After days of deadly fighting, Cambodia and Thailand on Monday agreed to an “immediate and unconditional ceasefire”. The ceasefire was negotiated by Prime Ministers Hun Manet of Cambodia and Phumtham Wechayachai of Thailand at a meeting hosted by Malaysian PM Anwar Ibrahim in Kuala Lumpur.The clashes followed months of tensions over a century-old border dispute between the Southeast Asian neighbours. What is the history of this dispute, and what happens now?Tensions come to a boilTensions between Cambodia and Thailand had been simmering since May, when they skirmished at a contested area of the border, leading to the death of a Cambodian soldier.Nationalist rhetoric in both countries and a series of tit-for-tat actions followed. Cambodia banned the import of Thai fruits and broadcast of Thai films and soap operas; Thailand closed all land crossings.Last Wednesday, Thailand withdrew its ambassador from Cambodia and expelled the Cambodian envoy after a Thai soldier lost a leg in a land mine blast. Thailand claimed the mine was laid by Cambodian troops in Thai territory.Cambodia responded by downgrading diplomatic relations and recalling all Cambodian staff from its embassy in Bangkok. Clashes broke out at half a dozen places along the border between the Thai provinces of Surin and Sisaket, and Cambodian provinces of Oddar Meanchey and Preah Vihear.On Thursday, Thailand launched air strikes on Cambodian military sites, and Cambodia responded with rocket and artillery fire. Exchanges of artillery and machine gun fire followed, in which at least 35 people were killed and more than 2.6 lakh civilians were displaced on both sides of the border, Reuters reported.Making of a conflictStory continues below this adThe 817-km land border between Cambodia and Thailand was drawn in 1907 by France, then the colonial power in Cambodia. Like many other borders drawn by colonial administrators, this too has long been disputed.The two predominantly Theravada-Buddhist neighbours are more alike than any other country in the region, sharing ethnic and linguistic ties, social norms, culinary traditions, and cultural activities. But both claim to be the “original” owners of their heritage. This is what drives the animosity between them.The competing claims of cultural ownership are rooted in contesting readings of history, which, scholars say, are purposely propped up by governing elites of the two countries to strengthen their domestic positions.“Countries fabricate history to celebrate their past, using nationalism as a political tool in the manipulation of public opinion… It is evident that contemporary Thai-Cambodian relations have become a casualty of the remade past,” wrote Charnvit Kasetsiri, Pou Sothirak and Pavin Chachavalpongpun in Preah Vihear: A Guide to the Thai-Cambodian Conflict and Its Solutions (2013).Story continues below this adEvery skirmish in the border thus has the potential to devolve into a much larger conflict. This has happened now, and earlier.Case of Preah VihearAt the centre of the border dispute is the Preah Vihear temple, which is called Phra Viharn in Thai. “The temple has meaning — both as a cultural symbol and a religious place of worship — to people on both sides of the border,” John D Ciorciari, a professor of international politics at Indiana University, wrote in his 2009 paper ‘Thailand and Cambodia: The Battle for Preah Vihear’.The temple was built in the 11th and 12th centuries during the golden age of the Khmer Empire, who at the time ruled much of South Asia, including Siam (Thailand). But beginning in the 15th century, as the Khmer Empire declined, Siam gradually chipped away at Cambodian territory. In 1867, Cambodia officially handed the area around Preah Vihear to Siam.But by this time, France had entered the picture. After colonising Cambodia and Laos, it reduced the Siamese kingdom to a weak position in the neighbourhood. Siam and France signed a treaty in 1904 that said the northern frontier of Cambodia would run along the watershed line of the Dangrek Mountains.Story continues below this adWhile this principle would put most of the Preah Vihear complex in Siam, the official map, drawn by the French in 1907, put the temple in Cambodia. Siam’s objections were muted then — but in 1941, after entering into an alliance with Japan, it seized Preah Vihear, only to return it to France at the end of World War II.After Cambodia’s independence, Thai troops once again occupied Preah Vihear in 1954. Cambodia moved the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which in 1962 upheld its claim over Preah Vihear. But this did not put the issue to bed.Tensions flared up in 2008 after Cambodia sought to list the Preah Vihear temple as a UNESCO World Heritage site. The Thai opposition used the issue to attack the government, accusing it of “forfeiting Thai dignity and sovereignty”, Ciorciari wrote. Cambodian leaders too used the issue to rally nationalist sentiment in the country.Over the next several years, Cambodian and Thai troops frequently skirmished at the border. In 2013, the ICJ re-affirmed Cambodia’s position vis-à-vis Preah Vihear, creating a demilitarised zone around the temple, although this was never implemented. Thailand has since rejected the ICJ’s jurisdiction.What happens nowStory continues below this adPreah Vihear temple is the most famous of many disputed sites at the Cambodia-Thailand border which hold cultural significance for both countries. Another such temple, called Prasat Ta Moan Thom by the Cambodians and Prasat Ta Muen Thom by the Thai, witnessed fighting during the recent hostilities.The ceasefire does not fundamentally address issues of cultural inheritance and ownership. It will take a lot more to bring down temperatures in both countries, and for them to permanently iron out the border issue.For the time being, however, analysts expect an uneasy peace to hold. This is primarily because of pressure from outside, notably China and the United States, both of whom oversaw the negotiations in Kuala Lumpur.In fact, the talks were held after US President Donald Trump set the two countries agreeing to a ceasefire as a precondition to their respective trade talks with Washington.