After the victory of 1971, Shimla Agreement was signed. Shimla is more or less a repeat of Lahore Agreement. Of course, there is a huge difference between 1965 and 1971. 1965 was considered a stalemate while 1971 was a thumping victory for Bhaarath without a doubt. A public surrender of entire Pakistani armed forces in its eastern sector. After such a great victory, Shimla agreement was a disaster. Anyone reading Shimla would never guess that Bhaarath had won a great war. Such agreement is made after a stalemate not a victory.
Ok, what does Shimla agreement say?
Shimla agreement gives sanctity to LOC and IB. Shimla agreement is hinting that POK will be with Pakistan and J&K will be with Bhaarath because it gives sanctity to LOC just like IB. And Bhaarath and Pakistan agree that they will sort out all issues with talks.
From then on, whenever Pakistan raised the issue of Kashmir in any international fora, then Bhaarath would say,"we have a bilateral Shimla agreement, so don't raise it in international fora."
Then, Pakistan would say," Fine. Then, lets talk bilaterally on Kashmir."
Of course, its a different issue that Pakistan has no point to raise on Kashmir because Pakistan is simply occupier of Kashmir and UN recognizes this occupation & orders Pakistan to get out of Kashmir.
So, now Bhaarath has to talk on Kashmir. Again, even here, Bhaarath didn't raise the point of POK in talks with Pakistan. Bhaarath didn't say,"Ok. When are you going to vacate POK?" Instead, for some unknown reason, it was Pakistan that was pushing for talks and setting the agenda of Kashmir(only the part which was with Bhaarath). The whole talks thing was tilted in favor of Pakistan. No wonder, Pakistan always demanded talks.
But, Pakistan is not foolish enough to believe that Bhaarath would part with its share of Kashmir just by talking. They need an offensive tool to force Bhaarath. Raise the cost for Bhaarath in Kashmir. This is where terrorism comes in. Strictly speaking, its not even a new strategy. They did it as far back as 1965: Op Gibraltar.
So, Pakistan had two tools: talks and terrorism. Both these tools were deployed simultaneously.
Kargil is the culmination of this strategy. After Kargil, talks under the shadow of terrorism became more and more untenable for Bhaarath's leadership. Now, here is the diplomatic victory of Ufa: Ufa rectifies the mistakes of Shimla.
- Ufa says that we will first discuss and solve terrorism. 26/11 will be a case-study on solving terrorism. The mechanism would be NSA-NSA talks.
- Ufa says that we will then solve LOC and border firing issues.
After these two issues are solved to the satisfaction of both sides, then talks agenda of Shimla agreement can be taken up. And what happened? Pakistan ran away from talks. Earlier, Bhaarath used to run away from talks. Pakistan could always boldly demand talks and accuse Bhaarath of not talking even while doing terrorism. Now, this tool has been taken away from Pakistan. From now on, Bhaarath will insist on talks about terrorism before any other talks.
Shimla agreement was a disaster diplomatically especially after a great victory like 1971. Ideally, Shimla agreement should be done away with because it seems to accept POK as part of Pakistan. And it is in violation of Bhaarath's constitution because Bhaarath's constitution says that POK is part of Bhaarath.
Link to post
The following is Parliament resolution on Jammu and Kashmir.
Parliament Resolution on Jammu and Kashmir
Following increasing terrorist violence and Pakistan’s attempts to highlight the Kashmir dispute, both houses of the Indian Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution on February 22, 1994, emphasizing that Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India, and that Pakistan must vacate parts of the State under its occupation. The text of the resolution follows.
"This House note with deep concern Pakistan's role in imparting training to the terrorists in camps located in Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, the supply of weapons and funds, assistance in infiltration of trained militants, including foreign mercenaries into Jammu and Kashmir with the avowed purpose of creating disorder, disharmony and subversion:
reiterates that the militants trained in Pakistan are indulging in murder, loot and other heinous crimes against the people, taking them hostage and creating an atmosphere of terror;
Condemns strongly the continued support and encouragement Pakistan is extending to subversive and terrorist activities in the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir;
Calls upon Pakistan to stop forthwith its support to terrorism, which is in violation of the Simla Agreement and the internationally accepted norms of inter-State conduct and is the root cause of tension between the two countries reiterates that the Indian political and democratic structures and the Constitution provide for firm guarantees for the promotion and protection of human rights of all its citizens;
regard Pakistan's anti-India campaign of calumny and falsehood as unacceptable and deplorable.
notes with deep concern the highly provocative statements emanating from Pakistan urges Pakistan to refrain from making statements which vitiate the atmosphere and incite public opinion;
expresses regret and concern at the pitiable conditions and violations of human rights and denial of demoractic freedoms of the people in those areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which are under the illegal occupation of Pakistan;
On behalf of the People of India,
Firmly declares that-
(a) The State of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means;
(b) India has the will and capacity to firmly counter all designs against its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity;
and demands that -
(c) Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression; and resolves that -
(d) all attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of India will be met resolutely."
The Resolution was unanimously adopted. Mr. Speaker: The Resolution is unanimously passed.
February 22, 1994
I think the Parliament resolution actually supersedes Shimla agreement because Parliament says that Pakistan has violated Shimla agreement. If Pakistan has violated Shimla agreement, then what is the validity of Shimla agreement anymore?
It seems to me that Parliament resolution and UN resolution are much more in sync while Shimla agreement seems to be an attempt to accept LOC as de-facto international border in J&K.
BTW, Kargil completely violates Shimla agreement. Bhaarath has been insisting on Shimla for so long(even though it is against Bhaarath's interests). Ufa makes the lemonade of lemon called Shimla agreement.