52nd Anniversary of Simla Agreement: Why it remains significant

The agreement was signed in July 1972 by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistan’s Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. It came months after the conclusion of the 1971 war in which Pakistan was defeated and the independent nation of Bangladesh was formed. Here’s what you need to know about the accord and why it remains controversial to this day read more

The agreement was signed on 2 July, 1972, by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistan’s Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. News18

Today is the 52nd anniversary of the Simla Agreement.

The bilateral agreement was signed on 2 July, 1972, by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistan’s Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

It came in the aftermath of the 1971 War in which Pakistan was defeated and the independent nation of Bangladesh was formed.

But what do we know about the accord? Why does it remain controversial?

Let’s take a closer look:

What does the accord state?

The agreement between India and Pakistan comprises just six paras.

It states that the governments of both nations are “resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations.”

It adds that the governments will “work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent.”

It says the countries are “resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.”

It adds that the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedeviled the relations between the two countries of the last twenty-five years shall be resolved by peaceful means.

It says both Indian and Pakistani forces “shall be withdrawn to their side of the International Border.”

With regard to Jammu and Kashmir, the agreement says that the Line of Control which came about as a result of the 17 December, 1971 ceasefire “shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side.”

The treaty says that neither side shall seek to change the status of the Line of Control unilaterally regardless of differences and legal interpretations.

“Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat of the use of force in violation of this line,” it further states.

It ends with the governments agreeing that their heads would meet again “at a mutually convenient time in the future.”

It says that in the meantime, representatives of both sides would meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of a “durable peace and normalisation of relations.”

This includes repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of diplomatic relations.

As per The Times of India, the treaty was signed at the ‘Kirtikaksh’ summit hall on the ground floor of the Raj Bhavan – formerly Barnes Court

Barnes Court was a government guesthouse back then.

Bhutto arrived with his daughter Benazir – a teenager at the time.

As per Hindustan Times, the agreement came after both sides initially dug in their heels over Kashmir.

The accord was eventually signed after Indira and Bhutto held multiple rounds of talks – the final coming after Bhutto hosted a dinner in Indira’s honour.

It came after the leaders held a 10-minute meeting.

Veteran journalist Prakash Chander Lohumi told the Times of India, “The agreement was signed in a tearing haste on the intervening night of July 2 and 3, just five hours after Bhutto declared at a press conference that talks have failed.”

According to Deccan Herald, the agreement is dated 2 July, 1972, despite being signed at 12.40 am on 3 July, 1972.

Why is it controversial?

Because both sides interpret the treaty in different ways.

According to The Nation, India has argued that the accord states that Kashmir is a bilateral issue. New Delhi’s position is that it rejects any third-party mediation over Kashmir.

It also says that the local polls conducted in Kashmir are in essence a plebiscite.

Indeed, in 2019 UN Antonio Guterres cited the Simla Agreement to reject third-party mediation in Kashmir after Islamabad asked him to play his “due role” after New Delhi’s decision to revoke Jammu and Kashmir’s special status.

Pakistan, meanwhile, has sought to heighten the issue.

Islamabad has sought the intervention of the international community over Kashmir.

A number of people particularly in India have criticised the Simla Agreement over the years – saying it did not go far enough to press New Delhi’s advantage at the time.

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar previously said the 1972 Simla agreement resulted in a “revanchist” Pakistan and continuing problems in Jammu and Kashmir.

Jaishankar, delivering the fourth Ramnath Goenka memorial lecture, advocated a foreign policy that appreciates change and is not status quoist.

He cited key past incidents in Indian history such as the defeat in the war with China in 1962, the Simla agreement and the “inaction” after the Mumbai terror attacks to contrast it with India’s more dynamic stance post-2014.

Experts differ on the success – or lack thereof – of the agreement.

Sushant Singh, writing for the Deccan Herald, argued that the ‘imperfect peace’ as a result of the agreement was better than no peace at all.

“It is unlikely that a more strident Indian line at Simla would have even allowed Pakistan’s 1973 constitution to be drawn up. That constitution holds to this day. It is unlikely that Pakistan would have tolerated Zulfikar Bhutto for five years as it did. More humiliation may have bred such insecurity and animosity in Pakistan that all paths to future peace would have been closed. After three wars in the first 24 years of independence, the two countries have had only one limited war, Kargil, in the next 50,” Singh wrote.

He also busted a popular myth about the agreement.

Singh noted that the agreement made no mention of the nearly 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war in the custody of India and Bangladesh.

“The prisoners, including 12,000 civilians and 22,000 police and paramilitary personnel, were released in August 1973, after 19 days of separate negotiations between the three countries. Those who argue that India should have imposed more stringent conditions on Pakistan, including getting back all of Kashmir, in exchange for the PoW, are ignorant of facts,” Singh argued.

Singh wrote that while the Simla Agreement possibly aimed too low, it created an important roadmap.

Singh quoted the late diplomat Sati Lambah’s words in 2014 that “expected gains from a solution may not be automatic and require sustained effort. But if it opens the door to a new future for India and Pakistan, without compromising our security, integrity and constitutional framework, it is worth pursuing.”

“The Simla Agreement opened such a door, but there was a lack of sustained effort thereafter,” Singh concluded.

A piece in The Hindu argued that despite Pakistan’s attempts to internationalise the dispute, India succeeded in making Kashmir a bilateral issue.

“Most external powers have refrained from interfering in the Kashmir issue citing the Simla Agreement as the reason for doing so. Pakistan’s efforts to raise the issue in multilateral forums succeeded only marginally,” the piece noted.

However, the agreement did clearly not result in a new beginning when it comes to a relationship in Pakistan.

“Old habits die hard and there are deep-rooted vested interests, above all the top brass of the Pakistani military that thrives on India-Pakistan tensions, that precluded the beginning of a new chapter in the two countries’ relations,” the piece noted.

The article stated that that New Delhi did not wish to humiliate Islamabad at Shimla by pulling ‘a Versailles’ – which would result in an anti-Indian, revanchist military coming back to power.

“This was one of the reasons why India did not force Pakistan to convert the ceasefire line in Kashmir into the international boundary,” the piece noted.

However, this did not work out for India in the long-term.

“The Shimla Agreement has run its course. Resurrecting its ghost will not serve any real purpose,” the piece concluded.

With inputs from agencies