Pakistan and India had reached a near agreement in 1992 on the Siachen dispute after Islamabad assented to recording the existing troop positions in an annex, but the deal was never operationalised because the Indian political leadership developed cold feet.
Pakistan Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said recently that it was time the two countries resolved the dispute. He said this during a visit to the region after an avalanche earlier this year on the Pakistani side killed more than 100 soldiers and civilians.
The text of the 1992 negotiating drafts — obtained and reproduced by The Hindu — shows just how close the two sides were to such a resolution two decades ago: the Pakistani delegation offered a proposal that met India's demand of recording existing ground positions before withdrawal of troops from a proposed zone of disengagement.
The talks that year, the sixth round both countries had held on the issue, took place in New Delhi from November 2-6, 1992.
Pakistan's proposal of indicating in an annexure the areas the armed forces of the two sides would vacate and redeploy to found immediate acceptance among Indian officials. The Indian delegation was led by N.N. Vohra, then the defence secretary. “We had finalized the text of an agreement at Hyderabad House by around 10 pm on the last day”, Mr. Vohra, who is now the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, told The Hindu. “Signing was set for 10 am. But later that night, instructions were given to me not to go ahead the next day but to conclude matters in our next round of talks in Islamabad in January 1993”. “Of course, that day never came”, Mr. Vohra added. “That's the way these things go,” he said.
Narasimha Rao was Prime Minister at the time and the BJP's campaign against the Babri Masjid was in high gear. Siachen quickly receded from the government's list of priorities.
The 1949 ceasefire agreement delineated the Line of Control until point NJ9842, after which, it said, it would run “thence north to the glaciers”. In 1984, fearful of adverse Pakistani moves, Indian soldiers moved north and eventually occupied most of the highest points on the glaciers. The ‘Siachen conflict' was born.
The Indian side's proposal dated November 3, 1992 contained the following elements: delineation of the Line of Control north of NJ 9842; redeployment of troops on both sides to agreed positions, but after demarcating their existing positions; a zone of disengagement subsequent to the redeployment, with both sides committing that they would not seek to intrude into this zone; a monitoring mechanism to maintain the peace in the ZoD.
Pakistan's proposal was as follows: Both sides would vacate their troops from the triangular area between Indira Col in the west, Karakoram Pass in the east and NJ 9842; troops on both sides would withdraw to a point south of NJ 9842, to the pre-1972 Simla Agreement positions; neither side shall attempt to alter the status of the demilitarised triangle pending delineation of the LoC north of NJ 9842 by a joint commission.
The refusal to authenticate ground positions and the reference to Karakoram Pass — a point well to the east of NJ9842 and a red rag to the Indians — led to an impasse. As a way out, the Pakistani side, led by its defence secretary, offered the following compromise: “The armed forces of the two sides shall vacate areas and re-deploy as indicated in the annexure. The positions vacated would not for either side constitute a basis for legal claim or justify a political or moral right to the area indicated”.
Mr. Vohra said that by the time the talks concluded, an agreement had been reached which fully adhered to the Indian negotiating brief of troop positions being recorded one way or the other and that the Pakistani proposal that the LoC would run to the Karakoram Pass had been dropped. But the agreement was never signed.
In 2005, the two sides were once again said to be nearing agreement to demilitarize the region, but the deal fell through — Pakistan was no longer interested in demarcating the ground positions. After Pakistan's Kargil adventurism, such a demarcation became for the Indian side a non-negotiable, especially to the Indian Army, along with a mechanism to monitor any intrusions into a demilitarized zone in the Siachen region.
On Monday, the two countries will hold yet another round of talks on Siachen with no sign of a softening of attitudes on either side.
Keywords: Siachen glacier, Indo-Pak ties, bilateral relations, Siachen dispute, Pakistan Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, negotiating drafts
Any bilateral issues with Pakistan needs to be dealt with utmost care. the time has to close this disputes once and for all without compromising India's interests. this can only be done by the political class who truly loves this country. I appeal to all my country men to be alert, vigilant and ensure that we do not goof up again and regret later.
Whom to consider? Pakis,their generous thoughts & conduct!! Will it
really be DMZ? or express way from PoK to South-West china.
Whats the guarantee that Pakis wont donate other side of land to china
and make this Ind-China conflict, also, how many times pakis attacked
Hindustan against India doing it?
No deal with Pakistan whatsoever as long as Jehadi and anti-India terrorists are roaming free in that country. Pakistan can NOT be trusted. Army controls everything and civilian govt is a mere facade.
Pakistan can be trusted only when it openly expresses its regret for Militancy in Kashmir ,its training of Militants in camps in Pakistan ,hands over those undergoing training in terrorist activities in Kashmir and hands over Sayeed & Dawood for the their war against India.Any thing short of this by India is clear betrayal of valient soldiers who lost ther lives in Kashmir; the human tragedy in Bombay due to Mumbai Attack by Kasab etc.
Pakistan insisting that India is the aggressor in moving west of NJ9842 is laughable. They should be reminded that the UN has declared Pakistan the aggressor in the entire region of POK which includes Siachen. I see many so called legal experts from the US and Europe blaming India for moving west of NJ9842 and I see a hidden motive in them. Legally and morally speaking, Pakistan has to move out of POK and then raise the issue of human rights in the erstwhile J&K. Unless the LOC is demarcated north of NJ9842 to India's favour, it gets no rationale to move out of Siachen.
There has always been a wide gap between what Pakistani politicians, diplomats and military say and act. Pakistani diplomatic steps, sometimes,are quagmire of tragedy and an act to show itself an ambassador of peace for the civil population of both the countries, particularly the Kasmiris, both sides of the LOC. New claim is one of the incident of such an act when during 90s cross border infiltration and pakistani sponsored terrorism in kashmir was peaking up. Probably an act to mask their failure in OP MEGHDOOT of Indians during the said years.
To add we can also consider the importance of the 'area in consideration'. The River Indus originates from the Siachen glaciers. Which might have created discomfort among the Pakistan Govt. If a disaster situation might come up then lets face it we can bring down the country by diverting theindus river. I mean utilising its power by diverting its course towards us is a very far fetched idea but manipulating its course to destroy the already existing settlements at its banks is a feasible option.
Probably I am being too simplistic here, however, I feel if there is a genuine will on both sides to demilitarise the zones, then it can be done. Why not create a border in the siachen region along the current LOC and then deploy surveillance cameras to monitor infiltration activities, if at all it occurs. This should be done by both the sides. Both sides can keep their armies in such a position that they can be quickly deployed whenever the other side breaches the greement.
There is no habitation in this area and pakistanis will not be able provide any excuse if they try to infiltrate. Moreover, having cameras will lead to documented proof for international community. I am sure spending on surveillance cameras and monitoring them is much better than keeping men in such an inhospitable conditions and risking their lives.
Why is Pakistan desperate for Siachen withdrawal by India? Why the socalled western oriented think tanks talk about the done deal? More people die due to cold weather, no grass grows etc etc?Why Pakistan under Musharaff immediately started Kargil to effect Siachen withdrawal? Why Karakoram is important as Daulat Beg oldi post of India is located there and also Karakoram highway linking so called Azad Kashmir with China is being constructed.If Siachen is part of Kashmir, then why India should withdraw from its own territory without overall settlement of Kashmir?
Opponent of Indian Army's point of view say that Siachen has no strategic value! Then the question arises 'why Pakistan is so much trying for removal of Indian army from the location? Actually Siachen has a very high 'Moral boosting' value in addition to importance of its location. Once Indian leave the location, then they are agreeing that it is disputed site and in case Pakistan occupies afterward( which is comparatively easy for them) then we will be just left to begging , as we are begging for action against Hafiz Sayed. so we should never leave Siachen and stop discussing with any other government on the issue. It is hoped that our politicians' hold their habit of capitulating to pressure and non-army 'experts' ; stop misguiding governemnt and people of India.
The examples of past does not inspire any confidence and in warfare, height is a crucial advantage. India should not relinquish or accept any un-reasonable demands of pakistan under any international pressure even if it comes at a cost of few millions per annum. It will be tantamount to shooting oneself in foot.
Thank God this agreement was never concluded. Let us hope we are a bit wiser after Kargil in 1998 and Mumbai 2008. These bilateral agreements are an utter waste since Pakistan will allow China to occupy any area they vacate and our diplomats will be clueless about how to act in that event.
See the Indian Politicians and their Inefficiency; Governments are playing who is suffering.............civilians
I think it is a huge waste of goodwill that can emerge with PAKISTAN to avoid settling this issue once and for all. Neither country is gaining anything by not settling this issue.
Such strategic position cannot be left and de-militarize with such kind neighbor is very risky.
Political situation in Pakistan and level of dependency on their Military make things challenging.
Indian forces will be subjected to harshest and hostile climate, but I don't think at this point of time we have a choice.
Leaving Siachen should be thought of only when
a. India spends more on electronic surveillance.
b. Enhancing Rapid deployment.
c. Intelligence.
Till this in my opinion let things be as they are
The following language in the agreement 'The armed forces of the two sides shall vacate areas and re-deploy as indicated in the annexure. The positions vacated would not for either side constitute a basis for legal claim or justify a political or moral right to the area indicated'.should have been unacceptable to India as all the vacation of territory is being done by India and almost none by Pakistan. It was India again , unilaterally giving up territory it controls and was being hoodwinked again.
First the cease fire line (CFL) and later the line of control(LOC), both are the outcome of battles fought by India and Pakistan. In no way the line now separating the two armies along the Saltoro ridge is different save for the fact that there is no mutually agreed or enforced through international recognition. Demilitarization, now being demanded on environmental consideration is somewhat justifiable but certainly not on grounds, such as, that deployment does not make strategic, military or economic sense. India accused Pakistan of agression in Jammu & Kashmir and now Pakistan accuses India of agression in the Saltoro-Siachen area. Why shouldn't the actual ground position line (AGPL)be given the same status and recognition as the CFL/LOC? If Pakistan has any reservations in this regard, then it must be, because it harbours some ulterior motives. If India had gone back on a finalized agreement in 1992 so did Pakistan on the more comprehensive agreement worked out by Musharraf in 2005.
It is amazing to see that politicians never try to resolve any issue in the living memory of India, post independence. Be it the border dispute with Pakistan or China, or internal disputes ranging from Kashmir issue to Naxalites to Reservation or even Ayodhya dispute. Wow. They keep all the issues smoldering and as and when need arises, just give a little blow and it will start to burn with a great fire. May be, I must join politics to understand the driving force among politicians to never solve any problem at all. I must salute them for their abject careless behavior and lackadaisical attitude towards any problem our country might have. Truly, India Incredible.
Demilitarization of Siachin would be like serving it to pakis on a platter..Possession of Siachin will diretly link Pok with south eastern china giving Pakistan a huge tactical if not strategic advantage.. Given their levels of desperation for acquiring siachin(87,89,92,95 and uptill early 99')through skirmishes..can we really trust them?? our peace doves must be really cautious..
India should not enter any deal on Siachen unless Indian army's concerns are fully addressed. When Pakistan does another Kargil it is the army jawans like Lt. Saurav Kalia who would be at the end of the receiving end, not Manmohan Singh or AK Antony. PM Manmohan Singh do well to not succumb to the temptations of Nobel Peace prize etc to blunder into a deal to bail out the diminishing options of Pak army after the Gyari avalanche incident.
India must make its point resolutely and tell Pakistan that it's now or never. The problem is Pakistan and not India. While India is pre-occupied with its own issues both internal and external, the evil doers in Pakistan are plotting terror and other distraction that is not conducive to good neighbourly relation. How can, we the citizen of India trust the government of Paksitan if subterfuge, lies and deceit are its norm? Though it is a signatory of Shimla agreement after its monumental defeat it never believed in it. And, if Shimla agreement is the basis of any future understanding, Gentleman, this is no go! I am really worried that India is being hoodwinked by its reckless neighbour and we still dealing with them.
When Pakistan still continues to occupy peaks it grabbed during the Kargill invasion, then why are we considering any Pakistani demands on Siachen? Let them first give back the peaks they took in 1999.
The politicians and diplomats are wasting tax payers' money all the way. These people are not at all willing to solve the problems. They just want the issues to be kept alive. They will raise these issues whenever the time is right for them. Otherwise how will they ever survive in politics without any issues.
There is little sense in vacating the heigh points gained in Siachin, as Pakis cant be trusted. Also, the suffering due to economic / resources burden of Siachin war like situation, will have much more adverse effect on Pak than India. As a country, India can easily afford Siachin, and every effort should be made to make it unaffordable for Pakistan.
The Pakistanis used many such contradicting clauses in the Simla Agreement to develop loopholes. An Indian diplomat's nightmare is to repeat the Simla deal where Mrs Gandhi accepted Bhutto's word that he will convert the LOC to a border but reneged on his promise after he went back to Pakistan.
Please Email the Editor