ganeshran Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 India and Pakistan discussed demilitarization of Siachen in the talks yesterday. Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/178812/india-pakistan-discuss-demilitarization-of-siachen/ I dont understand why are we talking about demilitarization of Siachen? It is one of the most strategically important points on the line of control and the Pakistanis are dying to capture it back after we gained control of it in 1984. Before the Kargil incursion, India had a pact with Pakistan not to occupy some posts near the border during the winter season because it was very expensive to maintain. But that agreement was ignored when Pakistan pushed in troops and set up bases on the Indian side to facilitate the movement of personnel and logistics for the incursion. My question is "How do we trust Pakistan that any such mutual demilitarization pact will not be ignored again in the future"? There are broader issues in Siachen, like the ecological impact of maintaining a troop presence in a glacier area and also the safety of soldiers there. But do these issues override national security? Is there a middle path where we can make sure there is no impact ecologically to the pristine area?
The Outsider Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Bhai mere, hazaaron soldiers have either died or been physically/mentally been rendered incapable of performing day to day functions after spending time at Siachen. Any demilitarization of the area should be welcomed.
Stuge Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 what if China captures it after demilitarization is done . I don't trust Pakistanis at all . Demilitarization will be a horrendous decision if govt takes :|
ganeshran Posted May 31, 2011 Author Posted May 31, 2011 Bhai mere' date=' hazaaron soldiers have either died or been physically/mentally been rendered incapable of performing day to day functions after spending time at Siachen. Any demilitarization of the area should be welcomed.[/quote'] I totally agree there are safety issues for soldiers in Siachen, but shouldnt we look towards solutions that can make life hospitable for soldiers up there? We have trusted Paksitan in past by vacating posts by mutual agreement but in the ensuing Kargill war, 550 soldiers died and crores spent to secure back the captured areas. How do we know for sure that any mutual demilitarization will be honored?
The Outsider Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 I totally agree there are safety issues for soldiers in Siachen, but shouldnt we look towards solutions that can make life hospitable for soldiers up there? There is nothing which can make life hospitable at 20000 feet - even mountain goats don't live there. We have trusted Paksitan in past by vacating posts by mutual agreement but in the ensuing Kargill war, 550 soldiers died and crores spent to secure back the captured areas. How do we know for sure that any mutual demilitarization will be honored? I agree it's a concern, but maintaining Siachen has cost us much more than the Kargil war even by the most conservative estimates. And yeah, we don't know that mutual demilitarization will be honored, but for me that's not a good enough reason to have human beings rot in the cold.
Sir john Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 our govt spends 4 crores daily there on our soldiers. so guess how much it cost us from 84 to till date.
ganeshran Posted May 31, 2011 Author Posted May 31, 2011 There is nothing which can make life hospitable at 20000 feet - even mountain goats don't live there. I agree it's a concern, but maintaining Siachen has cost us much more than the Kargil war even by the most conservative estimates. And yeah, we don't know that mutual demilitarization will be honored, but for me that's not a good enough reason to have human beings rot in the cold. Agreed. Its one of the most difficult assignments for a soldier and extremely difficult to spend time there. Plus the air is thin and difficult to breathe. How about a rotation policy of short duration where soldiers are shuffled between more hospitable places? IMO we need to maintain only a token presence there not a full fledged one. But completely vacating the post is also a risky position
The Outsider Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Agreed. Its one of the most difficult assignments for a soldier and extremely difficult to spend time there. Plus the air is thin and difficult to breathe. How about a rotation policy of short duration where soldiers are shuffled between more hospitable places? IMO we need to maintain only a token presence there not a full fledged one. But completely vacating the post is also a risky position Yaar, 'rotation policy' has been in place since the Siachen post was established in '84. This is not some mountaineering expedition where people go into high altitudes and come back in a few days. These people have to stay there for at least a few months (even within the 'rotation policy'). A significant number of them come out with half fried brains, without even getting into physical effects like lung blockage and frost bites resulting in amputations.
Sir john Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Yaar' date=' 'rotation policy' has been in place since the Siachen post was established in '84. This is not some mountaineering expedition where people go into high altitudes and come back in a few days. These people have to stay there for at least a few months (even within the 'rotation policy'). A significant number of them come out with half fried brains, without even getting into physical effects like lung blockage and frost bites resulting in amputations.[/quote'] a unit have to spend three year in a place.
The Outsider Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 a unit have to spend three year in a place. Not in Siachen - it's one year.
Sir john Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Not in Siachen - it's one year. yaah there is a medical test among soldiers of whole unit and than who are fittest,go to siachen there is 8000 special allowance for all of them.
ganeshran Posted May 31, 2011 Author Posted May 31, 2011 Yaar' date=' 'rotation policy' has been in place since the Siachen post was established in '84. This is not some mountaineering expedition where people go into high altitudes and come back in a few days. These people have to stay there for at least a few months (even within the 'rotation policy'). A significant number of them come out with half fried brains, without even getting into physical effects like lung blockage and frost bites resulting in amputations.[/quote'] I guess there is no easy answer here. IMO there are three main points to ponder 1) The Moral Question: Are we right in making soldiers suffer in the most inhospitable of conditions? 2) The Ecological question: Does a military presence cause permanent damage to the ecological balance of the area? Especially a glacier region. 3) The Security Question: Can we trust Paksitan and leave an area uninhabited which their army top brass has pointedly made statements about? Will a pact with the civilian government be honored by the army. And would leaving it unihabited give a chance to a future larger conflict which might cost more far more lives and money?
saneindian Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 More to do with Manmohan Singh's ever lasting desire to leave behind a legacy of havig made attempts to resolve the Kashmir issue. It was reported that India and Pakistan had nearly come to an agreement about a resolution of the Kashmir issue in 2008 but the Mumbai attacks derailed everything. The cricket diplomacy and the continued secretary level talks which have resmued once again are a step in that direction again. But given the hostilities, lack of trust and slnaging matches going on between both the sides, I wonder why we are wasting our energy in these discussions. Lahore bus ride in 1999, Agra summit in 2004 all proved to be futile time wasting exercises and this one too will meet the same fate.
Stuge Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 First and foremost thing is Pakistan Army is not fully under government control at all .They do what they want .For the same reason any such agreement made with their government will fail no matter what .
ganeshran Posted May 31, 2011 Author Posted May 31, 2011 ^ I think that is the main reason Indian policy makers are worried about. The civilian government in Pakistan is clearly not completely in charge of foreign policy and national security. So any deal inked with the government might not be honored by the army. If an opportunity for short term advantage comes, the Pak military might brush the civilian government aside as was the case with Kargil.
ganeshran Posted June 1, 2011 Author Posted June 1, 2011 Siachen isnt going to be demilitarized any time soon. The talks ended without any decisions t was a replay of zero sum game at the 12th round of the defence secretary level talks between India and Pakistan on demilitarization of Siachen glacier that concluded in New Delhi on Tuesday. This was a result on the expected lines. These talks were held for the sake of an illusory diplomatic tha w at a time when the wounds of 26/11 reopened with the trial of David Headley in Chicago, US, and the threatening posturing by ISI chief Lt. Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha toward India while deposing before the Pakistan National Assembly early this month. A statement issued at the end of the talks, said: "The discussions were held in a frank and cordial atmosphere, contributing to an enhanced understanding of each other's position on Siachen. They also acknowledged that the ceasefire was holding since November 2003. Both sides presented their positions and suggestions towards the resolution of Siachen." Not that any miracles were expected out of this meeting, but "enhanced understanding" should have been reflected in some movement forward in scaling down the tensions on the glacier. Pakistan should look at the maps of the marking of the LoC in 1972 that would made things clear to it as to where did the line stand on the ground. It has to accept the AGPL and exchange maps. This is not being done. Instead Pakistan is escalating tensions on borders. There have been three incidents of ceasefire violation on the Line of Control (LoC) and two on the international border this year alone. One infiltration bid was foiled on the international border in Samba sector of Jammu region and one of the intruders was killed by Border Security Force. Only good news that has emanated from the meeting, which is underscored in the statement is that " both sides agreed to continue the discussions in a meaningful and result oriented manner. They agreed to meet again at a mutually convenient date in Islamabad." It is a positive sign for Jammu and Kashmir that is the home to Siachen glacier, LoC, international border and a victim of three and a half wars - 1947, 1965, 1971 and a mini war in Kargil in 1999 and Pakistan sponsored terrorism for the past over two decades, because the prospects of continued dialogue generate hope among the masses. In an interview to First Post, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah noted: "Talks between the two countries should continue not just because they are crucial to the quest for finding a solution to the Kashmir problem and for lasting peace in the region but also from a psychological point of view as far as the Kashmiri people are concerned. In the valley people feel more secure and comfortable whenever the two countries are talking to each other. As soon as they (India and Pakistan) walk away from discussions, the mood in the valley changes for the worse." But, given the situation in Pakistan where daily bombings are wreaking havoc, the spill over effect is feared by the security agencies. "It is because there is no change of heart in Pakistan as far as Kashmir is concerned," said a senior official and pointed out that 42 terror camps were functional across the border and nearly 500 militants were waiting to cross the border. This, according to security officials, negates even the small steps that are taken at the talks across the table.
Recommended Posts