|
I recently got a chance to meet Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff at a dinner. Luckily, others were reluctant to talk to him perhaps because of his position but I decided to avail this opportunity to discuss various facets of Indo-Pak relations with him, knowing that he would refuse to talk about politics. When it came to Siachen, I urged that resolving the issue was important due to the exorbitant price that our bankrupt nation is paying to retain the glacier. He eventually irritatingly told me that why don’t I get it resolved.
India and Pakistan have been talking about a resolution of the Siachen glacier dispute since India occupied it in 1984. The glacier was unmanned prior to its occupation and India instigated the whole issue by occupying it. The two countries have since then talked about its resolution in 12 rounds of talks, the most recent having been held from May 30 to 31 in New Delhi.
The Siachen glacier is described by some as the third pole and by some cynics in the military as the `rose garden’ and was, till the achievement of ceasefire in November 2003, the highest battlefield of the world. Temperatures sometimes reach cryogenic levels like minus 70 degrees Celsius. In such a climate, what to talk of fight, one finds it hard to breathe. The troops need twice the normal amount of calories daily just to keep warm. Almost all the time is spent inside igloos, watching believe it or not, Indian movies. And as one relative told me, the troops, once in a while, fire mortars at each other just to overcome their boredom.
India moved its troops to occupy the dominating heights of the Saltoro Ridge in 1984 in an operation codenamed `Meghdoot’ while Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister. Pakistan was then being ruled by General Zia ul Haq, an unpopular general who had defense as the last thing on his mind at the time. Enforcement of shariah to justify his `90 day rule’ to 11 years was then his primary preoccupation. Around 2000 soldiers of both sides have died since then on Siachen while 6,000 have been injured, mostly in battling the fierce weather rather than each other.
According to the recently released WikiLeaks cables, presence at Siachen costs the Indian army 3,000 crore rupees per year ($670 million), with helicopters becoming the lifeline for logistic support, kerosene supply to the troops costing as much as Rs. 6,000 a liter. Each soldier requires Rs. 20,000 worth of warm clothes every month. The daily expenses to maintain a brigade in Siachen are estimated at Rs. 4 crore for India.
The expenses are less for Pakistan as there is a road-link up to the base-camp and the battlefield is closer to Skardu. This is one of the reasons that the Pakistan Army is reluctant to opt for a resolution as it feels that it is costing India much more than us, and the battle is regarded as yet another successful venture to `bleed’ the Indians. Unfortunately while India can afford to spend $670 million a year in view of its economic boom, we in Pakistan cannot afford to spend even half of this amount without facing the economic crunch.
As a result, we need to realize that while justifying it as a battle to bleed the Indians, we ourselves may be drenching ourselves of the last drop of blood. The recently released WikiLeaks should not then be surprising when they tell us that the Indian army, and not just the civilian government, has played a role in the ongoing deadlock with Pakistan over the Siachen dispute. May be the army realizes this fact.
The Indian military is also said to have told its government that withdrawal would tantamount to ceding the area to Pakistan due to the difficulty of retaking it should Pakistan occupy it. The cables appear to reinforce the impression that a Siachen deal is improbable while the army’s opposition to its resolution continues.
Strategic advantage over China, internal army corruption, distrust of Pakistan, and a desire to keep hold of advantageous territory that thousands of Indian soldiers have died protecting are additional reasons for India’s intransigence. Some of the reasons may be similar to our grounds for taking a hard line position on the issue.
India refuses to make a deal on demilitarization without Pakistan signing a map laying out Indian and Pakistani troop positions before withdrawal. The primary purpose of this would be to justify action if Pakistan reneged on the withdrawal agreement. Pakistan, on the other hand refuses it because it regards Indian occupation as illegal.
In 1989, the two countries came close to an agreement on the issue, and again in 1993. Each time the Indian government was forced to back out by its defense establishment, the Congress Party hard line, and opposition leaders.
America’s own opinion of Siachen is that “this remote region lacks military strategic relevance.” One expert likened the dispute to `two bald men fighting over a comb.’ Many also say that strategic reasons that triggered the war for control have also receded.
The current impasse is basically over the interpretation of the alignment of the LOC beyond point NJ 9842. In 1949, the two countries had agreed in Karachi that it was not necessary to delineate the ceasefire line beyond this point and up to the Chinese border as the area was considered a frozen inhospitable wasteland. Pakistan interpreted this accord to mean that a straight line should be drawn from NJ 9842 to the Karakoram Pass at its border with China; this would give it about 10,000 square kilometers of the glacier. India likes the line to go to the Soltoro Ridge, instead of going straight. Apprehensive, that Pakistan may occupy the wasteland, it occupied it in 1984 and the solution remains elusive since then.
The two countries should not just talk about disengagement and withdrawal of troops when it comes to rounds of talks relating to the glacier. They should instead work towards a permanent solution of the conflict. They can agree to make it a `no-go area’ and make it an ecological preserve where the scientists, if they find time from their research on making more nuclear bombs, can conduct scientific research. 
Anees Jillani is an advocate of the Supreme Court and a member of the Washington, DC Bar. He has been writing for various publications for more than 20 years and has authored several books.
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
