The line itself was “created” (albeit unilaterally) in November 1959, when Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai wrote to Premier Jawaharlal Nehru proposing a package to resolve the border. In that letter, he mentioned the “line to which each party exercises real control” in Ladakh. In 1960, India and China held a series of discussions on LAC to advance the Zhou-Nehru correspondence. The coordinates that the Chinese interlocutors made available to their Indian colleagues marked the ALC essentially west of the 1959 claim line. The talks were of course unsuccessful and the LAC affair was there, despite the 1962 war. Signed in New Delhi on 17 January 2012, available in the Database of Chinese AMF Treaties in English, Chinese and Hindi. The English text of the agreement can also be found in the Indian Treaty Database of the Indian EMA. The two sides agree to establish the WMCC to deal with important border issues related to the maintenance of peace and tranquility in the Indochinese border areas. (Art. 1.) The WMCC will be headed by an official at the joint secretary level of the Indian MEA and a director general of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and will be composed of diplomatic and military officials from both sides. (Art.
2.) Article 10 of the agreement referred to the exchange of cards between the two countries. Initially, there had been some progress in card exchange. India and China exchanged cards from the Barahoti sector in the second half of 2000. In June 2001, the Indian and Chinese sides held the first in-depth discussion on LAC in Sector Central.  Sikkim cards were also exchanged.  This resulted in the “Memorandum on Border Trade Development.”   However, when maps of other sectors were exchanged, particularly the western sector, perceptions varied greatly to such an extent that the process stopped around 2002/2003.   In July 2020, China`s ambassador to India said Beijing was not interested in continuing the card exchange process, which was halted in 2002.  One of the drawbacks of the card exchange process was that it “encouraged exaggeration of their assertions about lac`s whereabouts.”  Without being aware that the term LAC had a deep military connotation, the Indian side, which believed that the Chinese attached importance to traditional terms, accepted the Chinese proposal. In any case, Indian diplomats felt that the name of the line did not play a major role, as “India had inserted a provision that the two sides would agree amicably and clarify the LAC in the draft agreement if necessary.” After the 1993 agreement, formal interaction between the two countries continued.
In the military field, an officer exchange programme and high-level visits were carried out. The Vice Chief of the Chinese People`s Liberation Army and the Chinese Minister of Defense visited India, while the Chief of Staff and Chief of Staff of the Indian Navy visited China.  Fast forward to 1993. India and China signed the LAC AGREEMENT without demarcation or demarcation (neither on maps nor on the ground) for the sole purpose of maintaining peace and tranquility. Of course, the line that India held for LAC under the 1993 agreement may not have been where the Chinese had said it. Beijing`s point of reference for this was its 1959-60 claim lines. The Agreement on Military Confidence-Building Measures (formally the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the People`s Republic of China on Confidence-Building Measures in the Military Field Along the Line of Effective Control in the Indochinese Border Areas) followed the 1993 Border Agreement. The instruments of ratification were exchanged at the tenth session of the GTM in August 1997.  The failure to resolve the border dispute led to the Sino-Indian War in 1962, and there was no final agreement between the countries on the exact location of the LAC. According to Alyssa Ayres, a South Asia expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, “China and India have different ideas about where they should be, which leads to regular border crossings.” Often, these tensions do not escalate; a severe border blockade like the one that currently exists is less common, although it is the fourth since 2013.
Signed at Beijing on 23 October 2013. An English text of the agreement can be found in the Indian MEA Media Centre as well as in the UN Peacemakers Database. According to Ankit Panda of The Diplomat, the 10-article agreement lists several mechanisms to reduce misunderstandings and improve communication between the two countries along their disputed border. Article VI expressly prohibits a party from actively following or following patrols of another site. Articles VI, VII and VIII each explicitly describe dispute settlement procedures in “areas where there is no common understanding of the actual line of control”. The agreement began with the five principles of peaceful coexistence agreed in the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement. Each of the five points was mentioned.  Next are the nine points of the agreement.
 It was agreed that the Indochinese border issue should be resolved by peaceful means and that there was a “final solution” to the border issue.  Troop levels would be regulated and confidence-building measures would be developed to maintain peace in areas along the LAC. Military exercises in these areas should also be regulated. Contingencies must be managed peacefully. Aerial intrusions along LAC should be kept to a minimum.  It was also agreed that “both parties agree that references to the Actual Line of Control in this Agreement do not affect their respective positions on the border issue.”  Consultations would serve as a basis for downsizing, peacekeeping and advancement.  The agreement refers to the India-China Joint Working Group on the Border Issue.  The agreement established a group of diplomatic and military experts (later called the “India-China Diplomatic and Military Group of Experts”) to assist the Joint Working Group in “settling disputes between the two sides over the direction of the actual line of control.”  Signed in New Delhi on 11 April 2005, available in the Chinese database on MFA contracts in English, Chinese and Hindi. .