Shimla agreement: Donald Trump recently claimed in a statement that Prime Minister Modi had asked him to mediate in the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan. India has categorically rejected Trump`s allegations that the prime minister had not made such a request. Mr. Trump`s claim in Kashmir, however, turned into a huge controversy, in violation of the 1972 Shimla Accords. The United States has always maintained that the Kashmir issue must be resolved bilaterally by India and Pakistan. India also strongly asserted that its Kashmir dispute with Pakistan was bilateral and that no third parties played a role in this regard. That is why Trump`s recent statement marks a significant change in the previous position of the United States on this issue. D.P. Dhar, another great confidant of Gandhi and India`s chief negotiator, also seemed to support Haksar`s core spirit. In his telegram to Haksar in March 1972, Dhar said: “The colony (Simla) will not be between the victor and the vanquished, because such a colony has given rise to new conflicts and more violent conflicts in history.
An agreement on the contrary… should also appear as the end of a chapter of criticism between two alienated brothers. But we now also know that Dhar was less enthusiastic about the prospect of change in Pakistan than in ensuring that India was seen as a credible attempt to maintain peace. Most importantly, he wanted India to make obvious profits during the negotiation process. For Dhar, without a solution to the Kashmir issue, “there could be no hope for lasting peace in the subcontinent.” The international and regional context after 1971 had made the realization of some kind of agreement an important political objective for Gandhi and his national security team. After a successful war that liberated Bangladesh, politicians tried to continue to submit India`s status by showing a credible attempt at peace. Of course, India`s image had to be balanced by concrete results. The most desirable outcome would have been a final resolution in Kashmir, which bypasses the de facto position administered by both sides. The evidence is that policymakers have attempted to address some of the deep roots of the Indo-Pakistani conflict in Kashmir, seen as a direct manifestation of Pakistan`s national identity and not as a normal territorial impasse between states.
Comments are closed.