Reviving the Simla spirit

The News, Sun, June,13, 2004.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema


Ever since Manmohan Singh has assumed the office of the Prime Minister of India, he has not only been frank and forthcoming but also been very positive towards the issue of improving relations with Pakistan. Equally constructive and encouraging has been the attitude of the Congress Chairperson Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. However it is not easy to attribute similar kind of positive approach to Indian Foreign Minister Mr. Natwar Singh though he has also recognized the need to resolve Indo-Pak differences and have also frequently stressed his determination to attain this objective. But skepticism persists which ostensibly seems to be the product of innumerable statements he has issued within a short span time and some of those statement could be construed as contradictory.

There is no doubt that not only the people of both countries have expressed their desire for normalized relationships but even the leadership has been endorsing such views. A sustained expression of political will by the leadership in both countries is indeed imperative. The Islamabad Declaration has indeed created an atmosphere, which is extremely conducive for frank talks. If the two sides honestly and sincerely work towards the resolutions of all outstanding disputes, there are good reasons to believe that desired level of normalization is not too far.

In one of his many statements, Mr. Natwar Singh emphasized the need to make Simla Agreement as the baseline for the beginning of composite talks. Many in Pakistan read the statement in conjunction with an other statement in which he stressed that we should not be hostage to the past and began to highlight the what appeared to them somewhat contradictory. To further make things worse there were statements suggesting that normalization between India and Pakistan should proceed on the patterns of Sino-Indian normalization process. Given the kind of relationships both the Indian and the Pakistanis have experienced in the past, any loaded statement is likely to be interpreted differently.

It is indeed a matter of great satisfaction that both the Prime Ministers have been consistently expressing their determination for a sustained dialogue in order to resolve all outstanding disputes and issues. To further strengthen and solidify the operative atmosphere both the Presidents have also been extending helping hands. While President Musharraf has been consistently expressing his desire to resolve all issues and disputes amicably through a process of a sustained dialogue, President Kalam’s recent address to the joint sitting of Indian parliament is indeed positive and encouraging.

While addressing both houses of the parliament President Kalam said, ‘The dialogue process with Pakistan on all outstanding issues will be pursued on a sustained basis within the framework of Simla Agreement and all subsequent agreements between the two governments including the joint statement of January 6, 2004’. He also stated that the Indian government would also strengthen the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

Since many Indian leaders have mentioned Simla Agreement somewhat frequently, let us examine what Simla Agreement has contributed. Following the end of the third Indo-Pak war, the Indians and the Pakistanis met at Simla and signed the agreement.

The underlying objectives of Simla Agreement were to destroy the then existing edifice of distrust and to replace it with an atmosphere of trust, understanding and confidence, to inject neighborly spirit in order to bring the two countries closer to each other with a view to eventually build a lasting structure of peace.

Until the advent of the current peace process, the two countries appeared to be more distanced than they were at the time of the signing of the Simla Agreement. Three aspects of the agreement deserve some analysis. These include different interpretations of the agreement, the violations of agreement, and what the agreement did not achieve.  

The Simla Agreement does not bind the two parties to have a recourse to bilateralism only. While the agreement begins with the stress that the principles and purposes of the UN Charter shall govern relations between two governments, one of the later clauses says that ‘ the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them’. Most Indians have projected only the enshrinement of the bilateralism and attempted to relegate the earlier clause referring to the UN to the realms of insignificance and triviality.

Compared to the Indian, the Pakistanis have demonstrated a tendency to make more references to the UN resolutions and stress that the principle of bilateralism has not been paying the augured dividends along with the argument that bilateralism had become time barred. The argument time-barred is employed in terms of highlighting that bilateral negotiations should have started within few years after the signing of the agreement, which did not happen especially on Kashmir dispute. It took more than 22 years to have first focused meeting on Kashmir in early 1994 which did not produce any tangible results.

The second aspect of the agreement needs to be highlighted here deals with violations. Article 4 Clause (ii) clearly states that ‘Neither side shall seek to alter it (LOC) unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretation’. Yet both violated LOC unilaterally. While India violated this clause in 1972 (Chorbattla), 1984 (Siachin), Qamar Sector (1988) and bombed Gultari (2002), the Pakistanis have also violated the LOC in 1999.

The third aspect of the agreement deals with the real objectives that were highlighted at the time. During the course of the discussion that took place prior and during the course of Simla discussions, three objectives were frequently mentioned.  These included release of the prisoners of war (POW), the settlement of Kashmir and normalization of Indo-Pak relations. A close scrutiny of the agreement clearly reveals that Simla Agreement achieved neither of the above-mentioned objectives. The POWs were released after the signing of another agreement in 1974, which was Delhi Agreement. The final settlement of the Kashmir dispute and the normalization of relationships defied all efforts aimed towards their realization.

The most desirable aspect of the Simla Agreement revolves around the spirit of Simla, which was demonstrated by all concerned parties. The parties involved at the time took cognizance of the ground realities and moved towards an agreement. The spirit that was seen at the time of the signing of the Simla Agreement needs to be revived. The revival of Simla spirit depends heavily upon domestic developments, interests of the incumbent governments and keenness of the international community.

An objective examination of the prevailing situation clearly points towards the existence of all three necessary elements. In terms of domestic developments, one cannot ignore the fact that the people in both countries are not only interested in normalization but have also demonstrated their will in one form or the other to encourage the leaders to push the process forward. The leaders have also expressed their support for the process though they have been little cautious in putting forward words to this effect. Finally the international community is also keenly watching the developments and in many ways is encouraging the parties to resolve their differences.

All agreements tend to provide opportunities to familiarize the factors or developments that tend to help in securing an agreement. Therefore all of them are useful if viewed with a constructive approach. However what really facilitate the advent of an agreement are the elements, which have been aptly identified by the Pakistan’s President Musharraf in a recent speech as ‘sincerity, flexibility and boldness’. The revival of Simla spirit could only contribute provided the identified elements are also fully incorporated as were demonstrated at the time of Simla discussions.