VIEW : Siachen: a costly war for Pakistan and India

[Paan Singh]

 

[MilSpec]

On an average, defence experts say, one Pakistani soldier is killed every third day on the Siachen Glacier, showing approximately 100 casualties every year on an average. Similarly, one Indian soldier is killed every other day on the Siachen Glacier, at an annual average of 180 casualties. According to unofficial figures, over 3,000 Pakistani soldiers have lost their lives on the bloody Siachen Glacier between April 1984 and April 2012 as against over 5,000 Indian casualties. At present, there are approximately 7,000 Indian Army troops and about 4,000 Pakistani troops stationed at the Siachen Glacier.

pakistan is not on siachin glacier.

The Indian army controls all of the 70 kilometres (43 mi) long Siachen Glacier and all of its tributary glaciers, as well as the three main passes of the Saltoro Ridge immediately west of the glacier—Sia La, Bilafond La, and Gyong La—thus holding onto the tactical advantage of high ground

The Pakistanis control the glacial valley just five kilometers southwest of Gyong La.

 

[Nishan_101]

Wednesday, October 10, 2012


VIEW : Siachen: a costly war for Pakistan and India — Major Wajahat Ullah Safi



It is of paramount importance that both the countries must find an immediate solution to the problem, which must not be less than an unconditional withdrawal from Siachen Glacier by both.


Siachen Glacier, first discovered in 1907, is the world’s longest glacier outside the polar regions, measuring 47 miles in length and three miles in width while rising to about 23,272 feet until Indrakoli Pass (Turkistan la). The glacier emanates from here near the Indrakoli Pass on the Pakistan-China border, 37 aerial miles southeast of K-2, the second highest mountain in the world. It then runs along the Saltoro Range in southeasterly direction until its snout turns into the Nubra River near Dzingrulma in Indian-held Kashmir. The glacier is flanked by the Saltoro Range in the west and can be approached from the Balti town of Khapalu, Pakistan. The only other access to the glacier is along Nubra River, ascending from south to northwest in Indian-occupied Ladakh. The Saltoro Range inside Pakistan provides access to Siachen through its five passes, Sia la (23,960 feet), Bilafond la (20,210 feet), Gyong la (18,500 feet), Yarma la (20,000 feet) and Chulung la (19,000 feet). It is on these perennially snowbound heights and passes that the Indian and Pakistani armies are entrenched.

On July 27, 1949, Pakistan and India signed the Karachi Agreement (also known as the Ceasefire Agreement), which established a ceasefire line running through the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. By this time, India controlled and occupied over two-thirds of Kashmir. This ceasefire line was established by experts from the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) as well as the Indian and Pakistani armed forces, and drawn up according to the countries’ military positions at the time of the ceasefire. The line started from a point near Chamb in Jammu and ran north in a rough arc for 497 miles, then headed northeastward to a point called NJ 9842 (map reference point). The point is located about 12 miles north of Shyok River in the Saltoro Range of the Karakoram Mountains. From this point north to the Chinese border, the area was left undemarcated because of its physical inaccessibility and the fact that neither country had military troops stationed there. The costly Siachen conflict is over this undemarcated, approximately 50-mile stretch of icy wasteland in the disputed territory of northern Kashmir.

India insists that, according to the agreement, the ceasefire line beyond NJ 9842 runs northward to the Chinese border through the glaciated region, putting Siachen Glacier under its control. Pakistan disagrees, claiming that the 1949 Karachi Agreement contained no reference to a border ceasefire line beyond NJ 9842. In fact, India has violated both the 1972 Simla Agreement and the 1949 Karachi Agreement by unilaterally crossing the line of control and occupying Siachen Glacier in 1984. The Indians occupied the heights and the key northern passes of Sia la and Bilafond la on the Saltoro Range and later towards the south to Chullung la.

It has been 28 years since both the Indians and Pakistanis are entrenched at Siachen facing each other. Throughout the conflict, India has claimed the right to control all of Kashmir, including Siachen, regardless of the Karachi agreement. In fact, the Siachen Glacier is part of the Northern Areas of Pakistan in the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir and has been under its administrative control from 1947 to 1984. Many mountaineering and trekking expeditions were sent to the area during this period, authorised by the Pakistan government. As early as 1957, the Imperial College of London asked the Pakistan authorities for permission to send an expedition to Siachen. Many other international expeditions, including one by an Austrian team (in 1961) and three by Japanese groups (in 1962, 1975 and 1976), sought Pakistani authorisation to visit Siachen’s nearby mountain peaks and glaciers. In addition, many international mountaineering, trekking journals and guide books refer to Pakistan as the governmental authority in the Siachen area like Britannica Atlas, the National Geographic Society’s Atlas of the World, The Times Atlas of the World and the University of Chicago’s A Historical Atlas of South Asia. They all place Siachen Glacier and the surrounding territory within the borders of Pakistan.

For the last 28 years, countless lives from both the sides have been lost more due to the hard climate and rugged glaciated terrain than firefights and skirmishes. Both the countries are developing; have poor economies, and the majority of the population of both are deprived of the basic amenities of life, yet both are spending millions of dollars out of their defence budget in maintaining and sustaining the troops at Siachen. The recent episode of Gayari Sector in which the complete battalion headquarters of the Pakistan army was crushed when an overhanging glacier broke loose in the shape of a massive avalanche and buried 145 soldiers alive, calls for an immediate solution to the problem. Human lives — whether Pakistani or Indian — are precious and especially when they are being lost for such a useless icy wasteland. This then raises serious questions for the rulers of both the countries. Pakistan and India have emerging economies and both the nations need to do a lot to improve the lives and general condition of their civilian population where many live below the poverty line.

India is spending much more as compared to Pakistan on the Siachen Glacier and its side of the logistics route. It needs mostly air transportation by helicopters to sustain its frontline troops, which entails a very heavy cost on its defence budget. It is, therefore, of paramount importance that both the countries sit at the table to find an immediate solution to the problem, which must not be less than an unconditional withdrawal from Siachen Glacier by both. It shall help relieve their ailing economies and more so shall save precious human lives. Such a withdrawal by both countries shall protect the natural environment of the glacier (which is a main source of water for both). It is high time now that Pakistan and India resolve all their outstanding issues including Kashmir, Sir Creek, Siachen, distribution of water as per the Indus Water Treaty as well as both sides learning to respect each other’s sovereignty. The goodwill between both the countries shall ultimately benefit the masses in terms of peace, progress and prosperity.

The writer is a former officer of the elite Armoured Corps Regiment, Staff Captain (A) of an Independent Armoured Brigade Group during escalation with India in 2001-02, commander of an armour squadron on an internal security operation at Sui-Dera Bugti in 2003-06 and General Staff Officers Operations of two Corps of Pakistan Rangers (Punjab). He is also a former national level hockey player and holds an Army gold in the 33rd Para Central Meet-2005

I think we should make some more progress to make better arrangements in Siachin for the Soldiers like better Shelters, Helicopter Shelters that can even support in terms of technical fault in it and some dedicated Mi-17s and Bell-412 for there along with much improved Medical Facilities there that can be hidden from Enemy's Eyes.

 

[third eye]

I think we should make some more progress to make better arrangements in Siachin for the Soldiers like better Shelters, Helicopter Shelters that can even support in terms of technical fault in it and some dedicated Mi-17s and Bell-412 for there along with much improved Medical Facilities there that can be hidden from Enemy's Eyes.

The enemy is the weather, terrain & altitude.

 

[sms]

One Indian Soldier killed every other day? It's news to me. My brother and his company from RR has been stationed there twice in last few yrs and they had no casualties. In fact they have enjoyed (more money and excellent food) staying there.

PA has no control on any part of Siachen Glacier and loosing 1 soldier in 3 days show incompetence of planners and misuse of funds allocated to provide better equipments to soldiers.

This article shows PA is not able to sustain pressure (read monetary & man) and now whining to withdraw. Give us one reason that Why should IA withdraw from Siachen (position of advantage) on PA (Tactically disadvantage position)?

 

[SamantK]

Not withstanding who first initiated the sneaky occupation some thirty years earlier, and by conservative estimates, it's India which fares worst in both monetary and men losses.

Is that why this proposition has been initiated? I hope not, the history has shown that Pakistan does not give a damn to our losses in men and money.

How we fare or not is none of Pakistan's business, it should at least focus on the terms put on the table and not go gyrating for who did what.

Also, we Indians must come as rude to you guys absolutely refusing to give any leeway, well either you guys have not understood the bad blood between our countries or just bring out such propositions to show India in the bad light.. carry on!

 

[danger007]

I think we should make some more progress to make better arrangements in Siachin for the Soldiers like better Shelters, Helicopter Shelters that can even support in terms of technical fault in it and some dedicated Mi-17s and Bell-412 for there along with much improved Medical Facilities there that can be hidden from Enemy's Eyes.

huh really nishan? do you forget about climate and altitude etc???

 

[karan.1970]

Not withstanding who first initiated the sneaky occupation some thirty years earlier, and by conservative estimates, it's India which fares worst in both monetary and men losses.

Which is understandable since India occupies the heights in this area and has a bigger deployment than Pakistani Army (7000 vs 4000) By those numbers, it seems Indian Army still manages a better attrition rate despite being in a more hazardous terrain... Though I would take your numbers with a pinch of salt since the source of these are Pakistani defence experts..Though also from the same article

The Pakistanis are no better off since they lose fewer men to the hostile elements and more to the Indian firing. The Pakistani authorities had admitted in 1994 that their non-combat casualties since 1984 accounted for over 80 percent of total attrition. The Pakistani positions are, for the most part, at a lower altitude in the glacier area, ranging between 9,000 to 15,000 feet (some are at a much higher altitude such as Conway Saddle, at 17,200 feet, which controls doorway to the glacier). Over the last two decades, Pakistan has tried many times to displace the Indian forces, but had to retreat each time. The Indian troops have to do nothing but sit tight and periodically repel a Pakistani assault.

Over 8,000 Indo-Pak soldiers killed in Siachen - thenews.com.pk

 

[hunter_hunted]

Well war is always costly whether u fight in a battle ground on top of mountain .

It costs Human life , plant life animal life and not to mention negative impact on economy.

 

[sms]

Well war is always costly whether u fight in a battle ground on top of mountain .

It costs Human life , plant life animal life and not to mention negative impact on economy.

You've summed it very well! Fully agree with your post.

Just puzzled why Pakistan chose path of losses and still find pride in it, be wars with India, Afghanistan, Kashmir, etc ..? Is it product of confused ideology?

Hope you guys get good govt. who dare to put an end to it and exploit Pakistan's potential to grow and become prosperous.

 

[Cheetah786]

Our labs have been successfully innovating high altitude gizmos which has made the life of our soldiers less stressful . There are plenty of threads here on high altitude innovations and solutions.

The losses ..monetary and human has been brought to nil. So we can afford to stay atop for our own interest until adversary agrees to mark the positions.

India and Pakistan are seldom on the same page. Partly, it is because they carry the baggage of tragic history and partly because they have no trust in each other. Above all, there is a general perception in India that since the army is a decisive factor in the affairs of Pakistan, it is not possible to foster any meaningful relationship until it becomes a democratic polity in the real sense. In fact, from the time General Mohammad Ayub Khan took over the reins of Pakistan in 1958, India has assumed that no normalcy between the two countries is achievable.
After becoming the Martial Law Administrator, General Ayub offered even a “joint defence pact.” India’s then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spurned the offer with the remark: “Joint defence against whom?” The leaders of the two other military regimes in the seventies and later – General Zia-ul Haq and General Pervez Musharraf – were never taken seriously because New Delhi believed that their say from the military point of view would never allow any exercise for peace to succeed.
Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Pervez Kayani has jolted India’s past thinking by advocating “peaceful coexistence” between the two countries. But his suggestion that the civil and military leaderships should discuss ways to resolve the issue is a bit confusing. He should know that the military leadership in India is not part of the decision-making process which is primarily in the hands of the elected representatives.
General Kayani’s proposal does not stop at the Siachen Glacier. He has hinted at a follow-up and has thus belied the impression that peace between India and Pakistan is a hostage to the army’s hawkish thinking. He has given a window of opportunity which the governments on both sides should grab with both hands to normalise relations. Unless there is a back channel working on Kayani’s suggestion, New Delhi is not reacting officially. The media has by and large welcomed Kayani’s proposal but otherwise the comment has been guarded. The question is whether the Indian forces would withdraw from the Siachen Glacier because President Asif Ali Zardari has rejected the unilateral withdrawal as was suggested by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
However, if Pakistan were to do so, it would put India under a lot of pressure to reciprocate. Morally, New Delhi’s position would be so untenable that it would have to withdraw the forces. Even if we rule out this line of thinking, Pakistan would have to assure India that Islamabad would not try to occupy the vacant area if and when New Delhi withdraws.
Whatever Pakistan decides, it has to have the nod of General Kayani. He cannot go against the wishes of the Pakistani people who want peace with India. General Kayani can neither be oblivious to the fact that a military takeover in Pakistan is well-nigh impossible when all political parties have now joined hands to uphold the dictum of democratic change.
I wish the reaction in India had been more forthcoming. There is a long dreary period of mistrust. But it has to be dispelled by sitting across the table and not putting any conditions before doing so. General Kayani has mentioned all outstanding problems between the two countries which need to be put on the table for solution. The starting point can be the Siachen Glacier as General Kayani’s remarks indicate. After visiting the sites where 180 Pakistani soldiers were buried in snow he was moved and saw the futility of perching his forces at the height of some 23,000 feet. The same is the case with India which too had lost hundreds of soldiers at the Siachen Glacier over a period time. But the main worry is that what happens when its forces withdraw from the glacier?
The solution to Siachen Glacier should present no problems because both sides have gone over the details in the last several years. There was a time when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had initialed a settlement, agreeing to a no-man land status. But the signatures could not take place because some Indian army commanders had a different point of view. They saw some strategic advantage which some others commanders dispute. If the Line of Control could be delineated after the Shimla Conference up to the area near the glacier, the same line can be extended right up to the end. Otherwise, the two sides will continue to pay a heavy price in terms of soldiers and logistics. Once again, it is distrust which rules out an agreement.
The climate for a dialogue on all problems is conducive. People on both sides want it. General Kayani said that the army understood well the need to bring down the defence budget, adding, “we would like to spend less on defence” because ultimately “security doesn’t only mean secure border but the welfare of the people.” This means that the army is ready to take cuts. This also means the reduction of troops on the border.
The solutions to Siachen Glacier and that of Sir Creek, which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said are “doable,” will create an atmosphere of give and take and it is quite on the cards that some way out may be found to solve Kashmir. Most important is that the aperture of peace should not be allowed to be shut without both sides going to the maximum limit in accommodating each other. If General Kayani, a soldier and not a politician, can talk of permanent peace between the two countries, then why not the rulers?
There are voices which may say ‘Can we trust them?’ By not trusting, both have fought three wars, apart from the Kargil incursion. Let them, for a change, trust each other. Otherwise, history will hold the present governments responsible for letting the opportunity for peace go by.

 

[Contrarian]

Not withstanding who first initiated the sneaky occupation some thirty years earlier,

No one cares. India believes that it simply beat Pakistan in the race to the top. Had we been behind by a week or 2, it would have been Pakistan sitting there.

Lastly, Pakistan's misadventure at Kargil proves that they dont really care about international lines and LoC. What to talk about ethics in such a case when dealing with Pakistan. The only thing Pakistani's are sad about is that they lost and are not on the glacier. They would have loved a role reversal.

and by conservative estimates, it's India which fares worst in both monetary and men losses.

India HAD a higher cost in lives lost till 5 years back. Now with the help of better technology, the Army has achieved zero losses due to weather.
Today, Pakistan is the only one suffering and smarting from losses in men.

As far as money is concerned, the amount spent on Siachen is practically peanuts. No article fails to mention the cost of holding Siachen as high for India. They apply Pakistani standards.

The solution is clear: Demarcate and authenticate current troop lines, only then will India withdraw. If not, we are more than happy with status quo.

 

[fatman17]

It is a well known fact that Indian troops are at a higher position....So request of withdrawal, if any, must come from Indian side.

We are fine even in much severe conditions. Why to talk it again and again?

go spend 6 months at siachen, then i will ask you again!

 

[ice_man]

well guess what INDIA CAN AFFORD to be in SIACHEN due to a blooming economy! Pakistan CANNOT AFFORD to be there due to a crippled ECONOMY.

IF PAKISTAN had the upper hand in terms of higher ground INDIA MIGHT have considered to pull back. but having better ground & more money there is no way india will be willing to pull back!

sdo CLEARLY either PAKISTAN should keep the status quo or try & wrestle the siachen heights away. the latter will lead to global Condemnation.


smart thing to do is keep status quo until Pakistan is in a position to BETTER NEGOTIATE with the enemy.

 

[T90TankGuy]

Not withstanding who first initiated the sneaky occupation some thirty years earlier, and by conservative estimates, it's India which fares worst in both monetary and men losses.

if thats the case mate then why is it that its Pakistan who keeps claiming that we need to settle this issue? are you that concerned for us?

the fact of the matter is that Pakistan cant afford to keep troops posted with the state of their economy .