Resolving Siachen

Journalists visiting Siachen on Wednesday to have a first-hand view of the circumstances surrounding the Gayari tragedy were able to draw out the normally reticent CoAS General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani. Although he still insisted and rightly so, that "we should focus on this tragedy" and responded to questions saying the high cost and environmental impact were good reasons why the area should not be militarised. "Peaceful coexistence between the two neighbours," he averred, "is very important so that everybody can concentrate on the well-being of the people."
As it is, Pakistan and India agree that they need to pull back from the world's highest battlefield, where soldiers die every other day due to height and climatic conditions related problems rather than combat. A cease-fire holds since 2003, yet they have failed to find a way to disengage.
For several years now the two sides have been trying to negotiate a resolution, and reports suggest that in 1989 they came close to a settlement, but then India backed out. The Gayari incident has brought the futility of the conflict back into focus. There is a renewed realisation that it is a senseless conflict which must come to an end. The solution is linked to the genesis of the conflict. Siachen is located in the disputed Kashmir region. The Line of Control demarcating their respective positions did not cover the glacier. Taking advantage of the situation, Indian forces moved in to occupy the Saltoro ridge. Pakistan later responded securing some of the lower but vital peaks, controlling access to the K-2 mountain and a pass overlooking the approach to Leh district in Kashmir as well as two rivers that join the Indus further downstream. It is therefore important for it to stay there unless and until the other side pulls back too, restoring status quo ante.
Some in Pakistan, including the PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif, have suggested unilateral withdrawal by Pakistan. The assumption being that since the cost of staying on the glacier is even higher for India than for Pakistan, both in terms of lives lost and financial burden therefore once one side withdraws the other will do likewise. What this argument ignores is the fact that the CoAS pointed out, Pakistan's forces went to the area in response to India's occupation of the Siachen Glacier in 1984. Even so, it is willing to withdraw to the pre-1984 positions. That has not helped. India wants to retain the gains it made through invasion, insisting that any agreement must be based on Actual Ground Positions ie, present positions. This would amount to according legitimacy to an act of aggression. It would also be violative of the Simla Agreement under which both sides resolved to respect the Line of Control "without prejudice to the recognised position of either side" and the provision that "neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally." Moreover, that could have other serious repercussions vis-a-vis Pakistan's control on some vital access routes. Hopefully, better sense will prevail when the two countries' officials meet later this month in the backdrop of Gayari avalanche disaster. They must find a way of respecting each other's claims in the spirit of the Simla Agreement, and agree to demilitarise the glacier.