India Pakistan Ceasefire Agreement 2003
Yet India and Pakistan have no choice but to negotiate their differences sooner or later. In this context, some hopes for a quick start to peace talks were raised when the national security advisers of India and Pakistan met in Bangkok on December 26, 2017 for “secret” talks. But those hopes were quickly dashed as ceasefire violations along the LOC continued at the same pace in the new year. The leaders of the two countries must understand that the first item on the agenda of their next meeting must be the formalization of the 2003 ceasefire, as it will continue to jeopardize the future of the peace process if it is still not resolved. Happymon Jacob, of Jawaharlal Nehru University`s School of International Studies and author of two books on the LoC, called the deal “revolutionary” and said it was the largest military action between the two sides in 18 years to normalize the situation along the LoC. Thus, if the 2003 ceasefire is formalized by clear rules and regulations, demilitarized zones, neutral observers and joint commissions, this should reduce the likelihood of future ceasefire violations. But the success of ceasefires in most conflict situations depends heavily on political will. Unfortunately, this kind of political will seems to be completely absent, as even goodwill gestures such as Kulbhushan Jadhav`s meeting with his family on Christmas Day are lost in diplomatic disputes and media wars. This effectively meant that the agreement reached between the two sides went beyond an agreement on compliance with the 2003 agreement and included a commitment to tackle the real problems – Kashmir from a Pakistani perspective. “In addition, India wants to be a player in the global world and I think somewhere the Kashmir issue is capturing it in one way or another. I think the ceasefire is the bare minimum they could accept with Pakistan. Pakistan`s special assistant for national security affairs, Moeed Yusuf, called the deal a “victory” for Pakistan.
He said the deal followed “behind-the-scenes efforts.” In a tweet, he denied that the talks were the result of “behind-the-scenes diplomacy” between him and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and the “direct channel” between the DGsMO. In 2018, more than 2,000 ceasefire violations were recorded. The number of ceasefire violations rose to more than 3,400 in 2019 and more than 5,000 in 2020. In total, more than 14,000 ceasefire violations have occurred since 2006. By 2021, Pakistan has already violated the ceasefire nearly 600 times. A spokesman for India`s Foreign Ministry, Navtej Sarna, announced the ceasefire agreement in New Delhi on Tuesday. A Pakistani army spokesman, Major General Shaukat Sultan, confirmed this, but army sources reiterated that there would be “no relaxation” in counterterrorism operations following the deal, adding that the deal with Pakistan was “an attempt to lower the level of violence,” but that the military retained the “right to respond” in the event of a terrorist attack in the future. “That`s why this ceasefire was a success and also had a very positive impact on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir – militancy came back because there was a dialogue between [then Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf and [then Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari] Vajpayee,” she said.
Therefore, India associates the formalization of the ceasefire or some sort of normalization with Pakistan with “terrorism.” Perhaps this Indian response is only part of the country`s grand strategy to pressure and isolate Pakistan – otherwise, it is quite difficult to understand why India is unwilling to formalize the 2003 ceasefire when ceasefire violations have remained one of New Delhi`s main concerns. The only justification that could be put forward is for India to reject any involvement of third parties in the Kashmir conflict, citing the 1972 Simla Agreement. Therefore, he may be against the expansion of UNMOGIP to monitor the ceasefire. But formalizing the 2003 ceasefire does not necessarily require the expansion of UNMOGIP, and some security analysts in India even advocate neutral monitoring of UNMOGIP. Experts have taken a wait-and-see attitude toward the deal, pointing to the long history of unsuccessful peace efforts by rivals. “One can only hope that there is some degree of seriousness in this ceasefire,” said Satish Nambiar, a retired Indian army general in New Delhi. “This is certainly a positive development because India`s ceasefire violations have resulted in the loss of civilian lives and property,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the issue. A Pakistani national security official, meanwhile, said the reaffirmation of the ceasefire was a positive development, but warned that the gains were fragile. The two countries agreed on the ceasefire in Kashmir in 2003, fearing that continued hostilities could inadvertently degenerate into a nuclear exchange. Pakistan, for its part, says India violated the ceasefire at least 3,097 times in 2020, killing 28 civilians and wounding 257 others.
Given the virtually frozen relations, what led to the sudden thaw that led to a reaffirmation of the ceasefire? Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi welcomed the agreement and said it was a positive development. “This could be a good start for the future. India will have to sincerely respect this ceasefire agreement. How can we make progress on the issue of occupied Kashmir if the environment is not beneficial,” he said. The Indian government says Pakistan violated the ceasefire at least 5,133 times last year, killing 22 civilians and 24 members of the security forces. This is not the first time that India and Pakistan have agreed to give peace in the LoC a chance to make life easier for civilians living along the line. The original ceasefire agreement was reached in November 2003, four years after the Kargil war. ISLAMABAD: Pakistan and India said on Thursday that they reaffirmed their commitment to the 2003 ceasefire agreement on the Line of Control and agreed to address “fundamental issues” that could undermine peace and stability. “The agreement follows more than 5,000 CFVs [ceasefire violations] last year, the highest in 19 years, and it shows the realization in New Delhi and Islamabad that they cannot afford to let violence spiral out of control because of their inherently growing nature,” Professor Jacob said. But this behind-the-scenes diplomacy was at stake, as evidenced by a series of steps that took place ahead of Thursday`s joint statement by India and Pakistan, which reaffirmed both countries` commitment to the 2003 ceasefire agreement.
The 2. In February, Pakistan`s army chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, spoke of mutual respect and peaceful coexistence in the first “soft” position towards India since the Indian Air Force`s airstrike in Balakot two years ago. There is a hotline between the Indian and Pakistani armies. Officers with the rank of major often talk to each other. Brigadier officers speak from time to time. But GMOs speak very “rarely”. This time it happened and an agreement was reached, as both sides officially claimed. The agreement reached between them entered into force the night before, after which ceasefire violations in the LoC ended at midnight on 24 and 25 February.
There are several explanations for these events; they range from military factors at the local level at the border to a greater dynamic of internal and external political developments. However, one thing is certain: all these ceasefire violations are taking place because India and Pakistan do not have a formal written ceasefire agreement with clearly defined modalities or standard operating procedures (SOPs) for managing their borders. .