Shimla Agreement And Its Relevance

October 7, 2021 at 8:13 pm

The agreement did not prevent relations between the two countries from deteriorating into armed conflict, most recently during the 1999 Kargil war. In Operation Meghdoot in 1984, India seized the entire inhospitable Siachen Glacier region, where the border was not clearly defined in the agreement (perhaps because the area was deemed too arid to be controversial); This was considered by Pakistan as a violation of the Simla agreement. Most of the deaths that followed in the Siachen conflict were caused by natural disasters, for example. B avalanches in 2010, 2012 and 2016. Donald Trump`s offer to help India and Pakistan resolve the Kashmir issue has sparked widespread controversy after India refuted the US president`s claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had asked a question about it. While the US administration is trying to downplay Trump`s remarks by calling the Kashmir issue “bilateral” for “India and Pakistan,” the focus has returned to previous “bilateral agreements,” including the 1972 De Simla Agreement (or Shimla), signed by then-Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. for friendly relations between the two countries. For Prelims et Mains: Has The Simla Agreement – origin, impact and results been successful? At the end of this historic summit, India and Pakistan signed the Lahore Declaration, a bilateral agreement and governance treaty that was to be ratified later in the same year by the parliaments of the two nations. As stated in the Simla Agreement 27 years earlier, the Lahore Declaration reaffirmed, inter alia, the need for a bilateral resolution of the Kashmir issue.

For the first time in nearly 50 years, when the UN Security Council held an emergency meeting on Kashmir following the government decision of 5 August, India avoided calling Kashmir an integral part of this forum and proposed that each resolution be bilateral, as agreed in the Simla Agreement. US President Donald Trump has also published his offer of mediation several times, but the Indian government has refused to accept such a proposal by recalling simla`s agreement. However, if Pakistan requests bilateral negotiations with India on Kashmir, India insists that it be an integral part of the country and that all discussions with Pakistan would focus only on combating cross-border terrorism and not on the controversial status of Kashmir. According to historian Ramachandra Guha, India wanted a “comprehensive treaty to resolve all outstanding issues,” while Pakistan preferred a “piecemeal approach.” Although India wanted a treaty, it got a deal because of the hard deals made by the Pakistanis. In 2001, at the invitation of Prime Minister Vajpayee, General Pervez Musharraf, then President of Pakistan, visited India on July 14-16 for a historic two-day summit in Agra. However, the talks failed and no text of agreement could be reached. Kashmir is still the subject of a long-standing dispute between Pakistan and India, the roots of which are due to their common colonial past. Pakistan wants a solution and wants the world powers to play a role in resolving the Kashmir issue. While India has long swept aside any proposal for third-party participation in Kashmir, it insists that it is an integral part of the country. Where India finds it difficult to evade the reference to Kashmir by simply calling it an “integral part”, it takes a different approach by calling it a “bilateral problem” between Pakistan and India, as provided for in the 1972 Simla Agreement. . .