73 years ago, on 27 July 1949, a historic agreement was signed between India and Pakistan. Although forgotten by many, it is perhaps the most important agreement between the two countries and which not only laid the groundwork for all subsequent agreements (Tashkent and Simla) but also established what is today the de facto border between the two countries. Popularly known as the Karachi Armistice Agreement, it is formally known as the agreement between the military representatives of India and Pakistan regarding the establishment of a ceasefire line in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
According to India’s complaint to the United Nations on 1 January 1948 about Pakistani aid and involvement with the invaders in Kashmir, the Security Council sent a United Nations Commission for the Subcontinent (UNCIP or United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan). This commission presented two resolutions (13 August 1948 and January 1949), which aimed to reach an agreement between the two warring nations by drawing a ceasefire line and a plebiscite to find a comprehensive solution to the Kashmir dispute. Part I of the resolution of 13 August was related to the ceasefire order and Part II to the ceasefire agreement. Both India and Pakistan had no dispute on Part I of the resolution and agree with Follow it and implement it.
Read also: In the Siachen freeze, how a captain kept soldiers warm, inspired – Stories, Family, Bollywood
when the lines were drawn
After very detailed and detailed discussions between the Indian and Pakistani representatives, an armistice line acceptable to both sides emerged and the agreement under the aegis of UNCIP was finally signed on 27 July 1949. Such was the driving force and purity. internationally Compromised that even in 1965, after the Tashkent Agreement, both sides agreed to return each other’s profits and losses and return to post-Karachi positions.
However, after the 1971 war and bilateral In Shimla and Suchetgarh agreements, the gains of the war were upheld by the parties. Therefore, the Karachi ceasefire line was reconstructed to include them. The new line that emerged indicates the areas controlled by the parties concerned, and was therefore called the Line of Control or LoC. Thus, our de facto border with Pakistan is nothing but the original Karachi ceasefire line to accommodate 1971 gains. Today, many argue that after Shimla, the Karachi settlement has lost its relevance. On the contrary, this agreement is still very much valid today and deals with an area that Shimla does not talk about. In fact, it is the key to resolving the Siachen dispute.
In 1949, the main objective of UNCIP was to temporarily separate the two warring armies and restore peace until the final fate of the region was decided. The Truce Sub Committee was not a border delimitation commission and did not include any surveyors or cartographers, but consisted of experienced military men from both sides who were trying to defuse the volatile situation. And yet, the Karachi Agreement delimitation and describes in detail the entire stretch of the more than 500-mile long ceasefire line from Manavar to the glaciers in the north. Thus, the delineation of the ceasefire line as per the Karachi Agreement is clear and complete.
The relevant clauses of this agreement, which pertain to the Siachen region, are set out below:
b 2 (d) From Dalunang eastwards following the ceasefire line General Point 15495, Ishman, Manus, Gangam, Gunderman, Point 13620, Junkar (Point 17628), Marmak, Natsara, Shangrut (Point 17531), Chorbat La (Point 15700) Will do , Chalunka (on Shyok river), Khor, north of the glaciers from there. this part of the ceasefire line Will happen The demarcation was carried out in detail based on the actual situation on 27 July 1949 by local commanders with the help of UN military observers.
C. ceasefire line mentioned above Will happen on a one-inch map (where available) and so be mutually verified on the ground by local commanders of each side with the assistance of UN military observers, so that any inhuman land can be eliminated, In the event that the local commanders are unable to reach an agreement, the matter will be referred to the Military Adviser to the Commission, whose decision will be final. After this verification, the military adviser will issue a map to each high command with a definite ceasefire line.
Unfortunately due to unfavorable terrain the physical demarcation and abandonment of the ceasefire line was not completed to the glaciers, but was stopped at a point from the same bearing grid reference NJ 9842. This was clearly done by mutual agreement of the parties as no reference to this area was made to the military adviser as envisaged in clause C. As a result the line drawing on the maps (which was to be done after the signing of the agreement) was also incomplete. The situation was the same in 1972 as well. As there was no hostilities in this area and there was no dispute/claim/counterclaim by either side, the Line of Control also ended at the same grid point i.e. NJ 9842 and no further demarcation of the area beyond it . , Pakistan did not consider the area beyond NJ 9842 as one man’s land and began to claim the same by sponsoring expeditions and relying on international maps, which in turn allowed India to pre-empt Pakistan’s occupation. to launch a military operation in 1984. Even after 38 years of military operation, there continues to be a divergence of views on the interpretation of the above clauses of the Karachi Agreement.
Read also: Kumar’s Rekha Vs Hodgson’s Line: The ‘Lakshman Rekha’ That Started India-Pakistan War
It’s time to rethink the deal
AG Noorani in his article Fire on the Mountain (Illustrated Weekly of India, 30 June 1985) described the Siachen area as the land of men and said that the Karachi Agreement left the northern end of the ceasefire line unclear. This ambiguity of the Karachi Doctrine was reiterated by Robert Wirsing in his Article and then many others, to argue that because of the ambiguity inherent in the agreement, it was capable of many interpretations, including the one given by Pakistan. idiom’From there to the north glacial’ It was attributed vague and controversial, without anyone actually reproducing the relevant clauses and explaining what was not clear therein.
It has since been argued that according to Karachi, the ceasefire line ends at NJ 9842 and should not go north beyond that and therefore the area beyond NJ 9842 is ‘no man’s land’. However, a reading of the above clauses reveals that they envisage the demarcation to be done after the execution of the agreement. The alignment of the ceasefire line is clearly described in simple language, capable of an interpretation alone, in the same way as in various other clauses of the agreement, leaving no room for confusion. The words North, South, East and West have also been used repeatedly in many other clauses and are clearly understood and applied without any ambiguity.
use of the idiomWill happenClause C shows that on the date of signing of the agreement, only the delimitation was agreed upon and the rest had to be in conformity with the same. Thus, NJ 9842 is the northernmost and last demarcated point on the ground. on the way No terminal point for glacial and as per agreement. Section B2d clearly mentions that the line has to proceed To glacier, so the question of ending it before the glacial does not occur. If this happens, the entire area thereafter would become ‘no man’s land’, contrary to the mandate of Clause C of the agreement.
Incomplete demarcation of the area after agreement cannot be construed as the absence of agreement relating to the area. The argument that the line is not required to go north beyond NJ 9842 is also without merit as the agreement explicitly states’From there to the north glacial’ no more’From there north to NJ 9842′, In fact, the grid reference NJ 9842 is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the main settlement, but only emerges during the later process of demarcation, clearly indicating that although the settlement included a ceasefire line to go north to the glaciers. was conceived, yet it suddenly stopped NJ 9842. Feather before this Glacier because of the outside views.
Many scholars say that the Simla Agreement nullifies the Karachi Agreement as far as Siachen is concerned as it refers to the Line of Control moving eastwards towards the glaciers. This too is far from the truth. A reference in a parliamentary statement by the then External Affairs Minister Swaran Singh describing the orientation of the LoC is often mistakenly cited as the text of the Simla Agreement, when in fact, the Line of Control as per Shimla ended at NJ 9842. Is.
Word ‘From there to the north glacial’ Karachi is exclusive to the Agreement, which is the only legal document relating to the area beyond NJ 9842.
Siachen is a region where despite many historical disagreements over Kashmir, both India and Pakistan have, in fact, agree to agree, in writing and that agreement withstood the test of time in both the 1965 and 1971 wars, saw no action in this theatre. Despite clear delimitations on its side, India always maintained the status quo of Karachi and never occupied the region until 1984, when it was forced to pre-empt Pakistan. To resolve the Siachen standoff, the time has come to rethink the agreement and demarcate the area beyond NJ 9842, taking into account the principles of statutory interpretation, cartography and international law.
Amit Paul is the author of the book ‘Meghdoot: The Beginning of the Coldest War’, which tells the story of how and why India ended up at the top of the Saltoro Ridge. He lives in Gurugram and can be contacted at amitkrishankantpul@gmail.com.
(edited by Prashant)