Siachen - The World´s Highest Battlefield
- Thread starter yasin_khan
- Start date
- Status
Guys the CIA fact book is more of statistic data rather than intel reports on nations. It gives a very brief introduction of a country's history and political system. Other than those, it's all just data, like GDP, population.
mysterious
New Member
Anywayz, the best way to solve Siachen is to demilitarize it and leave it as a no-man's land. Both countries would benefit from the resources freed up as a result of that. :smokingc:
mysterious
New Member
Kargil was India's earlier Siachen mischeif payback. Guess the score over there is pretty much settled and the discussion is back on the table with both sides keen on demilitarizing the area to a point where it takes the same amount of time (days to be precise) to get to the glacier by each side. Lets hope some progress is made this time round.
Well the diff betw Kargil and Siachen was that in Kargil Pak violated the Shimla agreement and crossed the LoC; whereas the LoC is not defined for the Siachen region hence India broke nothing when she entered the glacier, and it was strategic entry to cut of a direct link betw China and Pak in Kashmir.
Kargil also ended up as an embarrasment for the Pak govt, while the Indian govt has pretty much secured its objective in both Kargil and Siachen.
Kargil also ended up as an embarrasment for the Pak govt, while the Indian govt has pretty much secured its objective in both Kargil and Siachen.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FJ01Df05.html
Siachen ice slowly melting
By Sultan Shahin
NEW DELHI - The world's most absurd war on the world's highest battlefield, 6,000 meters-plus, may soon be over. There are credible reports of a deal to settle the Siachen war having been finalized between Indian and Pakistani leaders, who met in New York last week. This would mark an end to a 20-year battle for an isolated piece of a 6,300 meter high lifeless glacier - Siachen - in the Karakoram Range system of Kashmir near the India-Pakistan border, extending for 78 kilometers across Ladakh and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
Pakistan and India have been fighting for the glacier since 1984, but the bigger enemy they face there is the cold, with temperatures hovering between -30 and -60 degrees Celsius. But despite the high costs of holding onto the icy heights of Saltoro Ridge in terms of manpower, hardware and the logistics of an arduous and long supply line, many in the Indian army are not yet ready to trust Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf not to send his troops in should Indian troops vacate the area. The experience of what happened at the brief skirmish in Kargil in 1999 is difficult to forget.
Musharraf has sought to allay Indian fears that if it withdraws its forces from the Saltoro Ridge, the position it occupied in 1984, Pakistani forces will move in. India occupied the ridge easily, by airdropping its soldiers, but maintained its occupation at great cost in terms of lives lost - mostly fighting bad weather - and money spent. The cost of a loaf of bread that would be less than a rupee in the Kashmir Valley is estimated by the Times of India to be worth Rs10,000 (US$217) by the time it reaches Indian soldiers on Siachen.
Some Indian strategists who oppose the demilitarization of Siachen point to the problem of the verifiability of the redeployment of Indian and Pakistani troops. This would be difficult, even with the aid of the latest high-tech gadgetry being recommended by some Western experts who favor peace in the region.
Strategic experts also point to the fact that it would be well-nigh impossible to retake these positions once Pakistan occupied them. At the moment the position is that Indians cannot come down and the Pakistanis cannot climb up the ridge. After withdrawal, if Pakistan occupied the glacier, the position would be reversed.
Others counter by pointing out that Pakistan simply doesn't have the wherewithal to bear the cost of occupation, about US$1 million a day, particularly when it brings in no corresponding benefit. Hardliners counter this by pointing out that Pakistan's costs of occupation would be much less. The Indian cost of occupation is so high because no natural ground routes connect the Indian side of Kashmir to the Siachen Glacier. So India has to use its air force to drop all of its forces, and helicopters and aircraft to transport all supplies.
Talks signal Siachen thaw
India and Pakistan concluded two days of talks on the Siachen Glacier on Friday with an agreement to hold further discussions on the modalities for disengagement and redeployments of troops. "The two defense secretaries agreed to continue their discussions to resolve the Siachen issue in a peaceful manner," a joint statement issued at the end of the talks said. "Frank and candid discussions were held in a cordial and constructive atmosphere aimed at taking the [peace] process forward."
A senior Indian official, however, denied a Pakistan television report that quoted the Pakistani defense secretary as saying both sides had agreed on the demilitarization of the glacier. The report also said the talks were held on the basis of a 1989 agreement. "They are trying to put their own spin on the issue," the official said. He also called the report "unfortunate". Reliable sources claimed differences continue to remain on the demarcation of the glacier and the "authentication" of maps showing the existing positions of Indian soldiers.
Sources said the Indian side insisted that Pakistan accept the Indian position on the Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL). Refusing to accept AGPL, Pakistan on the other hand referred to the positions authenticated by the 1973 Shimla Agreement, saying Indian troops violated the agreement by launching Operation Meghdoot in 1984, which brought most of the area under their control. India claims to have made a preemptive attempt at capturing Siachen for fear that Pakistan would otherwise do so, whereas Pakistan calls it pure aggression and invasion in violation of the Shimla Agreement not to try and change the ground position unilaterally. The problem had started in 1984 when Indians found out Pakistan was giving permission to foreign mountaineers to climb the Siachen heights, igniting fears that Pakistan might capture the glacier.
The two sides also disagreed on the redeployment of troops and on a mechanism to monitor the disengagement. Scared of the Kargil experience, Indians troops sought assurances that Pakistani troops would not "step in" once they withdrew from the glacier. Clearly the Indian side wants a firm guarantee before Indian troops give up their positions.
Demilitarization of Siachen is one of those areas of the India-Pakistan conflict that has always been thought to be easy to resolve. On several occasions there have been reports that the two countries had come to an agreement, and then changed their positions for lack of political will on the part of Indian leaders.
In the present instance the situation appears to be more favorable. Some observers point out that if Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is able to trust President General Pervez Musharraf's promise, India may start withdrawing troops from Siachen soon after Maharashtra state elections on October 13. Some seem to believe that a major deal with Pakistan has been reached in the unprecedented hour-long Manmohan-Musharraf one-to-one meet in New York. This deal is said to include the eventual conversion of the Line of Control that demarcates the Indian and Pakistani areas in the state of Jammu and Kashmir into an international border, with some minor adjustments and rationalization.
If it indeed comes about, the reason for the hurry will be practical as well as political. It would make practical sense to withdraw from Siachen before the onset of winter, the worst and the most dangerous period of the year for Indian troops. On the other side, it will suit Musharraf to have achieved something spectacular before announcing that he is keeping his uniform, if indeed that is what he decides to do - he is constitutionally due to do so by December. It will also suit the ruling Congress Party that leads the coalition government in New Delhi to go into the next polls not with the announcement of an uncertain deal with Pakistan - that is bound to be controversial regardless of what it is - but with the fruits of the deal and its benefits having already become apparent.
A major boost to India-Pakistan trade and progress on a gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan to India, among other economic ties, will be beneficial for both sides, but it will take some time. The Congress leadership also feels that not making peace with Pakistan and continuing with the stalemate on Siachen or the more serious Kashmir issue is no longer an option given the tremendous interest the international community is taking in the matter of establishing peace between the two nuclear powers. But if the present momentum, generated by the previous Atal Bihari Vajpayee government's statesmanship, is lost, it will become very difficult to reignite later. The new government has already taken several months to settle in. Manmohan, primarily an economist, has also taken his time studying the subject, but now must hurry things up.
One important fallout of this feeling is that the prime minister's office is now dealing with the entire gamut of relations with Pakistan and the state of Jammu and Kashmir directly, instead of leaving them with the home and external affairs ministries. This does away with the multiplicity of authority that hampered progress in peace talks with Kashmiri leaders and follows the practice in the previous Congress administration headed by former prime minister Narasimha Rao. Thus, national security adviser and former foreign secretary J N Dixit and internal security adviser and former intelligence bureau chief M K Narayanan emerge as the main point-persons handling Pakistan and Kashmir respectively in close consultation with the prime minister.
The United States, too, sees the Siachen Glacier as a potential starter in breakthroughs between the South Asian rivals. Washington has been pressing both India and Pakistan to come to terms with each other ever since they tested nuclear weapons in 1998, raising fears of Kashmir becoming a nuclear flashpoint. Many in the sub-continent believe that the ongoing peace process is being brokered by the US. Interacting with Indian and Pakistani journalists attending a fellowship on "conflict resolution and non-proliferation" at Albuquerque in New Mexico last week, for instance, US State Department officials repeatedly highlighted their expectation that South Asia will see an easing of tension at the Siachen Glacier.
From battleground to laboratory
Even a confirmed skeptic such as Stephen P Cohen, professor of South Asian affairs at the Brookings Institution, became sentimental while referring to Siachen, "While I am very pessimistic about the [peace] talks process, yet I strongly feel that the two countries should achieve some common ground to save young soldiers dying at the hands of chilling weather." The head of Sandia Laboratory, America's most prestigious nuclear science laboratories, Dr Bringer, even went to the extent of visualizing setting up a joint science center there.
Several non-governmental peace groups are actually considering the establishment of a Siachen peace park, but Bringer believes his approach may go a long way by having a scientific and technological aspect to it. He proposes substitution of the military forces in the region with scientists and engineers (from India and Pakistan) "who would advance the knowledge in science and engineering by operating a high-altitude research station for the study of basic sciences, engineering and human physiology". He argued that his proposal also fulfills the need for a national presence to "help ensure terms of a military disengagement agreement", involving "other regional and international participants and sponsors". This will perhaps also obviate the need for verifying the presence of troops after redeployment.
One of the occasional papers prepared at the cooperative monitoring center of Sandia labs spells out the research missions for the centers, suggesting that they should focus on fields such as astronomy, geology, atmospheric sciences, glaciology, life sciences, physiology and behavioral sciences. Another scientist observed that study of the glacier could lead the two nations to study monsoon patterns to help properly manage the world's largest water reserves. The scientists at Sandia also claim that the proposed center could help better mange the drought situations for the agriculture-based economies of the two countries.
Passionately espousing the cause of demilitarization at Siachen, Bringer referred to the success of the Antarctic Treaty in Washington in 1959, which entered into force in 1961, between the then worst nuclear rivals - the US and the former USSR. Explaining that 39 nations are party to the environmentally friendly treaty, including those seven that originally had laid claim to land of the continent, he said the two South Asian rivals could start from a common research project at Antarctica. He believed that the joint research at the continent would develop the much-needed trust between the two nation's science corps.
"Like the Antarctic continent, Siachen could then be exploited for scientific research primarily by India and Pakistan and maybe other developed nations at a later stage," visualizes the American scholar.
Once Siachen is demilitarized, India and Pakistan can look forward to tackling other and more difficult issues with greater confidence. Musharraf's solemn promise, binding the state of Pakistan and its army to refrain from doing a Kargil at Siachen, presents Manmohan with a great opportunity to demonstrate statesmanship.
Siachen ice slowly melting
By Sultan Shahin
NEW DELHI - The world's most absurd war on the world's highest battlefield, 6,000 meters-plus, may soon be over. There are credible reports of a deal to settle the Siachen war having been finalized between Indian and Pakistani leaders, who met in New York last week. This would mark an end to a 20-year battle for an isolated piece of a 6,300 meter high lifeless glacier - Siachen - in the Karakoram Range system of Kashmir near the India-Pakistan border, extending for 78 kilometers across Ladakh and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
Pakistan and India have been fighting for the glacier since 1984, but the bigger enemy they face there is the cold, with temperatures hovering between -30 and -60 degrees Celsius. But despite the high costs of holding onto the icy heights of Saltoro Ridge in terms of manpower, hardware and the logistics of an arduous and long supply line, many in the Indian army are not yet ready to trust Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf not to send his troops in should Indian troops vacate the area. The experience of what happened at the brief skirmish in Kargil in 1999 is difficult to forget.
Musharraf has sought to allay Indian fears that if it withdraws its forces from the Saltoro Ridge, the position it occupied in 1984, Pakistani forces will move in. India occupied the ridge easily, by airdropping its soldiers, but maintained its occupation at great cost in terms of lives lost - mostly fighting bad weather - and money spent. The cost of a loaf of bread that would be less than a rupee in the Kashmir Valley is estimated by the Times of India to be worth Rs10,000 (US$217) by the time it reaches Indian soldiers on Siachen.
Some Indian strategists who oppose the demilitarization of Siachen point to the problem of the verifiability of the redeployment of Indian and Pakistani troops. This would be difficult, even with the aid of the latest high-tech gadgetry being recommended by some Western experts who favor peace in the region.
Strategic experts also point to the fact that it would be well-nigh impossible to retake these positions once Pakistan occupied them. At the moment the position is that Indians cannot come down and the Pakistanis cannot climb up the ridge. After withdrawal, if Pakistan occupied the glacier, the position would be reversed.
Others counter by pointing out that Pakistan simply doesn't have the wherewithal to bear the cost of occupation, about US$1 million a day, particularly when it brings in no corresponding benefit. Hardliners counter this by pointing out that Pakistan's costs of occupation would be much less. The Indian cost of occupation is so high because no natural ground routes connect the Indian side of Kashmir to the Siachen Glacier. So India has to use its air force to drop all of its forces, and helicopters and aircraft to transport all supplies.
Talks signal Siachen thaw
India and Pakistan concluded two days of talks on the Siachen Glacier on Friday with an agreement to hold further discussions on the modalities for disengagement and redeployments of troops. "The two defense secretaries agreed to continue their discussions to resolve the Siachen issue in a peaceful manner," a joint statement issued at the end of the talks said. "Frank and candid discussions were held in a cordial and constructive atmosphere aimed at taking the [peace] process forward."
A senior Indian official, however, denied a Pakistan television report that quoted the Pakistani defense secretary as saying both sides had agreed on the demilitarization of the glacier. The report also said the talks were held on the basis of a 1989 agreement. "They are trying to put their own spin on the issue," the official said. He also called the report "unfortunate". Reliable sources claimed differences continue to remain on the demarcation of the glacier and the "authentication" of maps showing the existing positions of Indian soldiers.
Sources said the Indian side insisted that Pakistan accept the Indian position on the Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL). Refusing to accept AGPL, Pakistan on the other hand referred to the positions authenticated by the 1973 Shimla Agreement, saying Indian troops violated the agreement by launching Operation Meghdoot in 1984, which brought most of the area under their control. India claims to have made a preemptive attempt at capturing Siachen for fear that Pakistan would otherwise do so, whereas Pakistan calls it pure aggression and invasion in violation of the Shimla Agreement not to try and change the ground position unilaterally. The problem had started in 1984 when Indians found out Pakistan was giving permission to foreign mountaineers to climb the Siachen heights, igniting fears that Pakistan might capture the glacier.
The two sides also disagreed on the redeployment of troops and on a mechanism to monitor the disengagement. Scared of the Kargil experience, Indians troops sought assurances that Pakistani troops would not "step in" once they withdrew from the glacier. Clearly the Indian side wants a firm guarantee before Indian troops give up their positions.
Demilitarization of Siachen is one of those areas of the India-Pakistan conflict that has always been thought to be easy to resolve. On several occasions there have been reports that the two countries had come to an agreement, and then changed their positions for lack of political will on the part of Indian leaders.
In the present instance the situation appears to be more favorable. Some observers point out that if Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is able to trust President General Pervez Musharraf's promise, India may start withdrawing troops from Siachen soon after Maharashtra state elections on October 13. Some seem to believe that a major deal with Pakistan has been reached in the unprecedented hour-long Manmohan-Musharraf one-to-one meet in New York. This deal is said to include the eventual conversion of the Line of Control that demarcates the Indian and Pakistani areas in the state of Jammu and Kashmir into an international border, with some minor adjustments and rationalization.
If it indeed comes about, the reason for the hurry will be practical as well as political. It would make practical sense to withdraw from Siachen before the onset of winter, the worst and the most dangerous period of the year for Indian troops. On the other side, it will suit Musharraf to have achieved something spectacular before announcing that he is keeping his uniform, if indeed that is what he decides to do - he is constitutionally due to do so by December. It will also suit the ruling Congress Party that leads the coalition government in New Delhi to go into the next polls not with the announcement of an uncertain deal with Pakistan - that is bound to be controversial regardless of what it is - but with the fruits of the deal and its benefits having already become apparent.
A major boost to India-Pakistan trade and progress on a gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan to India, among other economic ties, will be beneficial for both sides, but it will take some time. The Congress leadership also feels that not making peace with Pakistan and continuing with the stalemate on Siachen or the more serious Kashmir issue is no longer an option given the tremendous interest the international community is taking in the matter of establishing peace between the two nuclear powers. But if the present momentum, generated by the previous Atal Bihari Vajpayee government's statesmanship, is lost, it will become very difficult to reignite later. The new government has already taken several months to settle in. Manmohan, primarily an economist, has also taken his time studying the subject, but now must hurry things up.
One important fallout of this feeling is that the prime minister's office is now dealing with the entire gamut of relations with Pakistan and the state of Jammu and Kashmir directly, instead of leaving them with the home and external affairs ministries. This does away with the multiplicity of authority that hampered progress in peace talks with Kashmiri leaders and follows the practice in the previous Congress administration headed by former prime minister Narasimha Rao. Thus, national security adviser and former foreign secretary J N Dixit and internal security adviser and former intelligence bureau chief M K Narayanan emerge as the main point-persons handling Pakistan and Kashmir respectively in close consultation with the prime minister.
The United States, too, sees the Siachen Glacier as a potential starter in breakthroughs between the South Asian rivals. Washington has been pressing both India and Pakistan to come to terms with each other ever since they tested nuclear weapons in 1998, raising fears of Kashmir becoming a nuclear flashpoint. Many in the sub-continent believe that the ongoing peace process is being brokered by the US. Interacting with Indian and Pakistani journalists attending a fellowship on "conflict resolution and non-proliferation" at Albuquerque in New Mexico last week, for instance, US State Department officials repeatedly highlighted their expectation that South Asia will see an easing of tension at the Siachen Glacier.
From battleground to laboratory
Even a confirmed skeptic such as Stephen P Cohen, professor of South Asian affairs at the Brookings Institution, became sentimental while referring to Siachen, "While I am very pessimistic about the [peace] talks process, yet I strongly feel that the two countries should achieve some common ground to save young soldiers dying at the hands of chilling weather." The head of Sandia Laboratory, America's most prestigious nuclear science laboratories, Dr Bringer, even went to the extent of visualizing setting up a joint science center there.
Several non-governmental peace groups are actually considering the establishment of a Siachen peace park, but Bringer believes his approach may go a long way by having a scientific and technological aspect to it. He proposes substitution of the military forces in the region with scientists and engineers (from India and Pakistan) "who would advance the knowledge in science and engineering by operating a high-altitude research station for the study of basic sciences, engineering and human physiology". He argued that his proposal also fulfills the need for a national presence to "help ensure terms of a military disengagement agreement", involving "other regional and international participants and sponsors". This will perhaps also obviate the need for verifying the presence of troops after redeployment.
One of the occasional papers prepared at the cooperative monitoring center of Sandia labs spells out the research missions for the centers, suggesting that they should focus on fields such as astronomy, geology, atmospheric sciences, glaciology, life sciences, physiology and behavioral sciences. Another scientist observed that study of the glacier could lead the two nations to study monsoon patterns to help properly manage the world's largest water reserves. The scientists at Sandia also claim that the proposed center could help better mange the drought situations for the agriculture-based economies of the two countries.
Passionately espousing the cause of demilitarization at Siachen, Bringer referred to the success of the Antarctic Treaty in Washington in 1959, which entered into force in 1961, between the then worst nuclear rivals - the US and the former USSR. Explaining that 39 nations are party to the environmentally friendly treaty, including those seven that originally had laid claim to land of the continent, he said the two South Asian rivals could start from a common research project at Antarctica. He believed that the joint research at the continent would develop the much-needed trust between the two nation's science corps.
"Like the Antarctic continent, Siachen could then be exploited for scientific research primarily by India and Pakistan and maybe other developed nations at a later stage," visualizes the American scholar.
Once Siachen is demilitarized, India and Pakistan can look forward to tackling other and more difficult issues with greater confidence. Musharraf's solemn promise, binding the state of Pakistan and its army to refrain from doing a Kargil at Siachen, presents Manmohan with a great opportunity to demonstrate statesmanship.
That one sentence pretty much says it all. If I was either country, I would be encouraging the other one to hang onto this useless chunk of ice. The attrition alone makes it a losing proposition, especially since nobody can attack anything when they are so desperate to just survive. It's an excellent example of stubbornness winning out over common sense.
I understand the strategic position of the glacier (which isn't really that much, imo), but really, how much control can you have over the runoff? Especially if all your energies are expended just staying alive? I suppose you could blast it to bits, but you don't need troops occupying it to do that. It seems to me that this is more about the tactical advantage of occupying the high ground than controlling the runoff.
mysterious
New Member
And a lot of it is about personal ego and self esteem and what not. A war for all the wrong reasons I'd say. :cop
Hi,
Almost all of the water flowing into pakistan comes through kashmir----more so from indian held kashmir. Lately india has been building a dam on river chenab, which would create more problems. 30 plus years ago india had build another dam which dried up river ravi. India is using slow strangulation techniques.
Almost all of the water flowing into pakistan comes through kashmir----more so from indian held kashmir. Lately india has been building a dam on river chenab, which would create more problems. 30 plus years ago india had build another dam which dried up river ravi. India is using slow strangulation techniques.
A moving article about soldiering in th ice....
http://home.ripway.com/2004-6/123211/Docs/TheRope.pdf
http://home.ripway.com/2004-6/123211/Docs/TheRope.pdf
mysterious
New Member
Already the World Bank is being thought of to be moved in if talks with India on its illegal dams and other hydel projects do no produce any positive results. World Bank is the gauranteer of the Indus Water Treaty and it is its responsibility (if bilateral talks fail) to make India respect the treaty which clearly states that India 'cannot' build dams on rivers alloted to Pakistan!
[/quote]
Yeah you are right, the demonstration was''little''
I am sure pakistan has plenty of methods to grab Kashmir by force, its been practicing that for half a century now,maybe practice will make perfect In the meanwhile we continue to see the tri-colour where it was inJammu& Kashmir.
On matter of referring to The WB , international settlement of Treaties, esp of the Riparian nature , are quite long winded and technical. Lets see how good the lawyers are.
I wonder if we can compare this but last time in the Atlantique incident, Pakistan did not get a favourable ruling from the ICJ.
- Status