The 1993 agreement was the first of five border agreements between India and China, which explicitly stated that both parties would “strictly” respect the effective line of control (LAC). The other four agreements were signed in 1996, 2005, 2012 and 2013. P.V. Narasimha Rao, then Prime Minister, was the second head of government after Rajiv Gandhi to visit China after the restoration of diplomatic relations, and he felt that his visit should be an even greater success than Gandhi. Foreign Minister J.N. Dixit consulted with China-Main Menon, which proposed that India and China sign a peace agreement by accepting existing military positions at the disputed border, without prejudice to the declared positions of the other. The line that marks the existing military positions could be described as a line of peace or tranquillity. Signed in New Delhi on November 29, 1996, available in the Chinese AMF contract base in English, Chinese and Hindi. Copies and summaries of the agreement are also available in the UNITED Nations Peacemakers Database and the University of Edinburgh`s AP-X Peace Agreements database. According to the UN peacemakers` website, the agreement allows for “military disclosure when the parties conduct border exercises and downsizing in border areas. In addition, parties may, by invitation, observe and inspect troop movements in any other territory. In this agreement, the two sides agreed to reduce or limit their armed forces in mutually agreed geographical areas along the ZONE.
It defines the main categories of armaments to be reduced or limited: “Battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, guns (including caps) of 75 mm or more caliber, mortars of 120 mm or more caliber, surface-to-surface missiles, surface-to-air missiles and any other conventionally agreed weapons system.” (Article 3) “Each party must open fire, biodegrade, use hazardous chemicals, carry out explosive operations or hunt with rifles or explosives within two kilometres of the effective control line.” (Article 6) At his weekly briefing, MEA spokesman Anurag Srivastava said: “As mentioned above, respect and strict adherence to the LAC are the basis for peace and tranquillity in the border areas. Several agreements concluded by India and China since 1993 strongly recognize this. In my statement of 26 June, I noted that the behaviour of the Chinese armed forces this year, including the sending of large troops and changes in behaviour, accompanied by unjustified and unsustainable allegations, had completely ignored all reciprocal agreements. Strategic affairs expert Brahma Chellaney explains the importance of the 1993 agreement. In its statement of 30 June 2017, the Indian side ignored the reference to the 1890 convention – probably to remove bridges for a border settlement on the basis of a long-term political agreement and not on British-era agreements – and stated that there was only a “reciprocal agreement based on “reconciliation” that had been confirmed in 2012. and “further discussions need to take place to effectively close the border.” There was also an agreement between India and China to have “border crossings between India, China and third countries completed in agreement with the countries concerned.”  The non-resolution of the border conflict led to the Salino-Indian war in 1962 and there was no definitive agreement between the countries on the exact location of the LAC. According to Alyssa Ayres, South Asia specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, “China and India have different views of where they should be, resulting in regular border crossings. Often these tensions do not escalate; A serious border demarcation situation, such as the one we have at the moment, is less common, although it is the fourth since 2013. The framework agreement is the most complex because it will be translated into the dividing line.