailed analysis with maps and markers in couple of days time.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 10:51

Kashi wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Please continue if you find it relevant. I feel it would be OT and irrelevant to this thread. I have explained my reasoning in the past few posts. Its your prerogative to continue along these lines..
I find it surprising that you bring in rhetoric to suppot your side of the argument and when called out o it, resort to even more rhetoric to sidestep the debate. Perhaps opinions are relevant only as long as they are coming from you, isn't it?

When have I said that others opinions dont matter? My rhetoric was limited to pointing out the value of 1000Crore Rs to poor Indians. Perhaps it makes you uncomfortable to hear about poverty in India? Nothing I said was afactual.. but to say, that my position is to withdraw from Siachen because we cant afford to spend 1000Crore Rs., is IMO incorrect.

All I am saying is, its known that occupying Saltoro costs 1000 Crore Rs.
(btw. Its a large amount of money, that can improve the lives to many people. )
And last, I dont see any strategic significance to holding the Saltoro.
*And a little bit OT, I feel that territorial disputes can be settled by give and take and negotiation.

Others may disagree.. Even I may change my mind if someone points out that this is the way this position can damage Indian stance in KardhungLa/Leh etc.

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 03 May 2012 10:59

Kashi wrote:
Kanishka wrote:Thankfully there are not many who share your thinking.
You'll be surprised at how many share frightfully similar thinking. Where do you think the WKKs and the 'enlightened' comrades stand on this? I suspect not too far from this line of thought.

Naah. Not that many.. a few unwise loonies here and there maybe.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 03 May 2012 11:05

sudeepj wrote:When have I said that others opinions dont matter? My rhetoric was limited to pointing out the value of 1000Crore Rs to poor Indians. Perhaps it makes you uncomfortable to hear about poverty in India? Nothing I said was afactual.. but to say, that my position is to withdraw from Siachen because we cant afford to spend 1000Crore Rs., is IMO incorrect.

All I am saying is, its known that occupying Saltoro costs 1000 Crore Rs.
(btw. Its a large amount of money, that can improve the lives to many people. )
And last, I dont see any strategic significance to holding the Saltoro.
*And a little bit OT, I feel that territorial disputes can be settled by give and take and negotiation.

Others may disagree.. Even I may change my mind if someone points out that this is the way this position can damage Indian stance in KardhungLa/Leh etc.

I sure did not use the word irrelevant while dismissing my fellow posters attempts at calling you out on your baseless rhetoric. I did note however, that your rehtoric in pointing out the value of 1000Cr to poor India did not extent to much larger sums of money lost moe frequently, more routinely in corrupt practices. The 2G scam alone would have paid for 172 years of Kargil and uplifted all our poor (whom you claim to be the only person desperately concerned about) and their subsequent generations. All that tells me is that you have an agend and nothing anyone else says to point out the inconsistencies, will persuade you otherwise.

First you asked about the signifcance of occupoying Saltoro. When rohitvats and other posters came up with information that punctured your carefully crafted codswallop, you change tack and started talking about poor. When your inconsistent stand was laid bare for all to see, you came up with the rhetoric that members here are cold fish with no concerns for the poor and how you are the only noble sould waging a lonely battle on behalf of our teeming impoverished masses. Now where I have heard that before?

Finally, you have contributed nothing meaningful to this discussion on our position in Siachen from a military and geostrategic perspective. You have onvinced yourself that your opinion that Siachen is a military-economc wasteland is the only one that counts and thus, your complete refusal to objectively analyse and respond to the explanations by rohitvats and other informed posters.

All you come across as, is a wind up merchant.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 11:08

rohitvats wrote:
sudeepj wrote: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.
Give me sometime, I'll share a detailed map and analysis of the geography of the entire area. I'm in the process of making couple of maps using Google Earth..will upload in couple of days time.

Thanks! appreciate the effort! I think maps and google earth can really add a lot to general publics understanding of the situation.

* 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.
Please read the article on BRF which summarizes a very informed discussion on the Siachen issue -- please pay special attention to the location of gun positions on the Siachen Glacier itself placed by India and its location with respect to Dzingrulma.

Are you talking about this article? http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... acier.html I skimmed through it once, I need to give it a more careful reading.

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

Well, why would we need a base camp at Dzinrulma if theres nothing to support north of the Siachen Snout?

(b) Without holding the heights towards west of Dzingrulma, can the Indian positions in upper Nubra Valley be maintained?

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

Please look at the location of Gyong La which PA holds - this pass leads to middle Nubra Valley. As for the strategic importance of the pass, this is what Lt.General Jahan Dad Khan of PA (ex-Commander 10 Corps) had to say:

However, I learned later that when our troops approached the Baltoro Ridge passes during the third week of May 1984, the Indians were already in occupation of Gyong Pass in the south, strategically important because it could interfere with the enemy's line of logistic support.
Like I said earlier, it is PA which holds Gyong La now and we control the lower reaches of the pass to block any entry into the middle Nubra Sector; tomorrow can the PA send elements down this route to play spoil sport in the Nubra Valley?

Do the logistics to Indian outposts along Aksai Chin pass along the upper or middle Nubra valley. (Also, I am not sure how precise these terms are.. so we may not be using the same words to mean the same thing..)

And finally - any vacation of the heights especially in the southern glacier section has serious repercussions on the security of Sub-Sector West (SSW) and Sub-Sector Haneef (SSH). SSW is the area of Chalunka and Turtok while SSH is area south and west of it in the Chorbat La watershed area. PA as tried in the past to outflank the SSW by coming down the Chulung La - Chulung La is north of Chalunka in India (SSW). Please see the map here: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=34.8857015&lo ... 11&l=0&m=h

You can see Chalunka and a gorge going north from here - LOC passes through the Chulung La and both sides hold one side of the pass. NJ9842 terminates slightly north of the dotted line shown on the map.By dominating the area (called Bahadur and Gulab Complex by India) north of NJ9842, we ensure that PA cannot roll down Chulung La and outflank Chalunka. By us vacating the area just north of NJ9842 and Gyong La a bit further north, PA will get opportunity to outflank the entire SSW and roll down towards middle Shyok sector west of Thoise. India will still need to defend these higher areas if it vacates Saltoro. The geography in the area is interlinked and one area cannot be seen in isolation.

I'll put up a more detailed analysis with maps and markers in couple of days time.

Thanks for posting this! Ill need some time to digest this information. Back to Google Earth..

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 03 May 2012 11:11

sudeepj wrote: Well, why would we need a base camp at Dzinrulma if theres nothing to support north of the Siachen Snout?

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

So now you want us to give away Dzingrulma and Nubra Valley as well. Awesome.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 03 May 2012 11:12

Kashi wrote:
sudeepj wrote:When have I said that others opinions dont matter? My rhetoric was limited to pointing out the value of 1000Crore Rs to poor Indians. Perhaps it makes you uncomfortable to hear about poverty in India? Nothing I said was afactual.. but to say, that my position is to withdraw from Siachen because we cant afford to spend 1000Crore Rs., is IMO incorrect.

All I am saying is, its known that occupying Saltoro costs 1000 Crore Rs.
(btw. Its a large amount of money, that can improve the lives to many people. )
And last, I dont see any strategic significance to holding the Saltoro.
*And a little bit OT, I feel that territorial disputes can be settled by give and take and negotiation.

Others may disagree.. Even I may change my mind if someone points out that this is the way this position can damage Indian stance in KardhungLa/Leh etc.
I sure did not use the word irrelevant while dismissing my fellow posters attempts at calling you out on your baseless rhetoric. I did note however, that your rehtoric in pointing out the value of 1000Cr to poor India did not extent to much larger sums of money lost moe frequently, more routinely in corrupt practices. The 2G scam alone would have paid for 172 years of Kargil and uplifted all our poor (whom you claim to be the only person desperately concerned about) and their subsequent generations. All that tells me is that you have an agend and nothing anyone else says to point out the inconsistencies, will persuade you otherwise.

First you asked about the signifcance of occupoying Saltoro. When rohitvats and other posters came up with information that punctured your carefully crafted codswallop, you change tack and started talking about poor. When your inconsistent stand was laid bare for all to see, you came up with the rhetoric that members here are cold fish with no concerns for the poor and how you are the only noble sould waging a lonely battle on behalf of our teeming impoverished masses. Now where I have heard that before?

Finally, you have contributed nothing meaningful to this discussion on our position in Siachen from a military and geostrategic perspective. You have onvinced yourself that your opinion that Siachen is a military-economc wasteland is the only one that counts and thus, your complete refusal to objectively analyse and respond to the explanations by rohitvats and other informed posters.

All you come across as, is a wind up merchant.

Oh take a chill pill.. I could care less as what I come across to you. Thankfully, that stage in life is well past.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 03 May 2012 11:15

sudeepj wrote:Oh take a chill pill.. I could care less as what I come across to you. Thankfully, that stage in life is well past.

And yet you quoted my post in full in reply.

Stop flattering yerself.

Indrajit · Post by **Indrajit** » 03 May 2012 13:08

Does anyone have the details of the failed Paki attacks in 1987 & 1992 especially the one where the Indian Major gave the order of SOS fire on their own position?if anyone has it please share.I remember two names, then Maj.Krishnagopal Mukherjee and Capt.Chibber who defended the posts.This news was all over the media then.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 03 May 2012 16:42

I am now starting to get an understanding of the various layers of the mercentile lobby & their moral & intellectual bankruptcy. The continuous chain of events of what made narayan murthy to pressure Indian govt not to react when the parliament was attacked or what made the buddihst sramans to open the city doors to bring about their own destruction. The mercentiles of India do not seem to be able to go beyond short term profits.

nachiket wrote:
sudeepj wrote: Well, why would we need a base camp at Dzinrulma if theres nothing to support north of the Siachen Snout?

Once again, what does upper Nubra valley support? To me, it only protects a route to the Siachen.
So now you want us to give away Dzingrulma and Nubra Valley as well. Awesome.

The monastaries, the schools, the villages, the people of Nubra valley there do not add any profits to the mercentile lobby- do they?. They all can and should be sacrificed at the altar of profit interests of mercentile lobby.

No one should talk about the money which the mercentile lobby eats like the 2G scam ( which single handedly can fund the siachen operation for the next 250 years (170000/750)), because that money is already with them but the moment a single penny is used for defending the non-mercentile lobby, it is "waste"

I am slowly coming towards some of Bji's conclusions of what is required for India to go forward.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 03 May 2012 16:55

sudeepj wrote: This is simply more and more OT stuff. What I said amply demonstrates my position.. (i.e. settle territorial disputes by give and take, taking into account the monetary costs to us of maintaining the conflict).. What more can I say to make my position even more clear?

err, excuse me, in all your sound expositions, what was the take? and more importantly whose "take" it is.

You said give off siachen, give off nubra valley, give off Dzingrulma. You want to give off the monasteries, give off the people, give off the villages for assured destruction as happened in POK.....