1978, Gen Chibber is DMO: India notices that Pakistan is permitting mountaineering expeditions into the area. (NB: Pakistan had traditionally allowed expeditions west of the imaginary line that extended from NJ9842 “thence north to the glaciers”.)
“We sent a patrol next year and it was confirmed that Japanese expeditions had visited the Siachen Glacier. So routine patrolling started. Similarly routine protest notes used to be exchanged. The problem precipitated on 21st August 1983 when a protest note from Northern Sector Commander of Pakistan was handed over to his counterpart in Kargil stating that Line of Control joins with the Karakoram Pass, also that all the area West of this extended line belongs to Pakistan. When Army Headquarters saw this and also got information that Pakistan [sic] troops had occupied [sic] Bila Fond Pass, they ordered [the] Northern Command to prevent the occupation [sic] of the Glacier area by Pakistan during the mountaineering season in 1984 (italics mine).”
The italics show that Pakistan was not attempting to alter any ground reality. It was Pakistan’s clear understanding that the area, according to the 1972 delineation and demarcation of the LoC, belonged to her. It is a matter of record that all foreign expeditions coming into the area applied for permission from Islamabad, not New Delhi. Gen Chibber’s use of the word “occupation” for the deployment in Bilafond La was therefore inaccurate. That deployment was the result of Indian patrols that had begun to ingress in the area. Beyond this lies realpolitik. The best account of the run-up to the Siachen conflict is by General Jahandad Khan (Pakistan leadership challenges) and is fully corroborated by Gen Chibber (General Chibber spoke about it in May 2000 when he was visiting Pakistan. For his complete interview and detailed excerpt from Gen Khan’s book, see http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/june/interview.htm)
The initial deployment at Bilafond La was a 10-day sojourn by an SSG company which was asked to withdraw because the personnel had no equipment to survive when it began snowing in the first week of September. Indian troops, comprising the Ladakh Scouts, had camped in the Siachen area. Seeing Pakistani troops they “left their location in a great hurry abandoning all their rations and tentage”.
Increased Indian patrol activity led to meetings in the GHQ to decide the “plan of action for the summer of 1984 when the Indians were bound to come in greater numbers”. Gen Jahandad realised that “whoever succeeded in occupying the passes first” would be the winner because dislodging him would be almost impossible. As Corps Commander, his assessment to the GHQ was: “Next year (1984), India is most likely to pre-empt the occupation of the main passes of Baltoro Ridge with two-battalion strength for occupation and a third battalion as reserve. It would need another brigade to provide them with logistic support. Maximum helicopter force will have to be utilised for logistic support. Their air force will be available for air cover and also air drop of supplies/equipment.”
He estimated that Pakistan would require a “brigade group with a battalion plus to occupy these passes and the rest of the force to provide relief and logistic support. We would also need maximum porter force to carry supplies and ammunition from Goma to the glacier position. All our helicopters force, both Aloutte and Puma, will have to be mobilised for recce and logistic cover. The PAF has to stand-by to provide air cover. I had also cautioned GHQ that this operation will be very costly in logistic support. Our Military Intelligence must be alerted to keep us informed of all enemy movements beyond Leh to forestall their occupation of the glacier area.” However, at a meeting held in December 1983, General Ziaul Haq thought the operation would be on a limited scale. His assessment of both the “quantum of force required” and “the logistic problem of this operation” was incorrect. The Indians were quicker. We miscalculated the timing of the Indian ingress and also failed to notice a brigade-size movement from Leh in the second half of April 1984. By the time our troops arrived, the Indians had already occupied Gyong La in the south “strategically important because it could interfere with the enemy’s line of logistic support”.
Fact 1: India aggressed. Fact 2: We didn’t plan any presence until India began patrolling the area. Fact 3: Our intelligence failed and our deployment was late.
Lesson: lower the guard and be prepared to face the consequences.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 14th, 2012.
COMMENTS (102)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Neutral: We are enemies. Pak was created on the basis of that enmity. No use in pretending otherwise.
@fahim: Do such Pakistanis exist?
@AB: Why all Pakistanis blessed with such innocence?
@kaalchakra: " ... Another stab in the back, taking advantage of the trusting nature and good neighborly behavior on Pakistan’s part. ... "
You win the debate. You have made the winning argument.
Siachin is very important but it is even more important as another EXAMPLE in a long saga of Indian treachery and malicious acts against the state and the people of Pakistan. Another stab in the back, taking advantage of the trusting nature and good neighborly behavior on Pakistan's part.
Doesnt matter what it was, 1984-2012 marks one long and utterly stupid conflict between two egotistically inflated brown. idiots
@Faesal: They always flood our websites. They're obsessed with us.
Excellent article, possibly your best (from what I've read). Informative, concise, to the point and penetrative. Ejaz Haider, you are without a doubt the best writer the Tribune has.
@Author, . You stated : "Lesson : lower the guard and be prepared to face the consequences" . I fully agree with you. . Pakistan must have its Armed Forces - in terms of Size, Capacity as well as Capability - Equal to that of India which would require Pakistan to Match the Indian Defence Budget "US Dollar for Dollar". . Once Pakistan reaches Defence Parity with India then with both Countries having reached "Equal=Equal" with each other and as such Peace would prevail between the Two Antagonists. . I now look to Pakistan having its Defence Budget for the Year 2012 - 2013 Equal to that of India. . Cheers
@Akbaruddin: I dont think you have done any research on this at all. The indians "believe" that the glacier belongs to them whereas the Pakistanis "believe" it belongs to them. The Indians moved into the area in 1984 to claim the area. There were no Pakistani troops at that time. A sensible approach could have been negotiated settlement through talks but no... indians had to open a new front which resulted in deaths of Indian and Pakistani soldiers...
@Akbaruddin: You should ask your indian army how many soldiers have to die due to the weather...
"I was wondering if that is because the terrain and approach from the Pakistani side is easier?"
Or that Pakistan was more interested in tourist money? And I was wondering what did Pakistan get for selling Aksai Chin to the Chinese?
It is obvious that Pakistan tried to take advantage of the situation and found themselves checkmated by the Indians who beat them to the punch. India believes that north means north, no matter what Pakistan believes.
@Ak: Moghuls and Afghans were invaders. You can't deny the fact. I am also saying that Hindus and Muslims both fought together but mainly rebellion were Hindus with some muslims as a figure head. They fought together because they got a common cause of threat to their religion. Danapur was also a major center of rebellion were Kunwar singh lead sepoys of Merath.
@salman: Because as Sashi Tharoor said he's Pakistani first
@Anurag Singh (@anuragiiith): You are missing several protagonists here and they were Muslims. It was a fight for deen and dharma as both Hindus and Muslims felt threatened by the onslaught of the British.
Mangal Pandey was the first to fire the bullet. Interestingly the sepoys mostly Hindus who rebelled headed for Delhi and wanted the Mughal emperor to lead them (so much for Mughals being foreigners notion!). Bahadur Shah Zafar was very reluctant to do that and was almost forced to take part in the war.
The other major centre was Lucknow where the rebellion was led by family of Wazid Ali Shah but composed of fighters from all community including Hindu tribals fighting with bow and arrow. I know this article is not about 1857 but I just wanted to clarify things because people have been putting a spin on the event as if it was Hindu siding British and Muslims trying to win freedom and vice versa. It was one event where both Muslims and Hindus fought together for the common goal.
@noor qazi - the last line was well put.
@Anurag Singh (@anuragiiith): "Bahadur shah jaffar was made only a figure to Unite HIndus and Muslims." If Hindus were supporting Bahadur Shah, why did the combined force of Hindu and Muslim civilians and soldiers (in effect the entire population of India then) fail to dislodge a handful of British administrators and army personnel on an out post 6000 miles away from the mother country, Brittania? Can you explain that? If not, why make asinine statements like "unite Hindus and Muslims"? Could it be that Muslims used the deceptive ploy to bring back the Muslim rule which Hindus, most assuredly, did not. If so, there falls the original assertion that Hindus were behind Bahadur Shah. How come Bahadur Shah is still in Burma?
@Ali Tanoli: That's what I am saying Hindu and Muslims both fought that war. But For me Moghuls were as much foreigner as British. Muslims of Sub-continent are my brothers but Moghuls and Afghans are invaders . Hindi/Urdu is United language of North Indians and Pakistanis but problem is script. We chose our cultural script "Devnagri" and those people who were influenced by Persian chose "Persian". I respect both but love mine.
Pakistani army ‘believed’ the ‘unmarked’ and disputed line of control runs east of glacier. Oh my God, believing that part of Siachen belongs to them, the Pakistan army unknowingly sacrificed 135 soldiers. Let the Army clarify how many more going to be sacrificed to continue this unending and unnecessary war..
@Anurag Singh, Sahab call for fight or jihad was given first by some man from JAMA MASJID Dehli and it was fought together and thats a great history of india when two greats sons of soil were together i dont know why we failed but after this war english raj took great revenge from us and not only they distroy hidu muslim unity but also our united language.
@Chotta Panda: i love ur comment
@Ahmed: Thanks for being among the very few sanguine people on this forum.
@harish: That is factually incorrect. The mughal empire was not the only ruling dynasty comprised of muslims. The revolt involved both Muslim and Hindu princes and soldiers. It was an effort to preserve the existing entitlements of the ruling families Hindu or Muslim. It is of course a historical fact that most of the prominent muslims of Delhi were exiled from the city (thrown outside the gates) and many of them perished. The focus of the victors was to emasculate and utterly destroy the ruling class wherever they won. In many places, this was the largely muslim aristocracy and thus they were the first to suffer. Please take off your lenses. History has no color unless you choose to view it as such.
@Shehzad Ahmed "I was wondering if that is because the terrain and approach from the Pakistani side is easier?" Yes, thats widely known. The high plateau/gilgit/skardu offer easier access.
@somebody1: "Looks like the author does not understand the meaning of the word “fact”."
True. Also the word "North"
The only part worth mentioning in this article is the LESSON : WE LET THE GUARD DOWN. We let theguard down in Kashmir, Punjab, We let the guard down in Baluchistan, We let the guard down in Afghanistan. Why blame events of history and why blame the Indians we know from history how the think and act. We know how they occupied Kashmir after Independence and how they have defied the UN Resolutions. Nothing will come out of blaming anyone or from analysing where the LOC extends to on the Siachin Glacier. We need to pay attention to the LESSON and under no circumstances let our guard down. Those who intentionally let the guard down will be judged by history and will bear the consequences.We have to survive as a Nation so we should learn our lessons well and should try and rectify our mistakes.
The only part of the article that intrigues me is the claim that foreign mountaineering expeditions sought permission from Pakistan and not India to visit the glacier.
I was wondering if that is because the terrain and approach from the Pakistani side is easier?
Have you ever seen someone, who takes something not belonging to him and when caught and confronted says "I always thought it belonged to me" ? People go to jail for that kind of infantile defense.
Meanwhile "North" seems to mean everything , except North !
@Chotta Panda: Panda I am impressed but i would like to suggest you that you people should spend this $ 37 millions for the well being of poor people. We know India is big on map and some other statistics but there is narrow gap between our countries when we speak about poverty and other social issues.
@Arijit... Plain and simple could've been the other way around when Pakistan was denied its right of rule over kashmir and hence the present criticality between the two nations. Plain and simple couldve been your acceptance of living with freedom under the mughal's rather than becoming a slave at the hands of ur british masters... plain and simple becomes the dust under ur feet which is never to be filled in with ur existence!!!!! and btw what you call JUST is not crucial for freedom... JUST comes without an iota of misunderstanding of principality but then again.. im only JUST SAYING.
"The indian cyber gog and magog"....wait you're actually taking indian trolls seriously?
@Atif: How is a straight line and a diagonal one on top of each other? They deviate at the starting point. Northeast is a line like this: / North is a line like this: |
I can't believe I had to actually tell you that.
@Atif
OMG y some Indians are so stupid (sorry but thats what it seems) Northeast is within the line to North. Some people never learn :(
Mind looking at a map again. Genius.
The map will show you as you move from North to South in a clock wise direction you come to East. And Pakistan lies in the West, in East lies India. Are you trying to say that India lies within Pakistan?
OMG y some Indians are so stupid (sorry but thats what it seems)
Northeast is within the line to North. Some people never learn :(
@Faesal: They are paid to be persistent. Don't forget. Don't mind them though, they can crib all they want, but Mr. Ejaz has clearly stated the facts. So ignore the trolls :)
@hamza khan: considering the strategic blunders in 65 71 and 99, do u need more historic evidence? or the failure of Mush at Siachin is enough. Ur army was lucky to barely save Lahore n sialkot in 65. Haji Pir Pass was captured by India and so was large area of Lahore district. go n read authentic history.
Siachen Conflict is a TEST of WILL and Resources for Both Countries . Any country that Withdraws will be looked down as WEAK
Seeing the comments sections makes me think i am reading an indian newspaper with hateful all knowing trolls presenting their version of truth.
Are Pakistanis directionally challenged or what?
What I don't get from this entire issue is that how could anybody confuse the word "north". I don't really see which part of "thence north to the glaciers" is hard to comprehend unless someone is directionally challenged.
As long as you are not on poles (the exact north and the exact south pole), north points to one direction, that is, to north. Not to east or to north-east.
If they were trying to extend the line to Karakoram Pass (going by Ijaj's and Pakistan's interpretation), they would have written "straight to Karakoram Pass" or "along the glaciers. If they have written "north to the glaciers" then it means "north" to the glaciers" not "northeast to the Karakoram Pass".
@AB: Oye go n read history properly it was Punjabi muslims who joined british in 1857 and betrayed the nation padh jaake koi achhi se book se Thts Y british started inducting Punjabi Muslims in d British Indian army henceforth. Bahadur shah zafar was supported by Most Hindus Peshwa Nanasaheb ho ya Rani Laxmibai. dude google karr lena b4 blabbering like a idiot
@AB: " ... In 1948, Pakistani forces advanced as much as where the LOC is today. ... "
Wrong again - Pakistani forces were BEATEN BACK to where LOC is today.
Pakistan had the de facto control of the Siachen before 1984, which the whole world acknowledged including Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru who addressed to the Indian Parliament on 7 May 1962 acknowledging Pakistan’s de facto control up to the KKP by stating, “the defense of which is under the actual control of Pakistan".
I find the top produce of Pakistan "Executive Director of Premier Institute of Pakistan" faltering in basic logic " Thence North does not equal to North East" .However commoners who dont work as strategist for indian side give clear logical explanation which appears closer to facts.. I would say the final military post India is holding in saltora ridge is north west however siachen falls exactly in North east.
@AB: " ... By the way we know that from 1857 when Hindus back-stabbed Muslims to loose the war of independence just to end the Mughal rule. ... "
Even if events transpired that way in history, I think the back-stabbing was justified. As a native of the land, I have a duty to use all means at my disposal to overthrow a system imposed by an invading force.
Would you find fault with the Afghans if they fight coalition forces "just" to end the NATO presence. You may consider the Mughals as your own, for for us, they were an occupying force - plain and simple.
In spite of blaming each other, isn't it better to resolve this issue peacefully? After all, the soldiers who are serving at this deadly place are also humans like you and me; the money being spent there by both the countries also belongs to the people of both nations which could otherwise be spent on the betterment of the destitute. Just think for a moment and make sichen a place it was before 1984.
I feel overall the author has ended indirectly affirming India's right over Siachen. The only feeble argument from Pakistan seems that Pakistani army 'believed' the 'unmarked' and disputed line of control runs east of glacier. Well, it is irrelevant what they 'believe' here. Zaid Hamid and Ghazwa e Hind council believes the eastern border of Pakistan should be beyond Bengal. Doesn't mean India would give it all on platter just to avoid accusation of having small hearts.
The Pakistani Military will present its view and the Indian Military its view. If Pakistan thinks Indians are there to watch on them they are mistaken. Having illegally ceded Kashmiri land to China it is obvious the Indians are more interested in keeping a watch on Chinese activity in the area. Our impartial and objective Editor failed to mention that the illegality of Pakistani action was the prime stimulus for the Indian reaction.
A wonderful and logical article....at least erasing lots of misunderstandings Indians have in regard of this issue.
@AB: "By the way we know that from 1857 when Hindus back-stabbed Muslims to loose the war of independence just to end the Mughal rule. They just liked to be the slaves of the Britts more back then"
Hello. Rani Laxmibai, Mangal Pande, Tatya Tope, Ahilyabai Holkar were all Hindus. Secondly Sir Syed Ahmed Khan clearly supported the British. Not just that throughout the freedom struggle against British people from Congress went to jail for years ata stretch (noyt just Hindus but Muslims, Sikhs and Parsis as well - as long as they were from Congress). Not a SINGLE person from Muslim League went to jail for even one day because they supported the British. These are facts that no one can change. They did not even participate in the Quit India movement.
@AB.. may I suggest you read your post again to see if it makes any sense. A less bitter and less hateful post with your arguments supported by facts and examples will work better.
Why is everyone arguing on what has already happened......that India dominates the heights in siachen is a fact now...one can keep on discussing as to who the aggressor was but it hardly matters....Pakistan should have tried to dislodge Indian army through a diplomatic offensive(the way india did during kargil episode)
The only way India will vacate is through a long dialogue...so let's keep on chatting while opening trade.....these tricky pieces will be resolved once India and Pakistan have stake in each others economies.....
The author says,"It was Pakistan’s clear understanding that the area, according to the 1972 delineation and demarcation of the LoC, belonged to her". So the only claim which Pakistan has over Siachen is because they "believe", "understand" and "interpret" that it belongs to them. The author has written two articles on Siachen in the last few days and has not provided any answer as to what is the basis of their belief that Siachen belongs to them. The Shimla agreement, which the author himself quotes, clearly mentions that LOC extends from NJ9842 “thence north to the glaciers”. Even a fleeting glance at the map will tell you that for Pakistan to claim Siachen. the LOC has to extend to "North East" while the Shimla agreement says "North". Just because Pakistan had started giving mountaineering permissions in Siachen does not in any way validates its claim on the glacier.
@AB: althougni didn't want to respond as it is off topic, but just a small rejoinder:
so the historians in your country did not even spare even 1857. so it was your war of independence, and hindus backstabbed.
who were those backstabbing hindus? mangal pandey, kunwar singh, laxmi bai, tatya tope, nana sahib, kotwal singh gurjar.
just have a look at this map, and tell me which part of pakistan(east or west) revolted against britishers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indianrevoltof1857states_map.svg
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR in mughal times had less power than a modern day district collecter has. a DC today is more respected than he ever got in his life. he was just a face, had no control over anything. grow up, if you can come up on tribune to post a comment, you can very well read english account of the fight, when true face of muslims is revealed in syed ahmad khan, who says that muslims should be loyal to britishers as per god's wishes.
@AB: I am amazed at the level of ignorance you have about historical facts and amusingly you call some one else illiterate! Also I am amazed how mods do not step in when people callously display communal and regressive mindset.
Coming back to the author's points, I am surprised how he papers over the real issue and that is what 'north' means and the fact that both countries have a different interpretation of this. I would agree with some of the commentators that the author isn't being objective here.
It seems the author relies more on Pakistani History books... so be it ...Facts cannot be changed anyway !!!... He has always tried to sound more inttelectual whilst writing his op-eds... This is what happens to a person .. when he tries to tell a white lie ... I hope comming generations of Pakistan will find the correct history books for themselves ...
So, in a race of dominance of a region, whose boundaries are disputed, you claim one party aggressed, yet few sentences later you go on to say the other party was late. Don't you see the partiality?
If Pakistan, let say, had taken the heights you would have made a different comment. This piece is laced with patriotic non-impartiality.
Last line is exactly the way the world is learning to live with Pakistani generals.
@Sandip Khanna: Brilliantly put
@AB: U simply lost me. Is there a central theme in your post, because if there is, it must be mighty subtle. And I am reasonably literate. I wish you a little more clarity in future posts.
Fact: If the pakistanis had occupied the advantageous position in Siachen as the great Indian Army has, then the author would not have penned this article!
This should put the lid on the likes of Pervez Hoodbhoy and Kamran Shafi.
@AB: Well, they way you started, I was thinking that you would prove it rubbish with some solid logical argument. You flattered to deceive. Too bad. I am sure the writer would do a much better job. Rest of your statements are not worth countering.
It was Pakistan’s clear understanding that the area, according to the 1972 delineation and demarcation of the LoC, belonged to her.
The agreement says: "thence north to the glaciers." You claim that Pakistan clearly understood that a glacier lying to the northeast of the LOC belonged to it. So does North mean something else in Urdu? Or has the Pakistani education system invented a new definition of "North", along with its liberal rewriting of the subcontinent's history. If so, please do enlighten us with strategic insight on what this new definition of North that Pakistan is peddling means.
Be that as it may, can we please stop cal;lng each other 'enemy'. Just as a start. :-)
It costs India $300 million a year to maintain troops in Siachen. It costs Pakistan $200 million to maintain the troops. But since India's economy is $1.8 trillion to Pakistan's $ 200 billion in effect, it means India's economy is 9 times bigger. So, the $300 million being spent by India is equivalent to $300 million divided by 9 = $37 million in as far as Pakistan is concerned. So, right away there is an assymetry of $200 million minus $37 million or $163 million per year. So, in principle, eventually it would become untenable for Pakistan to maintain this force. That is the game plan --> damned if you do anything and damned if you don't do anything. This is known as fork attack in chess (i.e., attack from two sides) so either way the other side will lose. Same issue with terrorism - if you rein in on the jihadis you are damned by your startegic assets and if you don't you are damned by the world community. If you open up to India you are damned by jihadis and if you don't open up you are damned by a feeble economy that cannot support a growing population. So, the message to Pakistanis on Siachen or Kashmir is this (if I have to use a few idioms from the Americans) - if you don't like it, tough luck OR don't cry, just deal with it OR if you don't like, go and pound sand.
Good thing that the writer didn't let facts get in the way of his "analysis".
"Pakistan’s clear understanding that the area, according to the 1972 delineation and demarcation of the LoC, belonged to her".
What was the basis of this understanding? If you use the definition in Simla agreement "imaginary line that extended from NJ9842 “thence north to the glaciers" then the Siachen glaciers are a part of India.Tis is because North does not mean North east.
"By the time our troops arrived, the Indians had already occupied Gyong La in the south “strategically important because it could interfere with the enemy’s line of logistic support"
This means your troops were also trying to occupy the glacier. This despite the fact that per Simla agreement the glacier peak was part of India. In other words, you were trying to occupy a part of India but India got there first. That is called defense not attack.
@fahim, you display rare honesty and forthrightness.
Well written piece!
No, the real lesson is our Army always fails at defence of this country as it is too much for them. They are much better focused at running more profitable ventures like housing schemes, banks and airlines.
Blockquote
It was Pakistan’s clear understanding that the area, according to the 1972 delineation and demarcation of the LoC, belonged to her.
Blockquote
Two questions for author
1) The author is holding the sanctity of 1972 agreement (probably referring to Simla Accord) as the one of reasons cited in argument favoring Pakistan. What else is in the Simla Accord besides demarcation of LOC? Is Pakistan following everything stipulated in Simla Accord?
2) Pakistan may have issued approval for trek expedition or even thought that Siachin glacier belong to them. This by itself does not form basis of a legitimate claim. That way Indian national anthem refers to "Sindh" as part of its territory and Pakistan has never objected to it, is it fair to assume that Indian can claim Sindh province in entirety?
Approve AGPL in true spirit of "line going to north" and accept india's stand. When it comes to water treaty, we cry India is not living to the spirit of treaty although they are fully eligible to harness energy from their rivers. Why not show the same spirit in agreeing to "true north" as india asks in this case? Why true spirit is only for the other side and does not apply for us? Our basic society is corrupted, valueless and double faced opportunist.
The writer is playing a hard ball knowing very well, Pakistan's mistaken view created the problem in first place. It is pity that writer has not expressed any word for those soliders who lost their lives in natural calamity. Still, the blame game.
This is all pointless. India claims Kashmir in its entirety and hence established presence on its own glacier. All this dissection by armchair analysts will not bring back to life the 135 soldiers who died in the landslide. If Pakistan wants to occupy its current posts, then stop crying and suck it up. Otherwise the choice is clear: Withdraw.
Your last sentance about the lesson sums it up beautifully.
Siachin remains the drama of both the higher hierarchies people are suffering on the ground physically, families are left behind to suffer,,,, i have physically seen how brave these Pakistani and Indians are there! They are just there coz they do not have any other option luckily or unluckily when ever there unit or sub unit is earmarked they have to follow the order,,,,, All those talking the facts n figures and trying to proof the bravery on either side are just not aware of the difficulties there I just want to know that how many out of you on either side has gone to see the families of those who have died on that front since 1984 May be none,,,,,,,,, I would just say who so ever started this should be hanged in a Chowk and be made a example for the rest of his or her generations to come,,,,, Shame to them
Author says "The Indians were quicker. " ,so both party were trying to occupy same area which was not properly demarcated i.e disputed.As such blaming India for occupying first is not reasonable.Author although as director of think tank should be objective i his discussion but in all his op-ed I find him biased and arguing on basis of selective facts so he is no good for helping settling any dispute.
@Sandip Khanna:
They way you are analyzing it is kinda rubbish (I am sorry, but that is what it is). In Fact 2, you just mentioned that Pakistan's understanding was based on "1972 demarcation of LOC" and you are putting the blame of 1948 Kashmir advancement by Pakistan. See, there are two problems with your analysis. 1- With a slight common sense, you would have judged that 1972 was way AFTER 1948 and since the latest (1972) demarcation made it a Pakistani territory, Pakistan was right in understanding it that way! Where they were mistaken it was that they thought Indians would respect it (yeah you read both Indians and respecting Pakistan's right in the same sentence, huh) - By the way we know that from 1857 when Hindus back-stabbed Muslims to loose the war of independence just to end the Mughal rule. They just liked to be the slaves of the Britts more back then. 2- Since you have lived so far being an illiterate, don't die an illiterate atleast. In 1948, Pakistani forces advanced as much as where the LOC is today. If they had gone farther, the LOC would have been there.
Last but not least - It was India's aggression because even if you put a map in the hands of a child (can be a Indian child if he has not been filled with Paki hatred yet) and tell him to see where the LOC extrapolates, just don't feel ashamed if the Indian occupation extends to the other side of LOC!
"Fact 3: Our intelligence failed and our deployment was late." I am shocked at this. Our military intelligence failed in 1965, 1971, May 2nd, Mehran Base, GHQ attack to name a few. However, our military intelligence and ISI did not fail in any domestic political move. We did not fail to chase Mansoor Ijaz despite all his vitriol against the army, ISI and Pakistan. How many more times would they fail before we come to our senses?
@Sandip Khanna:
and i presume the indian commanders are somehow God gifted strategic thinkers that always get it right, no? lets take a history lesson should we?
Facts 49%. wrong conclusions 100% .
Its good that you provided the details. But even if it is established that one or the other side is wrong, the problem remains that we have lost 8000 human beings to this mess and how much more tragedy are the both sides willing to bear for it? Isn't it about time that both sides sit together and hash out a plan to stop this drama.
How come Pakistan only "planned its presence" and India "aggressed"? Didn't both parties run for a finish line and somebody got there first? Pity that the race isn't over yet!
That's a good piece. It does clear up a few points. However when the writer gives the facts, there are contexts to those facts as well that cannot be ignored.Let me try to add in my 2 cents to the facts laid out by the writer.
Fact 1: India aggressed. - Since Pakistan had already started the first phase of occupation by sending these teams. Also, when the writer says "It was Pakistan’s clear understanding that the area, according to the 1972 delineation and demarcation of the LoC, belonged to her.", there is a small problem to this understanding. It doesn't match with anyone else's understanding in the world. Hence given this "understanding", the historical context of Pakistani action in Kashmir in 1948 and the prevailing geo-startegic considerations, no one should be surprised that India acted the way it did. In fact our commanders would have been amiss if they wouldn't have acted.
Fact 2: We didn’t plan any presence until India began patrolling the area. - This can be left in the air as no one can really judge what someone planned or didn't. One goes by the historical data and then makes a judgement which uses a number of assumptions as well.
Fact 3: Our intelligence failed and our deployment was late. - That has always been the case when the PA is involved. For some reason the commanders just don't seem to have it when it comes to assessing a situation strategically. That is not to say that PA is not brave. They are as brave as any other army in the world. However strategic foresight is not a natural derivative of bravery. No wonder PA is more inclined to use proxies which is more of a tactical ploy.
Kashmir problem left by two great leader of indopak area Mr, Jinnah & Mr Gandhi of Gujrat i allways wonder how we gonna fixed these problems may be god send some angel to solve this mess.
I love you!!! thank you for speaking the truth with such verve, panache and dexterity!!!
Very succinctly put!
what about the "Arctic-weather gear"? how could you not consider it? http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1079528,00.html