Pakistan started issuing international mountaineering permits for Siachen in the 1950s, hoping that a defacto jurisdiction will become accepted as de jure jurisdiction internationally. American cartographers duly obliged their Cold War ally by showing the whole glacier as Pakistani territory. Pakistani hawks laid their claims on all of Siachen based on these occurrences, conveniently ignoring the fact that ceasefire lines emerge from bilateral or UN resolutions only.
Within the maze of India-Pakistan political echo chambers, counter-accusations have become too intermingled for the truth to emerge easily. A quarter-century after the 1984 Indian encroachment far west of the strictly defined north line, both countries continue to squabble zealously over this barren land. The recent avalanche tragedy has precipitated talk of resolving the issue with Nawaz Sharif initially suggesting unilateral withdrawal.
If Pakistan withdraws unilaterally, India could react in three possible ways. Firstly, it may also withdraw. This would suit Pakistan as both sides would withdraw without validating the Actual Ground Position Line desired by India. Secondly, India could remain in Siachen. This, too, would suit Pakistan as India alone would incur the high occupation costs and become the object of international derision perched alone in the frigid mountains in quest of an imaginary snowline. This would allow Pakistan to claim the moral high ground and partially repair its globally tarnished image.
Thirdly, Pakistani hawks contend that India may attempt further incursions from Siachen into Pakistan. Alarming though this option sounds, it is improbable. Unfortunately, having captured a chunk of Kashmir as ‘bhaagtay chor ki langoti’ during Pakistan’s secession, India displays little intention of taking further Pakistani land. However, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is reportedly guided by capabilities and not intentions. Looking at capacities, how will Siachen’s tortuous terrain allow India to transport the significant wherewithal required for attacking Pakistan? Moreover, the Pakistani army will not disappear completely but would still be stationed lower down. Thus, Siachen will remain an infeasible attack point.
Finally, even if India miraculously succeeds in overrunning Pakistani territory, would it be able to retain the land easily? Would it risk such a reckless adventure given the certain backlash from the local population, Pakistani army (conventional and nuclear) and jihadi groups and given the certain global condemnation and sanctions? After pursuing global status since 1990, India has become circumspect about new military misadventures. This is evident from its restrained responses to Kargil, parliament and the Mumbai attacks, unlike earlier overreactions. Similar compelling reasons exist for a unilateral Indian withdrawal. The much smaller Pakistani army could gain little strategic advantage through Siachen that it cannot gain more easily from other border points.
Despite these probable benefits from unilateral withdrawal, both countries should attempt to resolve the issue bilaterally once more, given the clarity and impetus that a bilateral resolution can provide. However, in case of another bilateral failure, both countries should seriously consider unilateral withdrawal. Hawks on both sides argue that withdrawing unilaterally will undermine national honour. However, if it rightly linked to displaying maturity rather than bellicosity, national honour will actually be enhanced.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 19th, 2012.
COMMENTS (31)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Ideally both countries should reach an agreement on demiltarisation of Siachen. Out of box suggestion by the author is also feasable and it is highly improbable that India would occupy even an inch of land vacated by Pakistan voulantary but most llikely follow suit keeping minimal deterrent force in the region. Its time to move on and reach another milestone since our last agreement of ceasing hostilities on LoC has been a great success.
@Romm: Good point. I agree "otherwise u know we are not peace loving people." You have given pretty powerful demos of this fact. But Sir why are you giving PEACE a chance in this case?
India obsessed newspaper of pakistan....
@Romm
I admire your tenacity.Keep it up till you reach a dead end which doesn't seen too far.
@Romm: "yet, No Indian comment, I am surprised" Because there is a deliberate attempt to black them out. Mine was!
@ANTONY ...point made buddy!!
"However, utilising different rationales, India gives north a north-westerly slant while Pakistan slants it in a north-easterly direction." this is where the argument goes awry....the points of view are North and North East respectively.
Dear Moderator,
I wonder why my comment was not published. I would appreciate if you let me know what you found objectionable in it, so that I can avoid them in future. This is first time it happened! Any glitch that could have caused the omission?
Thanks!
The article is based on sound logic .
However human nature being what it is , 'Mutual Suspicion' ,how so illogical it may l may look , will continue to mar our mutual relations . 'De-militarisation' is an ideal solution BUT the 'remedy' MUST NOT turn out to be be 'worse than the malady' , given the VAST 'Trust Deficit' between the two countries . Any false move by either side , may lead to bigger conflagration with unintended and utmost tragic consequences . Vacating Siachen without any agreement would not be a correct step . De- militarisation must be a 'negotiated' and 'agreed upon' ; with iron clad guarantees for neither side to take advantage of vacation of the area . Many Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) have been tried and they have had their positive effect ; that's why we are talking 'trade' now . More CBMs are needed before de- militarisation can take place and let the 'Trade' be the biggest of them , others being , very easy visa regime , study by students in either country , exchange of visits of lay persons , artists , sports persons, professionals and even the retired soldiers , etc . After some years , when we reach a state of Mutual Assured Dependence (Not the other kind of MAD) through trade , leading to 'co prosperity' and start thinking like the Europeans did, before they formed the European Union , we can de- militarise Siachen . The Europeans fought for hundreds of years killing millions of their youth , and today they live like an extended family of nations . IF they can achieve this miracle , why can't we , who have much more in common than they ever had? . When we render the 'Borders Irrelevant' (as some Statesman put it ), perhaps then all our problems can be REASONABLY resolved . It is a great 'Challenge' to the 'statesmanship' of both the countries to make the dawn of that day possible .
When will that day dawn , only God knows ?
(I have said similar things earlier and repeat the same now for the benefit of those who may not have read my comments after the Gyari avalanche tragedy )
@ROMM," Bombay attacks, PARLIAMENT ATTACK, Kargil, Could u retaliate other than crying?" Two things here.You accept pakistani jihadist who are part of you killed innocent people without war declaration ?!! . Second line you are saying you are proud of pakistan's actions with the events in subcontinent which makes you proud of these sneeky jihadist actions ?!! . Now coming to retaliation you dont fight a mad man , you isolate him and shame him and deprive any respect .Dont you think its already happening to you internationally?!!!
@Khaleel, The Pakistani soldiers killed by an avalanche, did not die on Siachen glacier. The entire glacier and more is under Indian control. The avalanche happend in Gayari glacier.
@Romm: The Pakistani leaders have the same mind set as you. No wonder many in Pakistan seem to be mistaking their steep descent into unknown and fatal anarchy as a roller-coaster ride.
As matter stands, Pakistan has already vacated Siachen after the avalanche killed the soldiers.
The article is sensible. The writer has advanced sound reasons for Pakistan's unilateral withdrawal without its defense interest being adversely effected. But this requires maturity and statecraft which are not in short supply in Pakistan but totally absent.Economically, politically, diplomatically and militarily Pakistan is paralyzed. Pakistan is an international concern and is in no position to undertake any negotiation with eigther its friends or foes. The Pakistani writers and intellectuals would do to their unfortunate country a great service in shaping Pakistani public opinion on what Pakistan should unilaterally do to redeem the mess which they have tirelessly created over the last 65 years. Their sagacious advice to India can be withheld till such time that Pakistan is accepted by the comity of nations as a civilized, reasonable and normal country.
Pakistan cannot unilaterally withdraw. Besides obvious loss of face, it will give credence to India's claim on the Glacier. Also, further incursions by India are not so improbable. At the very least, expect India to occupy the positions vacated by Pakistan. It will be hardly a solace to Pakistan that it is only India who is incurring the financial and human cost of occupying the heights. The only viable option for both countries is to agree to a demarcation and step back.
Bombay attacks, PARLIAMENT ATTACK, Kargil, Could u retaliate other than crying? In 1971, I was not born however I do remember recent incidents in sub continents, which boost my morale as a Pakistani. Drones are doing our job. If, NATO supplies can be stopped for six months, drones can be shot with 1935 model anti aircraft gun. Apart from all in the past, If we are talking in sane terms, U guys must respond positively. For heaven sake, Come out of Thousands of years of deprivation and learn some from ur Neighbour China,which got all their areas back, without firing a single bullet. If not, we are proned to shocks and have survived worst times. Rest, choice is urs. Cheers
Now I know why Pakistan's economy is going South, they do not know the meaning of North
@Romm We are giving peace a chance, otherwise u know we are not peace loving people.
You are not war loving people either, you surrender en masse at the first signs of being attacked. You cannot fight a war beyond two weeks, you cannot shoot down drones which attack you.
You are not peace loving, you are not war loving either, you are just bluster loving
Give it up already. Indian defense minister A K Antony has made the stance very clear that India does not intend to give up this control with authentication of AGPL and delineation of LOC. India cannot risk another Kargill (which you will recall also happened after both countries were already certified nuclear powers). any number of Op Eds in Pakistani newspapers and clealy misleading statement by establishment will not change ground reality.
@Amjad: @Romm: Surprise to see that you look forward and appreciate views from across the border. Magnificent.
@Vinod We are giving peace a chance, otherwise u know we are not peace loving people. As far, US money is concerned, we have survived undet American sanctions in, 70, 80, and 90s. So It's nothing new. We infiltrated into LOC in Kargil, when we were under sanctions by countries even like Japan. Then we had worth 200 millions of foreign reserves. So, pls study recent history and then talk. By the neither india is Israel and nor we are Palestinian state.
Why suddenly such a spate of articles about Siachen in Pakistan press. No one said a word before? Simple, with American $$ becoming scarce the wisdom is brightening.
having captured a chunk of Kashmir as ‘bhaagtay chor ki langoti’ during Pakistan’s secession, India displays little intention of taking further Pakistani land
when and how and by what law did Kashmir become Pakistani land? 'ulta chor kotwal ko daante'
India leaving or not leaving Siachen should not be a matter of concern to Pakistan as its Indian territory. India has never asked Pakistan to leave from their side of Siachen. There is no such debate in India. Our army is sitting all along Indo-Tibetan border. Irrespective of costs, we have to defend our borders.
The flaw in the author article is to suggest a separate formula for withdrawal of army for each border point in this case Siachen. India and Pakistan should first agree what formulas they will use to withdraw army from any border point forget about the Siachen for a minute. The obvious answer will be to authenticate the current position of each army (either through physical marking or satellite imagery or GPS or whatever) and withdraw to peace time or whatever distance they want to withdraw to. Once this formula is fixed then it should be applied to all border points like Kashmir, Punjab, Rajsthan etc including Siachen. So the debate should be about the formula that would be acceptable to both sides.
@Romm: Look at the comments above you. Indians are obsessed with posting on Pakistani sites.
@Romm: I'd imagine many are tired of repeating themselves.
From reading of this article, its clear that Pakistan started the aggression by trying to claim territory east of NJ9842. India reacted to the violation of the border accord by Pakistan and captured the glacier, including some territory west of the line NJ9842. Of course Pakistan has to pay a price for starting this fight by trying to claim territory, that was not its. Seems just and right to me.
yet, No Indian comment, I am surprised
This is a reasonable article that starts off at the wrong point. The issue is simple: if we draw a line north of point NJ9842 (based on the Karachi agreement), will the glacier fall within Indian or Pakistani territory? The answer is not ambiguous - it falls within India. Validating this will save everyone (yes, India does not want to hang around in the freezing cold if there is no reason) significant resources, human and otherwise. On the other point mentioned, I am glad to see such thinking in Pakistan - the times of forcible occupation of a people is now history, and India has no interest in an inch of Pakistani territory - after all, Bangladesh was half of Pakistan once.