Implementation of Simla Agreement
Dr
Shabir Choudhry 14 December 2012
Some
people are programmed to present Pakistan as a saviour and well wisher of
people of Jammu and Kashmir; whereas Kashmir watchers and people with know –
how know that there is no difference in state policies of both India and
Pakistan with regard to Kashmir dispute. Some experts confidently assert that
respective governments of Pakistan have done more damage to the Kashmir dispute
than India, although India leads Pakistan as far as human rights abuses are
concerned.
People
of State of Jammu and Kashmir are burning from both ends. They are occupied by
more than one country; although for many decades struggle has been against only
one occupier. Because of wrong policies and lack of sincere leadership, India
and Pakistan have been calling shots on Kashmir, and people of Jammu and
Kashmir are not even considered a party to the dispute despite loss of a
generation and enormous suffering.
Rulers
of Pakistan with help of some of their puppets, presented as ‘leaders’ of
Kashmiri people are conspiring to implement the Simla Agreement signed between
India and Pakistan in 1972. The Simla Agreement changed fundamental character
of the Kashmiri struggle and nature of the Kashmir dispute, and its ultimate
objective was to convert LOC as a defacto border between India and Pakistan
that no country lose on the issue of Kashmir. Only loser in this are the people
of Jammu and Kashmir; and some ‘businessmen’ presented as ‘leaders’ have been
assigned the task to sell this deal to the people or keep them calm. The
following article looks at the Simla agreement in some detail. I hope people of
Jammu and Kashmir will decide if this is in the interest of our people and
those who signed the Simla Agreement are our well wishers.
Many
in Pakistan hold people of Jammu and Kashmir responsible for their miseries and
for the break - up of Pakistan. Reality, however, is that we Kashmiris have
suffered and continue to suffer because of wrong and imperialist policies of
Pakistan. As far as break up of Pakistan is concerned, we people of Jammu and
Kashmir have no role in it. Mr GW Choudhury, a Minister in Ayub Khan and Yayya Khan's
governments and who has written many books on Pakistan and Indo Pakistan
relations, thinks it had nothing to with the Kashmir dispute. He attributes a
lot of blame to undemocratic governments in Pakistan. He said:
'Death of the democratic process
and the rise of an authoritarian system under Ayub Khan was the beginning of
the end of united Pakistan. Ayub's political system, in which the Bengalis had
lost all initiatives in national affairs, was the root cause of the
disintegration of the country.'1
The Kashmiri struggle for
independence had no role in deprivation of political, democratic and economic rights
of people of East Pakistan. The war started in East Pakistan and then its venue
shifted to the West Pakistan and Kashmir in order to ease the pressure in East
Pakistan.
Pakistan lost this war and both
countries concluded the 'Simla Agreement' in 1972. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was seen
as a defeated leader with Indira Gandhi holding the trump card. Anyhow, the 'Simla Agreement' increased the
Kashmiri people's sense of disappointment and frustration.
Pakistan agreed to rename the Cease-Fire
Line into "Line of Actual Control," which to many people was another
name for an international boundary. Cease-fire means that the war has not yet
finished - only the fighting has ceased; but the "Line of Actual
Control," gives a completely different meaning. Prof. Ahmad Hassan Dani
commented on the situation as follows:
'In 1971-2, when we lost Bangladesh
because we would not accept the verdict of the general election in the then two
wings of Pakistan, the late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto bargained on Kashmir and got
our prisoners of war released by accepting that the cease-fire line could be
changed to Line of Control, although this was not approved by the UN. Again Kashmir was exchanged for the sake of
prisoners of war, who, in any case, could not be kept forever, or killed by
India, in face of the world opinion.' 2
After the war of 1965, both
countries agreed to move their troops back to the positions held before the war
- both in Pakistan and the State of Jammu and Kashmir. But in Simla, India
agreed to withdraw from the Pakistani territory, but refused to withdraw from
areas of the State she occupied in the war. Pakistan agreed to that, and that
was why Cease-Fire Line was renamed as Line of Control. Implied meaning of this
was a tacit acceptance that the State of Jammu and Kashmir belongs to India;
therefore India has right to retain these areas.
Apart from that, Pakistan agreed
that the Kashmir problem would be decided through bilateral talks between India
and Pakistan. There was no mention of
the UN Resolutions or wishes of the Kashmiri people, what this meant was that
both governments could decide the future of Kashmir, without reference to the
Kashmiri people. This was a clear negation of the UN Resolutions on Kashmir,
and pledges that were made to the Kashmiri people by both governments.
It is not that the UN Resolutions
satisfied sentiments of the Kashmiri people; in fact, they limited their right
of self- determination by giving them only two choices of either becoming a
Pakistani or an Indian. But at least these Resolutions provided them with some
choice, and in Simla Agreement even that was taken away from them. In Simla,
both governments agreed to resolve: 'their differences by peaceful means
through bilateral negotiations or by other peaceful means mutually agreed by
them'.
Meaning of that is clear; both
governments have to agree the next course of action when bilateral negotiations
fail. For example, if bilateral negotiations on Kashmir fail and Pakistan wish
to take the Kashmir issue back to the United Nations Security Council, Pakistan
has to get the Indian government's agreement on this. This explains why
Pakistan has not approached the UN Security Council all these years despite all
the human rights violations in Kashmir and a serious threat to peace. The Simla
Agreement talks on Kashmir like this:
…'In Jammu and Kashmir the line of
control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected
by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side.
Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual
differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain
from the threat or use of force in violation of this line.'3
Jyotindra Nath
'Mani' Dixit, the
former Foreign Secretary of India analyses the Simla Agreement and reveals some
important information. In an interview with Sheela Bhatt, he claimed that, “We
defeated them for the first and perhaps only time on both, the Eastern and
Western fronts. We helped the liberation of Bangladesh and captured large areas
of Sind and southern Punjab. They didn't succeed in Kashmir, and we took 93,000
prisoners of war…. We kept on insisting that the military
commanders would draw a new line. It would not be called a cease-fire line,
but the Line of Control. It would be the first step towards making it an
international boundary. Kashmir would not be considered a dispute. We discussed
this at a formal meeting too. Bhutto said, "I have no problem. I will do
it, but please don't put it in the agreement, formally."……"Look, I am
in a weak position. I have just taken over. If you make very harsh demands and
if I concede them I may not survive back home. Already, there is a lot of anger
and frustration in Pakistan. We don't want an extremist Muslim or military
government to come back. So please help me stabilise myself in office."
4
Dixit asserts that Mrs Gandhi insisted that this should be in
the Agreement; Bhutto opposed it by saying that it would create difficulties
for him in Pakistan. His point of view had some support from some members of
the Indian delegation, however, till the last day there was no agreement on the
details; and it was apparent that the meeting would be a failure; and this fear
of failure unnerved the Indian delegation. ''There was great anxiety. The
mood was tense. If the talks failed, it would mean we would have to keep 93.000
POWs and Pakistan territory. The overriding feeling was that it is okay, if he
is giving us this assurance on Kashmir, maybe it will lead to a durable peace.
On the last night, at the meeting with Mrs Gandhi, Bhutto agreed he would
formally declare the Line of Control as an acceptable boundary in four years'
time ' 5
Some
Pakistani and Kashmiris have this habit of rejecting every point of view that
conflicts with their’s by saying that it is a conspiracy of Jews, Hindus or the
West; and there are many innocent people who would believe them as well. And
when this contradictory view is coming from an Indian, and moreover, a Hindu
they would look at it with great suspicion, even though it might be closer to
the reality. To me it would be totally wrong to dismiss a view on the grounds
that it was expressed by someone who holds different religious views and
perhaps different nationality.
I
have read many books and analyses on the Simla Agreement, and to me there is a
lot of sense in what Dixit has said. Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan who has held
posts of Prime Minister and President of Azad Kashmir, and who is a strong
supporter of Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan, commented on the topic, he said:
‘In the past Bhutto and other Pakistani
Prime Ministers and Presidents were persuaded not to extend branches of their
political parties into Kashmir because it would have adverse affect on the
Kashmir dispute.’ However, 'after
Simla Agreement he (Bhutto) became serious on extending the branch of his party
in Azad Kashmir, and he also included in its manifesto the provision of making
Azad Kashmir a province of Pakistan and finish this issue for ever. I don't
know for certain but there could have been some secret understanding tied with
the Simla Agreement. There is nothing on record but it seems as if there was a
mutual understanding between both the premiers to end this matter.’ 6
One
could still argue that Sardar Qayyum Khan might have been influenced by Dixit's
views, but problem with this is that Sardar Sahib wrote about nine years before
Dixit's views were made public. Dixit is right that Bhutto sincerely tried to
implement the unwritten clause of the Simla Agreement. The following main
events would show his sincerity in dividing Jammu and Kashmir:
1.
Soon after the
Simla Agreement he extended his Peoples Party to Azad Kashmir, and as noted
above, aim was to make Azad Kashmir a fifth province of Pakistan. The idea had
to be abandoned after fierce opposition from different Kashmiri parties and
especially Pakistani parties.
2.
According to
Simla Agreement, both governments had to stop negative propaganda against each
other, and to implement this Pakistan stopped such programmes and nationalistic
songs on radio Azad Kashmir, that could inspire people of Kashmir to start
their struggle for independence.
3.
Apart from that,
Chief Imam of Badshai Mosque (Lahore, Pakistan) was asked not include name of
Kashmir during his prayer at the time of Islamic Conference in 1973. He prayed
for all Muslims of the world, especially those who were suffering like
Palestinians, but Kashmiris were left out.
4.
In the Islamic
Conference all Muslim leaders were invited, even Yasser Arafat was invited even
though, at that time, he did not have two square yards of Palestinian land in
his possession. But President of Azad Kashmir was not invited even though he
was Prime Minister of an area more than four thousand square miles; and
technically represented the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
5.
Nowhere in the
Islamic Conference or in its declaration, the Kashmir dispute was mentioned,
yet every issue that concerned the Muslim Umma (Muslim countries) was
discussed. This again showed what commitment Pakistani government had with the
issue of Kashmir; they were not prepared to annoy India by breaching a clause
of the Simla Agreement.
6.
Pakistani policy
towards areas of Gilgit and Baltistan, known as Northern Areas completely
changed; and attempts were made to gradually annex them.
7.
A new
Constitution 'INTEREM CONSITUTION OF AZAD KASHMIR ACT, 1974' generally known as
Act 74, under which the territory of Azad Kashmir is ruled was introduced,
according to which Pakistan virtually controls the Azad Kashmir government. In
name this area is Azad but it has very limited powers to function
independently.
8.
Section 7.2 of
the Act 74 clearly says: "No person
or political party in Azad Jammu&Kashmir shall be permitted to propagate
against, or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to, the ideology
of the state's accession to Pakistan".
9.
Under the Act 74 Kashmir Council was set up, and Prime
Minister of Pakistan shall be the Chairperson of the Council. Even though the
Pakistani Prime Minister is the Chair person of this Council, and virtually
there is no member who could oppose him/her on anything, yet this Council and
Azad Kashmir government are not allowed to make any laws on more than 55 important
matters concerning Kashmir.
10. One Indian journalist, Dilip Mukerji wrote that Bhutto
government is having difficulties in persuading the people about change of
policy on Kashmir. And in view of that Indian government is softening its
attitude to make it easy for Bhutto so that he could pay lip service to the
issue of Kashmir until it is finally resolved.7
Alastair
Lamb is considered as one of the experts on India and Pakistan and Kashmir
dispute; however, some view him to have a soft corner for Pakistan. While
discussing Simla Agreement, he wrote: 'It seemed at the time as if one clear
implication was that the cease-fire line (from henceforth often referred to as
the Line of Control or Line of Actual Control - LOC or LOAC) in the State of Jammu
and Kashmir, as defined in the Simla Agreement, would from now onwards be to
all intents and purposes the de facto border between Indian and Pakistani
spheres of influence.8
Bhutto,
as expected, announced that he made no compromise on Kashmir; and that the
people of Kashmir must exercise their right of self -determination. Well, as
they say actions speak louder than words; and we all know what actions he took
to damage the Kashmir dispute.
Whatever
one may say about Pakistan's support and help to the Kashmir dispute, or
Pakistan might claim that she has done for the Kashmiri struggle; the fact is
that the Kashmir dispute was put on the back burner after the 1965 war. But after the 1971 War and subsequent Simla
Agreement Kashmir dispute was 'safely' put in a freezer. Sincere attempts were
made to convert the LOC into an international border, even though there was
strong opposition to this.
Ayaz
Amir, a famous columnist of most prominent English daily 'Dawn' wrote: 'The
second great folly was ours in East Pakistan. Bangladesh was not lost because
of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the East Pakistan Rifles, the Mukti Bahini or even
the Indian army. It was born out of the stupidity and arrogance of West Pakistan.
The third great sub continental folly is being committed by India in Kashmir.
India had fifty years to win over the Kashmiris. But it failed even to satisfy
Sheikh Abdullah whose sympathies lay with India not Pakistan. From 1972 to 1989
Pakistan just forgot about Kashmir. Firstly, because it had the loss of East
Pakistan to come to terms with. Second because Zia was embroiled in
Afghanistan. Were not 18 years long enough to woo the Kashmiris and bind them
to Mother India? They would have been if Indian policy had been driven by
statesmanship rather than by a search for petty and short-term advantages.9
A
prominent writer and thinker, Professor Khurshid Ahmed, who ascribes to
ideology of Jamat e Islami, and who was a Director of Islamabad based Think Tank,
Institute of Policy Studies, asserted that in Simla India successfully changed
the international issue (Kashmir) into a bilateral issue. 10 Apart from that
Indian leaders claim that Bhutto agreed to make LOC as an international border,
although there is nothing there in writing. But one thing is that after Simla
Agreement we avoided raising the Kashmir issue in the United Nations. 11
As
pointed out above, after the Simla Agreement the Kashmir dispute was put in a
freezer, and successive Pakistani governments did not show much enthusiasm in
taking up the Kashmir dispute either with India or at any other international
forum.
Benazir
Bhutto after becoming the Prime Minister of Pakistan also followed the
footsteps of her predecessors on the issue of Kashmir. She invited Rajiev
Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, to visit Islamabad. On his arrival in
Islamabad she ensured that the word Kashmir did not appear anywhere because of
fear that her ‘honourable guest’ might get upset. She even ensured that
signboards of Kashmir House in Islamabad were also removed. Furthermore, that
evening weather forecast for Azad Kashmir was not transmitted on radio and
television in Pakistan, something which normally is done many times a day.12
That
shows the level of Pakistani Prime Minister's commitment to Simla Agreement and
to the Kashmir and Kashmiris. Not only that, when in a joint press conference,
Rajiev Gandhi in answer to a question said that there was no need of a
plebiscite in Kashmir because there had been eight elections there. Benazir
Bhutto sat there quietly with a friendly smile on her face. She did not have
this courage to say that it was India's point of view and Pakistani point of
view was different to this.13
One
Kashmiri journalist and writer, late Mir Abdul Aziz, remarked that her smile
was sweet, but it did not help the Kashmir cause or the Kashmiri people. 14
People of Pakistan and Kashmir expected much more than this lovely smile in
response to Indian Prime Minister's arrogant stance on Kashmir. This smile and
silence indicated that she agreed with her guest's point of view on Kashmir.
I
hope people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will recognise friends and foes and
will oppose division of our homeland, as we believe division of Jammu and Kashmir
in any shape or form will only exacerbate the situation and destabilise the entire
region. Also I hope that people will recognise those who have transformed our struggle
in to a lucrative business; and have perpetuated our suffering miseries.
References
1.
GW Choudhury,
Last Days of United Pakistan, page xii
2.
Divided On
Kashmir, The News, London, 16 August 1999
3.
Simla Agreement
4.
The
Errors of SIMLA, By J N Dixit The Rediff Special, July 15, 2001
5.
Ibid
6.
The Kashmir Case,
Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, page111
7.
Weekly 'Sahafat',
Lahore, 23 April 1975.
8.
Kashmir A
Disputed Legacy 1846-1990, Alastair Lamb, page 297
9.
'There is no
Kashmir solution' by Ayaz Amir, ‘Dawn’ 8 December 2000
10. Kashmir Dispute and our responsibilities, Prof.
Khurshid Ahmed, Daily Jang, London, 9 July 1994.
11. ibid
12. ibid
- Late Mir Abdul Aziz was an editor of Weekly
Insaf, published from Rawalpindi. He made this observation during a
meeting with the author in Rawalpindi at his residence.
Writer is a political analyst and author of many books
and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:
No comments:
Post a Comment