CIHS

Date/Time:

Blog Post

CIHS > Geopolitics > Refusal to Reform

Refusal to Reform

Self-defeating journey that Pakistan embarked upon with Jihadist mindset has rendered Shimla agreement ineffective & unworkable.

Rohan Giri

Fifty two years back, Shimla accord inked on July 2, 1972 by then Bharat’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistan’s President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, bears testimony to Islamabad’s refusal to learn its lessons.

Refusal to Reform

It’s also a missed timeframe for Pakistan for evolving as a well-meaning, affable and socio-economic development partner on western borders that Bharat was looking for.

Partition of Bharat in 1947 by imperialist British forces on withdrawal mode inflicted a huge injury that cannot be easily forgotten. Instead of metamorphosing as a well-meaning society based on true Islamic values, it resorted to genocide of Bengali Hindus in East Pakistan in most inhuman way in 1971.

Pakistan had to eat a humble pie after getting defeated at the hands of Indian army and consequent liberation of Bangladesh. Shimla agreement concluded in Barnes Court christened as Raj Bhavan today was intended at bringing about lasting peace in South Asia, especially Bharat and Pakistan.

But, that did not happen as predicted even before ink on the Shimla agreement dried. Things did not work out as Sunni extreme leadership refused to acknowledge magnanimity of Bharat in returning their 93,000 war prisoners without a word. Questions were raised on intent of Smt Indira Gandhi who returned all major territories of Pakistan that came under Bharat fold in aftermath of the war.

Intentions and goals articulated in Shimla Agreement were magnificent on paper but hollow in reality. Commitment to a direct, bilateral approach to problem solving, emphasis on face-to-face interactions, were laudable. Pakistan that had long history of deception and flopped promises saw the accord as a strategic pause rather than genuine peace initiative.

Among Shimla Agreement’s six important clauses, pledge to observe Jammu and Kashmir’s Line of Control (LoC) was most significant. This was one commitment that Pakistan gravely breached very frequently. Disagreements were to be settled amicably and that no government would unilaterally change the status. This again was violated.

The rogue state that it evolved to be, Pakistan, continued to fuel fires of turmoil, culminating in Kargil War in 1999. This blatant crossing of Line of Control served as vivid reminder that Pakistan had never genuinely embraced principles of the Shimla Agreement.

The accord had highlighted mutual respect for one another’s geographical integrity and political independence. Pakistan, with its malicious intent and plan on Kashmir made attempts on several occasions to intervene in India’s domestic affairs, breaking the very foundation of the accord. The pledge to desist from hostile propaganda was a scam, as Pakistan’s official machinery continued to spew anti-India rhetoric, stoking hatred and division.

Despite the Shimla Agreement, Pakistan’s conduct over the decades demonstrated its deceit. The Kargil conflict, in which Pakistani soldiers penetrated Indian territory along the LoC, was a clear act of aggression that shattered the already fragile agreement. This fight, which lasted for more than 60 days, exposed Pakistan’s true character, reinforcing its reputation as an untrustworthy neighbor.

Indira Gandhi, acclaimed as a competent leader, was heavily criticized for signing the Shimla Agreement without achieving a resolution to the Kashmir conflict. The pact was viewed as a strategic failure, a concession that failed to capitalize on India’s resounding victory in the 1971 war. Pakistan’s claim to Kashmir, combined with its repeated efforts to internationalize the issue, have rendered the Shimla Agreement ineffective and meaningless.

The Shimla Agreement’s history is one of unfulfilled promises and broken expectations. It underscored the futility of trusting a country that has repeatedly proven its propensity to destabilize peace for geographical advantage. Pakistan’s repeated betrayal, from the Kargil conflict to its current backing for cross-border terrorism, demonstrates that it never intended to comply with the Shimla Agreement.

The agreement, while ostensibly a plan for peace, was a strategic failure that failed to address the two countries’ core challenges. It allowed Pakistan to recover and rearm, which eventually led to other instances of conflict. India’s generous gesture of returning POWs and territory was met with Pakistan’s unwavering enmity, demonstrating once more that Pakistan’s word could not be trusted.

Finally, the Shimla Agreement, which was offered as a historic step toward peace and stability. Pakistan’s reluctance to respect its pledges, as well as its ongoing efforts to destabilize the region, have demonstrated that any agreement with such a nation is worthless. The Shimla Agreement serves as a clear reminder of the drawbacks of naive diplomacy as well as the importance of taking a hard stance when dealing with a fraudulent neighbor like Pakistan.

(Author is a doctoral fellow at Amity University in Gwalior, content manager at Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *