On April 6, 1991, India and Pakistan signed the “Agreement on Advance Notice of Military Exercises, Manoeuvres and Troop Movements”, a diplomatic initiative during congress supported regime and implemented during congress regime, probably an outcome of ‘AMAN KI ASHA’, aimed at reducing the risk of conflict through transparency. The agreement, which entered into force in 1992 and was registered with the UN in December 1994, obligates both nations to notify each other in advance of large-scale military exercises and troop movements near their shared border.
While this was framed as a Confidence Building Measure (CBM), its long-term implications for India’s security posture have proven problematic and potentially dangerous. In the name of transparency, India agreed to a level of military openness that inadvertently compromises operational secrecy, while giving strategic advantage to Pakistan, a state known for exploiting diplomatic agreements even as it sponsors cross-border terrorism.
Operational Secrecy Undermined
A major flaw in the agreement is the mandatory prior notification of major troop movements, including divisional or corps-level exercises. This provision undermines India’s strategic flexibility and the ability to launch or simulate sudden deployments, a vital component of modern military doctrine.
India is required to give 15 to 90 days’ notice depending on the scale and type of exercise or movement. This includes any repositioning of defensive formations, even within its own territory, if they are near the Pakistan border. In practical terms, this forces India to reveal intentions, timing, and operational details, potentially allowing Pakistan to mobilise, monitor, or misdirect in response.
Asymmetry in Strategic Behaviour
The agreement assumes equal and honest compliance a deeply flawed assumption when dealing with a state like Pakistan. India has largely abided by the terms, reflecting its commitment to rules-based engagement. Pakistan, however, has a history of violating or circumventing such agreements while using asymmetric tactics such as the Kargil Occupation leading to 1999 war:
Pushing terrorist infiltrators across the Line of Control (LoC) under the cover of routine logistics.
Conducting unauthorised military mobilisations or forward deployments without due notification.
Engaging in cross-border firing or limited skirmishes even during periods of supposed restraint.
By obligating India to reveal its troop movements while Pakistan continues to rely on non-state actors and covert operations, the agreement creates a dangerous strategic imbalance.
Irrelevance in the Face of Proxy Warfare
The agreement was crafted in an era focused on conventional warfare. It does not address the far more prevalent and dangerous mode of conflict today- proxy and hybrid warfare. Pakistan’s military strategy is deeply intertwined with its use of terrorist organisations like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, which operate with the full support of the ISI.
These entities are not covered under the agreement, rendering it ineffective in addressing Pakistan’s actual threat posture. While India must reveal troop positions or movements, Pakistan faces no such obligation when preparing terror strikes, infiltration missions, or sub-conventional aggression.
Signed Under Duress, Still Binding
India signed the agreement in the early 1990s, a time of economic vulnerability and diplomatic pressure. It was a period when India sought to improve relations with its neighbours and gain international goodwill. However, global goodwill does not ensure national security, and the strategic landscape today is far more hostile.
Time for a Reassessment
In light of repeated ceasefire violations, cross-border terrorism, and attacks like Kargil, 26/11, Pulwama, and Uri, this agreement appears outdated and one-sided. It may be time for India to review, renegotiate, or even suspend such CBMs that serve diplomatic optics but erode strategic deterrence.
India must prioritise reciprocity, verifiability, and inclusion of non-conventional threats in any future military transparency agreements. In a volatile neighbourhood, transparency without trust is not a confidence-building measure, it’s a security risk.
