India and Pakistan have reached a ceasefire agreement following short periods of hostilities over the past few days, President Donald Trump announced on Saturday.
Earlier on Saturday, two neighbors targeted each other’s military sites as Pakistan launched “Operation Bunyan Marsau” after Pakistan was attacked by Indian air missiles. Both sides claimed they intercepted most of the projectiles, but also admitted that some strikes caused damage.
It has been reported that more than 60 people have been killed since India launched the missile under Operation Sindoah on Wednesday, and it has targeted Pakistan and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir ‘terrorist camps’. Pakistan has confirmed the murders of 13 people on the side of the Control (LOC), the de facto boundary between the two countries that divide the contested Kashmir region.
The strike sparked the fear of wider conflict between two nuclear-armed neighbors. International mediation has previously resolved the conflict between India and Pakistan, but it remains to be seen whether this ceasefire will be held and whether people will be able to relax.
What has been agreed by India and Pakistan?
“We are pleased to announce that after a long US-born night of talks, India and Pakistan have agreed to a complete and immediate ceasefire,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social Platform on Saturday.
“Congratulations to both countries for using common sense and great intelligence. Thank you for paying attention to this issue.” It is understood that several countries are involved in these consultations.
Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishak Dal and India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Mithri quickly confirmed the ceasefire.
“It has been agreed between them that both parties will halt all combat and military action on land, air and sea from standard time at 17:00 India today. [11:30 GMT]Mithri said in a short statement.
“Instructions are given to both sides to influence this understanding. The military operation supervisor will speak again on May 12th at 12:00.”
According to DAR, India and Pakistan are also energizing military channels and hotlines following the deal.
Are the two countries engaged in further discussions now?
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said India and Pakistan have agreed to begin consultations on “a wide range of issues at neutral sites.”
However, in a statement on social media, India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting partially denied this, saying, “There is no decision to discuss other issues elsewhere.”
Subir Sinha, director of the South Asian Studies Institute at SOAS University of London, told Al Jazeera that broader bilateral talks will be a very difficult process as India has previously refused to develop such a thing.
“One of the discussions about this so-called robust policy adopted by Modi’s government to Pakistan was that it was no longer possible to discuss the broad and long-term commitment to solving the issue,” Sinha said.
Therefore, this marks a reversal of the Indian government’s position and could play inadequately on the Indian right, whose members are calling for an attack on Pakistan.
Sinha said both the Induswaters Treaty, which India has ceased participation, and the Shimla Agreement, which Pakistan threatened to withdraw, have been reopened completely and “need to be seen.” [at] Perhaps as a foundation for moving forward.”
Did India and Pakistan actually go to war?
Officially, no. Despite fierce military exchanges such as missile strikes, drone attacks and artillery fire, neither government officially declared war.
Instead, India and Pakistan characterized military operations as specific coordinated “military operations.”
Pakistan on Saturday launched a retaliatory assault called “Banyan Maroo” in Arabic for the “wall” few days after India launched its “Operation Sindoah” and denounced the Pakistan-based armed group in response to a fatal attack on tourists in Pahargam on April 22.
However, that is not uncommon in both of these countries. Even if thousands of soldiers and civilians die, they have not officially declared war in previous major conflicts.
Has third-party intervention resolved the conflict between India and Pakistan before?
yes. Third-party mediation settled conflicts since 1947, when the subcontinent divided the partitions and India and Pakistan fought the first war. After a year of war over the ownership of the Princes of Jammu and Kashmir, the UN-brokered ceasefire effectively divided Kashmir between India and Pakistan-controlled regions in 1948.
The 1965 Indo-Pakistan War ended with the Tashkent Declaration in January 1966, following the former Soviet Union mediation. By agreement, Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani President Ayub Khan agreed to return to pre-war status and restore diplomatic and economic ties.
During the Kargil War in 1999, the Pakistani army crossed the LOC and seized Indian status. The then-US President Bill Clinton warned Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of international isolation and persuaded him to withdraw.
In 2002, then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed it was through the end of a tense standoff along the LOC after he and his team attacked the Indian Congress in December 2001. The following June, Powell said through negotiations that he had kept “Inflight Activities” from Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf “inflight Activities.”
What constitutes war?
There is no single definition. International humanitarian law, such as the Geneva treaties, uses the term “international armed conflict” rather than “war,” and defines it more broadly as the use of armed forces between states, whether or not one side calls it “war.”
In modern international law, Ahmer Bilal Soofi, a defender of the Pakistan Supreme Court specialising in international law, says that all use of force is classified as “armed conflict” regardless of justification such as self-defense.
The suspension of the treaty could also mark the beginning of the war, he added. India suspended participation in the Landmark Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan on April 23rd. This explains Pakistan’s movement is called “hostile acts.”
“Political scientists usually say that war exists only after a fight gets very intense — usually 1,000 combat deaths,” said Christopher Clary, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Albany. “But for the government, war exists whenever they say that.”
Experts argue that recent escalations in military action by India and Pakistan were about signaling strength as well as military targets, and were also part of a broader effort to manage national and international awareness.
Sean Bell, a British-based military analyst, said much of the current rhetoric from both India and Pakistan is intentionally targeted at domestic audiences. Each side is “trying to make it clear to their group that they have a robust military response and that they are retaliating for any action,” he told Al Jazeera. But this tat’s dynamic Bell warns, and when it starts it becomes difficult to stop.
Why is the country reluctant to formally announce the war?
[Followingtheadoptionofthe1945UNCharterSoofitoldAlJazeera”wedonotadvocateforwarordeclarewarLegallyspeakingitisconsideredanillegaluseofforce”[1945年の国連憲章の採択に続いて、「戦争を主張したり、戦争を宣言したりすることはありません。法的に言えば、それは違法な武力行使と見なされている」とSoofiはAlJazeeraに語った。Officially, being in a state of armed conflict creates international legal obligations, such as following the rules of armed conflict and taking responsibility for war crimes.
The latest India-Pakistan standoffs featured both sides portraying others as invaders, arguing that it should escalate.
The lack of a formally accepted definition of war means that a country can engage in sustainable military operations without officially declaring war. Ambiguity also allows governments to frame military operations in a way that aligns with political or diplomatic goals.
Russia, for example, consistently describes its invasion of Ukraine in 2022 as a “special military operation,” despite its massive deployment of forces, air forces and territorial occupation. Similarly, the US called the Korean War of the 1950s “police actions” and framed long-term activities in Afghanistan and Iraq as “anti-terrorist operations.” Israel also uses terms such as “military campaign” and “operational” for cross-border attacks, such as the “operational protection edge” during the war in Gaza in 2014.
Source link
