2003 Ceasefire Agreement Upsc

By September 8, 2021 Uncategorized

The 830-kilometer ceasefire line, defined in the agreement, began at a southernmost point west of the Chenab River in Jammu. It took place in an approximate arc to the north, then northeast to the coordination of the NJ9842 maps, about 19 km north of the Shyok River. [6] Pakistan criticized the construction of the barrier and said it violated both bilateral agreements and relevant UN resolutions on the region. [11] The European Union supported India`s position, which calls the place of isolation an “improvement in the technical means of controlling terrorist infiltration” and also stressed that “the Line of Control was demarcated in accordance with the 1972 Shimla Agreement.” [11] India and Pakistan accuse each other of violating the ceasefire agreement. While they accuse the other of “uninsed shooting”, they describe their own actions as mere “retaliation”. Both pride themselves on responding “appropriately” to each other`s aggression and causing “heavy losses.” And both claim that it is domestic considerations that fuel each other`s inter-LoC aggression. Indeed, a formal ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan already exists in the Karachi Agreement signed on 27 July 1949 between India and Pakistan. He drew the Initial Ceasefire Line (LFL) between Indian Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan-controlled Azad Kashmir. But when India and Pakistan entered the wars of 1965 and 1971 and signed two separate treaties after those two wars, the Karachi Agreement of 1949 became almost superfluous, with the exception of the borders between Azad Kashmir and Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir. The Shimla agreement specifies that the areas on both sides of the LoC have remained the subject of a dispute and that agreements (military or other) within the LoC do not affect the final solution of the conflict. As you know, ceasefire violations generally correspond to the state of bilateral relations; the ceasefire tends to be maintained “during a results-oriented bilateral dialogue process” and less so if relations have slowed down. If the ties are as strained as they are now, there are “factors on the ground.

[which] contribute significantly and directly to the violations,” to the extent that many offenses “are generally not planned, directed or clarified by senior military commandos or political establishments, but are fueled by the dynamics on the front.” The citizens of India and Pakistan hear a lot about ceasefire violations, but they have few details about how, where and why they occur. People learn something about the victims and sometimes about the area where the offences occur, but the circumstances in which they occur or the factors they cause remain largely opaque. India`s standard statement on ceasefire violations is that they are the result of unprotected Pakistani fire aimed at covering militants entering J&K. Islamabad, meanwhile, “accuses India of unvoced fire against the civilian population on the Pakistani side.” During the first ten years of the agreement, relative peace and calm reigned along the LoC. Another ceasefire line separates the indian-controlled state of Jammu and Kashmir from China-controlled Aksai Chin territory. Located further east, it is known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC). . . .