What is Siachen dispute between India and Pakistan?

 

What is Siachen dispute between India and Pakistan?

Reference: page 181-182 of book 'Diplomatic Footprints' authored by @aizaz1101

The Siachen dispute started when India moved its troops in 1984 to occupy Siachen glacier in violation of Simla Agreement of 1972 and the Karachi Agreement of July 1949. The latter had enabled the demarcation of the Ceasefire Line (CFL) up to the map coordinates NJ 9842.

Beyond NJ 9842, para B 2 (d) of the Karachi Agreement had stipulated that the boundary would proceed " thence north to the glaciers". The Simla Agreement converted CFL into the LoC and demarcated it up to point NJ 9842.

It was presumed that there would be no dispute over frozen & barren glaciers in north. Pakistan's understanding was that from NJ 9842, Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL) would move on to the north towards Karakoram Pass, thus keeping the Siachen glacier in Pakistani territory.

Pakistan was also controlling trekking permits for the area. In 1984, however, India unilaterally moved to occupy 70 km long Siachen glacier on the grounds that the AGPL moved north - north-west towards Indra Koli Pass, thus keeping Siachen glacier in its control.

This in Pakistan's view, was a violation of 1949 Karachi Agreement & 1972 Simla Agreement, which stipulated that LoC "shall be respected by both sides & that pending final settlement of any of problems between two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter situation".

Pakistani official circles believe that in 1989, two sides had reached agreement in principle at level of Prime Ministers Benazir & Rajiv Gandhi, which was then followed up by an understanding in 1992 at level of defense secretaries on disengagement & redeployment of troops.

However, before understanding could be translated into any agreement, Indians had a rethink & raised issue of authentication of present actual positions. Ever since, it has been Indian policy to seek authentication of actual positions before disengagement & redeployment discussed.

This was not acceptable to Pakistan because authenticating the present positions would mean accepting India's illegal occupation of the glacier in 1984 & an extension of the LoC along the Indian present positions.
In my (author) view, Pakistan had proposed a constructive way forward.

Package approach comprising disengagement, redeployment, & a monitoring mechanism, with schedules & timelines, including timelines of occupation & redeployment, would have addressed Indian concerns regarding authentication as past, present and future positions would be reflected.

When Indians did not agree to it, I (author) suspected that perhaps they just did not want to see a resolution of issue & preferred status quo. Some of our suspicions were confirmed, when in 2007, reports began streaming in that India had started adventure tourism in Siachen.

Also started sending trekking teams to Siachen, established a weather station in region & started building a mountaineering training institute. These developments indicated that India would in all likelihood continue with its hardened position in future talks on Siachen.