As 138 men lie buried under a 25-metre high and 1000-metre wide avalanche on the Siachen glacier the pointlessness of the conflict that caused this massive human tragedy is more than obvious. By now, we all have memorised important facts about Siachen: that it is the world's highest battlefield where the soldiers' worst enemy are the climatic conditions.
That 90 percent of the soldiers killed on both the Indian and the Pakistani sides die from weather and height-related medical conditions such as cerebral edema, fluid build-up in the chest and altitude sickness rather than fighting the enemy. And that many suffer life-long disabilities due to frostbite.
Both governments have been negotiating for sometime to end the conflict, yet it remains unresolved. Soldiers continue to die and their families mourn them. These men didn't need to be there. Although Pakistan and India always staked their claims over Siachen located in the Jammu and Kashmir region, demarcation of the Line of Control never covered the glacier simply because it was inhabitable. The situation remained that way when they signed the famous Simla Agreement in July 1972 that said "in Jammu and Kashmir the Line of Control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations."
Yet the other side sought to alter that position when it launched a furtive military operation in April 1984 climbing on to Siachen's Saltoro ridge and setting up positions. Since no one was there to counter them the Indians occupied most of the glacier, including some of the advantageous top heights and two major passes, Sia La and Bilafond La. Learning about the Indian advance a week later, Pakistan sent its soldiers to defend its own claims. Both have since remain locked in an endless conflict asserting their respective rights over the glacier.
New Delhi can argue that since the boundaries in the area were unset therefore its advance is not violative of the LoC positions. But the fact of the matter is that Siachen is situated in a disputed region and hence in occupying a hotly contested but undemarcated area, India has been trying to alter things in its favour. It is another matter though that Pakistan remains firmly in control of the important Gyong La Pass and its surrounding mountains. The pass, reports point out, blocks Indian access to the world's second highest peak, K-2, and also overlooks India's route to occupied J&K's Leh district.
India now links withdrawal to recognition of its claims on the basis of 'present positions', which of course is unacceptable to Pakistan. That would amount to legitimizing military intrusion. A fair and sensible solution would be for both sides to go back to pre '84 positions. India has a bigger reason to fall back to the old positions given that it pays heavier cost than Pakistan in terms of lives and infrastructure support for staying in present positions. According to impartial observers, "on an average one Pakistani soldier is killed every fourth day, while one Indian soldier is killed every other day." The reason is plain: Indians occupy higher altitude positions (The Sia La and Bilafond La passes are located at 20,000 ft and at 19,000 ft, respectively) than Pakistan. And Pakistanis have a shorter and comparatively easier access route to the mountainous battlefield while India faces logistical inconvenience and airlifts its soldiers and equipment over a substantial part of the journey to the glacier. Consequently, its financial costs of maintaining troop presence are three times higher than Pakistan's. Notwithstanding the country's relative affluence, that is not something it can manage indefinitely without worrying about the price tag.
Why then is it so insistent on the 'present positions' refrain? One oft-quoted reason is said to be the army's reservations. The reservations seem to have more to do with some vainglorious notion of superiority, achieved through deceit, than substantive military advantage in a place that has no known strategic significance. Yes, the glacier supplies water to Numba and Shyok Rivers that fall into the Indus, which sustains life and economic activity in both countries. But these rivers must flow where they flow along their natural course. No matter what it does Pakistan cannot make them bypass Indian held territory and bring them directly into its own side.
The stated reason though is that Pakistan can't be trusted, and that if Indian forces come down, Pakistan might occupy their positions. This is a mere ruse to strengthen ownership claims. For first of all, it was India which tried to take advantage of the situation when it went up the glacier to claim the disputed ridge as its own. Second of all, there are other ways to forestall such an attempt, like satellite surveillance. And third, experience has taught everyone that it is not possible to maintain long-term human presence on the glacier. New Delhi can prolong this utterly wasteful confrontation but it will have to settle it at some point.
This conflict is also adversely impacting the environment of the Himalayan glacier feeding our river system. The ordnance the two sides fire in each other's direction, the bunkers they dig out using explosives, the helicopters ferrying men and material, heating used to cook or to stay warm, and other activities threaten to expedite the glacier's melting and cause climatic upheavals in the region. Together with other global warming factors, the military activity is likely to change weather patterns and the living conditions of the region's people faster than environmental scientists' predictions. It won't be surprising if the present avalanche disaster is found to be linked to military confrontation.
In any case, both armies remain entrenched where they were at the start of the conflict. Neither side gained or lost. They can continue to hold those positions for some more years. But that would be sheer madness. The place must be left alone. Hopefully, good sense will prevail sooner rather than later and New Delhi will agree to pull back to the pre-conflict positions, declaring the glacier a demilitarised zone.
[email protected]
Comments
Comments are closed.