| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Siachen: A Warning |
| 2006-05-07 |
| The army is pretty lukewarm about demilitarising Siachen Will Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Pervez Musharraf succeed in demilitarising the strategic Siachen Glacier and turn it into "a mountain of peace"? The feedback from the Indian establishment is that the ongoing dialogue with Pakistan is on course, and an agreement is being worked out which could lead to troop withdrawal by India from the highest battlefield in the world. But is the army amenable to such a move? The alarm bells have begun ringing in army headquarters which has conveyed its "deepest concerns" to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) on the Siachen issue. A tight-lipped Vice-chief of Army Staff, Lieutenant General S. Pattabhiraman, told Outlook: "We have expressed our concerns and observations to the government. And I am sure the government will keep these concerns in mind." The army's position is that unless certain safeguards and conditions favouring India are put in place, it would be a strategic blunder to withdraw from the positions that it currently holds in Siachen. The army believes that any troop withdrawal that gives the advantage to Pakistan would compromise national security. In fact, in a presentation to the PMO, the army top brass have made the following observations: * It would be unwise to withdraw from the present Indian position on the Saltoro Ridge where India is in command * If there is a withdrawal from the glacier, it must be after the two armies' positions have been authenticated both by India and Pakistan jointly on a map as well as on the ground * The agreement must have a clause giving each side the right to take "appropriate action" if there is any violation of the position on ground * The withdrawal, if any, must be to a position which gives Indian troops ample time to redeploy. The Pakistanis have better roads while none exists on this side. Therefore, any withdrawal must be decided keeping in mind the number of hours it would take either side to deploy to their present positions. But is the government factoring in the army's concerns? So far, army HQ has kept its fingers crossed on a subject that could provide the government diplomatic success on a "substantial issue." Many feel the upcoming talks on Siachen between the Indian and Pakistani defence secretaries on May 25-26, this year, could be the final round of negotiations before the PM announces an agreement during his Pakistan visit later this year. However, senior army officers caution that once withdrawal is effected, reverting to the present positions, which the army has held since 1984, would be close to impossible. Points out a serving general: "In military terms, it would be nothing short of a suicide mission to win back those heights in the event of a violation by Pakistan. Can we base an international agreement with Pakistan that is dependent on its goodwill? Or, should we come to an agreement that ensures that we remain in a position of strength?" So far, the nine rounds of defence secretary-level talks between India and Pakistan have proved to be inconclusive. While India wants its present position on the Saltoro Ridge authenticated, Pakistan wants the maps to be made part of the annexures without any mention of the present positions in the agreement. Indian observers feel that if the maps are not authenticated and merely included as annexures they will lack any legal sanctity which can be enforced if there are any violations. "In the light of what happened in Kargil such a legal sanctity is imperative before any agreement," a senior army official said. The army insists on such conditions as the Saltoro Ridge—ahead and west of Siachen—was won by the army in 1984 with great difficulty. Soldiers had never operated at such altitudes and holding position ever since has involved huge human and financial costs. "It is a misnomer that we are actually battling over Siachen," says former vice-chief of army staff Lieutenant General Vijay Oberoi. The focus is on Saltoro Ridge and its strategic importance is considerable. The Indian army sits on the ridge west of the Siachen Glacier and is in a dominating position overlooking Pakistani positions. If Indian troops pull out, it would leave Ladakh's Nubra Valley open to attack from Pakistan and offer it a gateway into the Kashmir valley through Leh. In other words, vacating the present Indian position without proper safeguards would be a military disaster. Oberoi is one of those who believe that any such agreement without authentication of the present positions would be an unmitigated disaster. "In a mountainous region, as per international conventions, the watershed serves as the international boundary. And Saltoro, which we hold, is the watershed." Sources familiar with the Indo-Pak talks also say that there has been considerable disagreement on the clauses that have to be included to ensure that a withdrawal does not lead to future violations by either side. Points out Lieutenant General R.K. Nanavatty, who was a brigade commander in Siachen and retired as the Northern Army commander: "If we withdraw, then there must be a clause that ensures that any violation will give either side the right to launch military operations anywhere along the LoC or the international boundary." Nanavatty also insists that India must continue to hold a presence on the 73-kilometre-long Siachen glacier right up to Indra Col in the north. Another concern expressed by army headquarters pertains to the fact that the Chinese maintain a major presence in the Shaksgam Valley, a part of PoK which was "illegally ceded" to China by Pakistan. This has proved to be a major cause of worry to the army as Pakistan has been demanding that both armies withdraw to the pre-1984 lines. Which means the whole area—from the Saltoro ridge to the Nubra river in the east—becomes a demilitarised zone. This would leave India vulnerable to a China-Pak attack. For the army, such a demand is unacceptable. Such is the alarm in South Block that tacit approval has been given to several think-tanks to write to the prime minister pointing out the folly in withdrawing without adequate safeguards. Which is why everyone agrees that authentication of present positions and an internationally-accepted assurance coupled with deterrence is the only way forward. "Even a suggestion to withdraw otherwise would be absurd," says Air Commodore Jasjit Singh, director, Centre for Air Power Studies. "Once authenticated, we must declassify these maps so that the international community knows what the Indian positions were before the withdrawal. This will give sanctity to any agreement that we might sign. After all, we must remember that the ingress into Kargil by Pakistan occurred despite the presence of authenticated maps in the 1972 agreement," he adds. With a near-unanimous and vocal opposition to a withdrawal from Siachen by the army, the government is bound to have a rethink on the issue in the coming months. Army headquarters is hopeful that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's efforts to bring peace to the glacier will not end in yet another Himalayan blunder. |
| Posted by:john |
| #4 Do their next rounds of nuke testing under the glacier in an attempt to shift it or make it unstable. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-05-07 17:43 |
| #3 I wouldn't trust a Pak to take out my trash - You don't see many Indian incursions across the LOC to kill innocents? They're Muslim, and honor bound to lie |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-05-07 13:55 |
| #2 Terrain on the Indian side is pretty formidable. If the Indian army vacates the high ground and Pak troops capture it, they will be almost impossible to remove. There is a history of Indian expectations of Pak goodwill. Indira Gandhi gave back captured territory at the Tashkent conference, released 90,000 POWs, in exchange for a promise to convert the LOC to an international border. Her father Jawalharal Nehru gave the lions share of water under the Indus Water treaty to Pakistan, in the hope that it would encourage friendship. Another PM, IK Gujral stopped all RAW activities in Balochistan, allegedly handing over names of operatives, in exchange for a Pak promise to rein in militants. It seems Manmohan Singh is simarly inclined. Part of the problem may be the shared history of these generations of leaders. They were born in the Raj era - British India and have fond memories of the time before partition. Younger Indians have no longing for lost brothers. They only know Pakistanis as the enemy. They grew up under constant terrorist attacks and are far less likely to trust Pakistan or even care about "peace" or normalized relations. |
| Posted by: john 2006-05-07 13:28 |
| #1 Pakis have better roads in the area - that's bad. I'd be working like mad on the Indian side to improve logistics to the area. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-05-07 12:34 |