In the year 1972, in the first week of July, there was a lot of commotion in Shimla, the capital of Himachal Pradesh. This was the period when the Pakistan Army surrendered to the Indian Army in East Pakistan. According to Pakistan's official figures, 73 thousand prisoners of war were in Indian custody, including 45,000 soldiers or paramilitary, and about 5 thousand square miles of western Pakistan was under Indian control.
It was in this background that the Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi and the President of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto were meeting in Shimla. Later the agreement which was reached here was called Shimla Agreement. The date of signing of the agreement documents is recorded as 2 July 1972. Whereas, in fact, this document was signed on the morning of 3 July.
After the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, East Pakistan became an independent country in the form of Bangladesh. Both countries agreed to resolve their differences by mutual agreement by peaceful means, through mutual negotiations or by other peaceful means.
The political situation in Pakistan was that there was no constitution in Pakistan. Nothing could be said with certainty about the future of the National Assembly elected in the 1970 general election. The parties that lost the election were demanding the cancellation of the election. Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, as the leader of a victorious country, had become a more popular leader among the people of India.
In such a situation, there was talk of a plan to 'teach Pakistan more lesson' in front of India and many newspapers were saying that 'Defeated Pakistan' should be forced, that it should settle all disputes including Kashmir, according to Indian terms, permanently. But solve it.
After the surrender in East Pakistan, there was unrest in the Pakistani army and there was no way to get the prisoners released, as there was no constitution. So martial law rules were issued and power was transferred to a civilian. In this way, a civilian Chief Marshal Administrator was appointed.
But Indira Gandhi was not ready to talk to Pakistan. Pakistan's civilian chief marshal administrator, President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, visited Russia and said that Pakistan wanted to pressure India to start talks through its "old" friend Russia. After much diplomatic efforts, Indira Gandhi agreed to negotiate with Pakistan.
Contacts were restored and delegations came and went. It was decided for the President of Pakistan to come to India and hold talks so that whatever was being decided at the initial stage could be given the form of a formal agreement. At the beginning of the talks, India was clearly a victorious country, but according to an Indian diplomat, during the talks, there was a turning point when the victorious country looked 'embarrassed'.
An official of the negotiating team on India's side, KN Bakshi, said in a 2007 interview that although the Pakistani army had surrendered, the world's opinion was in India's favour. "Still we could not achieve much. We looked ashamed of our victory. We were being bowed down to Pakistan in the desire to compromise."
India's political science professor Uday Balakrishnan wrote an article in the Daily Hindu on November 20, 2019, on the occasion of Indira Gandhi's birthday. In this article, after praising Indira Gandhi, she called the Shimla Agreement of 1972 her 'political mistake'.
"We will never know what were the circumstances that compelled Indira Gandhi to strike a disadvantageous deal with Pakistan after the 1971 war. The Shimla Agreement and the subsequent Delhi Agreement gave Pakistan all that he wanted: all the areas of Pakistan that the Indian Army had occupied. And the safe return of all of them to Pakistan without prosecuting any officer of the Pakistani army on charges of genocide in present-day Bangladesh.
Dr Balakrishnan writes that "If ever India's relations with Pakistan showed any point of effectiveness and effectiveness, it was this moment when India, on the strength of its power, occupied 5 thousand square miles of Pakistan's territory. And about a quarter of his army was taken prisoner of war." Bala Krishnan writes that "it is astonishing why India easily returned both of them."
In this regard, Shashank Banerjee, a former Indian diplomat, says that the decision to send back Pakistan's prisoners of war was made to send Sheikh Mujibur Rahman alive and safe to his country.
Responding to Shashank Banerjee's argument, Balakrishnan writes that "his (Shashank's) point of view is not right. The return of war prisoners to their homeland took place after the 1973 Delhi Accord, while Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had reached Bangladesh in January 1972, long before this agreement.
However, it is said about Indira Gandhi's decision, that after the defeat of Pakistan, she did not want to sign an agreement that was similar to the 'Vasaye Agreement' of the First World War. Whose humiliating terms gave rise to a fanatical sense of revenge in Germany and, as a result, the rise of the Nazi leadership in Germany.
In one of his interviews in 2007, KN Bakshi has told the story of the final stages of this agreement in Shimla which shows that the reason for India's 'losing' in the Simla Agreement at the diplomatic level after the military victory, was the 'Vasay syndrome' as well as the 'high strategy' of Pakistan President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's negotiations.
During the entire preparations (of the Shimla Agreement), we tried to highlight some key points. The first was that Bhutto was not credible. We cannot trust them. We used to say orally, that even his mother could not trust him completely.
ZAB (Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto), who spoke of the Thousand Years' War, Very sweet things were being said in front of us, such as "The people of our two countries can progress only in peace. We must end the history of conflict and war between our two countries. Trust me, when I say so." Well, I realize that this is the only way we can move forward."
He (Bhutto) did all his talk publicly and privately like this. He told Indian journalists that the new ceasefire line should be 'Line of Peace'. He continued to assert his democratic status, becoming the first elected leader of Pakistan after a long period of military rule.
They need help to protect democracy because only a democratic government can decide on basic issues like peace. So they needed an agreement, which they could sell to their people. It was one aspect of his portrayal of the character.
The second role (of this diplomatic drama) was played by Aziz Ahmed and was completely negative (character). Complicated, arrogant and as such, the Pakistanis have always treated India badly. It was almost like a scene from a Hollywood movie, with one good cop and the other bad.
And both the policemen are trying to achieve the same goal together. Aziz Ahmed played the role of a bad cop. He spoke less but when he did speak he used to say the same thing in different ways and it was mostly the traditional Pakistani side on all aspects of our relations including J&K.
(Ahmed Hasan Alvi, the then correspondent of the daily Masawat in Islamabad, who was part of the Shimla delegation, told his journalist friends many years later about Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's 'direction of this diplomatic drama'. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto by Benazir Bhutto was instructed on everything from smiling to the choice of clothes.KN Bakshi's words are corroborated by Ahmed Hasan Alvi's words, that Bhutto wanted to create an atmosphere for which everyone had to speak certain dialogues and The stage of this drama was not a theatre, but the bungalow in Shimla where the talks were taking place.
There was also a third group of actors in this (diplomatic drama) production. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto came to Shimla with full preparation. He had brought an 84-member delegation, which included politicians, government employees, intelligence officers, journalists, intellectuals, military officers. Even those leaders of Pakistan who had influence in India were also included.
He also brought to India Wali Khan of the National Awami Party, who was considered a friendly politician in India and had many friends and admirers in India. Bhutto also brought with him the then Chief Secretary of Punjab, who was a Kashmiri and several Indian officials knew him personally.
We were the host country. There were many people around us too, but what Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was doing was organized and coordinated. The people Bhutto had brought with him were talking to all his friends and anyone who seemed willing to talk to him.
(On the question of whether bilateral terms were agreed upon in the agreement) They agreed to almost everything proposed in general terms. But if we look at the Simla Agreement, I think the agreement is divided into two parts: a concrete agreement and its direct form.
According to us, he (Bhutto) was not deceiving, what we meant when we said that we want lasting peace or we will not do hostile propaganda against each other or we will solve all problems peacefully. If we would normalize relations, exchange and cooperate in the field of trade, economic cooperation, science and culture, then everyone would have believed.
The two-pronged approach was the cornerstone of these decisions, the implementation of such provisions entirely depends on the political commitment of both parties. But even in this agreement, two tricks were added in these matters. In the first paragraph number 1.1 included on the part of Pakistan (in the Shimla Agreement), it was said that
The most cunning is in Para No. 4.1, which states that the LoC (Line of Control) as a result of the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected without prejudice to the acceptable position of either side by either side.
These articles were, of course, added at the last minute during direct talks between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. (Responding to this question, Bakshi said that it was just that the line would be changed, but Bhutto would not give up his claims about Kashmir.) Pakistan's side is that the entire area is disputed and united. The issue of the nation's resolutions should be resolved through a referendum.
He retained this position. Another interesting point is that there is no time fixed for any other provision for reopening of trade, travel, communication and even diplomatic missions. But thirty days time was kept to implement the agreement for the withdrawal of Indian troops from Pakistani territory. And then the last sentence of Paragraph No. 6 was very important, in which the word "Final Agreement of J&K" was clearly added.
Gary J. Boss, professor of international affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, wrote in the journal 'International Security' that "the issue of Kashmir is more important to India than prosecuting Pakistani soldiers allegedly involved in war crimes." Yet Indira Gandhi cleverly used Bhutto's concerns about the Pakistan Army to try to get Bangladesh recognized."
According to him, Indira Gandhi told the media in her July 12 press conference that she had told Bhutto that "as far as the prisoners of war are concerned, there is a third country in this matter which has a very deep connection with it i.e., Bangladesh. And that issue cannot be resolved unless he is also involved in the talks (ie, unless Pakistan recognizes it)."
When asked about Bhutto's statement that if India handed over Pakistani troops to Bangladesh for trial, it might be impossible to hold talks between India and Pakistan in the future. Indira Gandhi said of Bangladesh, that "we cannot do much about it, because the Pakistani army had surrendered to the Joint Command in Bangladesh… Therefore, the Government of Bangladesh has to decide what will happen." And moreover, the prosecution of war crimes is not against the Geneva Convention."
On the other hand, contrary to the wishes of India, the Shimla summit and the agreement reached was more beneficial to Pakistan than expected. Under this agreement, 5 thousand square miles of Pakistan's land which was in the possession of India was returned by the end of that year.
Famous researcher Farzana Shaikh has written in one of his papers 'Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto: In Pursuit of Asian Pakistan' that Bhutto promised peace to India without recognizing Bangladesh or agreeing to prosecute Pakistani soldiers for war crimes. had achieved. This agreement paved the way for the release of Pakistani prisoners from India.
In the book, 'Daughters of the East', Benazir describes a scene where Bhutto enters his room after signing the pact and she asks him, instead of the prisoners of war, he had lost the war zone. Why was the return preferred? Benazir Bhutto writes that she was shocked, as the families of prisoners of war waited for her return. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto replied to his daughter that the Indian Prime Minister had offered to return either of the prisoners of war or the area.
Bhutto said that he demanded the occupied territory because the prisoner of war is a humanitarian issue. They could not be kept forever. International public opinion will force India to send him back to Pakistan. On the other hand, the region is not a humanitarian issue. It can be integrated.
Bhutto gave the example of the land of Palestine which was not returned even after so many years. Upon his return to Pakistan, he announced in his opening speeches that for five years the Arabs had been trying to take back their land. "I have got this land of mine in less than five months." (Israel occupied western Jordan in 1967, an area still under Israeli occupation).
The question is, what benefit did Pakistan get from Bhutto's diplomacy in the outcome of this agreement and why Indira Gandhi still has to face criticism due to this agreement.
According to analysts in Pakistan, the Shimla Agreement obliges the two countries to resolve their disputes bilaterally through peaceful means and dialogue in accordance with the principles and rules of the United Nations. In this context, the change in the constitutional status of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir by India on August 5, 2019 is a one-way step, which is a blatant violation of the Shimla Agreement.
The Shimla Agreement emphasizes on resolving disputes through bilateral negotiations (Biliteral Mechanism). In interpreting this article, India takes the meaning of bilateral negotiations to mean that no other party, not even the United Nations, has any role to play in resolving disputes between the two countries.
Conversely, interpreting the same article of the Shimla Agreement, Pakistan says that the agreement is bound to abide by the Charter and rules of the United Nations and that it will have to settle its disputes accordingly. In this regard, the Shimla Agreement is still accepted in Islamabad as an authentic and effective agreement and it is emphasized that the Shimla Agreement cannot eliminate the role of the United Nations in the bilateral dispute. However, some analysts now call the Shimla Agreement a 'worthless document'.
It cannot be said with certainty right now that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will reconsider the decision on the constitutional status of Kashmir after talks with the leaders of the Indian-administered Kashmir. But this activity has once again proved that the affairs of the region can be resolved through dialogue, not wars and coercion.
Mirza Saib Baig, a Kashmiri intellectual, researcher, legal expert and senior fellow at Oxford University, says that the Shimla Agreement is not only still useful, but both countries are also committed to implementing it.
"It is the inability of Pakistan not to hold India or make any international claim for violating the Simla Agreement. There is no concept of unilateral decisions in the Shimla Agreement. There are only two possibilities in this regard: (1) Either India's unilateral decision was illegal and Pakistan failed to implement and implement the Shimla Agreement, or (2) India's decision was not unilateral.
Mirza Saib Baig insists that Pakistan wanted to sue the International Court for breach of the agreement under its authority, but it (Pakistan) would know better why it filed such a case (in the International Court of Justice) did not do.
Former Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri was asked whether the talks with India during his time were taking place under the framework of the Shimla Agreement. In response, he said, "Now the situation in the region has gone far beyond the era of the Simla Agreement. Till the last decade, the talks were progressing with the Lahore Declaration and the Islamabad Declaration, due to which both the countries had negotiated through bilateral talks. had almost found a new solution to the Kashmir dispute, on which the talk had increased a lot.
Kasuri said that in August 2006, Manmohan Singh, the then Prime Minister of India, was coming to Islamabad to sign the settlement of Sir Creek dispute. The matter was almost resolved and some points were yet to be finalized, but due to the state elections in India, they asked to change the date."
Like and Follow us on :
