The mutual decision of Indian and Pakistani military officials to reinforce ceasefire along the borders in line with the 2003 ceasefire agreementis noteworthy, however, in order to ensure that the ceasefire agreement survives this time for longer periods, both countries need to take urgent measures to formalize it.
On 29th May 2018, Pakistan and Indian authorities decided to curb the current on-going border skirmishes across the de facto border between Indian and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Line of Control (LoC) and complied with a ceasefire agreement signed between the two nuclear-armed neighbors in 2003. The cross-border firings have gone on for years without an end in sight however, their intensity was further increased after the significant deterioration in India-Pakistan relations post-Uri attack 2016. The recent pledge of both the countries to respect ceasefire commitment in the disputed region of Kashmir brings us to two questions:
After two years of the impasses and years of violations across the LoC, what made both countries to revive the ceasefire agreement?
How can both countries work to make the pact last longer this time without any violations?
Ceasefire agreement of 2003
On 26 November 2003, the ceasefire agreement took effect along the de facto border between Indian and Pakistan administered Kashmir i.e. Line of Control. It facilitated the opening of the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad and Poonch-Rawalkot routes, paving the way for bus and truck services linking the two Kashmirs for the first time in six decades and encouraging cross-LoC contacts, exchanges, travel, and trade. Even though, these bus services continue to run showing the long-term significance of such agreements, the agreement itself proved to be short-lived and had only been successful intermittently.The ceasefire agreement has been violated many times in the last 15 years with growing frequency after 2008 and then recently in 2016.
Since 2016
Following suit of their previous ceasefire violations, both countries accuse each other of violating the ceasefire agreement in 2016 as well. They blamed the other for “unprovoked firing” and described their own actions as mere “retaliation.” Both bragged that they have responded ‘befittingly” to the other’s aggression and inflicted “heavy casualties.”
While the puzzle, who violates the ceasefire first, is insoluble, however, both sides blame it onto another. Pakistan alleges that Indian government uses thesefirings to satisfy the domestic political-psychological need for retribution in order to prevent the loss of support from the masses, whereas India contends that Pakistan army is using these skirmishes to regain its lost prestige through after the surgical strike conducted in Pakistan-administered-Kashmir.
Restoration of the ceasefire agreement in 2018: benefits
The revival of the ceasefire is advantageous for both the countries. It will plummet the human toll and the economic costs for both countries. Most importantly,it will improve the security conditions of the region.
From the Indian point of view, recommencing the ceasefire will help it to curb infiltration and cross-border terrorism from the Pakistani side. Since India alleges Pakistan to induce cross-border terrorist activities in India, the ceasefire would become a halt for Pakistan in providing safe cover to such activities. Therefore, India could expect in the reduction of such infiltrations in the presence of the ceasefire agreement.
From Pakistan’s point of view, it can help the country to deploy less army to the eastern border and use it in the current ongoing Operation Radd-ul fassad against terrorists inWaziristan (the western region of the country). Even though a ceasefire doesn’t mean that Pakistan willfully vacate army from the LoC area, but it certainly will help the country to choose its battles wisely during the time when the Pakistani army is waging a crucial fight against terrorists on its soil. That is the reason that the Pakistan army has sought to revive the ceasefire with India and has declared that waging a war with India is not its agenda. A similar statement has been given by Pakistan Premier Khaqan Abbasi during the last year showing Pakistan’s aim to shift its focus more towards curtailing terrorism in the country rather than engaging in a war with India.
Formalization of ceasefire agreement
In the absence of current political dialogue between India and Pakistan, the chances that this renewal of the agreement will last long are minimum. Both countries have agreed to go back and abide by the 2003 agreement many times, but the pledge fails to last long.Happymon Jacob, Indian academician and researcher in his research “Ceasefire Violations in Jammu and Kashmir: A Line of Fire” describes the reasons for such pattern as “the agreement is “not a written agreement.” There are “no rules, norms or principles governing the ceasefire agreement,” he said, observing that “a ceasefire agreement without the attendant dos and don’ts is not useful to the security forces on the ground.” He also states that “there is a positive correlation between ceasefire violations and escalation. They have the potential not only to spark a bilateral military, diplomatic, and political crisis but also escalate any ongoing crisis, especially in the aftermath of terror incidents.”
His solution to avoid future escalation because of LoC crossfires and to make this agreement work for a long time is, “A clear and detailed signed agreement that itemizes the attendant dos, don’ts, rules, guidelines, and principles would enable the two sides to better manage the border and significantly reduce the ad hoc nature of the current arrangements”. There are two other border agreements signed by the two countries: the 1949 Karachi Agreement and the 1960 Ground Rules Agreement. Jacob points out that although India maintains that the 1972 Shimla Agreement superseded the 1949 Karachi agreement, but Jacob states that India’s will in “adopting some of its salient features into a new agreement would send a strong signal of willingness to compromise and cooperate to Islamabad” and Pakistan should accept the border pillars in the Jammu-Sialkot sector as the temporary border until the final settlement of the J&K dispute.”
Conclusion
The vow to revive the ceasefire agreement by both sides is commendable, however, there is a dire need to formalize and strengthen the ceasefire agreement of 2003 if both countries aim for the agreement not to be violated again. Such an initiative will help to alleviate diplomatic tensions and will reduce the soldier and civilian casualties at the LoC.