The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : A SENSELESS CONFRONTATION

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Aug 09, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

A SENSELESS CONFRONTATION

THE GOOD NEWS from the recent talks between India and Pakistan to resolve the dispute over the Siachen Glacier is that the two sides have agreed to hold further discussions on the modalities for disengagement and redeployment of forces. However, the lack of progress towards ending a confrontation described by several experts as "strategically futile and economically costly" is a matter of concern. While the two armies have observed a ceasefire since November 25, 2003, the discussions must be carried on with greater urgency since the soldiers of the two armies suffer horrendously even in periods of peace. The harsh climatic conditions of a battlefield situated 6,000 metres above mean sea level have caused more deaths and permanent disabilities among the troops than the artillery duels and skirmishes over 20 years of combat. The costs of conducting military operations at these altitudes are also prohibitive; India alone is estimated to have spent Rs.30,000 crores in the first decade. What is all the more frustrating is that while the two countries agree that they must withdraw their troops from the glacier region, they have not been able to work out the processes by which this goal can be achieved.

While India and Pakistan have placed on the table various sets of proposals during eight rounds of talks, each accuses the other of refusing to accept established facts. Pakistan believes that India backed off from an accord arrived at during the fifth round of talks in 1989; it provided for a relocation of the two forces to the positions they occupied at the time of the Shimla Agreement. For its part, New Delhi is irked at Islamabad's refusal to authenticate maps that depict the positions currently held by the two armies (the Actual Ground Position Line or AGPL) in any manner other than through a non-binding annexure (as Islamabad proposed during the sixth round of talks in 1992). The Indian army currently holds the high ground along the Saltoro range that flanks the glacier. It is worried that its counterpart will be tempted to take over these positions after a withdrawal if there is no bilateral agreement on the AGPL. India's concerns are not baseless since Pakistan has its own interpretation of the vaguely phrased terms of the 1949 agreement that defines the ceasefire line and the 1972 agreement that delineates the Line of Control (LoC). Both agreements describe the line dividing the two armies as running towards the glacier from NJ 9842, the grid reference point up to which it has been demarcated on the ground. However, while the 1949 agreement states that the ceasefire line runs northwards beyond NJ 9842, the 1972 agreement mentions an eastward alignment for the LoC. While the northwest to southeast orientation of the glacier further complicates the picture, India maintains that the LoC would run along the watershed line of the Saltoro range if established cartographic principles were applied.

Unfortunately, India and Pakistan have not been able thus far to delink the two issues of troop redeployment and the final demarcation of the LoC (although proposals to this effect were made off and on during the several rounds of talks). The present period of detente offers an excellent opportunity to explore the potential of a proposal to constitute a zone of disengagement that would cover the several thousand square kilometres of barren territory that were turned into a battleground. The negotiators could take note of a belief reportedly shared by the two armies: if one were to initiate the withdrawal, the other would almost certainly follow suit.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

INFLATION SURGES

A SENSELESS CONFRONTATION

Abu Ghraib & the Milosevic standard

The orphans of Laos

Over-the-top proposals