The 1992 draft agreement for demilitarising the glacier must be revived
A textual analysis of the drafts presented by India and Pakistan during the talks on the Siachen issue in New Delhi in November 1992 reveals how a virtually done deal on this costly dispute was scuttled exactly 20 years ago. The Hindu could not have published them at a more opportune time (June 10, 2012). On April 18, 2012, Pakistan's Army Chief, General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, referred to the several rounds of talks since and said, “You know that they were close to a solution but then nothing came out of it. We want this issue to be resolved and it should happen. It is a tough mission for us and them, which has its costs.” In sum, he is prepared for a settlement — based necessarily on a fair compromise.
That was precisely what the 1992 drafts and the unsigned agreement that followed had ensured. Initially, each side's offer was a non-starter. Pakistan proposed an upturned demilitarised triangle — marked by Indira Col in the northwest; point NJ9842, where the Line of Control (LoC) ends in the south, and the Karakoram Pass in the northeast. A joint commission would delineate the LoC beyond NJ9842 after the troops withdrawal.
India agreed to the delineation of the LoC, but insisted on the definition of “existing positions” of both sides and the places where they would deploy. The area so vacated would be “a Zone of Disengagement” bounded by the specified “existing positions.”
Amended offer
Faced with deadlock, Pakistan amended its offer to read: “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 a legal claim or justify a political or moral right to the area indicated. The delineation of the LoC from point NJ9842 to the Karakoram Pass will form part of the comprehensive settlement to follow the re-deployment of troops.” According to Indian negotiators, the idea that the delineated LoC must end up at the Karakoram Pass was not pressed by the Pakistani side.
Now, surely to specify existing points to be vacated and record them in an annex is to “authenticate” them. This does not differ from India's draft, which provided: “India: The Indian Army shall vacate their existing positions at … and … redeploy at … Pakistan: The Pak. Army shall vacate their existing positions at … and … redeploy at …”
Pakistan's revised proposal fully met India's insistence on authentication of existing positions. The deal was struck between India's delegation, led by its Defence Secretary at the time, N.N. Vohra, and his Pakistani counterpart. The then Foreign Secretary J.N. Dixit repeatedly testified to the accord in public. Matters did not end there. In the technical talks that followed thereafter, it was agreed that: (1) India would withdraw to Dzingrulma and Pakistan to Goma, at the base of the Bilaford Glacier; and (2) surveillance was to be conducted by helicopter.
On January 24, 1994, India confirmed in a non-paper to Pakistan that in 1992 “a broad understanding had been reached on disengagement and redeployment, monitoring, maintenance of peace and implementation schedule. … Both sides agreed that to reduce tension in Siachen, the two sides shall disengage from authenticated positions they are presently occupying and shall fall back to positions as under: …” Ancillary details were set out.
P.V. Narasimha Rao scuttled the deal in 1992. Benazir Bhutto followed suit in 1994, resiling from the concession on authentication. She denied the agreement and cited, instead, the India-Pakistan Joint Statement on June 17, 1989, which India had earlier resiled from: “There was agreement by both sides … on redeployment of forces … The future positions on the ground so as to conform with the Simla Agreement … the Army authorities of both sides will determine these positions.”
At that time, in 1989, Pakistan's Foreign Secretary, Humayun Khan, had told the media the accord envisaged relocation of forces “to positions occupied at the time of the Simla Agreement.” India's Foreign Secretary at the time, S.K. Singh, said he would “endorse everything [Humayun Khan] has said.” The very next day, however, the Ministry of External Affairs was instructed to deny the deal. The then Army Chief insisted in the talks being held on July 10, 1989, that existing positions be identified. An effort was made during Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's visit to Islamabad on July 16, 1989, to resolve the deadlock by extending the LoC northwards. India's offer, described by Iqbal Akhund, Pakistan's National Security Adviser, was a fair one. The line “should run due north, that is, up to the Chinese border in a ruler-straight line,” dividing the zone. But nothing came of it.
‘Peace mountain'
From 1985, the basis of all the parleys was mutual withdrawal. On July 18, 1998, Defence Minister George Fernandes subverted it. “India needs to hold on to Siachen both for strategic reasons and wider security in the region.” None of the Prime Ministers or Defence Ministers had made such a claim before.
Lt.Gen. M.L. Chibber, former GoC-in-C Northern Army Command, who was responsible for planning and mounting Operation Meghdoot on April 13, 1984, in Siachen, emphatically declared, “Siachen does not have any strategic significance. The strategic importance being talked about is all invention.”
Mr. Fernandes' stand wrecked the talks on Siachen held on November 6, 1998. The DGMO, Lt.Gen. Inder K. Verma, dutifully declared that day, “How can you ask us to vacate this position? We don't care either about money or the number of casualties we suffer.” But, of course, this violates the Simla Agreement. It says, “Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter this position.”
Hopes were revived when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told the jawans at the Siachen base camp on June 12, 2005 that “the world's highest battlefield” should be converted into a “peace mountain.” He added: “Now the time has come that we make efforts that this is converted from a point of conflict to a symbol of peace.” In the talks with Pakistan, he said, “the security of our nation would be kept in mind.”
The then Army Chief, Gen. J.J. Singh, who had mounted a campaign on Siachen, said on June 21, 2005, “We have given our viewpoint to the government on converting the Saltoro ridge and the glacier into a demilitarised zone.” He spelt out two demands — authentication of existing positions and a monitoring mechanism. Ironically, on November 4, 1992, both these demands had already been conceded.
Trust is a political decision for the highest leadership to take, based inter alia on military advice. No government can allow a veto to the army.
The last paragraph of India's non-paper of January 24, 1994, said, “An Indian delegation at Defence Secretary level is willing to visit Islamabad in February 1994 with a view to negotiate a formal agreement on Siachen on the basis of the agreement reached (in 1992).” Now, 18 years later, India should revive that offer and put the sad episode behind us.
Gen. Kayani hinted at much more than a Siachen settlement. He said that “peaceful coexistence is necessary for both countries. There is no doubt about that.” This explains Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar's repeated statement that “we are not going to be bogged down by an older mindset.” This is precisely the impression this writer formed in February from extensive interviews with officials, diplomats and others in Islamabad. Centuries ago Demosthenes said: “In important transactions, opportunities are fleeting; once missed they cannot be recovered.” Only Prime Minister Singh's visit to Pakistan can shape the relationship for a promising future.
(A.G. Noorani is a lawyer, author and commentator. His latest book, Article 370: A Constitutional History of Jammu and Kashmir, was published by Oxford University Press in 2011.)
Keywords: Siachen issue, Indo-Pak ties, bilateral relations, General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, 1992 Siachen draft
I cannot believe that in the name of Freedom of expression "The Hindu" is publishing such an article. I wonder what the author knows about geo-politics. Is this an issue between just Pakistan and India? What about China? What about the land ceded to China, illegally by Pakistan?
Does any of the the author's family members serve in the armed forces? What is the opinion of the armed forces that are at the forefront of the security of this ingrateful nation (I mean from top to bottom)? A nation that does not respect it's Jawan aur Kissan will do so at it's own peril.
My humble suggestion is that "The Hindu" should clearly establish criteria of scholarship for specific topics and qualify authors for specific subject matter before accepting articles for publishing.
The pakistan army should not only vacate from Siachen , but also from the entire PoK. This is their opportunity for honourable exit. The will of the majority of Indian citizens will prevail and they will be wiped out from the state of Jammu & Kashmir.
I hope any decision by the government is in line with that of the people of India. The people of India DO NOT trust Pakistan and DO NOT want to leave any inch of the motherland without protection. Its insulting and demeaning to throw away the efforts of our soldiers, just to pamper those responsible for killing our citizens.
Mr Noorani always potrays India as a villian citing carefully selective references and quotes while ignoring so many others that say opposite of what he wants to say. This is not fair. He has quoted someone meaning Siachin has no strategic significance. If so why not Pakistan agrees to AGPL, Delineation and demarcation ? or withdraw unilaterally and let India suffer loss of men and money ???? Why did they actually made many unsuccessful attempts to dislodge Indian army ? What India is going to get in return for surrendering its advantage ? Noble peace prize for Dr Manmohan Singh ? and pehaps Mr Zardari ? No thanks.
Of course, I understand Mr. A.G. Noorani’s and also Mr. N.Ram’s
eagerness for a “deal” with the Pakistanis over the Siachen in
central Kashmir. The whole endeavour is to subverse the purpose of
the Chinese. They would aspire for the legitimisation of Pakistan’s
illegal occupation of a part of Kashmir in order to legitimise the
illegal secession of a part of Kashmir by the Pakistanis extending
from Shimshal in the interior of Kashmir to the Kukalang Pass on the
Kuen Lun range in northern Kashmir wherein is situate the Hindutash
Pass in north eastern Kashmir. It is amazing and incredible how after,
presenting a plethora of evidence in his book, pertaining to the
fact that the Kuen Lun range is an inalienable and integral part of
Kashmir at the time of the commencement of the Constitution of India,
this scholar Mr. A.G. Noorani laments that India missed an
“opportunity” for a “fair” border agreement with the Chinese
occupying Tibet and East Turkistan!
Pakistan wants India to surrender its strategic military advantage. Some Indians, "secularists" like MR Noorani, want the same. Pathetic!
what should be the basis of the Indian trust? 1948,1965,1971,1989,1999, 2006, 2008 are all fresh in memory. with all the betrayals, how can we trust pakistan? Also Mr.Noorani, any govt can ignore its own army at its own peril. you think Pak would press for a settlement of the issue if it were not for its recent problems there? ultimately the question is: peace at what cost? the article and the publication of a related news item preceding it in the Hindu, seems to be a calculated exercise in giving advantage to the Pakistani side when its morale and negotiating strength are low following the recent loss of lives in an avalanche. with pakistan one even tends to suspect whether that was also an orchestrated incident to force India to negotiate on the basis of 1992 drafts. also only one mention of pakistan scuttling the accord, otherwise, the article is a story of scuttling by various indian officials or politicians. what kind of propaganda exercise is this?
Weak leadership and indecisiveness had cost dearly dearly both
countries.Military jawans are the worst sufferers and taxpayers are
fooled as military expenditure sours up to provide chapati costing appx
Rs 500 to jawans guarding insignificant military strategic point on
mercy of nature.This applies to the leadership of both countries.
Military can't have veto but their sufferings mustn't be ignored due to
political lethargy.
Pakistan has deceived India numerous times in the past. Kargil was a masterpiece conceived by the Pak Army that almost succeeded. That country continues to send terrorists trained and equipped by it to destabilise India. It's stated policy is to tear India apart. It is good that the Indian military has so far resisted pressure put by the politicians who play vote-bank politics. Initially, India lost a lot of people defending Siachin. Now with better equipment and infrastructure, defending Siachin is not as much of a problem as it was before. However, Siachen is bleeding Pakistan and there is no reason why India should help them without making sure to the satisfaction of the Indian military that it will not use the opportunity to occupy Siachin and create trouble for India as happened in Kargil.
Both countries must reach an agreement because of two reasons:
1) There is no need to shed innocent blood in the name of country securtiy if the goal can be achieved otherwisw.
2) In order to maintain a military base at such an altitude, you are bound to destruct the ecological balance of that area. And sadly in the course of time no one but India and Pakistan will have to regret for that.
maintain a joint-mechnanism to monitor the zone on frequnt basis and share the results, discuss it and then take necessary action is required.
I question the sincerity of the author of this article Mr. A.G Noorani. It is pakistan who is in a hurry to clear this issue. India want to stay put so that it can monitor the Pakistan-China through the Karakoram Highway. India is at advantage and pakistan wants to convert its dis-advantage. Pakistan should come to the table withl all the issue, not with half heart.
I have a question. It is all right that Indian and Pakistani armies withdraw from their present positions after they have authenticated the present lines of occupation. After that the place will be a demilitarized place. What is there to prevent the Chinese from just walking in unopposed?
We all know the Pakistan-China nexus. It is possible that all Pakistani suggestions at present are intended to encourage India to leave its present position in Siachen and to enable the Chinese to take over.
In my view, India should not withdraw from Siachen. The present position should be maintained.
V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, India, 11 Jun 2012, 1814
Articles such as these are dangerous. When we have burnt our fingers with Pakistan time and again, when they wantonly kill our civilians in terrorist attacks and when militarily they have repeatedly violated our trust (classic case-Kargil); views such as those expressed in this article defy logic.
Siachin dispute aside, it is interesting to observe here an absolute
unanimity in views expressed in the comments. I doubt if similar
unanimity exists in Pakistan for a counter interpretation of Siachin
dispute and its solution.
All extreme climate posts are usually punishment locations for the out-laws within the establishment. There's nothing to worry about. Let the status-quo continue.
Why point out that "No government can allow a veto to the Army"?
Since independence the government has not based the political decision based on military advice but in the name of civil supremacy made the defence tow the line taken by the bureaucrats". The Indian Armed Forces has never flexed their muscle or vocally voiced their resentment to Govt decisions irrespective of their advice being accepted or not, " Ours is to reason not...... into the valley of death marched the mighty......."
However, it will be better if the political leadership based their decisions on military advice and avoid blunders like 1962, IPKF, Kargil etc. Too much meddling into defence forces, demeaning the rank structure, intervention in promotions and trying to put in weak leaders as puppets, will go a long way to boost the defence of the nation.
Lastly the advisor to the political boss should be direct and not through the breaucrats who are habitual in manipulation.
I totally disagree with the author and agree with one of the comments
made above by shrish.Pakistan army can never be trusted .Though Siachen
mission costs us in terms of Men and Money ,we must do it for the sake
of geographical advantage and our territorial security.
Noorani has been expounding the paki point of view for decades.Nothing surprising in this one.
Pakistan wants to achieve three things - first, ability to redeploy its units from Siachen to Pathan tribal areas and reduce costs; second, to secure the safety of the land link with China; third, an easy opportunity to later begin to let 'infiltration' by tribal lashkars an regular Pak Army units to get back some of the commanding heights India has secured at the cost of hundreds of its brave armymen's lives. Pakistan government and army have an unenviable record of lies, suppression of facts and double-dealing that even the Americans are now tired of.
India must keep pressure on Pakistan at all fronts, especially with US-NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan looming, to give Pakistan the flexibility to invest its resources in controlling the destiny of Pakistan will be an act of as big a folly as letting go of Gilgit in 1948, of accepting Chinese claim over Tibet and not driving the Pakistanis out of J&K fully.
Siachen is a key strategic point that India holds, and it is this very fact that we are there gives us one point of military advantage over both Pakistan and China. We know for a fact that the Chinese army is in Gilgit & Baltistan, the restive province under Pak occupation. Do Indian secret services know what the ChinPak are doing. In addition, there is nothing to give up. How and why does one give up which by any definition belongs to us. The whole of J&K belongs to India and it was forceably occupied by Pakistani aggression. they then failed to follow the UN resolution to the letter. Instead they embarked on wars and terror. Are we now saying, we should give into aggression & terror and abandon our constitunitional position and indeed the international position. This is just illogical. If we walk away from Siachen, we are basically saying that Pakistan has a legitimate claim to whole of J&K. And if we do give it up, what will the agreement read?
Facts stand as follows:
1. Siachen has NO strategic value, Our hard earned money is being blown away in that wasteland.
2. Withdrawal will be great political victory, our claim of being peaceful, adjusting nation will be reaffirmed.
3. Pakistani betrayal similar to Kargil is nigh impossible owing to availability of satellite imagery n all d high-tech
4. n if Pakistan betrays, there can b no bigger blessing.. Let them have siachen, I mean what r they gonna do wid it :).. We shud in dat case go to war in Punjab n Kashmir n resolve Kashmir dispute forever..
The question is why should we solve the Siachen issue? Is it in the strategic interests of India to solve this issue? has the intention of Pakistan to damage India changed? Has Pakistan punished the mumbai killers? Has Pakistan closed down the militant camps in Muzzafarabad? has pakistan dont anything to ease Indian concerns? the answer to all this is NO. Then why should we demilitraze Siachen? It would only lead to freeing up of Pakistani recsources from the waste in Siachen and use in other parts on the border . may be it will deploy the same soldiers in kashmir to help infiltration. We as a nation with high GDP growth cannot afford to let our security be threatened. No giving up on Siachen or Sir Creek or even Kashmir. I have read Mr. Nooranis articles in Dawn too. He is highly biased and por Pakistan. Wonder what he is doing in India?
AG Noorani is a very learned scholar, but unfortunately he lacks
the ability to see things in the right perspective.its one thing
to provide details of a particular event or history,where Noorani
has sound footing, but it is altogether different to analyse the
information gathered and comment on its implications,its here
that Noorani lacks credentials, plus his biased attitude cloud his
impartial thinking. Coming to the topic,when India has strategic
advantage it should take much more than an appeal by pak generals for India to let go its position of advantage. its only India that is occupying Siachen, Pak is at the best 4-5 km away from it.and what stops Pak from authenticating the established
position with international guarantees.do we need go farther than Kargil to be aware of Pak's lack of honesty??
These proposals have come at a time when US has been cutting down financial aids to Pakistan. It clearly shows the reason behind such statements made by Pakistan to demilitarize the glacier.
How DID noorani leave out the fact that Indian Army wants pak to validate AGPL
(Where indian ground positions exist) today? But pak unwilling to sign document.
With that and absence of trust (Kargil) how can this ever happen? Especially when
siachen can be used by the chinese as well.
demilitarization is not the solution, instead of this, armored forces deterred the war. in the glance to past. Rhinde valley demilitarisation in germany forced germans to come back and fight for the lose terrain. kargil war is the another hoax example. in this situation, keep aside this matter and focus on the economy.
Do not believe Pakistan in this regard. We must not concede our territory for the safety of Pakistan.Already Pakistan has annexed part of kashmir which is called POK.The Pak which is so anxious of its troops, why not concede the same land once far all to India as it is part of J&K.It will be freed permanently from guarding this area and can save its army.I remember when Chinese aggression took place in 1962 in Ladakh and other parts of India, Nehru said that land is desert not a inch of grass grows there .Then Ram Manohar Lohia in parliament immediately quipped and said "our head is also bald and not a single hair grows there. So do not go for any agreement/compromise with Pak with regard to Siachen.It may also be noted that the Pakistan which is ruling POK has donated part of Gilgit area to China to lay a road, instead China laying ciruitous route to reach its territory across Gilgit on border to Tibet.
It is the North India which bears the brunt for anti-India activities carried out by Pak be it pain of partition, monthly bomb blasts, Punjab terrorism, Kargil or other sub-versions, I don't think a predominantly south India news paper will/can have the sensibilities and understand north's pain. hence they still believe in what a habitual liar Pak says.
Demilitarization is a perfect concept on paper, to execute it in
reality is another thing altogether. Even if the two armies were to
withdraw, who would monitor the areas? If India were to try, Pakistan
would cry hoarse that India is making a move. The International
community has not even taken cognizance of Pakistan's transgressions
in 1999. If they were to do it post demilitarization, who would take
them to task? Also, considering Sino-Pak relationships, vacating the
Glacier is just paving the path for China to strengthen its presence
in the area. I understand the plight of soldiers posted at Siachen but
unless the entire Kashmir issue can be resolved, vacating Siachen is
just not an option. Any military strategist will tell you that. It is
easier to propose plans sitting in comfortable offices without knowing
the ground situation!
In general this article is keeping in line with the other - testing the water - type articles in the media on siachen. No country gives off it's territory; we would be a fool if we did and that too to Pakistan. Period.
Noorani writes an interesting articles in paki based Dawn newspaper albeit with a contrasting positions.
The author writes -"Trust is a political decision for the highest leadership to take"
The author is totally wrong here - trust cannot be deceided upon, it has to be built over the years by ones conduct. And i am afraid to say Pakistan is not at all trust-worthy, and over the years pakistan has re-affirmed this time and again. For pakistan to gain trust of Indian people it has to behave and conduct itself in a trust-worthy manner for some considerable time in future So pls. don't push your agenda using fancy quotes, the easiest way is to gain Indian people's trust. Pls. convey this to yours contacts across the border.
Well, I do not agree to the statement that Siachen has no significant
strategic value. Pakistan (and India)'s stakes are both the same in
Siachen; and in fact is also China's. Whoever controls the peaks
running down on Nubra and Shyok rivers will ultimately control the
Indus water system. In addition, Siachen is so close to Karakkoram
pass and possibly the only "mirror" to Indian forces. By controlling
Siachen, you get a direct view of POK and Aksai Chin control bases.
India's standpoint that the ground position must be first demarcated
is only legitimate because currently it is India is controlling the
Glaciers. Total demilitarization of Siachen also offers China a
"backdoor entry" which is in Pakistan and China's interests. Given
the nature of geopolitics, I do not see a demilitarization of Siachen
happening in the foreseeable future, unless the actual ground
positions are demarcated and taken into account in the whole gamut of
discussions.
After all, George Fernandes had a point. The relevance of Siachen is
not as a 'battlefield' but as a 'bone' of contention between the two
rivals. Neither side is 'firing' shots or killing people there but
merely 'holding on' to their positions. People are being killed by
Nature!
The arguments favouring a withdrawal will hold more practicality if it
were the only 'bone' to be wrested and secured. Unfortunately, there
are numerous 'bones' all along the LOC and even more, scattered all
across India! This 'bone' in Siachen is draining all the strength off
both the parties, but a 'bone' it is, after all, at the end of the
day!
Pakistan's talk of peace and demilitarisation now has its basis on the
hundred odd soldiers of theirs currently buried in the region,
following the avalanche. Our hearts go out to them, and to our own,
serving and dead there, but the 'bone' will continue to be in
contention until, at least as long as all the other 'bones' are.
Great ! World should NOT learn from us how to make self goals. This article tells us to make another self goal. Let us not forget that Pakistan's military has done Kargil and Mumbai attacks. They have successfully made Siachen a disputed issue. let us not fall prey to the Pakistan propoganda and be victim of Pak peace offensive. Recently they have gone back on Visa agreement. They are talking of peace only because they are really cornered from all sides and become like North Korea. Once they are out of trouble they will recapture siachen . Let us not give Siachen and we should stop talking of Siachen and talk of POK and the condition of poor people of Occupied Kashmir in Baltistan , Gilgit area. it is the duty of THE HINDU to publish article on" why we should not leave Siachen"
Mr. Noorani, although you have carefully written this article to make
it look un-biased,I am skeptical if there is a hidden agenda behind
your article. I can't help but notice your attempts to camouflage your
pro-hurriyat, pro-pak opinions towards Siachen/Kashmir. I myself am a
staunch advocate of peaceful co-existence. However,your arguments
would have held water had Pakistan army not been
mis-adventurous in 1999 (Kargil). The trust-deficit as a result of
Kargil conflict has permanently jeopardized any
demilitarization/boundary agreement possibility between the two
countries. You make it sound as if a)India is solely responsible for
the 1992 deal falling through and b)the ball is completely in India's
court. I do not agree with either of them. Pakistan is an equal
stakeholder in any sort of agreement in the Siachen issue and both
sides need to indulge in numerous confidence building measures before
thinking about any deal.
If we believed every statement a Pakistani General makes, Kashmir would have been part of Pakistan long ago !. The author makes several statements in his essay which can be euphemistically be termed as "misquotes", including on what was agreed on in the 1994 discussions.
To nurture bonding between India & Pakistan, each one has to come
out of larval stance. Both should not bog down not only in Siachen
issue, but also exterminate other bilateral as well as regional
issue. I believe demilitarization is the only solution also same has
been covered in the 1992 draft. So both governments have to abide by
the draft.
This is not the time to reprimand each one on various matter, rather
they should work on solution that marred issues that deter and
cripple both countries’ effort. Now this is the time to think for
bilateral ties to make improve bilateral trade between them and both
must work on to curb internal issue and think for economy, which is
currently biggest challenge.
Let the UPA go a bit slow on this Siachan issue. The sacrifices we have
made on this front in the past years cannot be given up merely because
the Pakistani General wants to come out of a difficult situation. There
are other more pressing issues which Pakistan should give due and
greater consideration. For the UPA II too, there are more pressing issues
vis a vis Pakistan and on the eastern front too especially with the
opening of Myanmar. Let us not hurry in on the Siachen front merely to
satisfy the Pak General.
The fifth columnists are alive and well in India. Is it to soon to forget the genocide of 71, the treachery of Kargil, the subversion of Punjab, or the activation of communalism in Kashmir? For there to be trust, Pakistan must demonstrate with its actions that this time it is irrevocably committed to peace. Words and agreements are not enough.
The Ball is in Pakistan's court. They have this unreasonable
position of not accepting LAC on Siachen. When the entire LAC in
J&K can be accepted and authenticated without any decision on the
dispute, what is the issue in accepting Siachen LAC ?
As usual, Pakistan started the problem (by first sending mountaineering expeditions) and creating new issues, by refusing to authenticate LAC.
Pakistan needs to be given iron clad assurances that it will not
violate the glacier again, with penalties specified clearly (need
to be big enough to deter the likes of Army/ISI/LeT triumvirate.
It is not India's problem to ensure that Pakistan gets something
out of this. They already got enough by their territorial &
demographic Invasion of Pakistan occupied Kashmir. When will they
stop coveting other's territory ?
Siachen's strategic significant for India to not just walk away.
I never understood The Hindu's obsession with Mr AG Noorani who has long history of being biased. He has fabricated his own history of J&K Issue wherein he has used a microscope to magnify an ant projecting it as the largest animal and not looking at the elephant.
It is such a pity that Pakistan has roped in so many so called experts to put pressure on India. The point that these voices conveniently overlook is that dimilitarization of Siachin Glacier cannot be seen in isolation from overall strategic and security environment prevailing in that part of South Asia. He also makes no mention of Pakistan-China close cooperation in that area and history of Pakistan's hysterical obsession with coming out with the most outlandish but very dangerous ideas. Kargil is just an example of those outlandish idea.Pakistan army is the last institution that any right thinking person would ever trust. He should have a look at fate of US trust in Pakistan army as an ally. It doesn't inspire confidence. It is very easy to come out with nice sounding ideas but the real world is very dangerous. Better safe than sorry. I disagree with Mr Noorani.
Two risks confront Siachen resolution. Siachen dispute is the unresolved component in Shimla agreement. Kargil happened because General Musharraf rejected Shimla agreement. Unless Shimla agreement is reiterated there is no legal basis for resolving Siachen dispute.
Further, safeguarding against Chinese troop movement to POK region for
access to Pakistan and Aghanistan, as reported by senior officers, is
the second risk which needs to be addressed. Success of Pakistan in
mitigating these risks shall reveal their true intent. Seen from this
perspective Siachen resolution would require dilution of Sino-Pak axis
hence China would certainly undermine.
Therefore Pakistan would need iron-clad assurance from India to risk
such dilution. Hence India could be cause of failure as well. Siachen
resolution would be welcomed by developed democracies while failure of
the talks is likely to accentuate polarization of the region.
During the Talks held in 1992, Pakistan asked for the de-militarizing the zone of Siachen, Later when India Specified its Stand to authenticate the positions. How can it ask to extend the LOC till the Karakoram Pass, and it is being a lot mischevious here. It is more like gaining a part of Siachen something with a mutual Agreement on the name of "Peaceful co-existance". Ideally the Triangle that is mentioned above should be demilitarized and everybody should be good with it. And all should resort and redeploy their troops as per the LOC specified in the Simla Agreement, 1971.
Sure of a very Positive outcome from Mr. Singh's expected visit to Pakistan, I am anxiously waiting for his anticipated visit. He is going to prove to be the Son of South Asia who is going to bring peace and prosperity to the region and take the region away from the dark shadows of the age old Imperial designs. I hope to see him do the same with China as well within my life time and I tell being Sixty Two years old, I dont have time for another disappointment. This time the embrace has to be forever.
.. As a citizen of India ,I request " The Hindu " not to express
opinions like this jeopardizing the internal & external threats from Pakistan. Can this paper salvage a crisis if hard core terrorists occupy the strategic terrain once Indian Troops withdraw ????
The only reason Pakistan is suddenly desperate for a withdrawl from Siachen is due to the
recent avalanche that destroyed their camp at Gagari. They have no supply lines anymore
to sustain their troops and so they are clamouring for mutual withdrawl. Let me pose a
question to Noorani. Why can't Pakistan withdraw unilaterally? That would at least be a
start in building some trust after the attacks in Kargil, Parliment House, and Mumbai. In
recent years, with better training and equipment India has been able to reduce both the
human and economic cost of Siachen. Most importantly India has realized that any bilateral
agreement is doomed to failure since China can easily occupy the areas vacated by
Pakistan. The world is aware of Chinese presence in Gilgit and Baltistan but we are
helpless to do anything about it. India cannot fall into a similar trap in Siachen.
Lets take baby steps.
1) finish the investigation of the Sept Bombings in Mumbai
2) Punish those responsible.
3) The repatriation of Dawood our golden son.
Is this asking for too much?
I believe the sincerity of the author. However not that of the Pakistani army or it's chief Gen. Kayani. India remembers well the betrayal of Kargil or the Mumbai attack humiliation.
Pakistan has failed to bring to justice the perpetrators of Mumbai attack and I believe it is because Pakistani army doesn't want to. Since 1992 a lot has changed, Pakistan and China are much tighter strategic embrace and they cannot be trusted on Kashmir borders. The UPA govt which is mired in corruption of epic proportions and oversaw the wrecking of the Indian economy has no rights to make deal on Siachen without fully satisfying the concerns of Indian army. When Pakistan does next Kargil it is the Indian army which would be asked to make all the sacrifices, PM Singh would do well not to give in to the temptations of a Noble prize in agreeing to a Siachen deal.
I think this article could have been better understood, with a map, showing the positions.
Please Email the Editor