Home 1965 Indo-Pakistan war All you need to know about the Tashkent Agreement

All you need to know about the Tashkent Agreement

January 9, 2022

4240

This article is written by Sujitha S, pursuing B.A.LL.B (Hons.) from the School of Excellence in law, Chennai. This article focuses on the history and significance of the important peace agreement made between India and Pakistan – the ‘Tashkent Declaration’. It further elaborates on the important clauses and their international ramifications.

This article has been published by Sneha Mahawar.

Introduction

A state has a responsibility to preserve friendly relations with its neighbours and to handle any issues peacefully. The Tashkent Declaration denotes such a relation between India and Pakistan.

After independence from British rule, Pakistan remained a persistent threat to India’s security. There arose numerous disputes over the conquering of Kashmir after independence. The First Kashmir War took place in 1947-1948. In 1965, a second war broke out over the same issue, demonstrating the intrinsic animosity between the neighbours. The 1965 conflict began on September 6th. Thousands of people were wiped off the face of the earth on both sides in just seventeen days. The United States and the Soviet Union pressurized the United Nations into settling the war. Since the war was impacting global peace, the United States and the Soviet Union urged the United Nations to play a role in achieving a peaceful settlement and requiring them to reach an acceptable resolution of all disputes between the two countries.

In Indo-Pakistani ties, the Tashkent Declaration marks a pivotal point. Its importance in international affairs is undeniable, particularly in light of the, now disintegrated, Soviet Union’s international role. For a long time to come, the nature of inter-state ties in Asia will be determined by the extent to which the Tashkent Declaration is implemented and the spirit of Tashkent penetrates Indo-Pakistani relations (and even international relations). The United Nations’ efforts resulted in peace since both countries agreed to a ceasefire. Apart from that, Soviet Premier Aleksey Kosygin played a key role in bringing the two parties to the negotiating table by inviting them to Tashkent. On January 4, 1966, in Tashkent, India’s Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistan’s President Ayub Khan met. Both leaders reached an agreement in 1966 known as the Tashkent Declaration.

Historical context

Before the Independence of India

Undoubtedly, India’s history is littered with foreign invasions, which happened due to the country’s compelling commercial potential, which piqued the curiosity of Europeans in the 17th century. The British first arrived in India as a commercial company known as the East India Company, which later expanded its dominance in South Asia, causing the Mughal Empire to disintegrate and deteriorate. After gaining governmental authority over India’s eastern states of Bengal and Bihar, the company won the Plassey battle (1757) and the Buxar war (1764), laying the groundwork for British Raj India. It gradually gained control of the whole governance of the Indian subcontinent.

The British Crown acquired the authority of Indian administration from the East India Company in 1858, and as a result, the British Government became India’s direct sovereign ruler. Several improvements in the Indian administration were undoubtedly implemented by the British government to win over the hearts and minds of the Indian people and Congress leaders. However, as a result of the British government’s oppressive reign, Indians developed a sense of nationalism. As a result, the British administration began to exploit both the Indian economy and the Indian people.

Partition of the Countries

There were numerous events in the background history of India and Pakistan that prompted the partition of India before the foundation of India and Pakistan as sovereign states and the end of the British government in 1947. The Indian National Congress (1885), led by renowned political personalities such as M. K. Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, was founded on the principles of secularism and religious harmony, notably between Hindus and Muslims. Nonetheless, Muslim dissatisfaction with living under a Hindu-dominated state led to the formation of the All India Muslim League in 1906, led by influential leaders such as Allama Muhammad Iqbal and M. A. Jinnah, who opposed Hindu-Muslim harmony because it could lead to hostility between the two communities.

All of this prompted calls for the establishment of a new nation named Pakistan. M.A. Jinnah was a firm believer in the Two-Nation Theory to rescue the Muslim minority in the future, which fostered the seeds of animosity and hostility between these two communities, resulting in brutal partition and the division of India into two halves. As a result of the continual disagreements and lack of cooperation among the perspectives of both major parties, political leaders opted to partition along sectarian lines as an ultimate solution to the dispute. As a result of the removal of the prefix All India, the Muslim League forms a separate government in the new Pakistan, while the Indian National Congress forms a government in India.

Aftermath of Partition

Both India and Pakistan are the result of intense rivalry, as well as a variety of socio-political and religious forces that have a long history of unique ties in world politics, dating back to the end of the British Raj’s colonial rule and India’s independence in 1947. The British administration left India and Pakistan with several disputes, skirmishes, and military conflicts in 1947, and the two countries have since fought four wars in 1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999. In this regard, Pakistan attempted to accommodate the United States in its foreign policy by pursuing an anti-India campaign. As a result, India began to look to the Soviet Union for assistance. Following the end of the Cold War, certain shifts in these attitudes occurred. The external powers added further to the partition.

However, this division produced a spirit of panic between these two countries, as Pakistan saw India’s formidable military as a menace capable of far more than she could. On the other hand, India was concerned about Pakistan’s developing communal ideological threats, as it claimed the Muslim community’s ethnic supremacy and an imperfect division, particularly when it claimed Muslim majority districts in Hyderabad, Kashmir, and Junagarh.

Water dispute

Another point of contention between India and Pakistan was the partition of water. The history of the India-Pakistan water conflicts dates back to 1947. Due to geographical split, the Indus river system has been divided between two countries, with India as the upstream country and Pakistan as the downstream country. The Indus Rivers system consists of six rivers: three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab), and three eastern rivers (Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi).

There were several issues with sharing the water of the Indus and its other rivers, so in 1960, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan President Mohammad Ayub Khan signed the Indus Waters Treaty, which was brokered by the World Bank. Pakistanis believe that because India is upstream and the source of the rivers is in India, it could potentially cause problems in their country due to a lack of water, such as droughts and famines. The treaty provides India with the right to utilise all of the waters of the eastern rivers and their tributaries up to Pakistan’s border area, with a few restrictions. Pakistan, on the other side, has the right to use the western rivers.

Effect of World War-II

Soon after World War II ended, the world was divided into two blocks:

The Western Bloc led by the United States, and
The Communist Bloc was led by the Soviet Union, which impacted the foreign policy of newly independent South Asian countries India and Pakistan.

In such a cold war climate, India refused to assist any of the two power blocs and chose to stay distant from them. India and Pakistan have been involved in several disputes, proxy wars, and low-intensity confrontations during this time. Pakistan began pressuring the Maharaja of Kashmir to join Pakistan on sectarian lines in 1948 when the region was still uncertain between India and Pakistan. Pakistan invaded Kashmir after failing to reach an agreement with the Maharaja of Kashmir.

As a result, Maharaja turned to India, and the Indian military launched an attack on Pakistan, as well as filed a complaint with the UN Secretary-General on December 30, 1947, regarding Pakistan’s unjustified invasion. In this regard, the United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) was established, which led to a ceasefire line agreement in 1949, with Pakistan gaining control of 5,000 square miles of Indian territory and about one million people. Apart from that, the Kashmir conflict has remained a staple of daily newspapers and a long-standing problem between two countries that are expected to determine the future of India-Pakistan relations.

Kashmir – a disputed territory

Kashmir has undoubtedly been a contentious issue between India and Pakistan since their independence. Jammu and Kashmir were sustained as separate territories during the split. Pakistan, as a newly established state, began infiltrating this territory, which it claimed as a Muslim majority area. When Kashmir became embroiled in a dispute with Pakistan, it decided to join India. Kashmir has been an integral component of the Indian Union since then, and it has strategic importance for the country.

The 1965 War between India and Pakistan

On January 1, 1949, India and Pakistan reached a ceasefire deal following the first conflict over Kashmir in 1947-48. In 1965, the two countries engaged in a more serious armed battle. Pakistan conducted armed attacks in Gujarat’s Rann of Kutch in April 1965. In August and September, a larger offensive in Jammu and Kashmir was launched. The operation’s goal was to take Kashmir by inciting the local population to revolt against the Indian government. The mission failed because the local community failed to inform the Indian Army promptly. Shastri ordered Indian troops to mount a counter-offensive on the Punjab border to relieve pressure on the Kashmir front. The Indian army came dangerously close to Lahore in a furious battle.

In August 1965, this resulted in an all-out war. It lasted until September of that year, threatening to encircle two major Cold War superpowers: the United States and the Soviet Union. Both superpowers, to their credit, utilised all diplomatic methods at their disposal to get the two warring nations to the negotiating table. After a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for the end of the conflict was issued on September 22, 1965, both India and Pakistan agreed to halt all hostilities. The mediation was carried out through the Soviet Union, and a meeting was conducted in Tashkent from the 4th to the 10th of January 1966 to establish a more permanent peace between India and Pakistan. The meeting took place between Pakistani President Muhammad Ayub Khan and Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. The moderator was former Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin.

The Tashkent meeting

Timeline of events

In communications to the two Heads of Government sent early in September, Soviet Prime Minister Alexi Kosygin offered Soviet good offices to arrange a meeting between the two leaders to reach an agreement for the re-establishment of peace between India and Pakistan. This offer was reaffirmed on September 13th. The Indian Prime Ministers accepted the Soviet offer swiftly; but, President Ayub Khan believed that the intended conference would be fruitless.

Pakistan’s initial dismissal of the Soviet offer was owing to Pakistani suspicions of the Soviet Union’s bias toward India, as well as a desire to retain the support and goodwill of the United States, as Pakistan scheduled to pay President Lyndon B. Johnson a visit in December.

In addition, on September 5th, he officially requested the US or Commonwealth intervention to bring about a cease-fire, but to no avail. President Johnson, to President Ayub Khan’s dismay, was no longer willing to play the Pakistani game, advising him to seek a settlement through the United Nations Security Council resolution of September 20, which the US had backed. He had also praised the Soviet decision to hold the gathering in Tashkent. The mediation was carried out through the Soviet Union, and a meeting was conducted in Tashkent from the 4th to the 10th of January 1966 to establish a more permanent peace between India and Pakistan. The meeting took place between Pakistani President Muhammad Ayub Khan and Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. The moderator was former Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin.

Perspectives of India and Pakistan

India

Each side made its intentions and expectations for the Tashkent meeting very evident on the eve of the meeting. The Indian Prime Minister stated several times that he will press Pakistan to sign a no-war pact. They may decide on a friendship treaty if President Ayub Khan did not like the phrase, he added. He also stated unequivocally that Kashmir, as an important part of India, would not be discussed at the proposed summit.

Pakistan

President Ayub Khan has often stated that he will be travelling to Tashkent in the hopes of persuading India to commit to an equitable solution in Kashmir, presumably along Pakistani lines. Both India’s and Pakistan’s aims were long-standing and difficult to achieve, but each seemed to believe and expect that the other side had softened a little as a result of the two violent confrontations of 1965. Pakistan, more so than India, was about to be disappointed.

Important clauses of the agreement

Friendly relation between the nations

The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed to make every effort in conformity with the United Nations Charter to promote amicable ties between India and Pakistan. They declare that they will not use force to resolve their disagreements.

Ceasefire

The President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India agreed to withdraw all armed personnel from their positions held before August 5, 1964, no later than February 25, 1966.

Principle of non-interference in the internal affairs

Both India and Pakistan agree to follow the principle of non-interference in their affairs and to discourage the use of propaganda against each other.

Friendly Propaganda

Both India’s Prime Minister and Pakistan’s President have agreed that propaganda intended against the other country will be discouraged, but propaganda that encourages the development of good relations between the two countries will be encouraged.

Diplomatic Intercourse

Both countries also agree to resume normal diplomatic operations and return their respective High Commissioners to their offices.

Restoration

Measures were to be done to restore commercial and trade links, as well as communications and cultural interactions between the two countries. Actions were to be done to put existing agreements between Pakistan and India into effect.

Repatriation of the prisoners

Prisoners of war from both countries would be returned home.

Further discussions

The issue of refugees and the removal of illegal immigrants would be discussed further. Both sides will work to establish conditions that will prevent a mass exodus. They also agreed to negotiate about the return of any property or assets taken over by either side during the battle.

Meetings on direct concern

The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have decided to continue meeting on issues of direct concern to both countries at the highest and lowest levels. Both parties acknowledged the importance of establishing joint Indian-Pakistani organisations that will report to their respective governments in order to determine what steps should be undertaken next.

International implications of the declaration

In many ways, the Tashkent summit was unusual. This is the first time the Soviet Union has taken the lead in resolving a conflict between two non-communist countries.
Second, it marked the beginning of the Soviet Union’s new role as a constructive player in resolving conflicts and resolving circumstances that threatened international peace.
Third, all of the main Western nations, including the United States, endorsed the unprecedented Soviet effort. In reality, the entire world, except China, wished and hoped for the Tashkent meeting to be a success.
Fourth, Pakistan, which had previously suspected Soviet favouritism for India, was surprised to accept the Soviet initiative; possibly this is another example of Pakistan’s powerlessness in the situation. India’s acceptance of the Soviet effort was also unexpected because it had become widely assumed in recent years that the Soviet position on the Kashmir issue was not the same as it had been in the past when the Soviet Union backed India categorically and officially.
Fifth, the Soviet endeavour emphasised the Soviet government’s recent assertion that it was an Asian as well as a European power. The Soviet Union had previously left its right to go by default because it possessed two-thirds of its land in Asia (about 40% of Asia and twice the size of China).
Sixth, the Soviet Union may have intended to dispute China’s claim to be the major Asian state with a dominant position and influence in Asian affairs by making this bold move. By having a highly important Asian gathering so near to China’s borders, the Soviet Union may have also sought to warn China against the latter’s territorial aspirations and pressures against Soviet territories in Asia.

Significance of the peace agreement

The Tashkent Declaration is significant in Indo-Pakistani ties as well as world relations in general. It did, at the very least, normalise formal relations between the two countries, which had previously waged two undeclared wars. The Declaration proved the futility of violent wars as a means of furthering a state’s national interests – an ancient lesson that it appears nations must learn the hard way from time to time, as neither India nor Pakistan benefited directly from the Tashkent Declaration.
It virtually restored the previous status quo. This Agreement has further influenced Pakistan’s foreign policy with Pakistan’s military allies in the West (particularly the United States) and Asia – who have all welcomed and supported the Tashkent Declaration.
The Pakistani government, which had sought closer and friendlier relations with the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China in recent years despite its membership in the CENTO and SEATO (aimed at those very neighbours), must have realised from the Tashkent negotiations that its policy and action options about these neighbours were severely limited.
The Tashkent Declaration provided considerable satisfaction for India because its expectations were modest; as a victim of aggression, it essentially desired the restoration of the status quo ante; there was also hope that Pakistan could be persuaded to sign a no-war declaration and perhaps take the first steps toward resolving some, if not all, of the long-standing disputes and problems.
Pakistan restated its duties under the UN Charter to refrain from using force to settle international conflicts, which gave India some relief. The Declaration reopened, at least formally, the channels of communication – political, diplomatic, commercial, and cultural – that had been shut down by a hostile neighbour’s conflict imposed on a long-suffering country eager to maintain reasonably good relations at any cost except the surrender of vital national interests (such as Kashmir) and territorial integrity and sovereignty.
The struggle with Pakistan taught India that its desire for good ties with Pakistan and a peaceful resolution of its differences with Pakistan needed to be backed up by enough defence power so that this desire was not misinterpreted by Pakistan as weakness and accommodation at any cost.
It also persuaded India that its security lay in its own political and defence power, rather than relying on American assurances, even at the highest levels, that the US would prevent Pakistani misuse of US arms against India, and that the sincerity and genuineness of American assurances were insufficiently automatic, self-executing, and effective, as the late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru warned the US and the rest of the world long ago. For that country, the declaration is indeed a political and diplomatic achievement of considerable importance and significance. It marks the Soviet Union’s entrée into international relations as a mediator between two major Asian states – and, what’s more remarkable, between a Western-aligned country and a non-aligned government.
This Agreement has given the Soviet Union the kind of global prestige and influence that the United States and, before that, the United Kingdom, had nearly monopolised in recent years. Pakistan’s lingering sympathy for the Western camp was shattered by the Tashkent summit, which may or may not have instilled in Pakistan proportionate goodwill and cordiality for the Soviet Union. However, whatever goodwill the Soviet Union has gained from Pakistan as a result of the Tashkent meeting, it is important to note that it has not come at the expense of the Soviet Union’s decade-old friendship with India, which the Soviet Union appears to value far more than its newfound friendship with Pakistan.
Indeed, the tremendous Soviet triumph in Tashkent was primarily due to the strict neutrality and impartiality it maintained throughout conversations between the Indian and Pakistani positions – which also explains why similar Western efforts to address Indo-Pakistani disagreements have failed thus far.
The Tashkent declaration has taught the Western camp several lessons. It has announced, at least in Asian Affairs, the end of its dominant authority and involvement in settling international disputes and resolving circumstances endangering international peace and security.
The Tashkent summit and proclamation are only the latest in a long line of setbacks for the United Kingdom’s influence and position in international affairs in recent months. Finally, Prime Minister Shastri noted following the signing of the declaration that the Tashkent summit and declaration were “a one-of-a-kind experiment in world diplomacy.” They gave birth to what has since become known as the Tashkent spirit in international relations.
It appears to have far-reaching implications beyond Indo-Pakistani relations. It denotes a certain way to resolve long-standing international issues that have eluded resolution for years and have become cancer among states involved and affected.

Impact of the declaration

During the 1965 war, euphoria had built up, leading to the widespread assumption that Pakistan would win the war. People were taken aback when they heard about the Tashkent Declaration since they were anticipating something very different. Things worsened when Ayub Khan refused to comment and withdrew into seclusion rather than discussing the reasons for signing the agreement with the public. Demonstrations and violence erupted in different parts of the country. Ayub Khan chose to address the nation on January 14 in an attempt to assuage the people’s wrath and misgivings. It was the disagreement over the Tashkent Declaration that led to Z. A. Bhutto’s dismissal from Ayub’s government. Even though Ayub Khan was able to allay the people’s fears, there is little doubt that the Tashkent Declaration harmed Ayub Khan’s image and was one of the many reasons that contributed to his collapse.

Both the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India agreed that they will continue to meet at the highest levels on issues that directly affect both countries. Both sides agreed that joint Indo-Pakistan bodies should be established and reported to their respective governments to determine what steps should be done next. Ministerial talks were held on March 1 and 2, 1966, by the Tashkent Declaration. Despite the failure of these negotiations, diplomatic relations persisted throughout the spring and summer. Due to differences of view on the Kashmir problem, these negotiations produced no results.

Conclusion

Despite being considered a triumph at the time, the Tashkent Declaration failed to prevent a future conflict between India and Pakistan. A potential that still exists today. The omission of a no-war commitment in the Tashkent Declaration was criticised in India, as was the absence of any reference of Pakistan renouncing its backing for insurgency action in Kashmir. The proclamation only ended hostilities between India and Pakistan at the time, but it did not resolve the Kashmir issue, which neither side has been able to resolve to this day.

As a result, it is concluded that the tensions and disputes between India and Pakistan are historical, but that they can be resolved by the formation of bilateral, multilateral, and unilateral connections, as well as the continuation of the peaceful conversation between the two countries. However, investigating peaceful and confidence-building options for two nuclear-armed nations in South Asia is a daunting undertaking, but Kashmir, because of its geostrategic location, will be the deciding factor in whether Indo-Pak relations normalise or destabilise in the future.

Reference

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity