Tashkent Agreement The Hindu

The deal was criticized in India for not containing a non-war pact or renunciation of guerrilla warfare in Kashmir. After the signing of the agreement, Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri died mysteriously in Tashkent. [3] Shastri`s sudden death led to stubborn conspiracy theories that he was poisoned. [7] The Indian government refused to downgrade a report on his death claiming it could damage foreign relations, cause disruption in the country and a breach of parliamentary privileges. [7] Shastri died mysteriously in Tashkent after signing the agreement. It was reported that he died of a heart attack, but there were conspiracy theories about his death that speculated that he had been murdered. Third, the Tashkent Declaration (1966) and the Shimla Agreement (1972) presented war as erroneous, as peace was the only condition for coexistence between the two neighbors. Tashkent and Shimla influenced Prime Minister Vajpayee`s willingness to engage with Pakistan both before and after Kargil and Prime Ministers Gujral and Manmohan Singh, who are seeking to relax, the latter being quoted more in the narratives than the former because it is a signed and ratified agreement. On October 13, 1972, C.V. Narasimhan, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, said in New Delhi: “There has been no written request from New Delhi to withdraw UN observers from the Indian side of the former ceasefire line in Jammu and Kashmir.” He added that they were there as part of a Security Council resolution, followed by an Indo-Pakistani agreement. They could not be withdrawn as long as the resolution was maintained. This was said after the Simla Pact of 3 July 1972, which simply stated: “In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of 17 December 1971 is respected by both parties, without prejudice to the recognized position of both parties”. What followed is very relevant.

On January 29, 1966, Lieutenant General Harbaksh Singh and Lieutenant General Bakhtiar Rana signed an agreement in Lahore on the withdrawal of their troops. It said: “The two forces will withdraw 1,000 meters from the actual line of control” in some areas. The LoC did not coincide with the CFL. But it has always been open to parties to vary the line. If they did, the line changed, but the agreement did not. The Secretary-General of the United Nations reported on 12 May 1972 that India had ceased to complain to MINMOGIP; To settle disputes, it was enough to have meetings of flags of both sides. . . .