LoC truce deal

The agreement shows the importance of keeping lines of communication open even when relations are tense

In a positive development as regards the eastern border, Pakistan and India have agreed to a ceasefire. A joint statement issued on Thursday credited the Directors General of Military Operations of the two countries with reaching the deal. The statement says that both sides will work to strictly observe all existing agreements and understandings relating to the Line of Control in Kashmir and the established border.

The deal was long-awaited. According to ISPR, there have been over 13,500 ceasefire violations since 2003 which have cost 310 civilian lives and led to over 1,600 injured. Those numbers have spiked since 2014, with 92 per cent of the casualties occurring since then. That is not a coincidence. The far-right government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was first elected in 2014. Since taking power, Modi has repeatedly rebuffed efforts to resolve any disputes with Pakistan and has instead tried to blame all of his own governance failures on Islamabad.

Even though casualty numbers fell after 2018 — the peak year — total violations actually went up in 2019, and the only reason they fell remarkably in 2020 was the Covid-19 pandemic. But despite the pandemic, India still committed more than 2,900 ceasefire violations in 2020, resulting in the martyrdom of at least 33 civilians and injuries to 260 others. One of those ceasefire violations even targeted UN military observers. Still, the agreement is a win for both countries and shows the importance of keeping lines of communication open even when relations are tense.

One unusual development, however, was the outright denial that any government-level backchannel diplomacy was involved in reaching the ceasefire. While many countries will downplay or refuse to confirm if backchannel talks were involved in any diplomatic or military agreements, it was odd how hotline talks between the DGMOs were repeatedly emphasised by the government and reports of backchannel talks were continually denied.

Some may actually see it as concerning because the denial implies that backchannel talks are either not yielding any fruit or, even worse, are not even being attempted. This is because any eventual permanent resolution of the Kashmir issue would be diplomatic, rather than military.