Kayani seconds my Siachen withdrawal stance: Nawaz Sharif

Published: April 19, 2012

Sharif says Pakistan should take an initiative in resolving the Siachen issue. PHOTO : FILE

LAHORE: Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N)’s President Nawaz Sharif, who came under fire for his call for a unilateral withdrawal from the Siachen Glacier, said on Thursday that the Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani has supported his stance.

Addressing a press conference in Raiwind, Sharif maintained that if Pakistan took the lead in withdrawing troops from the glacier then India would definitely withdraw its troops.

Responding to a question he said that Kayani had seconded his statement. Sharif, though refrained from commenting on Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik’s comments on his statement. Instead, the former Prime Minister chose to remind everyone the circumstances leading up to his ouster from Islamabad, and subsequently Pakistan in 1999.

“Considering my political career as two time prime minister, everyone should trust my opinion as I believe that if we withdraw the Army from Siachen, India would definitely withdraw it too,” adding that taking an initiative would force both the countries to sit together and resolve the issue.

Earlier on Wednesday, Kayani had said that Pakistan wants the resolution of the Siachen issue and other matters with India, but he stopped short of advocating for a unilateral withdrawal.

Sharif’s statements though came under fire from the Interior Minister who declared that every inch of Pakistan was sovereign and that even if there was a withdrawal, it would never be unilateral.

Reader Comments (30)

  • salman
    Apr 19, 2012 - 9:21PM

    Nawaz statements remind me of lyrics to an old song:

    “You say it best, when you say nothing at all” :)

    Recommend

  • ZYX
    Apr 19, 2012 - 9:47PM

    Shameless self promotion

    Recommend

  • Kaleem
    Apr 19, 2012 - 9:48PM

    One side has to take initiative, our 134 soldiers have buried recently, its our responsibility to think for sons of our soil.

    Recommend

  • CH. NAVEED
    Apr 19, 2012 - 9:54PM

    its a gr8 idea.

    Recommend

  • DB
    Apr 19, 2012 - 9:55PM

    @Kaleem:
    The side that invaded siachen should take the initiative.

    Recommend

  • Jawad
    Apr 19, 2012 - 9:56PM

    @ZYX: Well it is a hypocrisy of our people that when Mr Imran Khan say that he is the savior and he is the only one that can bring change then it is greatness and all hail King Imran but If some statement is stated by Nawaz then all Curse Nawaz and all shameless promotion.?!.

    Recommend

  • Bhindian
    Apr 19, 2012 - 10:09PM

    @DB, I agree India should be the first

    Recommend

  • Adam Zogby
    Apr 19, 2012 - 10:18PM

    Kayani said no such thing as to agree with Nawaz. In fact he refused to endorse his stance. Nawaz mis-spoke, now he is digging himself in further.

    Recommend

  • Sonia Wahab
    Apr 19, 2012 - 10:21PM

    There is some unfinished business that compells him to say this.

    Recommend

  • Adam Zogby
    Apr 19, 2012 - 10:27PM

    “General Kayani, however, declined to comment on a proposal by former prime minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif regarding the unilateral withdrawal of Pakistani forces from Siachen”

    http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-14018-Siachen-difficult-front-troop-pull-out-needed-Kayani

    General Kayani said the world knows that Pakistan was not responsible for the Siachen issue. “Pakistan deployed its forces on the Siachen Glacier in response to the Indian occupation of a part of the glacier,”Recommend

  • ishaq
    Apr 19, 2012 - 10:29PM

    Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Recommend

  • Global
    Apr 19, 2012 - 10:44PM

    Oh boy ! The fashion of using d word occupation is on limit . India is even forcing glaciers under occupation . I dnt understand ppl so called right wingers hate 2 see Palestine under occupation but do they really even in lay man terms understand what occupation is and plz I m an Indian but no fool on humanity basis I support Palestine coz dey really under occupation but plz it’s common sense dat wen u see 2 many national hero’s in a country, it’s no brainer dat country is in deep trouble.

    Recommend

  • observer
    Apr 19, 2012 - 11:00PM

    @DB

    The side that invaded siachen should take the initiative.

    Since we are talking of the original sin, ‘Let the Side that Invaded Kashmir First Take The Initiative’.

    Recommend

  • Jal
    Apr 19, 2012 - 11:09PM

    How naive of Mr NS – this is the caliber of our politicians

    Recommend

  • dv sikka
    Apr 19, 2012 - 11:09PM

    A new equation in Pakistan, Nawaz and Kayani.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Apr 19, 2012 - 11:12PM

    Mr Nawaz Sharif, deserves unconditional applause for taking a position that he knows will not be popular with the right-wing religious base of his party.
    The point is, both the sides can withdraw , by certifying the current actual position of control on the ground. I assume Pakistan is not planning to force a change by war on India. So why not certify the current positions, with a agreed statement that says any change to current ground positions will only be through negotiations.

    The solution is easy, as long as Pakistan accepts that current position of control wont be changed by force. India is ready to certify that.

    Recommend

  • MAD
    Apr 19, 2012 - 11:14PM

    Kayani seconded NS? FRom what I read he in a nice way told Mian Sahib to go take a hike.

    Recommend

  • Ch Allah Daad
    Apr 19, 2012 - 11:41PM

    Only a confident and experienced politican can make such statements. A sign of a great statmesman.

    Recommend

  • Mohammad Ali Siddiqui
    Apr 19, 2012 - 11:42PM

    I don’t see any logic behind that “if Pakistan took the lead in withdrawing troops from the glacier then India would definitely withdraw its troops”.

    It seems from the comments of Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif that Siachen does not seems to be issue for him at all.

    If Siachen was not an issue then why Pakistani and Indian troops are at the peak of Siachen Glacier?

    There should be a complete understanding between Pakistan and India, not verbally, but this should be in black and white and with international guarantees.

    My suggestion is that if there is a consensus on withdrawing the troops from Siachen Glacier, it should be a simultaneous withdrawal and Pakistan should not try to take the lead.

    What will happen if Pakistan withdraw the troops from Siachen but India refuse to do that.

    Heads should roll before making a firm decision on this issue, as it is a complicated issue which seems easy while one talk on this, but it is really an issue when one started implementing practically and goes into nitty-gritty.

    Recommend

  • Arif Khan
    Apr 19, 2012 - 11:56PM

    I think he is looking for support and favour. Nawaz has no stand on any issue and he will change it any time after public sentiment. We will not let you come again with hollow slogans.

    Recommend

  • Blue Devil
    Apr 20, 2012 - 12:00AM

    I am strict proponent of non-violence and do not appreciate what Pakistan Army has done over the years to the country, but the situation is very different when it comes to Siachen. India is the aggressor in this case and if peace is to be ensured at this 4000+ meter high battle field, it has to be a bilateral agreement and pullout. Pakistan Army cannot simply afford to unilaterally withdraw with no guarantees from the Indian side. I agree that there should be peace, but it will have to be a bilateral move.

    Recommend

  • ayesha khan
    Apr 20, 2012 - 12:28AM

    @DB: “The side that invaded siachen should take the initiative”

    Presumably you mean India. A couple of points:
    1) India did not invade Siachen. Per the Simla agreement, Siachen glaciers were on Indian part of LOC
    2) India has already made an initiative that Pak has rejected i.e. everyone authenticates the AGPL (Actual Ground Position Line) and then everyone goes back to pre 1971 positions. If Pak wants to reconsider India’s proposal it can. Otherwise India will continue with status quo.
    3) Pakistan has tried several times to push India off the glacier including Kargill but not succeeded. It can either live with status quo or initiate a review of its old negotiating position.
    4) Your statement of putting onus on makes no sense since it is Pakistan and not India that wants to change the status quo. You have zero leverage on India to make it do something it does not want to.

    Recommend

  • Uzair Jawed
    Apr 20, 2012 - 1:01AM

    It was india’s aggression to get over Siachin, they should take the initiative. india cant be trusted, it would prove to be the other way, they would try to capture whole of the Siachin stretch

    Recommend

  • moeed
    Apr 20, 2012 - 1:25AM

    i think he did not kayani’s words were i don’t want to get into this discussion

    Recommend

  • Meekal Ahmed
    Apr 20, 2012 - 1:50AM

    No, it should not be one-sided. TALK to the Indians and come to a settlement.

    Recommend

  • zia ur rehman
    Apr 20, 2012 - 1:52AM

    @Jawad:
    cuz Kaptaan has never been in power… In contrast, nawaz has been tested twice and all he gave to pakistan was new IMF loans, nothing else, so for him giving some statement looks funny, even if it is serious……..

    Recommend

  • ayesha khan
    Apr 20, 2012 - 2:27AM

    @Blue Devil: ” Pakistan Army cannot simply afford to unilaterally withdraw with no guarantees from the Indian side. I agree that there should be peace, but it will have to be a bilateral move”
    India has NEVER sought unilateral withdrawl.India says both parties should authenticate the Actual Ground Position Line andthen withdraw to the 1971 positions with the agreementthat anyone who crosses to thearea occupied by the other country would be deemed the aggressor.

    Secondly, it is true that India occupiesd the Siachen glacier but if you look at the language in the Simla agreement, the part India is currently sitting in was on Indian side of LOC. Thus India was not an aggressor in the sense that it was not trying to occupy something that did not belongto it. On the contrary t was simply trying to protect a strategic point once its intelligence revealed that Pak was planning to occupy it.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Apr 20, 2012 - 3:26AM

    India has already occupied the territory that belongs to India , as per 1971 LoC accord ( from NJ 9842 going north to glaciers ) . It wont go beyond that , irrespective of any troops on the Pakistan side. Remember India returned many thousand kilometers of territory captured accross the LoC and international border after 1971 war. Tahts because India adheres to international border and LoC ( and not to what Pakistan’s interpretaion of what north is ).

    Recommend

  • dv sikka
    Apr 20, 2012 - 5:39AM

    Nawaz and Kayani are trying to make a Punjabi block to kick Zardari out.

    Recommend

  • K B Kale
    Apr 20, 2012 - 9:06AM

    What is wrong in taking a credit if it is true?

    Recommend

More in Pakistan