The agreement will also improve interoperability between the Indian armed forces and Japan and, as part of the strategic and global partnership between the two countries, defence operations at the bilateral level will increase significantly. The acquisition and cross-service agreement open to the public demystifies military logistics agreements for many in India. And we know that this is bland, because unlike other official military logistics agreements in which India participates, the text of the agreement with Japan is accessible to the public via the website of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Amid growing tensions between India and China along the effective line of control, which is likely to escalate, with the ACSA agreement with Japan, the Indian navy will have access to the Japanese base in Djibouti and the Japanese will have access to Andaman and Nikobaren. Agreements such as the one India has just signed with Japan systematize the process of reciprocal provision of goods and services relevant to the operations of the two military personnel, within pre-defined accounting parameters. This is different from the exchanges that take place ad hoc, as has been the case in the past. It is clear that these agreements are certainly important, but far from being a “military pact” (with all its connotations), as described in the Nikkei Asian Review, except perhaps very literally. The fact that India and Japan signed this agreement – which has been under negotiation for some time – in the midst of the Indo-Chinese crisis in eastern Ladakh provided an exciting context for a fallacious agreement. The agreement was signed by Defense Minister Ajay Kumar and Japanese Ambassador Suzuki Satoshi. According to the Defense Ministry statement, “the agreement signed on Wednesday concerns the reciprocal provision of supplies and services between the Indian armed forces and Japan`s self-defense forces.” On 24 August, I stated in these pages that one of the reasons why India`s “fundamental” defence cooperation agreements with the United States – including a logistical agreement – are drawing so much political attention to national territory, because “the texts of these agreements – and even official summaries – continue to serve as suspicion in a country that deeply protects its sovereignty and independent foreign policy.” Indeed, in the absence of a draft agreement on the U.S.-India Logistics Exchange 2016, some analysts have confused it with a “status of forces” agreement on fundamental rights and all that would entail.