2003 Ceasefire Agreement

Posted by on April 7, 2021

According to Lieutenant-General DS Hooda, who was the architect of The Indian Surgical Attacks on The Launch Pads for Terrorism in Occupied Pakistan (POK), the agreement has been “dead for a very long time.” Earlier this month, India accused Pakistan of committing 881 ceasefire violations via Kashmir between January and the third week of May, the highest figure recorded after the two countries adopted the ceasefire in 2003. Following a new Kashmir war in 1965 and the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War (which became independent in Bangladesh), only minor changes had been made to the original ceasefire line. In the Simla agreement that followed in 1973, the two countries agreed to transform the ceasefire line into a “line of control” and to consider it as a de facto border that should not be violated by armed actions. During the first ten years of the agreement, relative peace and calm prevailed along the LoC. With regard to demilitarized zones: under the Karachi Agreement, both sides agreed that no force should be deployed within 500 metres of the ceasefire line, but this rule was subsequently repeatedly violated by both sides. A new ceasefire agreement is expected to bring it down and extend the demilitarized zone to 100 yards, so that ceasefire violations are less damaging. New Delhi: Things warmed up on Monday along the line of control after the Indian army killed seven Pakistani soldiers on the line of control in a “retaliation operation” in the Poonch Kashmir district. On 19 December, during the winter session of Parliament, the Lok Sabha government announced that Pakistan had violated the ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC) 771 times. This represents an increase of 230% compared to 2016. In a telephone hotline speech, Pakistan commander Gen Shamshad Mirza and his Indian counterpart, Le Lieut Gen Anil Chauhan, said they were ready to “fully implement” the 2003 ceasefire agreement “in the letter and mind.” India says the Pakistani army is violating the ceasefire along the LoC to facilitate the infiltration of armed militants into Kashmir to strengthen the insurgency in the state since 1989 for an independent Muslim country that has killed more than 70,000 people.

Nuclear rivals India and Pakistan have agreed to strengthen their 2003 ceasefire agreement to end their daily exchange of artillery, rocket and small arms over their disputed border in the northern Kashmir region. That is why India associates the formalization of the ceasefire or any form of normalization with Pakistan with “terrorism”. Perhaps this Indian response is only part of the country`s great strategy of putting pressure on and isolating Pakistan, otherwise it is quite difficult to understand why India would not be willing to formalize the 2003 ceasefire, when ceasefire violations remained one of New Delhi`s main concerns. The only justification that could be offered is that India refuses any third-party participation in the Kashmir conflict on the basis of the 1972 Simla Agreement. Therefore, it could oppose the extension of UNMOGIP to monitor the ceasefire. But the formalization of the 2003 ceasefire does not necessarily require the extension of UNMOGIP, and some security analysts in India are even in favour of neutral supervision of UNMOGIP. However, the ceasefire began to break from 2013, following the deterioration of bilateral relations between neighbours and the gradual increase in cross-border fire. With regard to the joint dispute resolution commissions in the event of a breach of the ceasefire, the troop withdrawal mechanism applied at the end of the 1965 war can be adopted with some necessary amendments. As part of the agreement on the withdrawal of troops on 22 January 1966, India and Pakistan agreed that “in all cases, if the fires are carried out across the border, they will be examined on the spot by a joint team of border guards on both sides.

Comments are closed.