By V Mahalingam
The government hasn’t spoken about it. The opposition seems to be
oblivious to the goings on. The print and electronic media have chosen to
remain silent. But the Atlantic Council, a US-based think tank in its Press release on 02 Oct 2012 announced that
a group of retired senior officials, military officers and diplomats of India
and Pakistan “have agreed on a proposal regarding the demilitarization of the
Siachen area”. The project it appears had been “jointly organized
by the University of Ottawa and the South Asia Center at the
Atlantic Council”.
No one seems to know if this Track 2 effort had been
undertaken at the behest of Government of India, Pakistan or some other third
party. However one of the team members has confirmed that the team had received
briefings in New Delhi from Government officials. It appears that India and
Pakistan have been engaged in military-level Track 2 talks for the past 12
months, with the delegates of the two sides meeting in Dubai, Bangkok and
finally in Lahore in September. Smaller “sub-group” meetings in Chiang Mai
(Thailand) and Palo Alto (California) have also featured in the Track 2
process. All these meetings, the move of both the teams back and forth would
have cost some money. Who footed the bill? Was it India, Pakistan, Atlantic
Council, or the University of Ottawa? What was the interest?
Is it a normal practice in diplomacy for a foreign think tank
sponsored Track 2 team consisting of individuals selected by the sponsoring
agency to be briefed by Government officials? Is it appropriate for the team to
go to an inimical foreign country and agree on demilitarization or to agree on
the modalities for demilitarization of an area which it had been holding for
years without the Government deciding on the very basic question whether to
withdraw from the position or
not? Or has the Government taken a decision to withdraw from Siachen
without taking the Parliament or the opposition into confidence? Which of these
are true? The people of this country have a right to know the truth.
Three countries have interest in areas in and around Siachen.
This aspect will have a major bearing on the strategic importance of Siachen
and India’s decision to demilitarize the area (See map). The areas concerned
are the Northern Area, Gilgit, Baltisatan, Saltoro, Shaksgam Valley and Aksai
Chin. The Gilgit and Baltistan located to the immediate west of Saltoro is a
part of Pakistan with majority Shia population. Pakistan is actively
considering a proposal to lease the region
to Beijing for 50 years. The
Sakshgam valey immediately to the North of Saltoro has already been ceded to
China by Pakistan illegally. Xinjiang lies to the immediate North of Sakshgam.
Aksai Chin which is occupied by China lies to the South East of Sakshgam
Valley.
The Nurba Valley and Ladakh leading to J&K are hemmed in
on three sides by Baltistan, Sakshgam Valley and Aksai Chin. If the proposal to
lease the Gilgit – Baltistan area goes through and India withdraws from
Siachen, all the three areas right up to Xinjiang will be under Chinese control.
The Karakoram Highway which runs through these areas connects
China's Xinjiang region with Pakistan's Northern Areas across the Karakoram
mountain range, through the Khunjerab Pass. China and Pakistan are also
planning to link the Karakoram Highway to the southern port of Gwadar in
Balochistan through the Chinese-aided Gwadar-Dalbandin railway, which extends
up to Rawalpindi. The Karakoram Highway passes through an area where China,
Tajikistan, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan come as close to each other as 250
kms and has its own strategic importance and significance to India.
Looking at the map in the context of the above, does anyone
have any doubt as to which of the three countries would benefit the most by
vacating Saltoro? Is Pakistan trying to help their all-weather friend to be
able to dominate the entire area to the North of our areas of interest? Saltoro
ridge acts as a separator between Pakistan (Baltistan – Gilgit) and China. Do
we want them to link up by demilitarizing the area? Doesn’t vacating
Saltoro threaten the security of Nubra Valley?
It is regretted that the maps given with the article could not be reproduced.
They can be seen at the link given below.
The entire country believes that the Military is occupying
Siachen because it belongs to it and rightly so. The 1972 Shimla Agreement clearly stated that from the NJ9842
the boundary would proceed "thence north to the glaciers." This
implies that Saltoro ridge is well within Indian Territory. Is it necessary for
a country to go and sign an agreement with a neighboring country for
unilaterally withdrawing its forces from its own territory? What are the
compulsions warranting India to concede to Pakistan’s demand for withdrawing
from Saltoro ridge? Even assuming that the agreement provides adequate
safeguards against Pakistan occupying Saltoro ridge after India’s withdrawal,
does the agreement provide any guarantee against China occupying the Saltoro
ridge and threatening India especially after the Baltistan – Gilgit areas have
been leased to it by Pakistan? Would we not run into another mess should
China choose to say that it has nothing to do with the agreement signed between
India and Pakistan?
Withdrawal from Saltoro and Siachen would threaten Ladakh and
will expose important mountain passes that are gateways to Ladakh and onto
Kashmir to the aggressor including terrorists. Will that not require establishing
a fresh defence line along the Ladakh Range to successfully defend our areas of
interest? What will be the requirement of troops for such a venture and at what
cost? Has an appraisal of the military requirement in the event of
demilitarization of Siachen been obtained from the Army Chief? How will such a
withdrawal impact our security in relation to the Karakoram Highway?
As experienced in the past, aren’t issues such as cross
border terrorism in J &K, terrorist training camps across, funding and
arming terrorists in J&K to destabilize the country much more serious than
Sir Creek or Siachen? Why then are we being soft on Pakistan by agreeing to
unilaterally withdraw from Siachen while Pakistan continues to aid and abet
terrorism right inside our country? Has Pakistan done anything in the past to
exhibit its sincerity or to be able to trust them? Have we sought any
guarantees or quid pro quo in the other major areas of our concern?
Is the Government of India prepared to give a guarantee that
the Indian Army would not be required to recapture Saltoro ridge should
Pakistan or China occupy the position after India vacates it or if Indian soil
is threatened? If not, would the soldiers of the Indian Army be forced to shed
blood for a mess up by the arm chair politicians and bureaucrats who are least
concerned with war fighting or its cost to human life and to the country?
Lack of strategic culture and the worth of a non-professional
generalist bureaucracy is showing up once again. Were the Service Chiefs
parts of the decision making process in whatever role that the Government had
played in the Track 2 diplomacy? Isn’t the military a concerned party? Why then
are they not part of the decision making process?
It only goes to prove that our bureaucrats and politicians
would never hesitate to shed your blood for their stupidities and ambitions.
Above article by Veteran Brig V Mahalingam is by the kind courtesy of
No comments:
Post a Comment