Indian Defence Review

They implied that withdrawing this issue from the UN after 25 years of prolonged and futile deliberations and dealing with it bilaterally was itself a significant step towards its ultimate solution. On the other hand, Bhutto claimed in a marathon speech in Pakistan’s National Assembly on 15 July that “he had not compromised on principles, nor had he done any bargain ing.” Answering an accusation of a secret agreement with India, he stressed that he had not yielded on any issue. He refused to discuss the question of Bangladesh on Indian soil.

As regards Kashmir, he affirmed that Article 103 of the UN Charter clearly laid down that no agreement, including that at Simla entered into by the two countries, could supersede it The charter, not the agreement would prevail, if there was any inconsistency. He asserted that Kashmir had in fact been reactivated for the first time since Tashkent, obviously referring to the clause in the agreement leaving a final settlement of the dispute to a future summit. Allaying fears of any secret understanding arrived at behind the scenes, he said he would have got the prisoners of war and civilian internees back if he had agreed to a settlement on Kashmir on India’s terms.”

It appeared that Bhutto’s immediate concern was the withdrawal of Indian troops from Pakistan-occupied territory. So far as the prisoners of war were concerned, he believed “India cannot keep the prisoners indefinitely.” Economic pressures and world opinion would ultimately bring about their repatriation. The Simla Agreement was ratified by both countries and came into force on 5 August 1972.2 As the first step towards normalization, Pakistan announced the repatriation of all Indian civilians, numbering 6,770, interned there from December 1971. India reciprocated by repatriating all Pakistani held in this country.

In implementing the Simla Agreement, both countries authorized their army chiefs to proceed with the delineation of the line of control in Jammu and Kashmir as it resulted from the ceasefire of 17 December 1971. Lt Gen P.S. Bhagat, PVSM, VC, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief Northern Command, was to represent India, while Lt Gen Abdul Hamid fielded the Pakistani side. The Generals were assisted by their respective Directors of Military Operations and other staff officers. After the first meeting at Suchetgarh on 10 August,3 a series of meetings were held on either side of the border till the signing of the delineation documents on 11 December. The negotiations went through various ups and downs of seemingly irreconcilable opposing stands, but eventually the differences were ironed out amicably.

Notes:

1. Asian Recorder, Vol XVIII, No 29, “Summit Talks in Simla,” p.10876.
2. Asian Recorder, Vol XVIII, No 34, “Simla Agreement Comes into Force,” p. 10936.
3. Asian Recorder, Vol XVIII, No 34, “Delineation of Line of Control in Kashmir,” p. 10936.

From the very beginning, the Indian side made it known that so far as it was concerned the ceasefire line of 1949 had ceased to exist. As a result of the 1971 conflict, a new line of control had come into being, and that needed to be delineated. The Pakistani side contended that the old line had been disturbed in limited areas as a result of the recent conflict, and only these areas required delineation. The Pakistani spokesman at Islamabad claimed that about 95 per cent of the line which had been accepted in July 1949 under the supervision of the UN observers still existed. According to him, the Suchetgarh meeting had no bearing on Pakistan’s “basic position,” which had been “safeguarded” under the Simla Agreement.

Click to buy: India’s wars since independence

Although the agreement did not visualize linking troop withdrawals with completing the delineation of the line of control, it was considered highly unlikely that the two could be delinked. The Pakistani spokesmen however categorically rejected both assertions, saying that “any impression that the demarcation of the entire ceasefire line was going to be discussed or that the meeting had any link with the withdrawal of troops to the international border was wholly wrong.” With such different approaches, the agreement could not be implemented. Pakistan had to be contacted at the prime ministerial level to bridge the gap between the differing views. Fresh talks were accordingly held between Aziz Ahmed and P.N. Haksar on 25 August.

The Pakistani spokesman at Islamabad claimed that about 95 per cent of the line which had been accepted in July 1949 under the supervision of the UN observers still existed.

Apart from the platitudes of the preamble, these officials made the following firm recommendations:

Swaran Singh made a statement in the Lok Sabha on the officials’ meet in which he referred to the outstanding issues individually. He said “some differences had arisen in the discussions between the Indian and Pakistani military commanders regarding the delineation of the line of control in Jammu and Kashmir resulting from the ceasefire of 17 December 1971. The discussions held between the Indian and Pakistani representatives have resolved these differences and it has been agreed that the line of control in Jammu and Kashmir will be delineated along the entire length, and maps showing this line will be exchanged by both sides in terms of the Simla Agreement.” He added that “withdrawals in terms of the Simla Agreement will now be completed by 15 September 1972, as mutually agreed by the two delegations.”

The President of Pakistan has also assured our Prime Minister in his letter that these affected persons would not only be welcome to return to their homes, but would be assured of safety of life and dignity as Pakistan nationals.”

He explained that “any delay in recognizing Bangladesh will hamper the process of durable peace and normalization of relations and retard the achievement of the objectives set out in the Simla Agreement. It is our earnest hope that Pakistan will not further delay recognition of the realities of the new situation on the subcontinent.

It is in the interest of the three countries of the subcontinent to resolve their differences by mutual discussions.” Swaran Singh said that “as for the question of the return of prisoners of war and civilian internees, we have reiterated to the Pakistan delegation that the question cannot be settled without the participation and agreement of the Government of Bangladesh.”