Siachen Glacier : The Highest battleground on Earth

[ajtr]

Siachen Conflict and the Indo-Pak Rapprochement
Gurmeet Kanwal
Visiting Research Scholar, Cooperative Monitoring Centre, Sandia National Laboratories

Despite all the recent parleys, Indo-Pak relations are still stuck in the quagmire of deeply ingrained mistrust and a politico-diplomatic mindset. Though much was expected after General Musharraf's visit to New Delhi in March 2005, the defence secretary-level talks in May 2005 failed to resolve the deadlock over the demilitarization of Siachen Glacier, and the dispute over the maritime boundary through Sir Creek.

It is now generally accepted that the region has no strategic significance. In spite of the ceasefire since November 2003, both armies suffer medical casualties like pulmonary oedema, frostbite and chill blains due to the prolonged exposure to sub-zero temperatures and icy winds at 18,000 to 20,000 feet and intense physical activity in the oxygen-deficient super high-altitude atmosphere. In the absence of surface links, maintaining a brigade-group sized force through air drops and helicopters costs both sides around $200 to $300 million annually, funds that could be put to better use.

During the ninth round of talks in May, the two defence secretaries once again got stuck on the same old contentious issues. India insists that the actual ground position line (AGPL) physically held by the two armies should be demarcated on maps before disengagement can take place; Pakistan's argues that Indian forces must first withdraw to pre-1984 positions. In India, the Army's view is that it will pull back if the government orders it to, but it has made it clear to the government that it should not be asked to take back the Saltoro if the Pakistan Army occupies it surreptitiously in violation of the agreement to disengage.

After the Kargil conflict, few in the government trust the military in Pakistan. The latter is unwilling to accept delineation of the AGPL as it has been telling its own people that they are in a dominating position at Siachen. If the AGPL is delineated and its course becomes public, the Army, already stymied by its humiliation in Kargil, will lose face further.

Several options are available to resolve the deadlock. The two countries could delineate the AGPL, but keep the maps secret so that the Pakistan Army is spared further embarrassment. Alternatively, for enhanced confidence levels, the maps could be jointly signed in the presence of a special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, and a sealed copy could be kept in UN custody. There is a view in India that it should unilaterally release a map of its positions on the AGPL after permitting a neutral forum like the National Geographic to send an expedition to the area to verify the positions and then be willing to disengage and withdraw its forces to mutually agreed positions. However, such a unilateral approach will exacerbate the problem rather than help to resolve it. Some academics even recommend unilateral Indian withdrawal. However, they underestimate the power of the opposition parties to cash in politically if the government were to adopt such a course of action. Unless the ruling coalition and the opposition parties unite to build public opinion about the futility of fighting at Siachen, any pragmatic step forward will be criticized vehemently by the opposition, making it virtually impossible for the government to move forward.

The other issue is the lack of trust. A minority section view in India is that the country is now a major regional power that can take greater risks. If Pakistan violates a mutually agreed disengagement from Siachen and occupies vacated areas at any time in the future, India will have many options - politico-diplomatic, economic and military, to deal with such a contingency and, hence, should not be too apprehensive of Pakistani deceit. India will also have the weight of international opinion on its side. Even the US is unlikely to countenance surreptitious Pakistani occupation of Indian positions at the Saltoro Ridge after these have been vacated by India as that would further destabilise the delicate region.

Demilitarization of the Siachen battle zone will be a confidence building measure of enormous significance. Both the nations must not lose the opportunity provided by the ongoing rapprochement to evolve a politically acceptable and practically feasible process for disengagement, phased withdrawal of forces and cooperative monitoring of the agreement while looking for and negotiating a final solution. A possible solution could be to declare the Siachen Glacier region a jointly-controlled peace park for the scientific study of glacial belts and the effects of super high altitude on flora and fauna - a "mountain of peace" as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called it during a visit on June 12, 2005. Science centres could be set up at the present Base Camp on the Indian side and at Dansam on the Pakistani side, with a forward logistics base for scientific exploration and mountaineering expeditions at the present Kumar Forward Base. Both the nations could control all such activities jointly and establish joint search and rescue teams. Demilitarization of Siachen is an idea whose time has come.

 

[ajtr]

Resolving Siachen erspectives from Pakistan

Brig (Retd) Asad Hakeem

 

[ajtr]

Does Siachen have Major Strategic Significance?

By Gurmeet Kanwal

Defence Minister A K Antony visited Siachen Glacier on May 5, 2007 and reiterated the official position on demilitarizing the zone of conflict by saying: "India is ready for a solution. But from the very beginning, our position has been very clear. Before any forward movement, both sides must agree to authenticate the actual troop positions, both on the map and on the ground." With Pakistan refusing to do so, negotiations have floundered.

The key question that must be asked is whether Siachen has major strategic significance that justifies prolonged occupation, or are the two nations fighting over an icy wasteland merely for jingoistic and chauvinistic reasons? In his book Siachen: Conflict Without End, Lt Gen V. R. Raghavan (Retd.), a former DGMO, has written: "The (Siachen) theatre of conflict, as is now widely accepted, did not offer strategic advantages"¦ It is clear that neither India nor Pakistan wished the Siachen conflict to assume its lasting and expensive dimensions." To justify a prolonged conflict, a piece of land must provide significant military advantage and open up options for seeking major military gains. It should either deny the adversary an avenue to launch strategic-level offensive operations to capture sensitive territory or resources, or offer the home side a launch pad for such a purpose.

Alternatively, for a land mass to be considered strategically significant, it must be politically or economically important. The neighbouring cities of Amritsar and Lahore are politically important for India and Pakistan, respectively. The provinces of Alsace and Lorraine were economically important to France and Germany due to the huge iron ore reserves that these provinces had and several wars were fought to gain control over them. Siachen does not qualify as an area of strategic importance on any of these grounds though it has now become a politically sensitive issue.

Many Indian analysts have made militarily unsustainable projections about the possibility of a China-Pak pincer movement over the Karakoram Range and the Saltoro Ridgeline into northern Ladakh with a view to capturing Leh. Such exaggerated apprehensions are truly amazing as these fail to take into account the lack of a road axis to mount and sustain a major offensive logistically. Thousands of tons of ammunition, fuel, oil and lubricants, and other supplies, including rations, clothing items for the extreme climatic conditions prevailing at Siachen and spares and batteries for radio sets and other telecom equipment, would need to be dumped over two to three summer seasons before a worthwhile military offensive could be launched. Since a major road cannot be built over a moving sheet of ice in what is perhaps the most treacherous mountainous terrain in the world, all logistics preparations by the adversaries would have to be undertaken by employing large transport helicopters. These slow-moving monsters would be sitting ducks for the fighter jets of the Indian Air Force.

Even if one were to grant the possibility of a joint China-Pak offensive into Ladakh, however remote the probability is in the new geo-political environment, better options are available to both the countries to plan and execute their offensives such that the Indian army is unbalanced at the operational level. China could develop its operations using the Demchok road along the Indus River as well as along the Chushul axis and Pakistan could plan to advance along the relatively less difficult Chalunka-Thoise approach from Skardu while simultaneously attacking into the Kargil sector to cut off Ladakh. If operations along this approach to Thoise, astride the Shyok River, could be successfully conducted by Pakistan, the Siachen area would be automatically cut off. Hence, it is more important to defend this axis in the Turtok sector rather than fight at Siachen itself.

Both the governments must make a dispassionate politico-military assessment of the advantages of defending Siachen and the costs of the conflict in terms of human lives and material resources. Dr. Stephen Cohen, a well-known and respected Washington-based South Asia analyst, has described the Siachen conflict as a fight between two bald men over a comb. In his view, "Siachen"¦ is not militarily important"¦ They (Indian and Pakistani armies) are there for purely psychological reasons, testing each other's 'will'."

It is strategically unwise to continue to maintain a brigade group of almost 5,000 men at Siachen in treacherous terrain and harsh climatic conditions. The Siachen area should be accepted as a jointly controlled peace park for the scientific study of glacial belts and the effects of super high altitude on flora and fauna – a "mountain of peace" as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had called it during a visit in June 2005. Demilitarisation of the Siachen conflict zone will be a confidence building measure of enormous significance for Indo-Pak relations.

 

[Ray]

Gurmeet Kanwal and JJ SIngh along with MS Gill are batting for the PM's CBM at all costs,

And MMS batting for the Nobel Prize?

Kanwal has not even been near to the Sichen Glacier!

 

[ajtr]

Gurmeet Kanwal and JJ SIngh along with MS Gill are batting for the PM's CBM at all costs,

And MMS batting for the Nobel Prize?

Kanwal has not even been near to the Sichen Glacier!

Are you indirectly pointing to the fact that all being sikh are hell bent on selling off siachin and are traitors according DFI people fondly refer PM MMS as.If so then How about Lt.gen V.K. Raghavan?What made you not include him above team?Even he supports Siachin demilitarization.

 

[Ray]

It has nothing to do with communities.

It may interest you to know that the Sataj of Pakistan - the Qaid Post of Pakistan was won by a Sikh - Bana Singh.

Therefore, you attempt to draw conclusions that are not there is highly misplaced.

The troika I mentioned is just an MMS fan club.

Lt Gen VK Raghavan's point of view has to be understood before you claim what you claim.

 

[sukhish]

It has nothing to do with communities.

It may interest you to know that the Sataj of Pakistan - the Qaid Post of Pakistan was won by a Sikh - Bana Singh.

Therefore, you attempt to draw conclusions that are not there is highly misplaced.

The troika I mentioned is just an MMS fan club.

Lt Gen VK Raghavan's point of view has to be understood before you claim what you claim.

MMS or no MMS , India is not ceding on siachin period. Just like US is not stopping drone attacks.

 

[ajtr]

Who doesn't want peace?

The outgoing defence minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar is known for telling the unvarnished truth on subjects rendered sacrosanct by ideology and geostrategy. His latest alleged gem (since he vehemently denied it soon afterward) came after he had made the following statement to BBCUrdu.com: both Pakistan and India would stand to benefit from resolving the Siachen issue. When asked who prevented the two from resolving the Siachen issue, he stunned the media by rejoining: "the hurdle is the armies of both countries".
He further said that neither Pakistan nor India stood to gain anything from the stand-off on the world's highest battle-ground; rather it pandered to the respective egos of the two states, while it is possible that the conflict would cost both sides dearly in terms of their peoples' welfare. He also said something that "cut both ways" in his typically nonchalant impartial manner: "India wants to talk on the Sir Creek issue first, we want to talk about Siachen first — the same issue of egos".
The following day, the minister, who now holds the portfolio of the ministry of water and power, denied that he had said anything of the sort, saying that he had been misquoted. Even if that were the case, the fact is that the reason that issues such as Siachen or Sir Creek are left unresolved, or that the recent planned visa agreement between the two countries is now in limbo, is because powerful vested interests on both sides do not want permanent peace. These may be institutions or elements in certain institutions with significant backing from like-minded individuals/groups.
The reality, whether one admits it or not, is that in Pakistan, it is the military which — still — calls the shots on policies related to India. Even the case of the issue of Most-Favoured Nation status, which is an important development and should help strengthen bilateral ties is being prolonged, because the military establishment is on board. The implication in this context also is that it will be the military who will decide what is to be done with Siachen. Of course, one should also be reminded of the situation in India where the reality is more or less the same, with the Indian Army often saying that it will never withdraw from Siachen on its own. Reports in the Indian media indicate that Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh is keen to have this and other issues resolved but that a hawkish civil-military establishment, led presumably by some of his own advisers, is resisting this and wants to make an example of Pakistan, especially following the Mumbai attacks of 2008.
The truth, regardless of what Mr Mukhtar actually said, is that the armies of India and Pakistan are in the way. The Indian point of view is that the two sides should sign off on the present positions and then redeploy, which means "climb down from the high mountain peaks". Pakistan favours climbing down without signing off because any document on positions would legitimise India's deployment on Siachen. On both sides, the armies are dictating terms but there are differences of approach that must be pointed out.
The Indian government is under pressure from public opinion which is quite strongly anti-Pakistan. Indian public opinion is negative because of the terrorist activity of the Pakistani non-state actors inside India. We could dismiss it as state propaganda which has seeped into the public mind, but the truth is that the entire world is of the same opinion. In Pakistan, things are different. Credit is due to PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif for saying that the Pakistan Army should withdraw from Siachen unilaterally. Sections of the mainstream media here reacted with disapproval over Mr Sharif's 'unilateral' suggestion after the army chief negated it.
The real issue is who bleeds more? Pakistan certainly, because of its faltering economy, which is much smaller compared to India's and which is growing at a much slower rate as well. We know that we have to make the move, not so much for the honour of the military top brass as for the well-being of ordinary Pakistanis.

 

[Ray]

both Pakistan and India would stand to benefit from resolving the Siachen issue. When asked who prevented the two from resolving the Siachen issue, he stunned the media by rejoining: "the hurdle is the armies of both countries".

Pakistan is desperate that India withdraws since they are finding it difficult to sustain the forces West of the Saltoro Ridge, now that there is a live chance of all the money and military freebies drying up from the US,

 

[ajtr]

Pakistan is desperate that India withdraws since they are finding it difficult to sustain the forces West of the Saltoro Ridge, now that there is a live chance of all the money and military freebies drying up from the US,

Even India is desperate to withdraw coz its faltering Economy can sustain siachin deployment any more.And who knows it more better then the Economist PM MMS that india cant afford increased defence budget in this economic downturn hence he is desperate to make peace with pakistan.He knows that india can not carry on war of Attrition with pakistan which results in terror attacks over india.In a sense Pakistan has made india bleed in this war hence india came down on its knees at S-e-S.S-e-S was big win for pakistan.

 

[Ray]

India is not at all concerned about withdrawing from positions she has.

Where did you get this wrong idea from?

Too many terror attacks and you might be surprised with India coming into to terrorise you!

India may have imbibed patience from Lord Buddha, but then there is a limit to patience too!

If Manmohan understood statecraft we would not have been sending wrong signals.

Indeed he is a great economist theoretically! Hold degrees.

 

[Sabir]

Is complete demilitarization of the glacier is that difficult. If both countries make an agreement and leave it , a lot of money can be saved. There is possibility of breaching the agreement (both parties will auspect each other). But, if I am not wrong it is impossible to supply ration without chopper (Ray Sir or Kunal Sir may give a proper idea) and the choppers can be shot down if any party breach the agreement to control the glacier forcefully. The stationed soldiers will starved to death in such case.

 

[SADAKHUSH]

Even India is desperate to withdraw coz its faltering Economy can sustain siachin deployment any more.And who knows it more better then the Economist PM MMS that india cant afford increased defence budget in this economic downturn hence he is desperate to make peace with pakistan.He knows that india can not carry on war of Attrition with pakistan which results in terror attacks over india.In a sense Pakistan has made india bleed in this war hence india came down on its knees at S-e-S.S-e-S was big win for pakistan.

You need not worry about India's financial strength and when push comes to shove large number of from overseas will do everything to make sure our Janam Bhumi can take on any challenges imposed on us in future by the coward Generals who cannot even live by the Geneva convention when it comes to repatriation of dead bodies of our shahid Jawans.

We were never, are not will not be desperate to make any peace with your nation of terrorist Military and ISI (Drug Dealers at best). All the bleeding you talk about just go to Liyari area in Karachi and the drones your uncle sam delivering over your F***ing air space is more than enough to bleed your whole nation into oblivion. Here is some thing I found today that your own beloved airline PIA has been peddling their dry condiments and plastic cutlery to Air India at throw away prices in Toronto. This is what is called bleeding. Forty six percent of your manufacturing companies have relocated to Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Egypt. The railway is in complete shambles.

To learn more about bleeding of a Pakistan you should watch Hasan Nissar, Hasb E Hall and Khari Baat with Luqman on your local channels. You are lucky to have Dr. MMS as Indian PM. I would have planned and executed my goals with in months and ignored external pressures to achieve our objective once for all.

When you open your mouth do check the facts and than come on this forum other wise stay with PDF site.

 

[SADAKHUSH]

Its not the pakistan which is on siachin but its india.so anyone who has to pull out is india.

First and foremost get some history lessons and than debate the issue. Maharaja Ranjit Singh signed the agreement to be part of India after being invaded by thugs from your land. Each and every square inch of Kashmir and GB is part of India and no body else can lay a claim on this land. Your days under the green flag are numbered as far as I am concerned and get ready to move to your Arab motherland.

 

[Tolaha]

Even India is desperate to withdraw coz its faltering Economy can sustain siachin deployment any more.And who knows it more better then the Economist PM MMS that india cant afford increased defence budget in this economic downturn hence he is desperate to make peace with pakistan.He knows that india can not carry on war of Attrition with pakistan which results in terror attacks over india..

If you really believed in your theory that India cannot carry on this war of attrition and was desperate, then you or your countrymen would not have been begging India to withdraw!

Indian army is aware that Pakistan does not have the ability to afford this continuous face-off at Siachin. And so the unwillingness on its part.

 

[Ray]

Pakistan is weeping.

They want salvation!

 

[The Messiah]

India will not give up tactical advantage over Pak in Siachen

NEW DELHI: India is not going to give up its tactical and strategic advantage over Pakistan in the Siachen Glacier-Saltoro Ridge region anytime soon, even though Prime Minister Manmohan Singh may still want to convert it into "a mountain of peace".

The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), chaired by the PM, on Thursday cleared the "brief" for the 13th round of the defence secretary-level talks to be held with Pakistan in Islamabad on June 11-12.

Sources said the Indian delegation, led by defence secretary Shashikant Sharma, will insist Pakistan first agree to the three sequential "pre-requisites" of authentication, delineation and demarcation of the respective troop positions on the Saltoro Ridge before any military pullback plans can be discussed.

While there has been some recent buzz of "a breakthrough" on the long-festering Siachen dispute, the Army has cautioned the UPA government against any concessions in the face of Pakistani intransigence in providing iron-clad guarantees for even verifying the 110-km Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL).

Defence minister A K Antony himself told Parliament in May that "dramatic decisions" should not be expected from the talks slated for next week. Sources said India will tell Pakistan to first "authenticate" the respective troop positions on the AGPL along the Saltoro Ridge since Indian soldiers occupy almost all the "dominating" posts there and Pakistani soldiers are three to seven km away from the glacier.

Second, the authentication process will have to be followed by proper "delineation" both on the map as well as on the ground. This, in turn, will lead to the final "demarcation" of the agreed border. India will only then "consider" the proposed "disengagement" and "redeployment" of troops from the heights varying from 16,000 to 22,000-feet.

With better infrastructure and supply lines in place, the Army is no longer haemorrhaging like it did in the early years after its "Operation Meghdoot" in April 1984 pre-empted Pakistan's `Operation Ababeel' to occupy the icy heights.

Pakistan, which lost 139 soldiers in an avalanche that hit one of its Army camps there in April, is desperate to resolve the dispute since it is bleeding more. Over 3,000 of its soldiers have died in the region since 1984.

India, too, has lost many soldiers. Although the casualty rate has steadily dipped in recent years, the toll stood at 26 last year. Extreme weather and terrain cause more casualties in the icy heights, where temperatures even dip to minus 50-60 degrees, rather than exchange of fire. The guns have largely fallen silent in the world's highest and coldest battlefield since the ceasefire came into force in November, 2003.

"India has all the advantages now...why give them up without any gains?" asked a senior officer. If India was not holding the heights on the Saltoro Ridge, the highest watershed in the area, Pakistani and Chinese armies could link up to bring the Karakoram Pass under their control and threaten the Ladakh region. "The increasing Chinese presence in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan is a fact of life," he added.

India will not give up tactical advantage over Pak in Siachen - The Times of India

 

[Neil]

Siachen was accepted as Indian Territory in 1949!

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.

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.

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"². 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.

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". Does it mean that a unilateral withdrawal from the glacier would have been a "success"? General Musharraf likes to quote the Fifth Round of talks in 1989: "Yes, indeed there was an agreement in 1989. And that Agreement was based on reallocation of the Siachen." This is far from true. The negotiations saw a hardening of the position of the Pakistan military and, finally, the talks broke down.

However, a communique was issued stating that "both sides would work towards a comprehensive settlement" in future talks. It was conveniently interpreted in Pakistan as meaning that India would unilaterally withdraw from the glacier. India's position has always been clear: Delhi is ready to concede a redeployment zone for the sake of a compromise; but, as General VR Raghavan who has been involved in the earlier negotiations, wrote: "First, each side should acknowledge its current position before a disengagement commences. Second, there should be a high level of assurance that neither side would breach the agreed formula."

This would require mutual verification and surveillance. It is what General JJ Singh, the Chief of the Army Staff, reiterated when he asked Pakistan to accept the Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL) along the 72 km long glacier before even talking of 'redeployment'. But Pakistan today, like 15 years ago, is not ready to admit that its troops are not positioned on the glacier. This is the reason why it refuses to acknowledge the AGPL.

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. It is true that the Pakistani intrusions in Kargil ordered by General Pervez Musharraf in 1999 have helped New Delhi to better understand the mind of Pakistani leaders. To kidnap a beautiful girl is easy, it is not quite as easy to get her back home.




Siachen was accepted as Indian Territory in 1949! » Indian Defence Review

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[Ganesh2691]

Defence News - India Will Stick To It's Position On Siachen


India is not going to give up its tactical and strategic advantage over Pakistan in the Siachen Glacier-Saltoro Ridge region anytime soon, even though Prime Minister Manmohan Singh may still want to convert it into "a mountain of peace".

The Government of India has decided to stick to the conventional Indian position that before any demilitarisation of Siachen, Pakistan should agree to full demarcation of the ground position of troops on the glacier. The decision was taken during a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) and the same will be reiterated by India at the defence secretary-level talks between the two countries in Islamabad next week.

India has always insisted on iron-clad guarantees that Pakistani troops will not occupy any post vacated by Indian troops in the event of an agreement being reached in the future on demilitarisation. This is all the more crucial, considering the Kargil experience 13 years ago.

Pakistan has so far resisted the idea of demarcation of current ground positions on both sides. This raises considerable doubts over Pakistani intentions. Indian defence experts feel that Pakistan is reluctant so that it (Pakistan) can exercise the option of occupying posts in case they are vacated by the Indian Army as part of any settlement. Pakistan's game plan so far has been not to extend any border demarcation in the northwest direction to the Karakoram pass.

India, on the other hand, wants extension of any mutually agreed upon border demarcation straight up north from the NJ 9842 position along the ridgelines. The Indian position is that the line runs towards the glaciers along the watersheds formed by the Saltoro Range as per the internationally accepted principle of border delineation.

After an avalanche near the Siachen glacier that killed over 100 Pakistani soldiers a few months ago, Pakistan had requested India for withdrawal of troops of both countries from the Siachen region which is the world's highest battlefield. The issue had also figured during the recent meeting between Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi. Pakistan Army chief Gen. A.P. Kayani had also called for demilitarisation of the region.

India, too, has lost many soldiers. Although the casualty rate has steadily dipped in recent years, the toll stood at 26 last year. The infrastructure on the Indian side is much better compared to the Pakistani side. Soldiers on the Indian side have much better living conditions and hence leaving the glacier does not make any sense for the Indian Army. Pakistan is bleeding heavily due to troops in the region and is taking a massive financial toll on it's economy. India on the other hand has a bloating defence budget with no shortage in funds.

India and Pakistan are also expected to discuss the Sir Creek issue soon. The government had recently informed the Parliament, "The President of Pakistan during his meeting with the Prime Minister on April 8, pointed out the need for all issues in the bilateral relationship including Sir creek, Siachen and J&K to be addressed. Both leaders felt the need to move forward step by step and find a pragmatic and mutually-acceptable solutions to all those issues."

"India has all the advantages now...why give them up without any gains?" asked a senior officer. If India was not holding the heights on the Saltoro Ridge, the highest watershed in the area, Pakistani and Chinese armies could link up to bring the Karakoram Pass under their control and threaten the Ladakh region. "The increasing Chinese presence in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan is a fact of life," he added.