Bharat Rakshak

HONG KONG — The search for 135 people buried under an avalanche in Pakistan resumed at first light on Sunday.

The avalanche struck a Pakistani military camp early Saturday morning, trapping 124 soldiers and 11 civilians under 70 feet of snow. Despite 18 hours of searching on Saturday, no survivors were found, as my colleagues Declan Walsh and Salman Masood reported.

The scale of the looming disaster is likely to renew the debate about the costly deployments of Indian and Pakistani military units on the Siachen Glacier, a place so high, cold and forbidding that it is sometimes called “the third pole.”

Political and military analysts say there’s nothing much up there — besides rock and ice — to fight over.

Stephen P. Cohen, a South Asia expert and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has famously compared the Siachen standoff to “a struggle of two bald men over a comb,” calling it “the epitome of the worst aspects of the relationship” between Indian and Pakistan.

The avalanche, for all the worries over its possible outcome, could offer the chance for a small diplomatic breakthrough on Sunday: President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan was due to meet over lunch in New Delhi with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India.

With units deployed on the Siachen Glacier at elevations as high as 22,000 feet, it’s hard to breathe, let alone fight. In 2000, in Kashmir, I interviewed an Indian Army commander who had served on Siachen, and he said that about a third of his men suffered from altitude sickness, frostbite or other environmental ailments. Units were in nearly constant rotation, he said, due to the hardships.

Pakistan has promised to give most-favored-nation trading status to India, and in a Brookings commentary in December, Mr. Cohen said “it is now up to India to respond, perhaps on some issue such as Siachen or Sir Creek.”

Sir Creek is a disputed boundary waterway between the two countries that a Dawn newspaper editorial called “easily the most negotiable lingering disconnect between Pakistan and India.”

“This may not happen,” Mr. Cohen said, “but if it does, then will Pakistan in turn reciprocate, leading to a genuine peace process? I’m both hopeful and skeptical at the same time.”

“The Siachen glacier and the mountain ranges surrounding it have very little strategic significance,” said a retired Indian Army brigadier, Gurmeet Kanwal, in a commentary for the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in New Delhi. “Therefore, the continued military occupation of the area by both India and Pakistan is counterproductive and is a retrograde step for pursuing a genuine rapprochement process.”

Declan and Salman, in reporting about the Pakistani military’s frantic search for survivors, offered this background:

Troops from both countries have been stationed at Siachen since April 1984, when the Indian Army occupied the heights around the glacier. Pakistan responded within weeks by sending in its troops, and both sides exchanged artillery barrages.

Despite occasional skirmishes, the area has been relatively quiet since a cease-fire in 2003, with Indian forces dominating many of the higher positions. Critics in both countries say their militaries are wasting millions of dollars a year on a futile standoff that has more to do with national ego than military value.

The Siachen dispute is part of the broader conflict over Kashmir, which is at the core of the strains between India and Pakistan that have led to three major wars since 1947.

Brigadier Kanwal has long favored a withdrawal of both armies:

“The demilitarization of the Siachen conflict zone will act as a confidence-building measure of immense importance.

“For India, it is a low-risk option to test Pakistan’s long-term intentions for peace,” he said. “It is, therefore, an idea whose time has come. Indian and Pakistani leaders need to find the political will necessary to accept ground realities. Trust begets trust and it will be well worth taking a political and military risk to give peace a chance.”

What is this new concept of Siachen NOT being strategically important? I thought occupying Siachen was important to prevent a link up between Pakistan and China. I am surprised because even Brig Kanwal maintains Siachen is without strategic significance!

If India and Pakistan cannot solve a dispute over a chunk of ice that is of little strategic value, asks Jalil Abbas Jilani, Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokesman and one of the key diplomats in talks with India, "then how can we fix more complex issues like Kashmir?"

The battalion’s fate drew an anguished reaction across Pakistan and swung a spotlight onto an often-forgotten corner of the 65-year-old conflict over Kashmir, the disputed mountain territory that lies at the emotional heart of the conflict with India. And it reinvigorated an incendiary question: Is Siachen, a glacier on Kashmir’s northern edge, worth fighting over? “It is time for both countries to step back from this madness,” said Mehmood Shah, a retired army brigadier who was once involved in talks to end the standoff. “Every day, people die in this conflict. Going on is in nobody’s interest.” Many critics echoed that view, describing the conflict as a pointless and sinfully expensive battle for a piece of Himalayan real estate that, while stunningly beautiful, is unfit for human habitation. About 3,000 Pakistani soldiers have died at Siachen since 1984, of whom about 90 percent perished from weather-related causes,( 3k Poaqsx72hoor causing heat ,snow melt and enviorenmental pollution)said the Pakistani military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas. Military analysts estimate the deployment costs Pakistan $5 million a month; Indian costs are higher still because of higher troop numbers and because supplies are transported by helicopter. Still, many military strategists and security hawks in both countries insist the fight must go on. In any peace negotiation with Pakistan, wrote Vikram Sood, a former chief of Indian intelligence, Siachen should be the “last issue on the table, not the first.”
The effort is now focused on burrowing a 130-foot tunnel toward the troop barracks, where soldiers were sleeping when the avalanche hit. Ominously, the army has already released pictures of those inside: mostly soldiers in their 20s, wearing green berets and striped neck-scarves. Few Pakistanis dare hope any will emerge alive; as many see it, the mountain has won yet again. Major Khan’s appetite vanished, causing him to shed 37 pounds in three months. “You feel you are a caveman, because that’s the way you live,” he said.
During a stint on the front lines in 2003, his job was to send shells whistling toward Indian positions. But the thin air meant shells traveled unpredictably and were prone to buffeting by gusts. The punishing conditions created a strange solidarity with the enemy — who in some areas was just 200 yards away, Major Khan said.
“We could hear each other talking, and we used to exchange greetings at special times — Eid for us, and Diwali for them,” he said, referring to major Muslim and Hindu religious holidays. would be a mistake to see Siachen as the “low-hanging fruit” of the Pakistan-India conflict, said Ejaz Haider of the Jinnah Institute, a research and policy organization based in Islamabad. “Who wants war? Nobody. But if you want peace, you need to prepare for war,” said Mr. Haider, whose brother and father have served in Siachen. “That, unfortunately, is the reality.”

The death of about 150 Pakistani army personnel in an avalanche at the battalion HQ at Gyari in the Siachen conflict zone has once again brought to the fore the dangers of the continuing deployment on both sides of the Actual Ground Position Line despite the fact that an informal cease-fire has been holding up quite well since November 25, 2003. Earlier, in mid-March 2007 also five Pakistani soldiers had perished in an avalanche.

Even at the peak of fighting in the 1980s and 1990s, maximum casualties on both the sides occurred because of the treacherous terrain, the super high altitude – which affects the human body adversely, and the extreme weather. The lack of oxygen at heights between 18,000 and 20,000 feet and prolonged periods of isolation are a lethal combination and result in pulmonary oedema, frostbite and other serious complications. Besides, prolonged deployment at such heights takes a heavy psychological toll. While these casualties are now better managed due to early evacuation, improvements in medical science and the establishment of forward medical facilities, they can never be completely eliminated.

The economic cost of maintaining an infantry brigade group at Siachen to guard the desolate super-high altitude mountain passes and approaches leading to them from the western slopes of the Saltoro Ridge has been estimated to range between Rs 3.0 to 3.5 crore per day – Rs 1,000 to 1,200 crore annually. The costs are high because the logistics tail is long, the only road ends at the Base Camp close to the snout of Nubra river where the almost 80-km glacier ends and a large number of infantry posts can be maintained only by light helicopters that air-drop supplies with attendant losses, as recoveries are often less than 50 per cent. The frequent turnover of troops adds to the costs as a battalion can be stationed at the Saltoro Ridge for a maximum of six months.

Though the Pakistanis are relatively better off due to the lower heights on the western spurs of the Saltoro on which their troops are holding defensive positions and their shorter lines of communication to Dansam and Skardu, the weather Gods have been equally unkind to troops on both the sides of the AGPL. Dr. Stephen Cohen, a well-known and respected Washington-based South Asia analyst, has described the Siachen conflict as a fight between two bald men over a comb. In his view, “Siachen… is not militarily important… They (Indian and Pakistani armies) are there for purely psychological reasons, testing each other’s ‘will’.”

Both the sides have been finding it difficult to overcome deeply entrenched negotiation mindsets and are unable to look for innovative and creative approaches. India insists that the present forward positions of both the armies on the Saltoro Range along the AGPL should be demarcated after a joint survey so that there is a reference point in case a dispute arises in future. Pakistan’s position is that by suddenly occupying the Saltoro Range west of the Siachen Glacier, India violated the 1972 Shimla Agreement and must, therefore, undo its “aggression” without insisting on legitimising its illegal occupation through the demarcation of present positions.

After Pakistan’s treachery in Kargil in 1999, the Indian Army’s advice to the government that the AGPL must be jointly verified and demarcated before demilitarisation begins, is operationally sound, balanced and pragmatic military advice. However, if Pakistan’s military capacity to grab and hold on to vacated Indian positions after the demilitarisation agreement comes into effect is carefully analysed, it will be found that Pakistan is in no position to occupy any of the posts vacated by India.

At a recent India-Pakistan Track 2 meeting at Bangkok, organised by the Ottawa University jointly with some think tanks, it was agreed by both the sides that the present military positions should be “jointly recorded and the records exchanged” as a prelude to the disengagement and demilitarisation process. While this falls short of the Indian demand for demarcation, it is a workable via media and should be acceptable.

However, India should insist on building a clause into the demilitarisation agreement that in case of the agreement is violated, both sides reserve the right to take whatever action they deem fit, including offensive military measures. Simultaneously with the withdrawal of its troops from the glacial heights, India should create and maintain suitably structured reserves for counter-action across the LoC at a point of its choosing. These reserves would also be handy for intervention on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) on the border with China should it ever become necessary.

On the completion of the demilitarisation process, an international “Science Park” could be established at Siachen Glacier to promote the study of Himalayan glaciers and to take regular measurements for monitoring climate change. Dr. Saleem Ali of the University of Vermont, USA, the originator of the ides of the Karakoram Peace Park Initiative, has done some seminal work in this regard and both the governments could benefit from his writing and activism. The Siachen Glacier zone could also be opened up for international mountaineering expeditions in a step by step manner as both the militaries gain in confidence in monitoring and verification. International help would be necessary to clean up the environmental damage caused over almost three decades of conflict and the dumping and disposal of warlike stores in the area.

The demilitarisation of the Siachen conflict zone will act as a confidence building measure of immense importance. For India, it is a low-risk option to test Pakistan’s long-term intentions for peace. It is, therefore, an idea whose time has come. Indian and Pakistani leaders need to find the political will necessary to accept ground realities. Trust begets trust and it will be well worth taking a political and military risk to give peace a chance. It is time the Indian government began the process of building a national consensus around this important bilateral measure.

The writer is a Delhi-based defence analyst

Views expressed are personal

I met Brig Kanwal at a military psychology conference and was impressed by his straightforwardness and he seemed to be a level headed, intelligent soldier. Surprising to see him commenting like this

He is certainly straight forward and level headed and hence should learn to heed the advice of these respected men, who have given it all in the service of our nation in or out of uniform. Instead of constantly questioning their credibility (not saying you did that), which really are our own prejudices and biases coming in the way. Not saying we have to agree with them, but this tarnishing of reputations and supposed motivations without proof, should cease.

Pakistan’s ex-servicemen demand immediate Siachen troop withdrawal
http://www.thenewstribe.com/2012/04/16/ex-servicemen-demands-immediate-siachen-troop-withdrawal/#.T4sludm1Dko

Well the media hype will be geared towards supporting the concession and not opposing it so...

The BJP types haven't given be any confidence (based on their weak response to the GoI wanting to sack the general) on being on India's side in terms of any concessions with respect to TSP so...

He is certainly straight forward and level headed and hence should learn to heed the advice of these respected men, who have given it all in the service of our nation in or out of uniform. Instead of constantly questioning their credibility (not saying you did that), which really are our own prejudices and biases coming in the way. Not saying we have to agree with them, but this tarnishing of reputations and supposed motivations without proof, should cease.

We captured and returned Haji Pir pass in 1965. In both wars, India occupied more Pakistani land that Pakistan occupied from India and we returned.

Those concessions does not earn India any dividend today. Anyone talking demilitarization of Siachen should be asked whether return of Haji Pir Pass stopped infiltration by Pakistanis.

Longetivity of regime, continuation of policy, honour of commitment are non-existant concepts in Pakistan. There is no guarantee that the succeeding regimes in Pakistan would honour a commitment made by a previous regime.

It seems that Brigadier Gurmeet has been part of the "Study Groups" advocating demilitarization of Siachen for some time now.

Here is a link to a detailed presentation on the subject by him:

Please do have a look at the sponsors on the first slide of the ppt.

SRoy, it has come to that only. I am copying what I posted in the Army thread here. We must certainly withdraw from Siachen heights, ONLY after we take posssession of POK and land ceded to China by Pakistan.

Is it not against the law (ie the Constitution) to suggest giving up the land which is part of the country as per Schedule I?

Alternately, would a PIL to seek order Govt action to reclaim territory as mentioned in Schedule I of the constitution, but under foreign occupation, be maintainable?

Are the ambiguities of Article 370 so wide sweeping that such action is not possible?

For me the best reaction to askance of people wanting India to demilitarise Siachen would be to clamour for Govt action to reclaim territory presently under foreign occupation. This may sound childish but it is a genuine feeling. JMT

nelson, that's funny

Because after we get back PoK and Aksai Chin, Siachen will cease to matter to anybody outside India.

That is the point. Make the region irrelevant by taking over all the surrounding regions.
Make it expensive for major powers to intervene and make sure that no major country(PRC) can have their military in that region.
This is the long term strategy in my opinion.

Any compromise on "sovereignty" requires Parliamentary approval. There is a standing 1996 resolution by PVNR administration, on sovereignty of PoK. The only way a government will move is, if the public demands it. I do not want to recount my pains on what happened with this public after 26/11. They voted the same minions back to power!

Any compromise on "sovereignty" requires Parliamentary approval. There is a standing 1996 resolution by PVNR administration, on sovereignty of PoK. The only way a government will move is, if the public demands it. I do not want to recount my pains on what happened with this public after 26/11. They voted the same minions back to power!

Huge media propaganda going on for this.