The breakthrough came at the bi-annual meeting between Pakistan Rangers and Indian Border Security Force (BSF). The meeting was held under a 'cordial atmosphere' with both sides also agreeing to carryout joint investigations of future ceasefire violations.
Indian authorities also agreed to enhance communication via multiple modes at all possible levels to maintain peace on working boundary.
Read: DG-level talks: Armed exchanges along LoC, WB Pakistan’s top concern
After Pakistan strongly raised the issue of killing of Rangers personnel during flag meeting, Director General BSF assured that no such incident would reoccur in the future. Both sides also reached consensus to move forward while agreeing to conduct joint investigations if any such incident occurred in the future.
Refuting the allegations levied by BSF that Pakistan provides support to people crossing into India illegally, Pakistan Rangers reiterated its stance that it does not support any border crossing as a policy.
Although BSF is maintaining impregnable border control through fencing, lights on borders and other surveillance means, both sides agreed to work on methods to further strengthen the border control.
While responding to allegations of smuggling, DG Punjab Rangers emphasised on the need to enhance border control mechanism to enforce check on cross-border smuggling, while reiterating that Pakistan has zero tolerance for smuggling of narcotics and Indian liquor. India also agreed to share information about cartels involved in cross-border activities to help Pakistan Rangers taking necessary actions.
During the flag meeting, Pakistani delegation raised the issue of new fences on the border, saying the construction of any new defence structure is against the existing agreed norms due to the disputed status of Indian Kashmir. BSF agreed to refer the issue to the Indian government.
The Pakistani delegation will head back home today via Wagah border.
COMMENTS (13)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ