Siachen News & Discussion

anmol · Post by **anmol** » 07 Jun 2012 03:56

a) Why do we allow these people.. not only to come to India but also into Kashmir ?

b) Am I crazy to think that this have something to do with Siachin ?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 07 Jun 2012 11:55

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... g-siachen/

Why start with demilitarising Siachen?
By Maj Gen Dhruv C Katoch

...

The cost of maintaining troops on the Saltoro Ridge is no more than in maintaining troops located at other similar heights by India. Then why single out only the Saltoro ridge for demilitarisation? There is no clamour for withdrawing Indian troops from the Glacier at Sub Sector West, located South of NJ 9842. Neither is there any call for withdrawing troops from Sub Sector Hanif located West of NJ 9842 on the line of control. There is a cost of maintaining troops here too. But Pakistan has no problems of maintaining its troops opposite India in these areas and so these sectors receive no mention.

...

Guarantees by Pakistan that it will not move into the areas vacated by India are worthless. And what would happen if Chinese troops move in? How would India respond then?

...

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Jun 2012 12:47

Aditya G wrote:http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... g-siachen/

Why start with demilitarising Siachen?
By Maj Gen Dhruv C Katoch
And what would happen if Chinese troops move in? How would India respond then?

That is a very likely scenario. The illegally ceded Shaksgam Valley abuts a big area of Northern Siachen and Turkestan La pass (two of them) provide access to Siachen. Just a couple of months back, Pakistan allowed a military expedition of PLA to send an expedition to Baltoro Kangri. The PLA is moving nearer to Siachen.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Jun 2012 17:30

CCS clears agenda for talks with Pakistan on Siachen

India is expected to stick to its stand on authentication of troop positions at Siachen at the upcoming talks with Pakistan.

The issue was on Thursday discussed by the Cabinet committee on security (CCS), which cleared the stand to be adopted by India in this regard, sources said.

Commenting on the upcoming talks, defence minister A K Antony had recently said in Parliament that no one should expect any "dramatic" results from the defence secretaries' talks.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 07 Jun 2012 19:20

Aditya G wrote:http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... g-siachen/

Why start with demilitarising Siachen?
By Maj Gen Dhruv C Katoch
And what would happen if Chinese troops move in? How would India respond then?

That IF should be bolded and highlighted big time. However the answer rests in our military capabilities and will to respond. The in principle, plan of a MSC will go a long way towards thwarting these type of ventures.

The thrust of Maj Gen Dhruv C Katoch is that the military should provide a non biased military risks of the matter to government and let the government decide, by taking a political call on the risks involved. I agree with this approach.

peter · Post by **peter** » 07 Jun 2012 20:07

ShauryaT wrote:
The thrust of Maj Gen Dhruv C Katoch is that the military should provide a non biased military risks of the matter to government and let the government decide, by taking a political call on the risks involved. I agree with this approach.

I am afraid that is blatant mis-representation of Katoch. You are deducing things that he did not imply. The beginning of the paragraph :

Finally, the stated position of the Indian Army that withdrawing from the Saltoro would not be in India’s interest is merely stating a military reality.

Why? Because:

Regardless of the guarantees given by Pakistan, should the Saltoro be occupied by Pakistan in contravention to any guarantees given, it would be impossible for the Indian Army to regain the feature.

The quote:

It is incumbent on the part of the military to give its professional opinion on military matters. This can in no way be viewed as going against government policy.

is perhaps an endorsement of VKS's open stance on Siachen and also a pointer for BS to follow the same.

And the last line:

The Political authority in India is supreme and can overrule military judgement based on political considerations. It must however take responsibility for its action.

just means that Congress (I) has presented our land many times to Pakis and Chinese and won't be unusual if it does it again.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 07 Jun 2012 20:47

peter wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:
The thrust of Maj Gen Dhruv C Katoch is that the military should provide a non biased military risks of the matter to government and let the government decide, by taking a political call on the risks involved. I agree with this approach.

I am afraid that is blatant mis-representation of Katoch. You are deducing things that he did not imply. The beginning of the paragraph :

OK, so let us hear your "accurate" representation of Katoch between the role of the military and government?

You have already accused me of "blatant misrepresentation" implying maligned intent or lack of knowledge. Is there any point in having a discussion?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Jun 2012 22:25

Peter spelled it out for you, paragraph by paragraph.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 08 Jun 2012 02:56

CCS's brief that Indian Defence Secretary will carry for the Pakis is - first agree to the three sequential "pre-requisites" of authentication, delineation and demarcation of the respective troop positions on the Saltoro Ridge, then only India will "consider" the proposed "disengagement" and "redeployment" of troops.

This is a big slap on the face of Kiya-nahi. Thank God Manmohan Singh's efforts to make it "a mountain of peace" didn't succeed.

India will not give up tactical advantage over Pak in Siachen

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 08 Jun 2012 04:44

This is a big slap on the face of Kiya-nahi. Thank God Manmohan Singh's

India will not give up tactical advantage over Pak in Siachen

Sorry, nothing against the post or the enthusiasm, but, what a dog and pony show by incompetent IG politicians. I'm amazed by the amount of energy spent by impotent politicians to protect our own, tiny piece of land. Wonder if TSP spent same amount of energy before moving into Kargil? Looks like the situation is so bad that the best citizens are expecting is for politicians to not screw up let alone invade TSP and connect with Afg. What a pathetic state affairs....I'm not blaming anyone but myself for not taking charge of my own country..

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 08 Jun 2012 08:06

ShauryaT

while i appreciate your persistence for peace in the region, i find it too 'idealistic' in the least and rightly or wrongly, a hope - india has tried time and again when -

1. nehru went to the UN.

2. IG returned 93000 POWs on the ZAB verbal committment.

but what happened??

sorry, the real world does not function that way. this is even more true of PA and the govt there wrt India.

now to your premise of the siachen demilitaristion.

IIRC you agree with the IA and GOI bottomline that AGPL should be authenticated, deliniated on the map and on the ground - before a phased withdrawl can be put in motion - with bells and whistles for monitoring the area 24x7 'but' is the pakistan govt willing?? is PA willing?? this when they are the ones crying for the demilitaristion!!

you linked an article sometime back. excerpt -

While India wants Pakistan to authenticate the AGPL both on the maps as well as on the ground, the latter insists on maintaining the pre-1972 troop position as agreed in the Simla Agreement.

http://post.jagran.com/IndoPak-Defence- ... 1306772664

is it acceptable to you?? if not, then how is this going to go forward??

regards.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 08 Jun 2012 10:04

Roperia wrote:India will not give up tactical advantage over Pak in Siachen

The same news with some changes but the headline says it all.
Cabinet Committee on Security rejects PM’s line, won’t go soft on Siachen

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Jun 2012 11:16

…the resolution of August 1948 “had conceded the legality of Kashmir’s accession to India and as such no man’s land, if any, should be controlled by India during the period of ceasefire and truce. This meant that the onus of proof to convince the commission of any factual position, on the date of ceasefire, in any disputed territory, rested with Pakistan.

The last point on the map was known as ‘NJ 9842′. Nobody thought of going further north at that time. The agreement of July 1949, mentioned therefore that the Line extended “thence north to the glaciers” without going into the details.

The Indian negotiators, who have managed to remain “on their ground position” while agreeing to keep the ceasefire and “continue talks in the future”, deserve to be complimented.

Siachen was accepted as Indian Territory in 1949!

Siachen was accepted as Indian Territory in 1949!Claude Arpi | Date:02 Jun , 20121 CommentClaude Arpi
Writes regularly on Tibet, China, India and Indo-French relations. He is the author of Tibet: The Lost Frontier and Dharamshala and Beijing: the negotiations that never were.
The Boss of Pakistan says: “It’s time to resolve the Siachen issue”, but what General Kayani forgets is that the Siachen issue was ‘solved’ long ago, in fact, in July 1949.
I reproduced here an article that I published 7 years ago on the subject.
…the resolution of August 1948 “had conceded the legality of Kashmir’s accession to India and as such no man’s land, if any, should be controlled by India during the period of ceasefire and truce. This meant that the onus of proof to convince the commission of any factual position, on the date of ceasefire, in any disputed territory, rested with Pakistan.
Where wild roses bloom
Once upon a time, a small Yarkandi village stood guarding the entrance of a mighty glacier of the Karakoram range. It was a meeting place for Balti traders to barter their goods with Central Asian merchants.
One day the Yarkandis decided to visit their southern neighbours; they descended from the glacier, but before returning north, they could not resist taking away a beautiful Balti girl. The offense could not remain unpunished; the Yarkandi village had to pay for its crime.
The Baltis contacted a local cleric, who gave them a taweez (amulet) to be placed on summit of the Bilafond-la pass. The villagers were told to strictly follow the priest’s instructions and come back via Nubra valley. However, the Baltis performed only the first part of the ritual. After leaving the taweez on the pass, they did not use the Nubra track to return. Legend says that a terrible storm destroyed the Yarkandi village; only a few stones and wild roses remained.
The priest later explained why the roses did not disappear; his instructions had not been fully followed. Result: Wild roses could still grow in the area. This glacier is known as the Siachen (‘Sia’ is rose, ‘chen’ is place)-the place where roses bloom. This is one of the many myths around the area. But there are also political myths anchored to the 72 km long glacier.
One such legend is that Pakistani troops are occupying the glacier. If you regularly read the Pakistani press, you are informed that Islamabad is ready to “withdraw its troops from the glacier” if New Delhi accepts to reciprocate. According to Islamabad, “demilitarisation” is the solution. General Pervez Musharraf has even declared that he finds the issue “actually troublesome for both sides and it is an unnecessary irritant which can be resolved”. But the point is that Pakistan does not occupy the glacier and never did (though it did try in 1983-84). Later in 1984, India took full control of the area as well as most of the peaks of the Saltoro range.
…the legend of Pakistan occupying the glacier is even less credible than the Balti girl’s story, but the disinformation continues. The Pakistani President has been able to spread false propaganda travelling far and wide.
Today, the legend of Pakistan occupying the glacier is even less credible than the Balti girl’s story, but the disinformation continues. The Pakistani President (and his predecessors as well) has been able to spread false propaganda travelling far and wide. Take, for example, a paper published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the US Library of Congress. Titled, ‘Pakistan’s Domestic Political Developments’, which was updated on February 14, 2005.
It shows a map of Pakistan with the entire glacier as occupied by that country. The CRS is supposed to have been created by the US Congress “in order to have its own source of non-partisan, objective analysis and research on all legislative issues”. Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress.
What an objective and non-partisan service indeed! And of course, nobody in South Block bothers to complain to “our American friends”! It is necessary to make a quick return to the past to understand the history of the LoC and the glacier. Following the ceasefire of January 1, 1949, the military representatives of India and Pakistan met in Karachi between July 18 and 27, 1949, under the auspices of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. An agreement was reached and the Line of Ceasefire (today’s LoC) was demarcated. The last point on the map was known as ‘NJ 9842′. Nobody thought of going further north at that time. The agreement of July 1949, mentioned therefore that the Line extended “thence north to the glaciers” without going into the details. The important point which is often forgotten now has been pointed out by General SK Sinha, the Governor of J&K, who participated in the Karachi negotiations as the ADC to General Shrinagesh, the head of the Indian delegation. Before leaving for Karachi, the delegates had a briefing from Nehru and the Secretary General of the MEA, Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai, who explained the legal position in detail to the delegates. He told them that the resolution of August 1948 “had conceded the legality of Kashmir’s accession to India and as such no man’s land, if any, should be controlled by India during the period of ceasefire and truce.
The last point on the map was known as ‘NJ 9842′. Nobody thought of going further north at that time. The agreement of July 1949, mentioned therefore that the Line extended “thence north to the glaciers” without going into the details.
This meant that the onus of proof to convince the commission of any factual position, on the date of ceasefire, in any disputed territory, rested with Pakistan. “In the absence of any such convincing proof, and even if India had no troops on the date of ceasefire in that area, the disputed territory should automatically come under Indian control. This convincing and legalistic argument proved a trump card in our hands at Karachi. Based on this, we obtained control of several hundred square miles of State territory where we were not in position on the date of the ceasefire.”
This position was then accepted by Pakistan and the UN. It remains valid today. Even if not demarcated, the glacier legally belongs to India. More, the area (including the Saltoro range) has been in the physical possession of the Indian troops since in 1984. In the early ’80s, Islamabad had tried to occupy the glacier under the cover of mountaineering expeditions, but the Indian Army intervened in time and took control.
This was the beginning of the conflict. What disturbs me most is seeing the Indian press biting the Pakistani propaganda bait. Take, for example, a reputed national weekly which regularly publishes the map of Jammu & Kashmir with a different colour for the Siachen¬as if the glacier is were disputed. After the recent dialogue on Siachen between the defence secretaries of India and Pakistan which concluded without any agreement, many newspapers
spoke of “failure of the talks”

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 08 Jun 2012 11:22

On the contrary, I was listening AIR and the radio was gung-ho about how CCS has cleared GoI stand on siachen. Note that the CCS was chaired by MMS himself. These other news could be just to calm down panic reactions from people like us?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Jun 2012 11:27

abhijitm wrote:On the contrary, I was listening AIR and the radio was gung-ho about how CCS has cleared GoI stand on siachen. Note that the CCS was chaired by MMS himself. These other news could be just to calm down panic reactions from people like us?

Once you understand that this was a psy ops exercise then there will be clarity.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 08 Jun 2012 11:32

sorry Acharya I am confused. Please can you elaborate?

Thanks.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Jun 2012 11:34

abhijitm wrote: Note that the CCS was chaired by MMS himself.

You have indicated it already. The Pak lobby was also an internal one.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 08 Jun 2012 18:14

Finding a solution to Siachen

Need to make the map of Saltoro ridge public

by Air Commodore Jasjit Singh (Retd) Published:May 2012

More than a week after the terrible avalanche at Gayari (in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) buried nearly 110 Pakistan Army soldiers and another 70-odd civilians, there is no sign of recovery in spite of Pakistan using every possible effort and even heavy machinery to shift the thousands of tonnes of snow that has settled above the unfortunate victims of nature’s anger. Any and every human being who can visualise the tragedy cannot remain unaffected.

General Kayani’s anguish and palpable helplessness while on a visit to that area was writ large on his face and his words, and in our own helplessness we can only empathise with him and the Pakistan Army. The tragedy, so soon after the major earthquake further south, has once again brought the issue of the “Siachen conflict” to the fore, and the tragedy may still serve the two countries if a solution to it can be found on the basis of fair and established norms.

But the question now has to be raised: Can we look for a solution to this conflict and cooperatively try to maintain a peaceful environment in that region in the hope that natural disasters at least would become less frequent, if not totally eliminated? The obvious answer is yes, especially since the two countries had signed an agreement as far back as July 27, 1949, as to how the cease-fire line is to be drawn in this area; and this agreement has to be only implemented in word and spirit. That agreement, normally called the Karachi Agreement signed by senior military officers from both sides (as a follow-on to the cease-fire agreement), clearly demarcated the Cease-Fire Line (CFL) based on the factual position on the ground as on that day. However, the CFL was demarcated on a one-inch map but only up to what came to be known as Point NJ-9842. The bilateral agreement specifies that the final stages of the CFL would be demarcated up to Khor and “thence north to the glaciers.”

Here we must note the use of plural in mentioning the CFL from this point onward. The CFL was left undemarcated at this point, no doubt, because it was not expected at that time that the high mountains to the north could become a source of conflict. But both governments had agreed that the line would continue to Khor, “thence north to the glaciers.” Incidentally, the CFL (and its successor LoC) runs south to north for nearly 15-km before it stops at NJ-9842. The use of plural in mentioning glaciers clearly indicates that there is more than one glacier in consideration here. A well- established principle and custom of demarcating borders and lines of control in mountainous areas is to follow the high crest separating the two watersheds on either side. This is also why mountain passes usually mark the boundaries.

North of NJ-9842 there are two glaciers: the Siachen Glacier to the east of the high crest and the Baltoro Glacier (where the avalanche took place) to the west of the crest which goes by the name of the Saltoro Ridge. Indian Army posts defending the Siachen Glacier are located on the Saltoro Ridge which forms a natural watershed between the two glaciers; and hence natural and consistent with customary as well as formally defined borders. Logically, therefore, the Saltoro Ridge (which runs south to north before it alters towards the north-west closer to the K-2 mountain) should be defined and demarcated as the mutually acceptable line in terms of the Karachi Agreement.

Unfortunately, Pakistan has not been willing to accept what are well-established principles as well as the substance of the Karachi Agreement it had signed. The nomenclature of the AGPL (Actual Ground Position Line), adopted to give some space to Pakistan, which has told its people that its army is fighting in Siachen (though it is not even at its edge), does not provide any sanctity to the line. In terms of the terminology, the AGPL merely indicates the ground position of the two sides at a particular time with little or no obligation to maintain it at the CFL or LoC. The term was adopted on the request of Pakistan; but perhaps Pakistan did not realise that this would leave the region wide open to any future military deployment by either side since the LoC would not connect to a recognised and accepted border.

The term Siachen is used rather loosely even by people who know better; and so is the term “de-militarisation” which Pakistan has been seeking to adopt since 1948. De-militarisation is not an option unless we are willing to accept the same for the state of J&K! A few days earlier General Pervez Musharraf had claimed that Pakistan’s aggression in Kargil was “tit for tat” for Siachen! He concedes that Pakistan had laid claim to some part of the Siachen Glacier which in his view was “no-man’s land.” This is indeed strange for a former DGMO, Army Chief and President of a country. Perhaps, the brave soldier had never read the Karachi Agreement? But responsible countries and professional armies don’t start a war of aggression merely because the chief “felt very bad.”

If we are to solve the problem in that area, the core issue is to make the map of Saltoro ridge and the location of Indian (and Pakistani) posts public. It is curious that such maps continue to be marked “Secret” even though the only people who know the exact position are the Indian and Pakistan armies along the Saltoro ridge! So, who are we keeping this secret from? Once the maps are made available to the public on both sides and its consistence with the Karachi Agreement re-emphasised, there would, no doubt, be greater acceptance of the reality and the utility of extending the LoC along the Saltoro ridge northward to K-2. Ultimately, this is the only solution to the battle against the elements.

The writer is Director-General, Centre for Air Power Studies, New Delhi.

Courtesy: The Tribune

Finding a solution to Siachen

also Gen. Deepak Kapoor on siachen

Ex FS Kanwal Sibal's take

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 08 Jun 2012 22:40

Antony on Siachen talks: 'Don't expect the unexpected'
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/anton ... 120608.htm

Ahead of the talks next week with Pakistan on Siachen, Defence Minister A K Antony on Friday sought to lower the expectations, saying that no "dramatic announcement or decision" should be anticipated.
He said India [ Images ] will stick to its stand on the issue at the defence secretary-level talks in Islamabad [ Images ] on June 11-12. He did not specify, but was apparently referring to India's stand that there should be proper authentication of current troop positions in Siachen by both the countries.
"Don't expect dramatic announcement or decision there on an issue which is very, very important for us, specially in the context of national security... But (from) one discussion, you can't expect a dramatic announcement," Antony said in Washington, DC.Reacting to Kayani's suggestion, then Army Chief Gen VK Singh [ Images ] had rejected his Pakistani counterpart's proposal to demilitarise Siachen, dubbing it as a "gimmick".The armies of the two countries have lost more soldiers to hostile weather than in actual combat since April 1984.The Siachen troop withdrawal issue gained prominence in Pakistan following a massive avalanche burying a Pakistan army camp there on April 7, resulting in the death of 129 soldiers and 11 civilians.Just after the incident, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari [ Images ] had advocated troop withdrawal from Siachen during his informal meeting with Prime Minister Singh [ Images ] in April.

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 09 Jun 2012 03:51

India at risk of losing Siachen watchtower

New Delhi, June 8: The Indian Air Force risks getting squeezed out of a base in Tajikistan that promised to be India’s only overseas military facility from which it could keep tabs on Pakistani and Chinese activities, including those on the Siachen glacier.

As defence secretary Shashi Kant Sharma heads to Islamabad for talks on Monday and Tuesday on Pakistan’s proposal for a mutual troops pullback from the glacier, the possible loss of access to the Ayni/Farkhor airbase that India helped rebuild is casting a shadow on New Delhi’s political and diplomatic intent.

Situated northwest of the Saltoro Ridge that flanks the Siachen glacier, it would have afforded the Indian military the superb advantage of watching aerially Pakistani troops from behind their lines.

Despite a political inclination at the government’s highest level to achieve a takeaway from the Indo-Pak talks that may pave the way for the Prime Minister to visit Pakistan, New Delhi has almost shut out the possibility of finding Manmohan Singh his “peace mountain” in Siachen.

“I do not want to talk about it publicly right now because the defence secretary is going there in two days. Our stand will be known there (in Islamabad). Don’t expect any dramatic announcement or decision there,” defence minister A.K. Antony said today, almost repeating what he had told Parliament last month.

The Indian position on Siachen is unchanged despite Pakistan’s formal request on April 8, a day after an avalanche buried an estimated 135 of its troops in Gyari. India says Pakistan will first have to “authenticate” the Actual Ground Position Line for a review of the position to be even considered. Pakistan has said it wants the glacier de-militarised.

The fact is that Pakistani troops are not on the glacier but largely on the slopes of the Saltoro Ridge on the northern and western flanks of the glacier. Indian troops occupy the commanding heights on the ridge from 14,000ft to 22,000ft.

The Indian Army says that unless Pakistan acknowledges this by authenticating the Actual Ground Position Line, there is no question of vacating the posts.

But Islamabad has sold its people a lie — that its troops are on the glacier. Even after authentication, India will want to verify that the Pakistani troops are not occupying positions that Indian troops vacate. This is where Farkhor/Ayni would have presented a vantage point.

India had a military hospital in Farkhor, Tajikistan, that cared for the fighters of the Northern Alliance till 2001, by when the Taliban had overrun Afghanistan. Farkhor’s location, close to the borders with Afghanistan, Pakistan (PoK) and China, makes it a listening post and watchtower for which major powers are vying.

Last October, Antony was greeted warmly with traditional honey and bread during an unscheduled stop in Dushanbe by his Tajik counterpart, Colonel General Sherali Khairyulleov. India has always kept its connection to Farkhor/Ayni, just northwest of Dushanbe, low profile, never officially admitting its role in revamping the Soviet-era airbase.

But the Indian government spent more than Rs 350 crore in hard currency and posted a detachment of the army’s Border Roads Organisation (BRO) to re-do the base. The BRO extended the runway for it to be operational for fighter jets, built a perimeter fence and three hangars. It was a strategic investment in the hope that Tajikistan would give India an exceptional watchtower.

But now the honey isn’t sweet enough.

India, Tajikistan and Russia were working to operate the base jointly. But Tajikistan, seen by China as its western gateway to Central Asia, has been under diplomatic pressure from its neighbours to stave off an intimate military engagement with India. Russia, too, has been wary of India’s foreign military footprint, largely because Moscow suspects that New Delhi is increasingly inclining westwards for its defence hardware.

In addition, the US, keen to open more supply lines into Afghanistan, is now understood to have evinced interest in using Ayni/Farkhor. For the Indian Air Force and the Indian military, the basing of helicopters and fighter jets in Farkhor was seen as a strategic decision.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 09 Jun 2012 06:46

But now the honey isn’t sweet enough.

India, Tajikistan and Russia were working to operate the base jointly. But Tajikistan, seen by China as its western gateway to Central Asia, has been under diplomatic pressure from its neighbours to stave off an intimate military engagement with India. Russia, too, has been wary of India’s foreign military footprint, largely because Moscow suspects that New Delhi is increasingly inclining westwards for its defence hardware.

In addition, the US, keen to open more supply lines into Afghanistan, is now understood to have evinced interest in using Ayni/Farkhor. For the Indian Air Force and the Indian military, the basing of helicopters and fighter jets in Farkhor was seen as a strategic decision.

Any information on further co-operation on jobs or economic front with th e Tajiks?

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 09 Jun 2012 09:55

I see your point. I guess it is easy to raid a country and put a base by force as big brother is doing and their cousins did for 300 years, without being a licensed wep exporter. I asked assuming a base is already established what else do u do you retain it....

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 09 Jun 2012 23:06

Is India's position on Siachen unreasonable? | NDTV Video

After the Paki keeps on ranting that India didn't abide by the spirit of Shimla agreement and aggressed in 84, Gen Thapliyal reminds him that its the Pakis that are aggressors in the entire state of J&K since 47 and should vacate PoK.

I wish the editorial board of NDTV gets some sense and stops coming out with these counter-productive names for its programs.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Jun 2012 01:28

Roperia wrote:Is India's position on Siachen unreasonable? | NDTV Video

After the Paki keeps on ranting that India didn't abide by the spirit of Shimla agreement and aggressed in 84, Gen Thapliyal reminds him that its the Pakis that are aggressors in the entire state of J&K since 47 and should vacate PoK.

I wish the editorial board of NDTV gets some sense and stops coming out with these counter-productive names for its programs.

It is the Paki lobby which is paying for these kind of nonsense. We need to close this Paki lobby and their agents inside India.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 10 Jun 2012 01:34

NDTV is running an anti-national show stating that "India's claim of Siachen as unreasonable"
This is a desperate move by New Delhi TeleVision and must be banned from broadcasting effective immediately.
I urge forum members to respond to this reckless Anti-Nationalist activity with utmost seriousness.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 10 Jun 2012 01:52

Altair wrote:NDTV is running an anti-national show stating that "India's claim of Siachen as unreasonable"
This is a desperate move by New Delhi TeleVision and must be banned from broadcasting effective immediately.
I urge forum members to respond to this reckless Anti-Nationalist activity with utmost seriousness.

And you are deliberately misrepresenting. Its called

Is India's position on the Siachen glacier unreasonable?

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 10 Jun 2012 01:57

Nikhil T wrote:
Altair wrote:NDTV is running an anti-national show stating that "India's claim of Siachen as unreasonable"
This is a desperate move by New Delhi TeleVision and must be banned from broadcasting effective immediately.
I urge forum members to respond to this reckless Anti-Nationalist activity with utmost seriousness.
And you are deliberately misrepresenting. Its called
Is India's position on the Siachen glacier unreasonable?

No Sir. You are deliberately missing the point and trying to divert the attention.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 10 Jun 2012 02:38

For Fuxake!!! the point is NDTV is deliberately trying to force feed its audience pakistan's pov on Siachen the mechanisms include deliberately coming up with mischievous headlines. Is it really that difficult to understand?

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 10 Jun 2012 03:37

Acharya wrote:
Roperia wrote:Is India's position on Siachen unreasonable? | NDTV Video

After the Paki keeps on ranting that India didn't abide by the spirit of Shimla agreement and aggressed in 84, Gen Thapliyal reminds him that its the Pakis that are aggressors in the entire state of J&K since 47 and should vacate PoK.

I wish the editorial board of NDTV gets some sense and stops coming out with these counter-productive names for its programs.
It is the Paki lobby which is paying for these kind of nonsense. We need to close this Paki lobby and their agents inside India.

Only in India - To have a disgusting title to a program like this!!

It seems that NDTV has removed this program from their site... Shame on the correspondent for even reiterating the title on the show and for the kind of questions asked...

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 10 Jun 2012 06:14

The following was a draft from the sixth round in 1992.

1992 India, Pakistan drafts on Siachen

Text of draft Indian and Pakistani proposals on Siachen, November 1992:

Indian and Pakistani delegations headed by their respective Defence Secretaries met in New Delhi from November 2-6, 1992.

Indian draft (first) – 3rd Nov 1992

Consequent to discussions in the VI Round of Talks on the Siachen issue, both sides agreed to the following:

(i) Delineation of the Line of Control beyond NJ 9842: It was agreed that the immediate focus should be on restoring peace and tranquillity in the glacial region. Towards this end, without prejudice to the positions taken by either side in the earlier round of talks, both sides agreed that the LOC in this area shall be determined on a time bound basis.

(ii) Disengagement and Re-deployment: To secure enduring peace and tranquillity in this area both sides agreed to redeploy as follows:-

India: The Indian Army shall vacate their existing positions at …….. and…………. and redeploy at ……….

Pakistan: The Pak Army shall vacate their existing positions at ……… and ……… and redeploy at ……………

(iii) Zone of Disengagement: Consequent to disengagement from existing positions and redeployment to agreed positions, as noted in para (ii) above, both sides commit:

(a) that they shall not seek to re-occupy the positions vacated by them or to occupy the positions vacated by the other side or to occupy new positions across the alignment determined by the vacated positions.

(b) that they shall not undertake any military or mountaineering activity whatever in the Zone of Disengagement bounded as follows:

______________

______________

______________

(c) that if either side violates the Zone of Disengagement, the other side shall be free to respond through any means, including military.

(iv) Monitoring maintenance of peace in the Zone of Disengagement: Having committed themselves to maintain peace and tranquillity in the area comprising the Zone of Disengagement, both sides agree to the following monitoring measures to ensure against any violation of this zone:

(v) Implementation Schedule: In pursuance of their commitments in paras (i) to (iv) above, both sides agree to disengage and re-deploy as per the following schedule:

Pakistani Draft

Recognizing the need to bring to an end the enormous human and material losses being suffered by both countries in the Siachen area;

Noting that the Line of Control between the point NJ 9842 and the Karakoram Pass is yet to be delineated and that an understanding of the Siachen issue will eliminate an area of tension;

Considering that a settlement of the issue will constitute a major Confidence Building Measure;

Reiterating the desire to settle issues peacefully through negotiations in the letter and spirit of the Simla Agreement;

The two sides have agreed as follows:-

1) The area within the triangle Indira Koli - point NJ 9842 - Karakoram Pass will be vacated by the armed forces of the two sides.

2) The armed forces of the two sides will be re-deployed south of point NJ 9842 so as to conform with the Simla Agreement.

3) The modalities and time-frame of the re-deployment as well as the monitoring arrangements worked out by the military experts are annexed.

4) Neither side shall attempt to alter the status of the area within the triangle Indira Koli - point NJ 9842 - Karakoram Pass, pending delineation of the Line of Control.

5) A Joint Commission comprising experts from both sides will be set up in order to examine the question of delineation of the Line of Control. The Joint Commission shall commence work immediately after the completion of the re-deployment of forces and submit its report to the two governments within a period of six months thereafter.

Alternative para 1 & 2 (fall back position)

The armed forces of the two sides shall vacate areas and re-deploy as indicated in the annexure. The positions vacated would not for either side constitute a basis for a legal claim or justify a political or moral right to the area indicated. The delineation of the Line of Control from point NJ 9842 to the Karakoram Pass will form part of the comprehensive settlement to follow the re-deployment of troops.*

[* According to N.N. Vohra, then the Indian Defence Secretary, the Pakistani side dropped its reference to the Karakoram Pass]

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 10 Jun 2012 06:52

Nothing before Kargil and Mumbai matters. Trash.

Reminiscing over this document is like reminiscing over one's marriage vows after one's spouse tried to cut off his nose after unsuccessfully trying to cut off his neck.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 10 Jun 2012 11:36

I am surprised by this whole debate in the media and on this forum too when the party - PA/Pakistan govt (who btw are nowhere near Siachen) - who are calling for the 'demilitarisation' are 'not' moving an inch forward other than shouting enough to bring it into international focus!!! this, when India has no obligation/need whatsoever as it is not a disputed territory - when one considers Karachi 1949 and shimla 1972 agreements, which, pakistan is duty bound to honour in letter and spirit!!!

why our media is falling into the trap - giving it unnecessary attention - when we need to just ignore it!! 'unless' ofc Pakistan army and the govt agrees to the authentication, delineation, demarcation of the AGPL on both maps and ground before a phased demilitarisation can happen with 24x7 monitoring in place.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 10 Jun 2012 12:52

pragnya wrote:
why our media is falling into the trap - .

Because it is not "our" media. Google "who owns the Indian media".

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Jun 2012 13:04

@1992 Draft - I would be interested to see what draft Indian side put forth.

And thank god we did not proceed with the above "CBM"...it will be a most stupid government and nation which would fritter away position of strength and advantage. And just imagine - Pakistan was busy fomenting insurgency in Kashmir in 1992 and yet expected India to build "CBM" by giving away gains on Siachen. How quaint!!!

By resorting to force of arms in 1984, India had made its position amply clear on the subject of ownership of Siachen. Demilitarization of Siachen and withdrawal of troops is not same as again opening up the question about ownership of Siachen. Having clauses like , "The positions vacated would not for either side constitute a basis for a legal claim or justify a political or moral right to the area indicated. and bringing in Karakorum Pass is giving the Pakistanis foot in the door. And why would I want to do that? This is the idiocy of the highest order.

In fact, that draft has me thinking - it seems that all this talk about "Siachen being useless" is being propagated not only to create an environment for pull back of Indian troops but also allow addition of clauses like the one quoted above. There is more to this "Peace Mountain" BS than is being shared in the public domain. As I said - it seems that Pakistan wants to achieve through diplomatic means what it could not through force of arms. So, as per the agreement, IA and PA withdraw from their positions and the question of ownership about Siachen is left hanging in the limbo. Now, the funny bit is that in spite of so many things in Pakistan's favor, PA still does not want to authenticate AGPL. Talk about focus!!! And here we have Indians wanting it to fritter away whatever gains it has made in last couple decades...how can a government of the day claim that it is not sure about Indian position on Siachen ownership? Was that not settled in 1984? So, what are we talking about here?

Let it be understood that here by everyone that Siachen is an integral part of this country - strategic importance or not. I'm all for demilitarization but anything which questions the Indian claim on Siachen is outright traitorous and needs to be dealt strongly with.

Added later: I would request the forum members to read this draft of the 1992 agreement and have a re-look at the presentation put forth by Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal and PA Brigadier. For starters, have a look at the map of the "peace zone" given in the presentation:

Now, read these points from the Pakistan Draft on Siachen in 1992:

The two sides have agreed as follows:-

1) The area within the triangle Indira Koli - point NJ 9842 - Karakoram Pass will be vacated by the armed forces of the two sides.
2) The armed forces of the two sides will be re-deployed south of point NJ 9842 so as to conform with the Simla Agreement.
3) The modalities and time-frame of the re-deployment as well as the monitoring arrangements worked out by the military experts are annexed.
4) Neither side shall attempt to alter the status of the area within the triangle Indira Koli - point NJ 9842 - Karakoram Pass, pending delineation of the Line of Control.
5) A Joint Commission comprising experts from both sides will be set up in order to examine the question of delineation of the Line of Control. The Joint Commission shall commence work immediately after the completion of the re-deployment of forces and submit its report to the two governments within a period of six months thereafter.

What is quite clear is that the presentation and proposal put forth by Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal reiterates the Pakistan line in toto. So, what Indian interest is he serving by putting forth the so called peace presentation? He is advocating everything which the Pakistan wants - (1) Indian giving up gains on Siachen (2) re-opening question about ownership of Siachen (3) linking it to Kashmir issue (4) accepting Pakistan claim line on the area.

I've not said this before but I'm willing to go out on a limb here - It seems that Brigadier GK is doing the bidding of some higher authority on the subject. By expounding what is actually Pakistan position on the subject, he is lending the "professional" air to the subject and providing the much needed contrary view on the topic from an ex-IA officer who happens to run a think tank to boot.

I challenge anyone on this forum to bring forth points about ownership of the Siachen Glacier - let it be understood quite clearly that question about ownership is not open for discussion.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 10 Jun 2012 13:15

The articles written by Gen Depak kapoor and FS Kanwal Sibal gives indication of prevalent thinking in the establishment. I think the whole stupid idea is work of creating a lasting legacy of peace ( illusive though it may be) before MMS leaves the ruined institution of PMship.

Siachen is indeed integral part of India and it is Pakistan that is invader. If that is accepted then where is the question of withdrawing. What makes Political Harakirists think that situation has now changed , since Kargil or Mumbai, that India is forced to compromise. Are we at War or Weak? Few thousands of rupees required for Siachen and some change is not a big deal for us, given that the same political class is not even flinching in scamming the country in lakhs of crores of rupees. 2G 3G 4G and CoalG CommonwealthG the list is unending.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 10 Jun 2012 13:27

^^ From the Indian draft

(c) that if either side violates the Zone of Disengagement, the other side shall be free to respond through any means, including military.

Pakistan is sure to violate the provisions and it would be a even more costly affair in terms of man and materials to reoccupy the positions

Gen DK makes this point amply clear.

Fom the Paki draft

4) Neither side shall attempt to alter the status of the area within the triangle Indira Koli - point NJ 9842 - Karakoram Pass, pending delineation of the Line of Control.

Not only they want Karakoram Pass but defacto recognition of ceding Shaksgam valley to China which of course India does not recognise.

Its not merely question of Siachen. The fly in the ointment is China.

And they want us to vacate without delineation of positions under control

5) A Joint Commission comprising experts from both sides will be set up in order to examine the question of delineation of the Line of Control. The Joint Commission shall commence work immediately after the completion of the re-deployment of forces and submit its report to the two governments within a period of six months thereafter.

They would as usual seek Dossaiers after Dossaiers

And why reference to Karakoram, It is not even part of Siachen Glacier. If they wanted the whole issue to be decided at once then of course we should talk of J&K solution , as Sibal says, Siachen being part of it. Lots of issues would get sorted out.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 10 Jun 2012 13:44

rohit,

can you study this and place Khor on the maps you have already linked earlier, so that it becomes clear to us how the AGPL moves 'north' from NJ9842 to Khor - which is the indian position.

TIA.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 10 Jun 2012 13:52

Altair wrote:NDTV is running an anti-national show

correction sir. NDTV has been running anti-national shows.

i will never forget, 28th Nov 2011, in mumbai, Burkha Dutt reporting where a crowd of angry people chanting "pakistan murdabad", she said "on this day people here choose to blame the one who they think is behind the attack, unfortunately its pakistan" .

I dont need any other proof to understan where ndtv loyalty lies. This is the anti-national channel.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 10 Jun 2012 14:09

NDTV's broadcast rights must be revoked effective immediately and proceed legally against the editors of the channel

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Jun 2012 14:12

pragnya wrote:rohit,

can you study this and place Khor on the maps you have already linked earlier, so that it becomes clear to us how the AGPL moves 'north' from NJ9842 to Khor - which is the indian position.

TIA.

Actually, the agreements reads that the line runs from and I quote:".......Chorbat la, Chalunka, Khor, thence north to the glaciers".

Now, during the 1971 war, we won territory west of Chalunka (present Turtok Area on LOC) and there was re-alignment of CFL. Between Chorbat La and Khor, the CFL moved westward and became LOC.

As for NJ9842, well, it is the last point on the maps with both the countries and follows after Khor. There is no dispute about that.