Award type：Honored in official journal of a scientific society, scientific journal  Country：Japan

researchmap

Publishing type：Part of collection (book)   Publisher：人間文化研究機構（NIHU）プロジェクト南アジア地域研究中心拠点京都大学大学院アジア・アフリカ地域研究研究科附属南アジア研究センター  

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (conference, symposium, etc.)  

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Publisher：Japan Association for Asian Studies  

<p>From early 1965 to June, armed conflict between India and Pakistan broke out over the Rann of Kutch. Amid mounting international concerns over the spread of the crisis in the subcontinent, the two countries reached an agreement on a ceasefire through Britain's good offices. Shortly after, both governments submitted the border dispute to the international arbitration tribunal. After two years of deliberation, in February 1968, the arbitration tribunal awarded the final decision for border demarcation and settled the dispute.</p><p>The purpose of this paper is to reconsider the development of resolving the historical and territorial disputes between two countries over the Kutch-Sindh border problem. In particular, focusing on the course of the ceasefire agreement of Rann of Kutch dispute in 1965 and the process of border demarcation by the subsequent arbitration award, this study analyzes how the international relations surrounding the two parties, as well as Indo-Pakistan relations, influenced the final settlement of this border dispute. What was the reason that led to an agreement without expanding the historical confrontation into a massive war? What was the factor that brought the two countries to a territorial conclusion? In response to these questions, this paper addresses the accumulation and its influence of border negotiations between New Delhi and Rawalpindi in the late 1950s, international involvement and its impact, the intersection of international politics of Cold War and regional politics in South Asia, and the domestic acceptance for the award of the arbitration tribunal.</p><p>In conclusion, the decision of border demarcation had the political process of de-escalating conflict and drawing boundaries through consensus building. Under these circumstances, the two governments had worked hard on tough negotiations for border agreement, based on the consideration of lawyers, international organizations, and sometimes its allies.</p><p>The ceasefire agreement in 1965 was a turning point in the history of the Kutch-Sindh border problem. In this background, the efforts of the two countries to negotiate a series of government border agreements since the late 1950s, the possibility that the US-Pakistan alliance had worked to curb the Indo-Pakistan conflict, the information sharing of some military personnel who intended to restrain the expansion of fighting, and the influence of the third country's mediation ware observed. Also, the strategic decision of political leaders such as Shastri's sense of crisis for communal disturbances and Ayub's calculation to favor negotiations in the context of the international community strongly influenced the attitudes of the two countries towards a ceasefire.</p><p>The international arbitration tribunal, which based on the ceasefire agreement, was the judicial manner in nature. Nevertheless, the procedure of the tribunal showed that they played an active role in the political solution with careful consideration of the balance between the two party's claims. When the UN Secretary-General appointed a chairman of the tribunal, the United Nations formally guaranteed it. Furthermore, India, who was reluctant to confirm the award, did not reject it. It appeared that the government emphasized the standing position of India in the world despite being criticized by the domestic opposition. These points had become crucial prerequisites for the final settlement.</p><p>The award was legally the final decision, but in reality, its implementation required domestic acceptance. Indeed, it was a controversial matter in public opinion. In India, some groups contested the award and attempted to bring a case to the court. All groups are not necessarily accepted diplomatic negotiations for conflict avoidance. The conclusion of the dispute received domestic criticism.</p><p>View PDF for the rest of the abstract</p>

DOI： 10.11479/asianstudies.66.3_1

CiNii Article

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Book review, literature introduction, etc.  

DOI： 10.50848/psaj.600109

researchmap

Total pages：352   Responsible for pages：209-229   Book type：Scholarly book

researchmap

Total pages：247   Language：Japanese

CiNii Books

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (nominated)  

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

researchmap

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Zoom  

researchmap

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

researchmap

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

researchmap