When an avalanche killed over 100 Pakistani soldiers in Siachen, there was hope that the one silver lining to emerge from the tragedy would be a realisation that fighting on the highest battlefield in the world was doing neither country any good. That hope only intensified when the PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif called for a withdrawal of troops from Siachen. With ties between India and Pakistan steadily improving, there were great expectations that talks between the defence secretaries of both countries would take place on the issue. It proved to be a false dawn. The two-day talks in Islamabad ended without any progress, with both sides simply agreeing to discuss the matter further.
Everyone knows that more troops in Siachen die because of the weather conditions than in combat. The strategic importance of Siachen is sometimes downplayed as the area is important for determining who controls water resources in case of war, but this in no way justifies the occupation of the glacier. At a time when there are hopes that outstanding issues like Kashmir may finally be nearing a solution, this stalemate has thrown cold water on such a desire. If an issue like Siachen cannot be resolved, then what hope is there for lasting peace between the two countries?
The peace process has been a case of two steps forward and then one step back. Just when it seems like breakthroughs are possible on issues like a relaxed visa regime, one of the two countries refuses to give its assent. Regrettably, in the talks over the visa regime and Siachen, it seems like India was less willing to make concessions. As the more powerful side, India often feels the need to flex its muscles. Lasting peace will bring economic and political benefits to both countries as they already spend far too much of their budgets on defence. A withdrawal from Siachen would free some of that money to be spent on more worthwhile endeavours.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 14th, 2012.
COMMENTS (9)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
India violated the Simla agreement by occupying Siachen. Its decision to go to war on a glacier is the single most ridiculous decision by a state in the last few decades.
It is up to India to undo its occupation of a glacier. Even writing out this statements shows t he high level of arrogance and stupidity of the Indian establishment.
Kargil was a response to India activity on Siachen and those Indians celebrating now the avalanche at Gayari should know that this could easily happen at your end as you are on the heights and spend more to supply your own troops.
Both India and Pakistan know what the ground positions are of both armies, so the demand to authenticate positions is simply a delay tactic.
Pakistan has always been the first to go to war -- maybe it's time for Pakistan to do another first - take as step back from war.
@Shyam: Nice!
Pakistan should withdraw from Siachen and set an example. Moreover since the Pakistani Army have more experience in withdrawing
I have just seen two comments, which seem to be from Indian writers. I am not fully in agreement with them. The AGPL may be authenticated by both sides, but what is there to prevent the Chinese from just walking into demilitarized Siachen? There is no agreed border with China in this area. Besides, Pakistan-China nexus is well known. Once China occupies Siachen, India will have no means of recovering the place. For Pakistan that will be its prayers answered. India should not vacate Siachen under any conditions, whatever the costs in both lives and money. V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, India, 14 Jun 2012, 0510 IST
If Pakistan cares so much about withdrawal from Siachen and freeing up its resources it should authenticate the ground position line. Given Pakistani propensity to mount Kargil like illegal incursions, it is clear that Pakistani promises cannot be trusted without such authentication. Also, the Indian foreign secretary came to Pakistan to sign the more liberal visa regime which Pakistan refused to sign. Both issues are thus blocked due to Pakistan's unwillingness to keep its word or its commitments.
"Everyone knows that more troops in Siachen die because of the weather conditions than in combat." If Pakistan expects India to withdraw from Siachen, then it is only logical that India demands for the demarcation of the area as a quid pro quo. After all there are no free lunches in this world. Also should a dispute or a misunderstanding arise in future. It would become easy to sort out the issue with the demarcated boundaries. I simply fail to see the logic that Pakistan is propounding. Rgds P
The avalanche destroyed a key supply post at Gyari which was used to supply the Pakistani army stationed on the lower western Saltoro ridge (Pakistan have no direct presence on the Siachin glacier, which is to the east of the Saltoro ridge, the redgeline and the glacier being under Indian control) - hence the persistent demands for a withdrawal.
India would be foolish to withdraw and give up its strategic advantage, especially in the light of the Kargil incursions by Pakistan.
Once bitten (Kargil), twice shy (we ain't going nowhere from Siachin) - unless Pakistan agrees to accept the current positions as final. On second thoughts, even then we shouldn't withdraw given the blatant disregard Pakistan has for the LoC - the posts near Kargil were on Indian side when they were occupied! The persistent Pakistani pleas to withdraw and make it a "peace park" are due to the fact that the avalanche has buried the main supply camp (Gyari) for the Pakistani forces stationed on the lower levels of the western Saltoro ridge (Pakistan has no presence on the Siachin glacier, which lies to the east of the Saltoro ridge, the ridgeline being under Indian control). India would be foolish to give up its strategic advantage.