CLASH OF EGO WITH HUMANITY: IS IT JUSTIFIABLE?

It must be excruciating. Painfully agonizing. Wait, wait – do they ever realized the pain or the agent of death had done its work in a smidgen of time, which was too less for human nervous system to process such firm emotions? Life might have been evaporated in thin air in a matter of seconds, may be hours. Some might have tried to battle an enemy, which transcends even the strongest of human army – the inevitability of ‘death’. And inescapably, they failed to escape those unsurmountable challenges, sans one. With air pockets to his aid and an indomitable will to live and fight on this unfortunate battle, Lance Naik Hanumanthappa survived stupendously for 6 days under the forlorn darkness of ice and rock. And when he was finally rescued admirably by the brave souls of the army, the struggle had already taken its toll. By that time, his soul might be yearning for freedom – freedom from the unrelenting agony his body was going through.

These dreadful scenario has been created by the same old bone of contention between the arch rivals – Siachen. The fateful avalanche claimed 10 brave souls in one of the most vulnerable place of the planet. The highest battlefield of the world is quite inhospitable for its extremely unforgiving terrain and hostile climate as winter temperatures reach as low as minus 45 degrees. The 5000 meters odd altitude deteriorates the human body over prolonged exposure to such heights. It was a far cry from the conditions we live in, as these real life heroes brave those intimidating isolations. But why we have to sacrifice them in the hands of nature when we can actually end their miseries.

Siachen’s stand-off is well known and well analysed by various experts. It had a problematic history tracing long back – 1949. When India beat Pakistan by a week in 1984 and foiled their attempt to capture the glacier by taking advantage of the lack of clarity over the delineation of the territory, both the sides weren’t able to gauge the price they are going to pay by deploying their armies there. After the numerous casualties on both the sides, Indian government has maintained that they are bound to pay the price for the greater goal of safety of the country. 879 lives are already lost by the Army. Pakistan, which operates from much lower altitudes has also maintained its status quo, even after losing 140 personnel in the 2012 avalanche in the Gayari sector.

Both sides had come quite close to a resolution in 1992 when they almost agreed upon demilitarizing the zone after being satisfied with each other’s demand. But the process was shelved after a lack of political will on the final agreement from both the sides. The Kargil war of 1999 convinced India that they have to maintain their hold on Siachen to thwart such veiled threat from its enemy. Besides, the ever growing presence of China in the adjoining Karakoram Range as a consequence of strong Pak-China nexus is a glaring threat for India. And then there is the argument of it giving impeccable and invaluable strategic advantage to India, which is allegedly a manufactured argument for the status quo to be maintained.

It is not quite hard to see that Siachen neither provide us any strategic superiority nor its absence any major threats. To launch an attack on India from there is extremely unfeasible and they have better alternatives than Siachen. Same applies for India too as in a place where survival alone is so difficult, deploying offensive strategies in a war situation is implausible. That puts a straight-forward argument for the removal of forces from there by both sides. There is an imperative need for the armies and political leaders of both sides to prioritize the humanitarian gravity of the situation. Concrete actions must be taken to resolve this difference as it is not so much involved as some of the other issues regarding Kashmir. This calls for some rational thinking.

The tacticians of both the sides are shrewd enough to discover and negotiate a viable solution which is acceptable to both the sides. Delineation should be done and treaties should be signed so that none of both can violate the decision of redeployment of forces. People thinking in absolutely pragmatic way need to understand that it’s not about Pakistan accepting the Indian occupation of 1984 or India fabricating hypo-critic and exaggerating arguments of strategic advantages and almost non-existent threats of compromise of its security. Not to mention the expenditure incurred on a daily basis. This is the time to leave the history at its peril and shed their egos to show the gesture of humanity which is shown by the women who offered to donate one of her kidney to the Lance Naik.

If there was ever a need for the world to interfere in the bilateral matters of India and Pakistan, this is the time, when they should. If both parties still face to see the consequence of their stubbornness over this matter, the UN needs to interfere and make them realize that how inhumane it is to leave those brave hearts at the perils of the capricious nature. Until something happen, we will continue to hear these heart wrenching news about these unimaginable disasters which is doing no good to no one in any way. However sporadic they may be, they always will bring such trails of irreversible damage to not only the army persons and their kin, but also to the psyche of the citizens of the nation, who take exemplary pride and have enormous respect for their army.