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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

View PDF for the rest of the abstract

本稿は，特集「宇宙政策・宇宙法・宇宙安全保障とは何か？」の第3回であり「宇宙安全保障とは何か？」をテーマとして，宇宙空間の安全保障問題を論じようとするものである．世界全体として見ると，宇宙活動や宇宙計画の多くの分野はその開始以来，安全保障部門によって進められてきた．冷戦期に世界の宇宙活動を先導した米ソ両国は安全保障分野においてもまた先導役となっていたのである．冷戦構造終了によってロシア（旧ソ連）の宇宙活動能力が低下する中，代わって米国に拮抗しようと台頭したのは中国であり，安全保障部門と一体化した宇宙活動を急速に推し進めている．日本はこうした米国，ロシア，中国とは異なり非軍事目的に限って宇宙活動を行ってきたが，1998年のいわゆるテポドンショックなどを受けて方針を変更，さらに2008年の宇宙基本法成立以降，安全保障も明白に意識した宇宙活動へとシフトしつつある．

This study considers the conflict-prevention mechanisms over international rivers between India and its neighboring countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal). India is a country where three important international rivers flow. The discussion concerns the Indus, the Ganges and the Mahakali rivers. Conflicts have taken place in the past over water resources between India and its neighboring countries, but India has presently signed treaties and Memorandum of Understandings and established mutually acceptable mechanisms for the development and management of the rivers. Furthermore, they have put in place permanent joint organizations, exchange of data, and river inspections.

Previous studies have analyzed how the conflict-prevention mechanisms were established in the process; however, no one has examined their effectiveness and weaknesses. In addition, there are no studies comparing policies and diplomatic efforts for all three rivers.

India and its neighbors have instituted permanent joint organizations to manage the water resources and have kept these organizations far from another politics. The role of mechanism’s factor is important and thus it was also investigated. For example, in the case of the Indus River, the mechanism does not specify the quantity of water allocated as shown in the Ganges River, but it effectively provides for a territorial type of sharing. It does not change the bounders between India and Pakistan, but traces a fictitious line that divides the basin and limits the sovereign rights of use of each state. In the case of the Mahakali River,which is at the border of India and Nepal, both countries benefited equally from the instituted irrigation and flood management policies.

Finally, this study examined the weaknesses of the conflict-prevention mechanisms. In the case of the Indus River, Pakistan has filed complaints against India to the Permanent Court of Arbitration concerning water resources for India to resolve the conflict. The court favored Pakistan on three out of four points, namely the restriction on India to maintain the minimum flow of the River, environmental protection and the diversion of water. However, the court ruled against and maintained that the instituted mechanisms function well.

In conclusion, while water supply and demand across the world is tight, considering mechanisms to prevent conflicts over water resources between countries will be significant. Especially, water demand in Asia is even sharply increasing compared to the world. Among them, India is a unique example of a country that shares waterways with more than one country.