International Relations of India and Pakistan in Kutch-Sindh Border Problem: A Case Study of the Rann of Kutch Dispute and its Border Demarcation Process


Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • カッチ・シンド国境問題におけるインド、パキスタンの国際関係―カッチ湿地紛争と国境画定過程の事例分析
  • カッチ ・ シンド コッキョウ モンダイ ニ オケル インド 、 パキスタン ノ コクサイ カンケイ : カッチ シッチ フンソウ ト コッキョウ カクテイ カテイ ノ ジレイ ブンセキ

Search this article


<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>


  • Asian Studies

    Asian Studies 66 (3), 1-19, 2020-07-31

    Japan Association for Asian Studies


  • CRID
  • NII Article ID
  • NII Book ID
  • DOI
  • ISSN
  • Text Lang
  • Data Source
    • JaLC
    • NDL
    • CiNii Articles
  • Abstract License Flag

Report a problem

Back to top