CORRESPONDENCE

1. Note on crossing the 'old' Pin Parvati Pass, 4801 m in the Great Himalaya Divide.
2. Romesh Bhattacharjee
3. Harish Kapadia
4. An Analysis of the Comments made by J. C. Nanavati
5. A REJOINDER
6. Capt. M.S. Kohli
7. Martin Moran

 

 

 

Note on crossing the 'old' Pin Parvati Pass, 4801 m in the Great Himalaya Divide.

Last October, 2003, I devised an expedition to Spiti on the east side of the Great Himalaya Divide to re-locate and climb the crest of the purana (old) Pin Parvati Pass, 15,754 ft which until the Chinese re-asserted their suzerainty over Tibet in 1959 had linked Tibet and India via two great river valleys, the Parvati on the Kullu side, and the Pin on the Spiti side. Both valleys were heavily glaciated in their upper reaches.

In recent years I've had a number of interesting encounters with the Parvati valley approach to the divide, including two expeditions which had the main objective of crossing the original purana (old) Pin Parvati pass from Kullu and descending into the Pin valley in Spiti. Although I did eventually succeed in crossing the Himalayan Divide separating the heads of the two valleys in the year 2000, the 'new' pass was both higher and more hazardous than an historic pass should be. Our calculations showed the variation to be 5182 m, high against the original pass's surveyed height of 4801 m (15, 754 ft)

Not content with exploring the higher variation route I still yearned to locate and reach the crest of the original Pin Parvati pass. However the chaotic state of the ten-mile long glacier at the head of the Parvati valley dictated an approach from the east or 'backside' through the border province of Spiti. The Urdu word for 'backside' is the more respectable sounding pichhe - so our expedition became the Pichhe Expedition 2003, and I persuaded Paul and Jean Bingham and the youthful octogenarian John Welbourne of the Oread MC, and Stan Moore of the Birmingham Cave and Crag, to join the enterprise.

We approached the upland desert of Spiti through the famous old hill station of Shimla and the precipitous mountain roads of the valley of the great river Satluj and Kinnaur. At one point we were only 40 km from a Chinese manned checkpoint on the Tibetan border. To our consternation an enormous rock avalanche had swept half a mile of the only highway into the valley bottom a thousand feet below. The two ends of the road had been linked by an aerial ropeway manned by the Indian Army and on this our gear was shipped across. However during the descending traverse on foot, with the main party safely across the danger zone, Paul Bingham and I bringing up the rear narrowly escaped annihilation by a subsequent colossal rock avalanche.

By Sunday, 2 November, using a team of yaks led by the powerful but genial 'White-face', we were in base camp lying under the neves of the Pin valley glacier complex. At 0530 on Monday, 3 November we set out to explore the upper Pin valley and climbed steadily up the approach slopes. The final stage to the crest of the purana Pin Parvati pass was a steep combination of glacier snout, neve and gigantic scree until at 1400 I reached the crest with Sonam Tashi and Jeet Ram. Recent snowfall had created a massive cornice on the southwestern (Kullu) side of the crest but the level nature of the neve surface indicated a classic Himalayan pass, as well as providing the obvious source of the Pin river, which emerged below us to the east from beneath the snout of the Pin glacier. After a brief session of photography we made the weary descent to base camp to rejoin the support team for dinner at 1830.

Bob Pettigrew

 

 

⇑ Top

 

Romesh Bhattacharjee,
D- 1008 New Friends Colny
New Delhi 110065

31 october, 2003

Dear Harish,

This (HJ 59) was yet another attractive and informative Himalayan Journal.

I have however one discordant note to offer. In your article 'The God that did not fail' I find that you have given some peak's names that do not suit the cultural and linguistic environment of the area that you were climbing in. Padmanabh and Lakshmi are out of place in the Teram Shehr glacier. Most of the earlier explorers when they did venture to give names did so considering local sensibilities and using their language. These names that you have given are impolite and inconsiderate cultural impositions. Nearly every peak in the Karakorams and all the way up to the Aghil mountains that crowd around the Shaksgam and Yarkand rivers had names in the past and some enquiry amongst the older inhabitants may have helped. In any case there is no justification whatsoever to give the names that your expedition have given them.

Best wishes,

Yours sincerely,
Romesh Bhattacharji

 

 

⇑ Top

 

From Harish Kapadia,
Hon. Ediutor,
The Himalayan Journal

11 November 2003

To,
Romesh Bhattacharjee,
D-1008, New Friends
Coloney, New Delhi 110 065.

Dear Bhatto,

Thank you for your letter regarding Himalayan Journal, vol. 59 about naming of peaks in Eastern Karakoram.

In fact we have just taken forward the nomenclature of the past. The name Indira Col. (meaning Laxmi, a Hindu goddess and wife of Vishnu) was given by Fanny-Bullock Workmen way back in 1912. Similarly the peak Lakshmi was named and attempted by Fanny-Bullock Workmen in the same year. The pass Col Italia was named by the Italian explorers in 1930. Similarly this area has several peaks named like Ghent, which was named after the treaty of Ghent, in South Africa and so on.

I thoroughly agree that the nomenclature of the area should always suit the surroundings but at the same time the nomenclature has also to progress and evolve by various visitors to the place. We have named the highest peak as Padmanabh, which is a name of Vishu, the husband of Lakshmi. And in a way it is appropriate because it is standing next to the peak Lakshmi, a name which has existed since 1912 and now we have named this as Padmanabh. Moreover the nomenclature has also to reflect the present and current day happenings, if at all, and here Lord Vishnu in Hindu mythology is a preserver and this whole area, as you know, is in serious turmoil and we need some sort of a name of a preserver, which would be around.

All other names like Teram Shehr Plateau, which it is, and is named after the glacier of the same name. The other valleys and peaks like in the Rimo areas were named in Ladakhi or Balti nomenclature. Thus there is much 'mixed' nomenclature in this area.

I am thank you for the interest in these matters and it is very essential that we guard these principles.

Harish Kapadia
Hon. Editor, HJ

 

 

⇑ Top

 

An Analysis of the Comments made by J. C. Nanavati, Advisor, Mountaineering Commission — IMF, of Nandakot (6861 m) expedition organized by Parvat Abhiyatri Sangha, Kolkata

(See H.J. Vol. 59, p 281)

I have gone through the comments on the report of Nandakot (6861 m) Expedition, 2001 made by J. C. Nanavati, Advisor, Mountaineering Commission — IMF. (Full report is available with the IMF and the Himalayan Club)

I have a few questions regarding his study based on which he made his final observation or comment that this (the peak Nandakot) was not attained by the climbers of the above expedition.

1. In page 3 (item No. 7) Nanavati has quoted a few lines from the report of Martin Moran, published in the Himalayan Journal, Vol. 52, 1996 (Page 65-72).

Nanavati heed little importance on some of the significant words (printed in italics). For example, while describing that topped ridge line of the peak Nandakot, Martin Moran described it as a perfect level topped trapezium, a symmetrical straight edged mountain top which rose very gently towards its right hand end.

Nanavati also described in page 3 (item No 6) that the south face of Nandakot is rectangular shaped with its eastern and western edges ultimately meet an apparently gently slopped top ridge line .......

This justifies that the slope of the top ridge of Nandakot is negligible.

While quoting the last para from Martin's report, Nanavati, overlooked another important line which is very significant. After attaining the top- ridge, even after realising its marginal rise towards east, Moran felt that it was not a time to be splitting hairs. That means the entire top ridge can be termed as the peak and there is no need of 'hair splitting' judgment to find out which point is actual peak and which is not. Climbing on any point of this top ridge can be said to have been climbed Nandakot.

2. In page 4 (item No. 8) Nanavati mentioned that the top edge or top ridge or top line of the peak is about 450 to 500 m in length. It is really surprising that in the same report in page 19, he meticulously calculated the top ridge as much as 540 meters. In a place such as this, difference of a few meter can change the picture beyond belief. When one is sincerely involved in such a serious investigation, why such an anomaly!

If an expert like him can make such gross anomalies like this, inspite of calculating all these things in an entirely hospitable environment, it is difficult for the totally exhausted climbers of P.A.S to measure the accurate length of the top ridge which is actually a dangerously corniced one. To cap it all, they were all out of food and water, without tent, sleeping bag, rope and even adequate oxygen.

After a long hard struggle on the steep slope of snow and chilly wind, sleepless night under open skies at a height of 6706 m or so, what the state of mind and body of a climber can be, is to be considered and realised seriously and rationally while one sits down to scrutinize or judge their performance.

3. In page 4 (item No. 12) Nanavati defined the nature of true ascent. In the last line of the para 12 he also mentioned the exception to this definition. He wrote that when a small final corniced featured, which could be unstable, is left out and still the ascent of the mountain may be accepted.

Apart from climbers of PAS, Martin Moran also described the entire top ridge of Nandakot as corniced one. Moran wrote — the summit crest, which formed a large cornice overhanging the mountain's north face. And, therefore, it was unstable.

Now what does it mean by small as mentioned by Nanavati? Is it 10m, 20m, 30m or more or less? Who will define?

Nanavati agreed with Moran's findings that the top ridge was a large unstable cornice with a negligible inclination towards the west.

5. In page 5 (item no 13) it was claimed confidently that the summit was far away (from the point where the PAS climbers reached on the top ridge) and somewhat higher above the point reached. Question is when an expert could measure the height of the southern face of the peak, length and angle of the top ridge, why could not he calculate the remaining height still to be climbed by the PAS climbers to reach the actual peak? If it can be described by a vague term like somewhat, then it can be termed as negligible also.

Once again in that para it is mentioned the slope angle of the summit crest ridge as 5°, when in page 19 he painstakingly calculated and mentioned that this slope is 6.75° and again in the photograph II 13 as 6.25°. Why this variations?

This, in my view, is due to faulty method followed to find out the base level or horizontal line of a photograph. He did it purely on eye-estimation which may not be fully correct. On the basis of this faulty base line, in the short of his own report, he measured three different degrees of the slope angle of the top ridge of Nandakot.

Moreover, the real state of slope of such a top ridge of a peak can not be or should not be measured from a simple photograph having side view of that peak taken from a long distance (2 km) and from a substantially lower (960 m) height as happened in this case.

Contradictary to his 5° — 6.75° formula, in the report it is admitted (page-19, item No.2) and it is clear from the close photographs of the peak that top ridge of Nandakot has a small depression in its central part which is not compatible with the photographs taken the Camp 3. So, all calculations and comments made in the report regarding the angle of slope of top ridge of Nandakot becomes futile.

It is also mentioned that camera location of Martin Moran's summit photos is higher than the camera location of PAS climbers. This claim or reading is also not correct. If a climber after reaching the middle point of the ridge-top in question moves to the west and comes closer to the western part of the cornice, the similar photograph, taken by Moran from the summit, can easily be taken out And, therefore it does not prove that the photograph taken by Moran was from the actual summit.

Actual fact is that only two photographs, one showing the north-east ridge of Nandakot and northern part of Shalang glacier and another showing the south-eastern ridge of Nandakot and southern part of Shalang glacier will be the only proof of attaining the eastern most point (actual peak of Nandakot according to Nanavati).

The most important and pertinent question is why he has not at all taken the help of a topographical sheet? At any level of discussion, study or assessment of a mountaineering expedition, the concerned topographical sheet must be consulted.

The concerned topographical sheet No. 62 B/3 of 1:50,000 scale help. To have a clear idea of the area, we have enlarged the southern face area of Nandakot 3.8 times. There is no doubt that this map is most authentic. Here we see the peak Nandakot, its formidable southern snowy slope and four converging summit ridges from four different angles.

Over this map we have drawn four lines on these four converging ridges. Now, if we project two lines representing south-western and southeastern ridge (AC & BD) further northwards, they will meet at point O. This angular shape of C O D should be the ideal shape of a peak. In this particular case this portion of A O B is not in existence and that is why shape of Nandakot has been of a truncated one.

According to the scale of the map length of this truncated ridge (AB) can not be more than 110 m, which according to Nanavati is 540 m. If we project point A, 540 m away from B according to the Map Scale (3.8 cm to 500 m) the top ridge line stretched upto A¹ instead of A.

If we geometrically draw the last stage of the climbing part of this expedition, then we shall be able to realise what the mountaineers of PAS have done and what they, according to Nanavati, left undone.

In the above diagram CABD is the southern face of Nandakot, B is the highest point 6861 m. According to Nanavati the climbers of PAS did not cover the distance V (where they reached) to B (the highest point) which, according to our calculation, is only 55 m and the remaining height they should have gained is V to V¹, which is according to the scale of the diagram is only about 5 m. Those who can climb all the way from base camp (4000 m.) to 6856 m point on top ridge, are they incapable of walking another 55 m to gain a height of 5 m?

To be fair, after completion of the formidable task of climbing the southface, arriving on the top of the ridge, with negligible slope, and almost flat surface, there was possibly little scope for the climbers to believe that for them anything still remained to be accomplished. At this point, no judge prefers scale but spirit of mountain climbing.

Like other sports the climb of a mountain peak should not be always judged by a tape or by a vernier scale but by its spirit and sportsmanship. When a mountaineer proves his mettle beyond doubt, we can not demand anything extra from him which might end up in the death of a climber.

He even has a thrashing praise for the PAS climbers, 'the effort was admirable, though foolhardy in retrospect'. It will not be out of context to mention that many a foolhardy attempt made history in the field of mountain climbing.

Tridib Kumar Basu
Deputy Director,
National Atlas and Thematic Mapping Organisation,
Government of India, Kolkata

 

 

⇑ Top

 

A REJOINDER

T. K. Basu, Deputy Director, National Atlas and Thematic Mapping Organisation, has commented (see above) that the 2001 expedition to Nanda Kot be declared as successful although admittedly the summit climbers had reached only the sloping summit ridge, but had not climbed further to the true summit at the east end. According to Basu the 'bravery of boys' to have climbed the steep south face is sufficient reason to justify the claim of ascent of Nanda Kot.

This brings into focus what is an ascent of a mountain in mountaineering sport?

The aim of mountaineering effort is to reach the highest point of a mountain selected. It may be a snow dome, a sharp snow peak, or a rocky pinnacle. The mountaineer needs to stand on that highest ground to consider an ascent having been made. Exceptions to this position can stem from a) sacred status or b) unstable final point.

After completing the hazardous first ascent of the South West face of Everest, Doug Scott and Douglas Haston bivouacked near the summit ridge, to climb the 'final little blob in the sky' the next day to complete the ascent of Everest.¹

Similarly, Diemberger and Wintersteller reached the fore-summit on Broad Peak late in the day and realised that the summit proper although not much higher, was at least an hour's climbing distance, too far to avoid benightment. A week later they slogged all the way back up again, and continued beyond the fore-summit to the main summit itself. Others who have climbed up to the fore-summit and returned cannot be said to have climbed Broad Peak. The definition of the summit is quite clear. You have either reached or you don't.

In the case of the Nanda Kot expedition the summit ridge photos submitted by them and those submitted by Martin Moran indicate that the top east-west ridge is quite broad in itself, although at its northern edge it may be corniced to some extent. However a climber would be able to traverse over the central part of the ridge or over its southern side, which was climbed.² It is another matter that the 2001 expedition's six climbers after a day's very hard steep climb of the face, may be extremely fatigued having spent the previous night in open without sleeping bags and proper nourishment. There were clouds on both the south and the east. No climbing rope was left with them. Such factors must have influenced them for not proceeding to the summit at the east end of the rising ridge. From their advanced study of the mountain they must be no doubt aware that summit was at the east end. On the descent they were benighted again and two of them were frostbitten.

Another point is about the length of the east-west summit ridge. (See H.J. No.49, opp. p. 93 for a photo of the south face culminating to the E-W summit ridge. The photo was taken from the summit of Nandakhani, 6029 m, about 2040 m south of Nanda Kot.). Basu estimates the length of the sloppy summit ridge to be 110 m from one end to the other, with the summit at its east end. The south face is bound by southeast and southwest ridges, which along with the top E-W summit ridge form the squarish south face of Nanda Kot, as seen from the south. The distance between lower sections of SE and SW ridges, at approximate contour points of 6200 m respectively, is about 860 m as per the survey map. Taking this as a base line of a width of 860 m and the E-W summit ridge of 110 m (as per Basu) the south face of Nanda Kot should appear to be pyramidal in shape. However, this is obviously a fallacious view, as can be observed from any number of long distance photographs from southern directions, from Dhakuri ridge, Almora, Binsar and Chakodi. All these photos discount any projection of pyramidal shape of the south face and conforms to a squarish shape, as given in the photo in H.J. No.49.³ As such the length of the summit ridge would be much more than 110 m. The distance and the height to be covered by the summit party from near the mid-point reached on the summit ridge to the actual summit at the east end would be more than what is assumed by Basu.

The basic fact is that the climbers admittedly attained the summit ridge by the south face route, but not the true summit; only then can one say the mountain as climbed.

Jagdish Nanavati
(Advisor, Mountaineering Commission, IMF)

 

 

 

⇑ Top

 

From Capt. M.S. Kohli
20 August 2004

Dear Harish,

Regarding the ascent of Nanda Kot by PAS team in 2001, I personally feel there is no need for a formal meeting between Jagdish and I, as suggested. Jagdish himself can decide the matter based on my report which I wrote soon after my visit to Kolkata.

The peak of Nanda Kot is a peculiar peak, several hundreds feet long with its western end below the eastern end by only a few feet. The main question to decide is whether the entire ridge should be considered as the summit or only the eastern end which is, of course, the highest point. If the eastern end is declared the summit, than the approach from the south may not be feasible at all. Once you reach anywhere on the summit ridge, either from the north or south, and away from the eastern end, it is not possible to carry on to the eastern end to gain the highest point. Since both the eastern and northern approaches are steep and the summit ridge broken; and the inclination being so insignificant, I feel the entire summit ridge should be considered as the peak.

With warm regards,

Yours sincerely,
(Capt. M.S. Kohli)

 

 

⇑ Top

 

From Martin Moran,
UK
7 April 2004

Dear Harish

Regarding Nanda Kot I find it rather sad and wearying that so much hot air is expended on what is simply a point of honour, and I am sure that you will apply your editorial pen in the appropriate place to debunk such mischief.

After our ascent of the south face I was the only member of the summit party who felt it incumbent to traverse to the highest point. I am sure that none of my fellow members are in the least bit bothered that they didn't reach the exact summit — they climbed the face and enjoyed an incredible mountain experience, which is the main thing.

I think Nanavati's conclusions regarding the PAS ascent of the face are strictly correct, but expressed in a slightly harsh way. The PAS party appears to have reached the summit ridge some distance west of our exit point. They climbed the face but by no stretch of interpretation does it seem that they reached the true summit point — I am sure this is frustrating for them, having put in such a big effort to climb the face.

We faced a similar dilemma at the top of Nilkanth west ridge. Andy Nisbet went ahead but couldn't traverse the crest to the highest point because it was too thin. He reached 2 metres below and 20 metres away from the highest point. When he reported this to the rest of us, I felt that he couldn't be regarded as having reached the true summit. So we found a direct line to the true top up the ice slope on the north side.

I presume that recorded summiteers are only those who stood on or abreast of the highest point, whereas in recording a first ascent of a new route all those who completed the substance of the route can be counted in the listed first ascent party.

If you feel that it would be helpful to publish these comments in the HJ please use them.

Martin Moran

 

Correspondence on this subject is now closed. Editor

 

 

⇑ Top