RSSToday's Paper Subscribe BETA 2.0
HOME
PAKISTAN
BUSINESS
WORLD
SPORTS
LIFE & STYLE
MULTIMEDIA
OPINION
MAGAZINE
BLOGS
JOBS
CLASSIFIEDS
EDITORIALLETTERSALERTS
Karachi violence: Police arrest two dozens suspects during raids 11:26 AM PST


By Javed Hussain
Published: April 22, 2012

The writer is a retired brigadier and served in the Special Services Group
On April 13, 1984 a small force of the Indian Army occupied the Bilafond La pass. Four days later, another small force occupied the Sia La pass. Both passes, the former at over 18,000 ft and the latter at over 20,000 ft are located in the Saltoro Range and serve as the gateway to the Siachen Glacier. The Indians had moved fast after receiving intelligence that the Pakistan Army was planning to occupy them. The first Pakistani reaction to the occupation of the passes came on April 24/25, 1984 when a small force attempted to get to the Bilafond La in an uphill assault but was thwarted by the difficult glaciated terrain and adverse weather conditions.

In the days that followed, the Indian Army built up a large force to defend the 80 kilometre-long Saltoro Range ridgeline. Since then, the Saltoro Range has been the focal point of operations — the Pakistanis seeking to gain a foothold on the ridge line, the Indians denying it.

In early April 1987, another attempt was made by the Pakistan Army to gain a foothold on the Saltoro ridgeline. A small force consisting of about a dozen SSG commandos, using ropes and ladders, went up a vertical cliff and occupied a position at over 21,000 ft that dominated the Indian positions at Bilafond La. They named it Quaid post. The Indian Army made several attempts to evict the commandos but each time they were repulsed with heavy casualties. On June 25, 1987, they succeeded in taking the post as the commandos had run out of ammunition and could not be resupplied as the base supporting them came under fire. With the only foothold on the ridgeline lost, the Pakistan Army launched a major attack in September 1987 to get to Bilafond La. The attack was repulsed. In March 1989, another attempt was made, this time in the Chumik glacier, three kilometres east of Giari (recently hit by an avalanche). At over 19,000 ft, the place chosen is the most difficult to scale in the Saltoro Range for either side. In a daring operation the peak was occupied by two men, an officer and a non-commissioned officer, slung from a helicopter on a rope, turn by turn. The two thwarted all Indian efforts to get to the top for 36 hours after which they were reinforced by a handful of soldiers dropped in similar fashion. But in May 1989 when the Indians succeeded in neutralising the supply base supporting the soldiers on the peak, the post was vacated.

In November 1992, yet another attempt was made to get to the ridgeline by means of a major attack. Launched in haste, the attack ended in failure. As a consequence, the general officer commanding was sacked. Most of the casualties suffered by Pakistani troops in combat were in the two major attacks (September 1987, November 1992).

The Indians have rarely embarked on a major offensive venture. They have left this to the Pakistanis who have obliged them at least twice . The loss of Quaid post and withdrawal from the Chumik glacier post due to lack of logistic support to a handful of men, are cases in point. Despite twelve rounds of negotiations, the two have not been able to reach an amicable settlement because of domestic political compulsions and mutual mistrust (exacerbated by the Kargil conflict). The dispute revolves round the extension of the Line of Control (LOC) beyond a point on the Saltoro Range known by its map reference as NJ 9820420. The demarcated LOC ends at this point —“thence north to the glaciers” is what the Karachi agreement of 1949 states about the extension. According to the Indians, this meant that the LoC should extend
northwards along the Saltoro Range up to Sia Kangri.

On the other hand, Pakistan’s stand is that beyond NJ 9820420, the LOC should extend eastward up to the Karakoram pass. Extending the LOC northwards would give the entire Siachen Glacier-Saltoro area to India, while extending it eastward would give it to Pakistan.

The only way out of this morass is to demilitarise the zone with the UN acting as the guarantor. Can the leadership of the two countries show for once statesmanship to resolve not only the Siachen dispute but all other outstanding disputes and can the two armies assist them in doing so?
Until then, for the soldiers on the Saltoro Range ‘theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die’.

The Express Tribune

April 24, 2012
Dr Maleeha Lodhi

The loss of 139 soldiers and civilians in the recent tragedy in Siachen has led to much debate in the country about the human and financial cost of the military deployment and the purpose of maintaining forces in such inhospitable environs.

The debate prompted rare public remarks from Pakistan’s army chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani when he visited the Gayari sector of the glacier last week. Recalling that Pakistan did not initiate the dispute, he stressed the need for demilitarisation of the glacier, saying that “peaceful coexistence” and resolution of all issues between the two neighbours was important so that both could focus on the well-being of their people.

The Indian response to General Kayani’s comments was decidedly guarded. Welcoming his statement, the minister of state for defence, Pallam Raju said: “I am glad that Pakistan is also realising the challenges and the economic problems of maintaining troops on the Siachen Glacier”. Missing was any substantive comment on the need or urgency to resolve the dispute. The Indian media was similarly cautious. One newspaper called General Kayani’s remarks a “political opening” to build on. Others struck a sceptical note.

Meanwhile the debate in Pakistan saw some commentators urge unilateral withdrawal by Islamabad, arguing that this would oblige the Indians to match the step. Others equated the diplomatic stance of the two countries, suggesting rigidities on both sides and implying that serious efforts aimed at demilitarisation had been lacking on Pakistan’s part.

Calls for Islamabad to take the diplomatic initiative overlooked the fact that this is precisely what it has tried to do over the years after Indian forces moved in to occupy Siachen’s Saltoro range in 1984. Pakistan’s readiness to find a solution and show necessary flexibility is supported by the history of diplomatic efforts. It was in this spirit that Pakistan offered a ceasefire in Siachen in 2003, which is still holding.

A review of the negotiations especially the last round of talks on May 30-31, 2011 will help put Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts in perspective. Before describing the twelfth round a recap of previous rounds is necessary, some of which I summarised in last week’s column. Five years after the conflict began talks between the two countries were able to agree on the main elements of a settlement. The breakthrough came in the fifth round in June 1989. It was agreed that a comprehensive settlement would be based on the following points:

• redeployment of forces

• avoidance of the use of force

• determination of future positions on the ground in conformity with the Simla Agreement.

Negotiations then stalled on conflicting interpretations of the June 17, 1989 joint statement. The statement’s language may have lent itself to differing interpretations. But there was no mistaking the statement’s operative part, which obliged the two sides to undertake redeployment, disengagement and determination of future positions. There was no mention of “present” positions.

In the 1992 and 1994 rounds of talks India refused to withdraw troops until Pakistan committed to authenticate “existing” positions. Pakistan was not prepared to do this and provide India the basis for a legal claim to the disputed area in talks later to demarcate the Line of Control beyond map coordinate NJ 9842. But in 1992 and after Pakistan offered to record “present” positions on an annexure subject to the caveat stated in the main text that this would not be grounds for a legal claim later to the area. India rejected this and demanded verification of the Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL) on the ground and on the map before demilitarisation.

Even the improved bilateral climate between 2004 and 2008 failed to break this deadlock. Pakistani participants of talks in that period recount that while the environment was conducive for progress towards an amicable solution, which they vigorously pushed for, the Indian side pressed a single point – that Pakistan authenticate the AGPL. Pakistan rejected this as a pre-condition to demilitarisation.

Did Pakistan offer any constructive ideas to overcome the impasse? Proposals Islamabad put forward in the May 2011, twelfth round provide an answer. Pakistan first reiterated the principles for a settlement, which broadly echoed the 1989 agreement. This included:

• Redeployment outside the zone of conflict and disengagement.

• Redeployed positions, modalities of verification and mechanism for monitoring to be determined by military experts of the two sides.

• Demarcation of the Line of Control beyond NJ 9842 to be subsequently undertaken in an agreed process.

Based on these principles, Pakistan, in order to find a way forward, proposed that once a schedule of withdrawal was evolved this could consist of lists of both “present” and “future” positions subject to two stipulations. One, that the lists be titled as “lists of present positions occupied in 1984 after the Simla Agreement and future redeployment positions”. The second proviso was that the lists should indicate that these were exclusively for monitoring purposes and not to stake any moral or legal claim at the time of the final settlement of Siachen’s disputed area.

Pakistanis interlocutors also sought at that time to define a triangular zone of disengagement bounded by Indira Koli Pass in the west and the Karakorum Pass in the east, with both joining up at NJ 9842. Redeployments were proposed to Gyong, NJ 9842 and Warshi. These were concrete suggestions that Pakistan hoped would be reciprocated.

The position taken by the Indian side reversed the sequence of steps to be taken. Delhi called for delineation of the line beyond NJ 9842 before disengagement and redeployment. Demilitarisation in other words would have to await and follow what would most certainly be prolonged and complicated talks on demarcation of the LOC beyond NJ 9842.

Pakistan read this as a hardening of Delhi’s position, raising the question whether the authentication issue had become a way for the Indian military to resist giving up control of the heights. The outcome of the 2011 talks was far from encouraging amid indications that India’s notion of normalising relations with Pakistan rested on promoting trade and people-to-people contacts, not resolution of outstanding disputes.

Interestingly in his annual Congressional testimony on worldwide threats in January 2012, James Clapper, the US director of National Intelligence, assessed that India would maintain a “go slow” approach in negotiations on the “difficult border issues of Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek”.

This “go glow” posture is underpinned by the Indian security establishment’s apparent opposition to giving up “advantageous” positions on the Saltoro ridge. Behind this lies the strategic calculation reiterated in a recent article by the former head of RAW, Vikram Sood, that invokes “the China factor”. Like many Indian defence analysts he sets out the rationale to deny China and Pakistan access to each other through the Karakorum Pass leading to Tibet, which according to him, is assured by India’s present position in Siachen.

These strategic reasons serve to justify – and explain – the lack of flexibility shown by India in the talks. The protracted impasse has encouraged ‘Track Two’ efforts to explore ways to address this. A recent conference in Bangkok in which former Indian and Pakistani military officers participated threw up ideas for simultaneous actions by the two sides. An integrated approach was suggested, as a prelude to a resolution of the Siachen dispute and without prejudice to the claims of each country. This involved withdrawal from the conflict area and agreement on a package of integrated stipulations. They included disengagement and demilitarisation in accordance with an agreed timeframe, cooperative monitoring of these activities, and joint recording of present ground positions.
With the next round of talks between the defence secretaries due next month the question is whether they will go beyond the usual restatement of positions and bring a solution any nearer.

Islamabad regards a Siachen resolution as an important milestone in the road to sustainable peace between the two countries. Will India match Pakistan’s willingness to reach a settlement and ensure that the diplomatic ice melts on Siachen?

-The News

India-Pakistan: Winds of Change?
Ali Ahmed

General Kayani has finally got it right. Speaking to reporters, he said, “Peaceful coexistence between the two neighbours is very important so that everybody can concentrate on the well-being of the people.” The somber setting for this wise statement was Gyari, the unfortunate snowy grave of 138 of his comrades.

It is worth pondering if his observations are restricted to the circumstance at hand or have wider implications. From the point of view of resolving Siachen, there can be no doubt that the Gyari incident has potential to prove a turning point, especially since the diplomatic spadework has already been extensive. As for the wider import, here too it can prove portentous, but only if India was to seize the moment.

With respect to Siachen, it is fairly evident that with expanding military budgets, an ongoing ceasefire and the standard operating procedures streamlined, India is perfectly at ease with the status quo. The opportunities for challenging soldiering having diminished with counter-insurgency at low ebb across the country, Siachen, with its better amenities, provides an outlet for soldierly ambition. It also serves to condition Indians to high altitudes, preparing in a sense for a prospective Tibetan battlefield. The also gives the military a self-image boost, public information advantages and helps it in bureaucratic fights.

Contrast this with the Pakistani approach. Gyari has driven home to Pakistan the futility of Operation Ababeel. While earlier Pakistan had reckoned to tie India down in holding on to Siachen, thereby tying down India’s spending and troops, the effort over time has proven counter-productive. With Pakistan pressured on multiple fronts, it cannot afford to expend its slimmer resource cake in terms of both money and manpower on avoidable tasks. Since Pakistan can be complacent that the Siachen approach is not militarily feasible for India to exploit, it can easily consider realigning its defences there. The monies saved can then be used for development. There will be no challenge to this position since Mian Nawaz Sharif, the opposition leader, also arrived at the same conclusion on his earlier visit to Gyari. This explains a minimalist reading of Kayani’s observations.

That resolving Siachen can serve as a bridgehead in unlocking the Indo-Pak status quo is widely acknowledged. This is why the two countries have come close to resolving the issue at least thrice since 1989. An agreement on the creation of a peace park in the area would make the visit of Dr Manmohan Singh to Pakistan useful, but not complete.

For the visit to be worthy as a turning point, Kayani needs to be held to his words: “Ultimately the security of a country is not only that you secure boundaries and borders but it is when people that live in the country feel happy, their needs are being met. Only in that case will a country be truly safe.”

That Pakistani people will ‘feel happy’ if development is furthered is unexceptionable. India is critical to this aspiration since its economy has been described as a ‘rising tide that can lift all boats’. The movement in relations between the two states pursuant to the first round of talks since 26/11 has been most purposeful on the commercial front. The visa regime is set to relax its rules for businessmen. An integrated check post has come up at Attari. The negative list is to be shortened by Pakistan. India has rightly held out the carrot.

Even so, the debate in India would be on whether Kayani can be trusted. After all, he was at the helm of the Army during 26/11 and was once ISI chief. Unless this question is satisfactorily answered, India would not be able to prevail on its own Pakistan skeptics.

The Kayani statement lends weight to the understanding of the Zardari visit that the Pakistani Army, that makes Pakistan’s India policy, is on board. This reinforces Dr Manmohan Singh’s impression from his meeting with his Pakistani counterpart, Mr. Gilani, at the SAARC summit in Male, that, “The sense I got was that after a long time, Pakistan’s armed forces are fully on board.”

The situation now is therefore one of exercise of political will by India’s prime minister, known for his intention to ‘write a new chapter’ in India-Pakistan relations. Low hanging fruit in the form of operationalizing his idea of a peace park dating to 2006 must be seized. This would require getting India’s own army hierarchy alongside in principle. Once Kayani exhibits he means business by following through on the detail, the prime minister can venture boldly for a broad-front approach.

Both sides would require working on their respective skeptics. This means that the multi-sectoral peace lobbies of both states need to get into high gear over the summer.

The writer is Assistant Professor, Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution, Jamia Millia Islamia

email: aliahd66@gmail.com

Source : http://www.ipcs.org

__________________
To succeed,look at things not as they are,but as they can be.:)

April 26, 2012
By Dr Tariq Rahman

Can you imagine a land nearly 19,000 feet above sea level with howling winds where the snow can be as much as 35 feet deep, or more? It is a 43 mile-long glacier, which makes it the second largest glacier in the world outside the poles. No animal is so stupid as to live there; indeed even plants do not exist. Day in and day out, the snow blinds you with its intense white glare. Even the rifles have to be heated so that they do not freeze. This is the Siachen Glacier where India and Pakistan have been fighting a totally idiotic war since 1984. Both sides concede that more soldiers have perished because of the climate than enemy fire. Both sides also agree that they are spending their taxpayers’ money in the millions every day for this insane conflict. There have been a dozen or so efforts at making peace and in June 1989, Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto almost agreed to a withdrawal. But the Indian generals would have none of it and the civilian government was not strong enough to put its foot down.

I was of the opinion that the establishment thinks that people do not matter while land does. One can read about any number of wars over land in history, which have wasted thousands of lives. Even the Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453) between the kings of France and England was understandable. For the lands were fair and not wastelands. The Alsace-Lorraine region, which became the bone of contention between France and Germany, was also a rich and fair land. But, despite the fact that many people spoke German dialects, there were cities like Metz where the language was French. When the German king was advised to annex it by his generals who wanted to move the frontier to the west in order to have a strategic advantage over France, the wise minister Otto von Bismarck opposed the aggression. He said it would result in war with France. And that is exactly what happened. It resulted not in one war but several and, cost far more in men and money to both France and Germany than any strategic advantage could compensate for. Indeed, history talks of many conflicts over pieces of the earth which cost much more in terms of lives blighted and wealth squandered. Of course, the nationalists who go to war for these pieces of land, do so on some imagined principle of dynastic ego or national prestige or vague concept of ‘strategic interest’ or ‘national interest’. While the realist school of international relations would have us believe that decision-makers carry out a cold-blooded rational calculation of loss and gain before deciding to sacrifice their young men, the fact is they act irrationally. They act like foolhardy, gambling school bullies who jump into fights to satisfy their egos. Such are the decision-makers of the human race to whom we have entrusted our lives and in whose hands we have given weapons which can blow up the planet several times over.

As I said, in most cases of war, the land and its wealth was said to be a major cause. While it made sense in premodern warfare when the weapons were not as destructive and there was no spirit of nationalism to keep the dogs of war perpetually unleashed, the advent of modern weapons and nationalism have made these arguments obsolete. However, in the particular case of Siachen, we are in danger of losing the land too — not the wasteland of the glacier itself which ought not to interest any sane person, but the great plains of India and Pakistan. The reason is that the glacier is melting at the rate of 110 metres per year and the great Gangotri Glacier is also melting at a rate of 32 metres per year. This is unprecedented and it will be an ecological disaster if the glaciers melt because of human activity. The glaciers feed rivers and if we waste the water because of fast melting glaciers, we will have to face unprecedented disaster in the river systems of both India and Pakistan. In short, instead of gaining land our follies are going to make us lose the lands we inherited. Does this make any sense?

Well, in the face of such arguments the nationalists fall back on principles: the Indians contend this was their land and Pakistan had allowed expeditions near, or on some part of it earlier than their occupation of the Saltoro Range heights. The Pakistani position is that the land was unmarked but that India transgressed against this understanding in April 1984, when it sent in its army to occupy the heights of Saltoro. Since the 1990s, the Bharatiya Janata Party contends that Siachen is necessary for ‘strategic and security’ reasons. In Pakistan also, this argument is heard with the additional one that India can threaten Gilgit-Baltistan and China’s approach to Pakistan. The fact is that if India and Pakistan would only deploy their forces in the areas where human habitation actually begins, they would be more secure than they are now as they would not be constantly losing soldiers and money. After all, an army which crosses the formidable glacier would not be a match for an entrenched army sitting in trenches in habitable land. Moreover, if it is a question of crossing over into the other’s territory, there are other less daunting places. The real reason is that both sides are afraid of losing face and appearing to seem weak and appeasing. But these fears should transcend for the higher reason that there is nothing more important than human lives and ecology.

In short, what I would recommend in the interest of human beings on both side of the conflict and the ecological system of the two countries is for them to withdraw to the pre-1984 positions. And if India does not agree, then Pakistan should do so unilaterally while reserving the right to appeal to the International Court of Justice or some other UN agency for a final marking of the maps acceptable to both countries.

The Express Tribune

April 26, 2012
By Shahzad Chaudhry

On April 19, India successfully fired its first true intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that can carry a one-tonne nuclear warhead across continents. By doing so, it joined a select group of five countries that already have this capability. Pakistan is not among them. Pakistan’s capability is India-specific and aimed at avoiding a war with it by making any thought of such a conflict cost-prohibitive. The same biting reality should hopefully also keep Pakistan in check. It is a perverse way of avoiding a war and ensuring peace but this is what you get in primal societies where enhanced means of extinction are celebrated by creating and joining select groups. Around two weeks back we were reminded of our exclusive honour as the only two nations in the world who were engaged in a war on the world’s highest battlefield. Citius, Altius, Fortius — we have given it a new meaning.

Somewhere in a discreet office in Pakistan, a nuclear scientist is in a serious conversation with a strategic planner trying to lead him on to that illusory goal of imitating the feat within a couple of years, only if the strategic planner could keep the funds flowing. He could extend the range of his current fleet of missiles to 5,000 kilometres, and then to 10,000 kilometres, by just adding another solid-fuel rocket motor and some further refinement of rocket motor technology. And he would say that that this would allow the missile to go thousands of kilometres up in the sky, and “thence upwards to the moon”! Sounds familiar? It should: 1949, and the Karachi Agreement, then 1972 and Simla; “thence north to the glaciers”! We are grappling with both the syntax and the various interpretations as we fight off the tragedy of April 7 at Siachen and the 8,000 others who have lost their lives since 1984 when another competitive undertaking set us onto the journey to discover whatever “thence north to the glaciers” meant.

The scientist would then add that such a long-range and high altitude re-entry could provide for multiple independently-targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) — eight to 10 nuclear bombs, each 20 times the destructive power of those that took out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This means that there will be one missile carrying up to 10 nuclear bombs — a dream come true for any Dr Strangelove. You could rain them all at one place making sure that no one walked that piece of earth again, or through sheer marvel of technological beastliness target them at ten different places within a few hundred kilometres of each other. Imagine the perversity that entices a being and exhilarates him with this idea of complete extinction — not just death.

Somewhere out there, however, there are a few others who have their eyebrows curled up. Japan, Australia, the Koreas and who knows the Indonesians too could have dreams of their own. Those are only likely to be reinforced. Closer to home, the Iranians will find a valid justification to pursue what they are already being blamed for, which would then trigger responses from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and worries in most of Europe. China would have already have a plan on putting up a missile shield; India’s ability to target the Chinese ‘heartland’ will now serve to expedite its institution.

President Barack Obama was awarded a Nobel prize for peace without having earned it. However, after having accepted it, he carries a moral baggage to deliver on his qualification for the award. He has pushed the world on non-proliferation and disarmament. Pakistan has been under specific pressure on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. The Agni testing, however, lay waste any pretension of the world heeding him.

On April 18, I was invited to an Indian TV debate on the implications of what by then was an impending Agni V test. In a planned interview of about 22 minutes I could only participate for about five — for the remaining 17 the communications would not hold. The anchor, honest enough, could only admit that while we in South Asia indeed had lofty missions of intercontinental aspirations, we still had to learn to institute more reliable communications. That is the truth on both sides of the border.

I wonder what will come first: a South Asian on the moon, reliable communications, resolution of “thence north to the glaciers” conundrum, or a newer challenge of “thence upwards to the moon”. Whatever it might be, see you on the moon!

The Express Tribune,

April 26, 2012
By Saira Yamin

Caught up in the dynamics of nuclear brinkmanship, India and Pakistan hold their entire region hostage to clear and present danger. But a recent impromptu meeting between two heads of state and a deadly glacial avalanche could be the start for thawing relations between the nuclear-armed arch rivals.
On April 8, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistani President Asif Zardari met in New Delhi, proffering a long-awaited opportunity to pursue stability in South Asia. Both their overtures signal a softening of attitudes. But will the meeting serve as symbolic kow-towing or will the statesmen open up space for future talks?

Since independence from British colonial rule in 1947, protracted territorial and political disputes have led India and Pakistan to engage in three full scale and three quasi-wars. Cross-border skirmishes are common. Indian allegations concerning Pakistan’s involvement in a number of terrorist attacks inside its territory complicate relations further.

The intractable Kashmir conflict, the core of the strained relationship, makes it a veritable nuclear flashpoint. But the contention over Kashmir should not prevent India and Pakistan from solving problems on a host of issues of less strategic concern.

One such issue is the dispute over the Siachen Glacier, a territorial tussle with substantial economic and human costs for the two states. Tragically, on the eve of the meeting between the two heads of state, Siachen experienced a deadly avalanche killing 135 Pakistani soldiers and civilians.

Known as the world’s highest battleground, Siachen is located at an elevation ranging between 11,000 to 22,000 feet. Since April 1984, when India and Pakistan deployed troops in a tit-for-tat competition for territory, both militaries have lost an estimated 5,000 and 3,000 soldiers respectively, primarily due to adverse climate and treacherous terrain.

While an unofficial cease-fire at the Siachen Glacier remains in force since 2003, both India and Pakistan continue an armed standoff in the region. Exclusive territorial claims stem from ambiguities in agreements defining the cease-fire line, or the Line of Control to the northeast of Kashmir following the wars of 1948 and 1971. India has approximately 7,000 troops deployed in the region, and Pakistan about 4,000.

It is estimated that fewer than a thousand lives have been lost in combat during the past 28 years. More men here die due to harsh weather, high altitude illness, and other hazards. On average, one Pakistani soldier is killed every third day in Siachen, with a higher Indian average of one soldier every other day.

Siachen is sometimes regarded as a by-product of the Kashmir conflict. But unlike their hardened positions on Kashmir, both states have demonstrated a willingness to explore a negotiated settlement on the Siachen dispute, with 12 rounds of talks already held between 1985 and 2011. Regrettably, none have reached fruition.

Now in the wake of the avalanche, Pakistan Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is calling for demilitarization, an opportunity that must not be missed by India. The cost of deploying battalions in the region runs in millions of dollars each year for the two impoverished nations.

Yet both states maintain their military status quo to defend a 50-mile long icy wasteland. India and Pakistan have each recognized that defense expenditure in Siachen does not justify its lack of strategic advantage. But they also need to account for the financial, social, and psychological costs for the families of the snow warriors, most of them junior soldiers, in the calculus.

While settling the claims on Siachen may not happen very soon, demilitarization is an actionable option. In 2005, Indian Prime Minister Singh had expressed hope for turning the glacier into a peace mountain. Indian and Pakistani mountaineers and environmentalists have also called for the possibility of converting the region into a civilian zone or peace park.

Such an initiative could potentially transform the battlefield into a jointly managed conservation area serving a threefold purpose: to preserve the environment, to help build peace, and to generate revenue through ecotourism.

Settlement of inter-state territorial disputes present challenges, but the dividends of cooperation for India and Pakistan would be immense, particularly in terms of greater regional and global stability. There is also a strong precedent for joint military disengagement: One took place at the Chumik Glacier in 1989, close to Siachen.

Another hopeful sign is that the two militaries have largely upheld the 2003 cease-fire. Joint aerial and on-site inspections could make demilitarization a viable option especially if facilitated by the UN, sponsor of the 1949 cease-fire agreement.

Unresolved territorial disputes have led India and Pakistan to conventional warfare in the past. But the addition of nuclear weapons in the security landscape makes their standoff more precarious than ever.

Given the implications of their tenuous relationship, it is time for a paradigm shift in strategic thinking in India and Pakistan. And Siachin could help break this deadlock.

Saira Yamin is associate professor at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of APCSS, the US Pacific Command, the US Department of Defense, or the US government.

Source: Christian Science Monitor

Posted on April 27, 2012 by admin786| Leave a comment
Maimuna Ashraf
Exclusive Article

The Siachen Glacier conflict between two nuclear powers India and Pakistan over an uninhabited nether land has now hoisted stern questions about its strategic value and its conflict resolution. The conflict has been declared futile by many, as avowed like ‘a struggle of two bald men over a comb’ in a Wall Street publication by Stephen Cohen. Siachen recognized as Third-Pole, is the world’s highest glacier outside the North and South poles, besides it is the world’s highest battlefield with battle being fought at altitudes of up to 6,000 meters. In summer the average temperature in Siachen is below -15 degrees on Celsius scale whereas in winters temperatures can dip to -50 °C. In Balti language Siachen means ‘A land with abundance of Roses’ however not even a single rose could ever grow there due to extreme weather conditions. In this 77 kilometer long and 5 to 7 kilometer wide glacier, sign of life don’t exist in the form of animals, birds or plants so one can imagine the survival of humans over an uninhabited area.

Siachen glacier is situated in the northern most part of Baltistan near Pak-China border. Baltistan and its neighborhood are under Pakistan’s control since 1949. Britannica Atlas and Atlas of world demonstrated Siachen within Pakistani borders in their 1970, 1980 and 1981 editions. Since 1949 till 1984 many mountaineering groups explored this region and they all sought consent from Pakistani government. It was India who first invaded the Siachen region so Pakistan Army had to build its posts for defensive purposes. Therefore it is important to scrutinize that why India chosen to capture a barren land having a dreadful temperature of -50 °C?

Siachin is the world’s most expensive battlefield; both states spend many Arabs annually on it. At Siachen about four thousands Pakistani soldiers and seven thousands Indian soldiers are being deployed. On every third day a Pakistani soldier embraces shahadat and on every second day any of Indian soldiers dies. Hence every year almost hundred soldiers sacrifice their lives whereas the fatalities on Indian sides are double. We have sacrificed the lives of more than four thousands soldiers since 1984 while the losses on Indian sides are double. Moreover, Siachen glacier is the toughest theatre of war of the world. It is almost impossible to maintain this battle ground as a human cannot survive here without an oxygen mask. The continuous appliance of oxygen mask affects the senses of hearing, sight and smell. Any liquid of this world freezes at -40 °C. Soldiers mostly rely on multi-vitamins and energy supplements. In this killing ice-field, no single human being can survive more than twenty days consequently our soldiers goes for twenty days on Siachin but even from those every third soldier becomes the victim of frost bite and any of his body parts dies and fall off . Valiant soldiers are fighting this toughest battle since 1984, our Army neither opted to leave this battlefield nor made any appeal to Government to withdraw its troops from Siachen. Why is it so? A soldier can answer it better but certainly due to reason that a soldier takes oath to sacrifice his life in defending his land and he departs his life in defending his country. The soldiers of Siachen are the real ‘Kings of Sacrifices’.

These realities elevate solemn concerns after the most dreadful mishap of 2012 which buried 139 citizens of Pakistan under an avalanche of huge glacier at Gayari. The incidence has again raised voices to resolve the conflict. The prominent proposal is to demilitarize the Siachen glacier however it has also lifted debate upon its strategic significance. It is frequently argued that in 1980 Indian air force breached the border and reached 90 km within Pakistani controlled area so Pakistan cannot make a unilateral withdrawal from Siachen. Moreover the region is a triangle between Pakistan, India and China so India considers it strategically important perhaps due to China, Gilgit Baltistan and Karakorum highways, that’s why she advanced towards it in past. It is alleged If these undefined regions are not imperative than why Kargil war was about to turn in violent conflict. These seemingly small regions play an immense strategic part in shaping the fate of the state.

Subject has been raised about the importance of protecting such ruthless terrain and about the environmental impact on a flimsy glacial ecosystem. It is concerned that waste from military camps is a major dilemma, environmental experts say, leaching poisonous chemicals into the glacier is intimidating to pollute water systems that millions of people across the subcontinent depend upon. The Siachen feeds into the Indus River as well. Pakistan understands the concern and looks forward to resolve the dispute as stated by Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani after visiting Giari that “We understand the physical deployment of troops that glaciers get affected, the environment gets affected, it does not affect only the Indus River it affects the environment of this region and it affects in some ways the environment of the world. If there’s no other reason I think this is one good enough reason that this area should not be militarized.” However besides the goodwill, there are many critical concerns which are thought provoking and needs consideration before reaching on any final resolution on Siachen dispute. It should also be keep in mind that Pakistan don’t have that much proper road structure map and trained army for this war while on the other side India had been planning this stunt for many years. It had already obtained mammoth military assistance from Russia. Indian Army had Llama, MI-17 and especially MI-26 helicopters which can accommodate large number of men with equipment and fly up easily to the top most prospects. India has also constructed approximately 150 helipads in Siachen Glacier while escalating its military capacities at top mountain posts. Indian commandos are especially trained for this war at High Altitude Warfare School (HAWS). The Indian military escalation in Siachen glacier is quite alarming.

Nonetheless, fundamental constitutional rights and obligations arising from treaties and customary international law give India and Pakistan significant reason to consider ending the conflict and to begin management of the Siachen as a peaceful and protected area, management that involves trans-boundary collaboration between India and Pakistan. Composite Dialogue can be obliging that can facilitate withdrawal of troops and the ending of active warfare in the name of environmental protection and peaceful region.
However it should be ensured that India is sincerely interested in taking positive momentum towards conflict resolution and declaring it demilitarized zone.

Conflict resolution is a tardy practice but it is the time to give tribute to the soldiers of Siachen. They deserve immense admiration as they are silently sacrificing their today for ours tomorrow since last twenty-eight years. We daily talk about the fatalities of drones’ attacks and bomb battering, we promenade against Nato supply but before this incident we never spoke about the martyrs and affectees of Siachen. These 139 soldiers ensured the safety and security of Pakistan’s borders; they are the redeemer of Pakistan’s honor and dignity. These are our real heroes, the silent saviors of this land.

The article is contributed to pkarticleshub

Analysis By Khaled Ahmed
Siachen dispute


The high-altitude battle in Siachen may be threatening the population of entire South Asia





Pakistan Army's Giyari camp on the Siachen Glacier was buried under snow after history's largest avalanche - about a square mile across - swept over it on Saturday 7 April 2012, burying 124 soldiers and 11 civilians under it.

The tragedy has occurred at an altitude of 15,000 feet in the highest battlefield in the world where Indian and Pakistani troops are face to face in a war that no one in the world appreciates.

The contested area is a desolate stretch of about 2,500 sq km situated immediately south of the Chinese border. The United Nations-supervised ceasefire line (CFL) of 1949 extended from the international border between India and Pakistan near Chhamb in Jammu and Kashmir in a rough arc that ran nearly 800 km north and then northeast-wards to a point, NJ 9842, nearly 20 km north of the Shyok river in the Chulung group of mountains of the Saltoro range.

Since the territory beyond this point witnessed no military activity and appeared inaccessible, no attempt was made at the time to extend the CFL beyond NJ 9842 to the Chinese border. At least a 65-km stretch was left undelineated.

The Indian version of how the Siachen dispute came into being goes like this: 'The Siachen dispute became a major bilateral issue in 1984, when the Indian Army airlifted mountain-trained forces to positions overlooking key passes in the Saltoro range, a spur of the Karakoram mountains that flanked the glacier's southern rim. The unexpected Indian action saw the start of a costly high-altitude military struggle for supremacy'.

The 1948 Indo-Pak war ended with an agreed map that delineated the Line of Control (LoC) which reached the grid N J9842. From this point onwards the agreed map simply said "thence north to the glaciers", thus creating a no-man's land. India says Pakistan moved its troops into the region beyond NJ 9842 before it "responded" in 1984: Pakistan says the Indian move began the conflict and that Pakistan was taken by surprise. And the two repeatedly came close to signing an agreement over Siachen only to be pushed back by untoward incidents in the plains.

The 1949 Karachi Agreement between the two countries contained a generalised statement saying the CFL (later LoC) 'moved thence north to the glaciers'. India has used this line to justify its claim that most of the Siachen glacier is part of its territory. Pakistan insists that the delimitation agreement of 1949 contained no reference to the CFL beyond NJ 9842.

Between 1986 and 1989, India and Pakistan held five rounds of talks over the Siachen glacier. Pakistan's argument remained that the Indian military action in the Saltoro range was a direct violation of the Simla Agreement, which barred the threat or use of force to bring about a change in the LoC. New Delhi said its induction of troops into the Siachen glacier has not in any way violated the Simla Agreement of 1972.

India's stand is that its troops staved off an attempt by the Pakistan Army to wrest control of the Siachen glacier. In the first few months after the action in 1984, Pakistan tried to remove the Indian Army from the commanding heights, but later reconciled to a strategy of containment, operating from a lower height.

Pakistan says the two sides came close to 'redeploying' in 1992 and that India gave a commitment to climb down together with Pakistan. India says Pakistan's demand that Indian troops withdraw to the 1984 positions was untenable. Indian officials say Indian troops are now in control of not only Siachen but also of higher ground in the Saltoro range. Pakistan favours 'third party' monitoring through helicopters; India rejects that because it doesn't like 'internationalising' the issue.

Pakistan carried its Kargil Operation in 1999 to 'persuade' India to leave Siachen. This act was the first big blowback of the Siachen folly leading to the ouster of the elected government and ushered nearly a decade of military rule. Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz in July 1999 linked a Pakistani pullout from Kargil to the Indian Army vacating the Siachen glacier: 'Pakistan has agreed to request and appeal to the freedom fighters (sic!) to withdraw from Kargil if India also agrees to vacate the areas that it occupied on the LoC after the signing of the Simla Agreement'.

Is India bleeding at Siachen? Experts say there are some 5,000 Indian troops on the glacier while Pakistan has less than half that number. Islamabad says the presence of Indians on the glacier threatens the strategic Sino-Pakistani Karakoram highway located 180 kilometres away. India reportedly spends more than 40 million rupees daily on its Siachen deployment - a figure that does not include additional wages and bonuses.

India doesn't hurt because its economy has taken off while Pakistan's has nosedived mainly because of bad law and order caused by Pakistan Army's policy of deploying terrorist nonstate actors against India and Afghanistan. The state is increasingly weak in reluctantly confronting these elements. The strategic aspect of India's perch on the Siachen was highlighted in 2011 when Selig Harrison reported Chinese presence in Gilgit-Baltistan.

Indian strategists were quick to respond: 'In recent years, China has been able to change the geopolitical and geostrategic equations in this region that borders China, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan. China's upgrading of the Karakoram Highway, its development of road and rail access as well as other constructions including dams and tunnels, enable it to extend its strategic reach to the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf through Pakistan. As far as China is concerned, the Karakoram Highway is integral to keep Pakistan's military sustained against India. Hence, the presence of Chinese troops in the contested region constitutes Beijing's direct involvement in the Kashmir dispute'.

A UN official has written a book Biodiversity Conservation in Himalayas which says: 'Siachen Glacier in Ladakh has receded by about 800 metres in the last 20 years and is facing threat of climate change caused by military activities in the region'. Pakistani and Indian casualties have been predominantly climatic rather than conflictual.

Hundreds of machines and scores of choppers fly daily over the region, with the result that the whole of its environment and eco-system have deteriorated. The two armies survive by keeping themselves warm and by artificially making the high altitude surface suitable for their activities, depositing tons of chemicals on the surface of the glacier, thereby not only polluting the headwaters of Indus river but also raising the temperatures in the area.

Nature has hit back. Indian casualties indicate a similar wasting away of aggression under attrition. Pakistan loves defeat and that has been delivered on Saturday. But the high-altitude battle may be threatening the population of entire South Asia through the drying up of rivers after the glaciers are destroyed.

-FridayTimes

Comment By Imtiaz Gul
Siachen dispute





The conflict on and around Siachen glacier symbolizes the scourge of overbearing militarism that has hurt both India and Pakistan.

Inflated national egos, largely shaped by mutual mistrust, continue to prevent a settlement of a dispute that has cost the two countries more than 8,000 lives. The 135 casualties in the Gyari sector are the latest price Pakistan has paid for holding on to a position that it says is a matter of principle.

India demands the authentication of an Agreed Ground Position Line (AGPL) on the map and on the ground because it believes doing so would provide legal and diplomatic safeguards against possible Pakistani incursions into the Saltoro ridge. This flows from the Indian interpretation of the 1949 Karachi Accord. That means the line of control (LOC) should run northeasterly from NJ 9842 - the last demarcated point on the LoC - along the Saltoro Range to the Chinese border. This interpretation is grounded in the strategic advantage that India gets on the Chinese border and permanent control of heights overlooking Gilgit and Baltistan.

Pakistan believes the LOC should run from NJ 9842 straight to the Karakoram Pass (KKP) on the India China border. It also wants immediate implementation of the 1989 understanding. It also rejects authentication which it fears would amount to legitimizing an illegal act (the 1984 Indian occupation of the heights).

Because of these positions, the two countries have been locked in an atrocious and completely futile warfare - losing precious human lives and financial resources every day. The positions taken by either country may be legitimate, but this legitimacy defies rationale and runs against the universally acknowledged principles of human and nature preservation.

In this context, former premier Nawaz Sharif's call for Pakistan and India to withdraw their troops from the Siachen region is a welcome move. He appealed to both sides to work for the resolution of the dispute so the billions being spent on the war could be directed towards prosperity.

The statement offers an opportunity to the civil society in both countries to start a cross-border movement for immediate demilitarization of the region. There might be opposition by hardliners in the military establishments and conservative and ultra-nationalist political groups, but the civil society and the media must highlight the ecological, economic and humanitarian costs of the entrenched positions.

Former military and civilian officials from India and Pakistan who have been part of the past negotiations and military planning can also contribute by educating the public about the cost and benefit of this protracted conflict, thus making possible a face-saving way out for both the countries.

Although under pressure and stretched because of challenges from religious and ethnic militants from the north to the southwest, the Pakistani government and military can make a bold declaration that they are ready to turn the Siachen glacier region into a neutral 'peace park'. In order to counter the argument against demilitarization embedded in legal jargon, it should raise the issue of legitimacy.

While this argument could, theoretically, carry weight for important economic lifelines and densely inhabited regions, India and Pakistan should not apply it to the forbidding and uninhabitable Siachen.

Why should the current and future generations of Pakistan continue to remain hostage to the history and principles behind unviable positions, while its adversaries continue to march on the road to prosperity? Great leaders sometimes have to make tough decisions for a better future for their nations. Agreeing to demilitarize Siachen might be a tough decision militarily, but it will certainly benefit the 1.5 billion inhabitants of the subcontinent.

-FridayTimes

Faheem Amir

Every positive thinker believes in humanitarianism and egalitarianism; he cherishes the ideas of universal love, brotherhood, equality; he dreams of indulging in philanthropic activities; he loves to render sacrifices for mitigating the sufferings of his fellow beings; he hates violence, abhors exploitation, loathes wars and rejects bloodshed.

In short, he wishes to create a veritable Shangrila of peace and prosperity in this war-riddled world.

There are also many negative characters and thinkers who relish inflicting atrocities on other people, like grabbing the rights and wealth of fellow beings, enjoy killing of innocent people, take pleasure in exploitation and manipulation, desire to conquer other states and enslave poor people. These people, and good and bad, forces or ideas, are present in every man, family, locality, society, country, nation and state. They are in permanent conflict. Religious scholars call this phenomenon as a struggle between virtue and vice. Hegel describes it a competitive struggle for selfhood. Marx sees it as a class conflict.

But the tragedy is that evil forces, like lust for power and pelf, hunger for possession and exploitation, thirst for aggression and revenge, greed, jealousy, pride, and prejudice, rule in our world. History tells us that interests are everything in politics, not ethics. A weak nation cannot defend its own sovereignty and legal rights. Might is right in the game of power. It is a hard reality, a bitter truth, which every state accepts.

Every country keeps its troops alert by accepting this fact of realpolitik. A nation also acts upon the advice, “Si vis pacem para bellum” (If you want peace, prepare for war).

India’s anti-Pakistan attitude has forced Pakistan to keep its troops alert on its borders. In 1984, Pakistan sent its troops to Siachin to halt Indian aggression in that area. Both countries, so far, have lost about 8,000 soldiers in this war. But the Gayari camp tragedy, in which an avalanche buried 124 soldiers and 14 civilians on April 7, has brought the Siachen issue between Pakistan and India into the limelight.

This is a national tragedy and the entire Pakistani nation, including political, military, and religious leaders, civil society, the media and the common people, is showing its full support to the rescue teams, who are working round the clock to reach those buried. The entire nation is praying for the buried soldiers and civilians and sympathizing with the bereaved families, who are waiting anxiously for any news about their dear ones since April 7. The challenge is colossal but the will-power, determination, professionalism and patriotic love of our soldiers are admirable.

BBC news writes, "It is no exaggeration to say that it is like looking for a needle in a haystack - yet the size of the challenge does not seem to deter troops dressed in white jackets, heavy boots and white woollen caps driving bulldozers back and forth, churning up the packed snow and ice… Officers say that in the backs of the soldiers' minds is the fact that those buried under the snow are colleagues with whom they lived and worked very closely in immensely tough conditions. The rescuers want to ensure that their brothers-in-arms are either recovered or brought home for burial. That is why the rescue effort itself shows no sign of abating, nearly two weeks after the avalanche".

The Siachen dispute is a result of bad politics and worse cartography. The 1972 agreement between Pakistan and India that demarcated the Line of Control allows both countries to claim the glacier, which is situated at the tri-junction between India, Pakistan and China. India captured the Saltoro since 1984, when conflict erupted.

Shahzad Chaudhry, a retired Air-Vice Marshal of the Pakistan Air Force, writes, "The Siachen Glacier as the 90 km long and about 50 km wide snow-mass sits between the Karakoram in the north and the Hindu Kush in the west. It juts out from within these physical boundaries through the various passes that saddle the divide along Saltoro. The farthest of these along this ridge is the Indra Kol. The eastern most point on the Karakorams is the Karakoram Pass where the three countries, India, China and Pakistan meet before the terrain moves further east into Tibet from that point. Almost a subtended centre of this northern base is the demarcated point MJ9842. This makes this bounded region an inverted triangle whose apex sits at 9842, while its base runs along the Pak-China border between Indra Koli and the Karakoram Pass. With India having occupied the Saltoro Ridge in 1984 in a pre-emptive move, this entire triangle now is under its occupation".
Fierce fighting in this area ended with a ceasefire in December 2003, but Siachen's treacherous environment is killing many soldiers continuously.

No living thing can naturally sustain life in this area. This area is up to 22,000 feet above sea level, the temperature can plunge to 58 below. The glacier lies at an altitude of 5,472 metres, which makes survival exceedingly difficult. Indian General (retd.) V. R. Raghavan, who commanded troops in Siachen and wrote, Siachen: Conflict Without End, described the hazards of environment in these words: "No one thought any one in his senses would like to occupy the place".

A Pakistani, Major Khan, has spoken with the New York Times about his experiences in the area in these words: "It was something completely out of this world. Nothing was easy there. Fearing frostbite, most soldiers went to the bathroom - small outdoor huts cobbled together from mountain stones - once a day and bathed only every few months. You feel you are a caveman, because that's the way you live".

Around 8, 000 soldiers of both countries have lost their lives in this region. According to Pakistani military spokesman, Maj Gen. Athar Abbas, about 3,000 Pakistani soldiers have died at Siachen since 1984, of whom about 90 per cent perished from weather-related causes. Military analysts estimate the deployment costs Pakistan $5 million a month, while India spends $1 million daily because of higher troop numbers and because supplies are transported by helicopter.

The Gayari camp tragedy has triggered debate in India and Pakistan over the huge costs of keeping troops in this icy hell.
Many thinkers, politicians and social activists are askin the following two questions:-
1: Is Siachen worth fighting over?
2: How can this issue be solved between the two countries?

Many leaders and thinkers of both the countries believe that Siachen is not worth fighting over and they are demanding the glacier's demilitarisation.
Even General Ashfaq Kayani has called for the peaceful resolution of the Himalayan glacier dispute with India. "How it is done is to be decided by the military and civil leaderships" of the two countries, Kayani told reporters at Skardu airport. He also suggested Pakistan should spend less on defence and more on development. "Peaceful coexistence between the two neighbours is very important so that everybody can concentrate on the well-being of the people," he said.

The demand for demilitarisation is not new. In 2005, India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called for the creation of a "peace mountain" in the area.
The PML-N leader, Nawaz Sharif, has also suggested withdrawal of forces from Siachen. He said that Pakistan should take the initiative in demilitarisation and not make it a "matter of honour" but, on April 20, the PML-N announced that Nawaz never called for a unilateral Siachen pullout. The PML-N leader, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, made the clarification during a press conference alongside party President Nawaz Sharif.

"Mian Sahib did not suggest a unilateral withdrawal of troops from Siachen," Nisar said, adding, "What we said was Pakistan should lead a dialogue with India over the issue." He said that Nawaz Sharif's statement was misconstrued and wrongly reported in a section of the press. Speaking on the occasion, Nawaz Sharif said mistakes in the past by both Pakistan and India and their attitude towards each other had been impeding talks on the Siachen issue. The PTI leader, Imran Khan, has also called for peace and demilitarisation of the area mutually.

"It is time for both countries to step back from this madness. Every day, people die in this conflict. Going on is in nobody's interest," said Mehmood Shah, a retired Pakistan army brigadier who was once involved in talks to end the standoff, speaking with The New York Times.

Giving his response to Kayani's statement, India's Junior Minister for Defence Pallam Raju said he was "glad" that "Pakistan was also realising the challenges and the economic problems of maintaining troops on the Siachen Glacier." The Times of India described Kayani's remarks as "heartening" in its editorial.
But there are also many Indian security hawks who insist the fight must go on. Vikram Sood, a former chief of Indian intelligence, said: "In any peace negotiation with Pakistan, Siachen should be the last issue on the table, not the first." Venky Vembu writes in the Firstpost website that the Pakistan army chief talked of "peaceful coexistence" even as he used the occasion to "launch a propaganda war against India."

Indian security analyst B. Raman, a former official at India's external intelligence agency Research and Analysis (RAW), has described Kayani's remarks as a "tactical move aimed at responding to local anger against the army in the wake of the avalanche".

Both India and Pakistan are in favour of demilitarisation, but the problem is that they differ on the sequence of steps to be taken.

India wants that Pakistan must accept its occupation of the Saltoro Ridge and disregard the 3,500 square kilometres area bounded by the triangle and instead focuses on the AGPL alone. While Pakistan says that India should vacate the Saltoro Ridge first and then it is ready to settle the issue.
India is not ready to vacate the Saltoro Ridge. "If both sides have to vacate this position, the Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL) needs to be marked and, I would say, internationally approved," India's former Air Chief Marshal P. V. Naik said a year ago. Vikram Sood said, "Withdrawal from these strategic heights without any iron clad guarantees that do not extend beyond declarations of intent would be the height of folly".

The people of both the countries are living in utter poverty and ignorance due to this war. India and Pakistan have taken a good step by following the "China model" for enhancing economic and cultural activities. Indian hawks should listen to the words of General Kayani "Peaceful coexistence between the two neighbours is very important so that everybody can concentrate on the well-being of the people", and shun their anti-Pakistan views, if they want to see both the countries peaceful and prosperous.

Sudha Ramachandran writes in Asia Times: "So far, there have been 12 rounds of defence secretary-level talks between New Delhi and Islamabad on the Siachen dispute. Both sides admit that a solution was within reach several times. The avalanche disaster has prompted a public debate on the question of deployment of soldiers at the Siachen. This is promising. The question is whether this debate will prompt India and Pakistan to choose the path of peace taken by Indonesia and the Acehnese rebels, or that of confrontation opted for by the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers."

-Cuttingedge