Siachin trekking

Pakistan OBSERVER, Tue, Sep,25, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema
 

Recently the Pakistani foreign office summoned the Deputy High Commissioner of India and strongly protested to India over the start of tourist activities at the Siachin glacier saying that this move could hurt the ongoing peace process. The Pakistanis stress that the Siachin glacier was illegally occupied by the India in 1984 and since then it is under Indian occupation, therefore India cannot initiate any tourist activities in this area. 

Among the long list of disputes that are consuming enormous energies of both the Pakistanis and the Indians to reach an amicable solution includes Siachin. However it needs to be stated that this dispute was also perceived by many as relatively simple yet it has defied solution. The dispute originated in 1984 the Indians invaded Siachin and occupied some areas which were considered as part of Pakistani area. The invasion prompted a similar reaction by the Pakistanis and consequently a war started. 

It is not surprising that the Pakistanis also deployed troops in response to Indian aggression but it needs to state here that the fighting was limited and more soldiers, from both sides, died of extremity of weather rather than in actual combat. The glacier is situated at the extreme of northwestern edge of the subcontinent south of Chinese border  at an altitude of more than 22,000 feet with an extremely hostile temperature ranging from 50 C – 60 C which is deemed unsuitable for human habitation. 

The roots of conflict lie in the Karachi Agreement of 1949 which defined the temporary ceasefire line which was later converted into Line of Control (LOC). The line was defined up to the map point NJ 9842 and glacier area was not demarcated as it was considered to be not fit for human habitation. It was presumed that humans could not survive north of point NJ 9842. Undoubtedly the roots of conflict are the non-demarcation of glacier area. 

Accor5ding to the Pakistanis,  India forcibly occupied sections of the Siachin glacier which was under Pakistani control in 1984 in violation of both the 1949 Karachi Agreement as well as the 1972 Simla Accord. The Simla Agreement clearly says that neither side shall seek to alter (LOC) it unilaterally irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Hence the occupation of certain heights in 1984 was a blatant violation of the Simla Accord. 

The Indian side argues that it would withdraw from the Glacier only after authentication of the existing position of troops. Pakistanis believe that if they agree to current authentication of troops, then they are likely to legitimize the Indian aggression and occupation of areas that were deemed to be under Pakistani control. Besides, it is also argued that why this objection was not raised at the time of 1989 when understanding was reached but agreement was not signed because of political reasons. 

Prior to the start of the dispute, the records indicate that during the 70s and 80s many mountaineering expeditions climbed Siachin heights via Pakistan. While all such expeditions sought permission from the Pakistani authorities, no objections were raised by the Indians then. Even an Indian mountaineering expedition secured permission from the Pakistanis. Most of the maps published in the Western magazines depicted the area as part of Pakistani controlled. 

The question that needs examination is why the Indian are allowing the tourist activities without resolving the dispute itself.  The answer to this question primarily revolves around exploiting the internal difficult situation of Pakistan as well as the existence of uneasy peace between India and Pakistan. The underneath idea seem to take full advantage of the existing environment and start tourist activities in the area initially sending Indian trekkers and later allow the trekking for foreigners. 

It needs to be highlighted here that despite the existence of concepts like Peace Park, Peace Mountain, Science Park, the two sides were still unable to work out a feasible solution. In many parts of the world such solutions have been implemented. While the two sides have been making very encouraging statements but when one reviews the record regarding conflict resolution, one is bound to be disappointed. Admittedly it is not all that easy to resolve disputes quickly as these have been stagnating over time, but then start has to be made somewhere and Siachin was deemed such an issue that could be easily provide the necessary start. 

It is not too far fetched to assume that many Pakistanis are now becoming somewhat convinced that India is playing for time and unnecessary delay in its resolution is generating adverse impressions. Without reaching an agreement with Pakistan or securing the desired resolution of the Siachin dispute, the Indians thought fit in their wisdom to go ahead with their plan of allowing Indian trekkers to visit the area. Had an agreement been reached over declaring the area as a peace park, the tourists from both sides could be legitimately allowed. 

There is no doubt that Siachin was considered as perhaps the easiest among the long list of Indo-Pak disputes. It is a well known fact that both sides in 1989 had worked out a plan to resolve the dispute but the plan was not put to practice as then Indian prime minister thought that the agreement could cost some votes. Consequently the agreement was put on the hold. When the current peace process started everybody thought that Siachin resolution would not pose any problem until the Indian army injected unnecessary complication. 

 In 2007 the Indian army began to stress that it would not withdraw from Siachin unless the authentication of positions is done. Mr. Manmohan Singh’s statement that Siachin talks are complicated appeared to be reflective either of lukewarm attitude or increasing influence of Indian military over decision making. There is no doubt that the Indian army has been increasingly asserting itself in many ways. 

The second undesired complication could be the latest move of allowing the tourists/trekkers to visit the area. This move in conjunction with the earlier moves can be viewed as an act of solidifying the complicated nature of the dispute which in turn would further defy resolution. If Siachin cannot be resolved which was known to be a relatively simple dispute, one cannot afford to be optimistic about the ongoing peace process. 

There are three categories of people; those who are very optimistic about the eventual outcome of the peace process and then there are those who have firm belief that no dispute would be resolved. The third category consists of those people who believe that eventually something will be produced by this ongoing dialogue process but it would be only on Indian terms. 

It is difficult to deny that with a huge baggage of adverse relationships that has been accumulating over the years, to expect quick resolution of any dispute is a futile exercise. But the disappointment begin to reign when one realizes that even a resolvable dispute like Siachin has not yet been resolved even after 12 meetings and further complications are injected into in one form or the other.
 

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.