What harm did India suffer from the Shimla Agreement? Could this be avoided?

The Simla Agreement: The Shimla Agreement was a historic bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan on 2 July 1972. The agreement was reached after the war between India and Pakistan in 1971. In this battle, India won a decisive victory and Bangladesh was built by breaking up from Pakistan. The agreement was signed by the then Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi and the then President of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Its main objective was to establish peace between the two countries after the war, the return of warfare, and to form a structure to resolve disputed issues. However, many people believe that the agreement was a loss deal for India.

What was in the Shimla Agreement?

Under the Shimla Agreement, the two countries agreed that all disputes, especially the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, would be resolved through bilateral talks. It was decided that there would be no third party mediation. Under the agreement, the two countries recognized the Line of Control established on the border after the war and India decided to release around 93,000 Pakistani warfasts. Under this, both countries also pledged to promote peaceful coexistence and mutual cooperation.

Why a loss deal for India?

The Shimla Agreement is considered a loss deal for India in many ways. Some of these are prominent:

1. Loss of strategic profit: India won an unprecedented victory in the 1971 war. India had 93,000 Pakistani warfasts, and captured about 5,000 square kilometers of Pakistan. It was a strong position for India, which could be used to permanently resolve the Kashmir issue. However, in the agreement, India released these prisoners and returned the occupied area, without any concrete agreement on Kashmir. Many analysts believe that India could use this opportunity to resolve the Kashmir issue in its favor by putting pressure on Pakistan.
2. Ambiguity on Kashmir issue: The agreement asked to resolve the issue of Kashmir through bilateral talks, but no concrete deadline or procedure was determined. This later gave Pakistan a chance to raise the issue on international forums, which was against the sense of agreement. Despite India’s strong position, there was no clear solution to Kashmir, which is considered to be India’s diplomatic lapse.
3. Pakistan’s accountability decrease: In the agreement, no strict conditions were laid in the agreement to hold Pakistan accountable for the 1971 war or to prevent such aggression in the future. As a result, Pakistan later promoted terrorism in Kashmir, causing India to face long -term instability.
4. Release of prisoners: India released 93,000 Pakistani prisoners without any concrete concession. This was a human move, but many experts believe that India could use this situation to pressurize Kashmir or other strategic issues. Also, many Indian prisoners have not been detected till date. The then government is also criticized for this.

Could this be avoided?

If India had shown a tough stance, such an agreement could have been avoided. Given the Shimla agreement, it becomes clear that Pakistan had benefited more than this, while it was a loser in the fight. In such a situation, the following things could be done to make the agreement in its favor:

1. Strict stance on Kashmir: India could use its strong position after the war to permanently resolve the Kashmir issue.
2. Accountability on Pakistan: The agreement could include conditions that would prevent Pakistan from promoting aggression or terrorism in future.
3. Strategic use of prisoners: Of 1971 The release of prisoners could be associated with some concessions, such as compromise on Kashmir or written guarantee of Pakistan to respect India’s sovereignty, etc.
4. International Pressure: India could put pressure on Pakistan by incorporating the international community so that the terms of the agreement were more strict.

Did India miss historical opportunity?

The Shimla Agreement was a historical opportunity for India, which could not be completely redeemed. India’s generosity and desire for peace made it commendable from a human point of view, but strategically the agreement proved weak for India. Lack of clarity on the Kashmir issue and not being able to create too much pressure on Pakistan, led to loss for India in the coming times. If India had used its strong position with more diplomatic cleverness, a lot could have been achieved by this agreement, and damage could have been avoided.

Latest india news