Background :-
Siachen has been in the news recently due to the avalanche which took away precious lives who guard our country. Many news editorials came up with the prescription to demilitarize Siachen. In light of this the debate is indeed quite relevant and a through analysis of it thus called for.
Analysis :-
Before delving in to the various aspects of Sicahen , it in necessary to understand what demilitarization is all about.
In this prospect if you recall the events of Kargil , it was also an agreement between India and Pakistan forces to withdraw from certain difficult terrains in the wake of winter.However, once India withdrew from Kargil and other sector , the military adventurism was started by Pakistan , which ultimately resulted in Kargil war and loss of many valuable lives.
So , the real issues here is even though India has extended many confidence building measures for the past 4/5 decades, yet it has not been reciprocated by Pakistan . The military clout that runs the Pakistan establishments and their military policies have primary objective is not to establish peace but to engage in different activities that do harm to India, whether it is through proxy war or tacit support to terrorists.Given the history , trust is not an option.
War itself has significance influence not only on the psyche of citizenry but also on economy and is best avoided. The only way to avoid war with any rouge state is to build deterrence.For eg- If Indian forces had not withdrawn from the Kargil and other bases in the region in the winter of 1999 , the chances of military adventurism and the subsequent war could have been deterred.
Hence, if we learn anything from history , it is not to repeat the mistakes again.If we have an advantage from military stand point , it should not be given away merely for political reasons without proper assessment of future implications.
Having said that , Siachen , itself is a subject matter that have multiple angles.
Most of India’s military policies are reactive in nature and built as defense mechanisms.Siachen is no exception.Once Pakistan started it’s Siachen adventurism , India in order to secure Kashmir launched Operation Meghdoot in 1984 . It was a reaction too.India would not have sent troops if the conflict had not been escalated in the first place.
Now that India , controls and has significant advantage in Siachen , hence it must not be given away just because of editors of certain newspapers thinks its good thing to do.Of course, India wants to do good things and is neither assertive about its capabilities nor flexes its military muscle beyond requirement or without reason. But we do not live in a ideal world , and just becasue we are good that does mean other will be good to us.
If we let go off our strategic strengths , it will be the greatest provocation for war.Weakness is the greatest provocation for violence.And demilitarizing Siachen would be a significant strategic weakening.
Often , the policy makers of India contemplate two front war – that is, if we are engaged in a war with Pakistan in west, there are chances that we may have to fight a war with China – leading two front war and most of our military policies are designed to deal with two front war.Two front war may be hypothetical at this point ,but the danger of it looms large over Indian policy makers.In this context , Siachen would be a real advantage as a operation base giving India the high ground not only to monitor the Karakoram highway but also the much hyped China -Pakistan Economic corridor.In case of a war , the communication channel can be disrupted and Siachen can act as the choke point.
The other aspect of Siachen and the main reason for promoting idea of demilitarization is due to the following reasons :-
1)It is a difficult terrain and military personnel undergo significant stress to guard it
2)The region is the highest battlefield in the world and the dangers of climatic accidents and health injuries such as – frost bite, snow blindness, depression etc are real , leading to casualties.
The above two are the main reasons that support the cause demilitarization.But , as we learned from history , if after demilitarization leads to military escapades that ultimately result in a war then there will be a greater number of loss of life.From causality stand point, it is better to avoid war than to demilitarize and then fight a war.The health hazards can be easily avoided by inclusion of certain standards, protocols ,military gears and building few strong and safe bases in Siachen itself. How to survive and avoid casualty at this high ground with sub zero temperature is purely a problem of science and technology , thus proper inclusion and adaptation of the technological solution can minimize the damage to a great extent.
Moreover ,as is apparent, the concept of demilitarization entails two major essentials. One, it presupposes that both sides have their military presence in the said area/zone. Two and more frighteningly, it implies that both sides agree to settle their mutual claims at a later date through non-military means. In other words, it declares the area to be a disputed territory.
In the case of Siachen, Pakistan has no presence on the glacier – not even a toehold. The entire main glacier (76 km by 2-8 km) and the subsidiary glaciers are in India’s control. As a matter of fact, Pakistan cannot even have a peek at them as all the three main passes (Sia La, Bilafond La and Gyang La) are under India’s occupation. Pakistani positions are well west of the Saltoro Ridge. Hence, if Pakistan is not present on the glacier, how can the question of its withdrawal arise? If that be so, demilitarization of Siachen would mean unilateral withdrawal by India and accepting it to be a disputed zone. It will amount to forfeiting the territory which is rightfully under India’s absolute military control.
Pakistan is adept at achieving through negotiations what it loses in war. Indian soldiers shed blood to gain military ascendency, only to see their hard fought gains being lost through the misplaced zeal of some self-proclaimed advocates of peace. Their current suggestion of demilitarization of Siachen is an extension of the same subterfuge.
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)