NEW DELHI: India and Pakistan are still working out the dates for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s proposed visit to Islamabad, with May and July being the two months under current discussion. Dr Manmohan Singh is now almost certain to take with him back channel negotiated solutions to Siachen, and possibly Sir Creek, although there is stiff opposition from the Indian Army to the political proposal for a thaw off Siachen.
The political proposal that both India and Pakistan appear to have agreed could become a solution centres around New Delhi’s willingness to attach as an annexure its last held military positions on Siachen to the larger report of demilitarisation of the glacier, without formal authentication by Pakistan.
In this sense the military positions will be demarcated and included as part of the report to be signed by both the governments without Pakistan having to concede any ground as it will not be formally authenticating the annexures. A solution to Siachen has evaded both India and Pakistan precisely because of differences on one, the demarcation of the last held military positions; and two, the Indian demand that these should be authenticated formally by both sides before the troops pull back to agreed-on positions.
A former foreign secretary told this correspondent that a Siachen solution was “in the pocket” on at least two occasions in the past — he was probably referring to 1989 and 1998 — but could not be realised because of “unforeseen complications.”
The Chief of Army Staff, Gen. J.J. Singh, has reportedly apprised the government of the Army’s concerns on this issue. There is an apprehension within the military that if Pakistan re-occupies the positions held by the Indian Army “there will be nothing we can then do about it.” Weather-related fatalities, sources pointed out, are “almost zero” now for the troops posted at the glacier, and although deaths in avalanches and falling off heights continue to take place, Army officers insist that this comes with the job even in other parts of the Himalayas.
A former Army vice-chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Vijay Oberoi (Retd), was very direct: “It (the political proposal on Siachen) is not okay. All this while we have been saying we should authenticate it, and now we are willing for it to be part of the annexure without the authentication. We are resiling from our long-held position, and if we accept this as a solution it only means we have climbed down. Why are we climbing down, for what?”
He was emphatic that the solution to Siachen should “not be reduced to a confidence-building measure like a bus service, these are very important negotiations and should be handled accordingly. It seems to me that we are unnecessarily conceding our position when we have no need to.” He agreed with his serving colleagues that “if Pakistan reoccupies our positions, once they get on to that high ground and access from their side is far easier, then there is nothing we can do, we cannot throw them back.”
India has been demanding that the maps of the positions last held by both sides should be endorsed by Pakistan, which has consistently refused for two basic reasons: one, it says that the territory is its own and not India’s; and two, authentication would amount to an admission that the Indians have held a higher position than the Pakistani troops. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will clearly have to face considerable criticism from the military as well as the strategic establishment if this indeed is the formula for a solution, as while the former is looking upon demilitarisation in the current form as a strategic retreat, the latter is keen that Siachen should not be taken as a stand-alone proposal but should be linked to Kashmir.
A former diplomat insisted he was not just speaking for himself when he said: “If we give on Siachen, which is what this now amounts to, then we should be able to dictate some terms on Kashmir.” This view too has been reportedly communicated to the government.
Sir Creek could be the other dispute for India to extract concessions on, although Pakistan continues to maintain that Siachen and Sir Creek do not constitute a “package deal” in any sense of the term. Back channel work has been going on to narrow the gap in perceptions on this specific issue, although it has not yielded concrete results as yet. Progress was made during the recent rounds of the composite dialogue, with both governments conducting a joint survey of the horizontal segment on land “successfully and expeditiously.” However, a decision to carry out a similar joint survey of Sir Creek in its entirety reportedly failed on the issue of “technicalities” and “mandate”. This is where it still is, and while sources said that efforts were on for a political resolution, it was still not in sight.
Dr Singh has indicated that he does not want his visit to Pakistan to turn out to be a non-event, and that he would like the settlement of at least Siachen and Sir Creek under his belt for what could then be projected as a successful visit.
The larger agreement on Siachen will deal with demilitarisation, troop withdrawal to agreed-on positions, a resolve not to reoccupy vacated military positions, not to undertake military patrols and mountaineering expeditions. It could not be ascertained whether the Indian argument that the new military positions at lower altitudes should be determined by the time, and not the distance it took to reach the glacier, has been addressed in the political proposal.—By arrangement with The Asianage
