International events, especially the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and internal events such as the Tiananmen Square protests influenced politics in India and China. In addition, India`s economic liberalization in India required India to maintain a period of peace in order to recover from the economic collapse of 1990-91. [21] [22] India and China needed a base to keep the peace. The LAC was the basis on which this peace had to be legally founded. [23] Moreover, the term “LAC” was useful for China from the 1950s to the 1980s, as it provided a dynamic term to justify its border aggression. In 1992, however, it was clear on both sides, with each side advancing as much as possible face to face in most areas, that it was in the common interest to find a solution. [24] The agreement was signed in New Delhi during a state visit by the Chinese president. This was the first visit by a Chinese president to India. [35] The agreement was opened by a reference to the five principles of peaceful coexistence and the 1993 agreement. [3] The twelve articles make it clear that the agreement is a non-war agreement, that the final solution to the border issue remains in place and that the LAC must be respected. It states that military deployment should be limited and details on how to deal with military exercises, air intrusions, overflights and landings of military aircraft near the LAC.

It aims to prevent “dangerous military activities” in the vicinity of LAC, covers confidence-building measures such as “flag meetings and telecommunications” and deals with the accidental crossing of LAC. It reiterates that clarification may be sought with regard to the Agreement and LAC, as well as ratification issues. The agreement recognises that there are different perceptions in certain areas along the LAC. [4] [3] The Indian Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister had briefed political leaders and members of the opposition in closed-door meetings prior to the signing of the agreement. Thanks to this internal diplomacy, the agreement was well received in India. The first issue that had to be addressed by the two countries was the resolution of the Sumdorong Chu impasse. It will not be resolved until 1995. [30] In 1994, China had signed border agreements with at least 5 other countries. [22] India drafted the original version of the agreement. [23] It has been suggested that the border could be called the line of peace or tranquility.

[25] But China introduced the term “active line of control.” It seemed to Shivshankar Menon, one of the negotiators and writers, that the Chinese wanted a term they proposed to use. This insistence was a greater part of their practice of ensuring psychological dominance. In the end, the two sides agreed on the term actual line of control, the term Zhou had used in 1959. [26] This was the first bilateral agreement between China and India in 1993, which included the term effective line of control. [22] As tensions continue to rise in the Ladakh sector of the Line of Effective Control (LAC), the meeting of Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi last week jointly decided to “finalize new confidence-building measures to maintain and improve peace and tranquility in border areas.” Article V Both parties shall take into account, inter alia, historical evidence, national feelings, practical difficulties and reasonable concerns and sensitivities of both parties, as well as the actual state of the border areas. Article VI The boundary should run along well-defined and easily identifiable natural geographical features agreed between the two parties. Article VII In establishing a border regime, both parties shall protect the legitimate interests of their population established in the border areas. Article VIII Within the agreed framework of the final boundary regime, the demarcation of the boundary shall be carried out using means such as modern mapping and surveying practices and joint surveys.

Article IX Pending a final settlement of the border issue, both sides should strictly respect and abide by the Line of Effective Control and cooperate in order to maintain peace and tranquillity in the border areas. The India-China Joint Working Group and the India-China Diplomatic and Military Group of Experts are continuing their work within the framework of the agreements of 7 September 1993 and 29 November 1996, including clarifying the effective line of control and implementing confidence-building measures. That of mutual security and an agreement on minimum levels of quotas. [32] The aspect of military border infrastructure was not addressed. [22] The agreements applied to border management and not to tactical military situations. [33] Both parties would subsequently commit serious violations of the agreement. [33] Convinced that an early settlement of the border issue should promote the fundamental interests of both countries and should therefore be pursued as a strategic objective, they agreed on the following political parameters and guiding principles for a border regime: Article I Differences on the border issue should not affect the overall development of bilateral relations. The two sides will resolve the border issue through peaceful and friendly consultations. Neither side may use or threaten violence against the other by any means. The final solution to the border issue will greatly promote good-neighbourly and friendly relations between India and China.

Article II The two sides should seek, in accordance with the five principles of peaceful coexistence, a just, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution to the border issue through consultations on an equal footing, based on the political perspective of all bilateral relations. Article III In a spirit of mutual respect and understanding, both sides should make significant and mutually acceptable adjustments to their respective positions on the border issue in order to reach a comprehensive solution to the border issue. Border regulations must be final and cover all sectors of the Sino-Indian border. Article IV Both Parties shall take due account of the strategic and reasonable interests of the other Party and the principle of mutual and equal security. The agreements signed between India and China between 1993 and 2013 are gradually being linked. According to sinologist B. R. Deepak, after the clash in the Galwan Valley, “all the agreements were effectively left in ruins.” [33] Many of the sections of these agreements had no impact on the situation on the ground at Bac. [46] According to the sources, at the meeting of the two foreign ministers in Moscow, Jaishankar Wang showed how Beijing violated the 1993 and 1996 border agreements by gathering its troops with heavy equipment along the LAC. “First, it is a violation to move only tens of thousands of soldiers to the frontline areas. Second, disrupting the status quo ante is a violation.

Third, the use of weapons is a violation,” he said. “China has violated bilateral agreements to maintain peace and tranquility in border areas.” Will we ever know that China has no regard for a deal? Examples show us in front of us. The agreement began with the five principles of peaceful coexistence agreed in the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement. Each of the five points was mentioned. [29] Next are the nine points of the agreement. [29] It was agreed that the Indochinese border issue should be resolved by peaceful means and that there was a “final solution” to the border issue. [29] Troop levels would be regulated and confidence-building measures would be developed to maintain peace in areas along the LAC […].