Shimla Agreement - Victory in War & Defeat in Diplomacy

Victory in War

After the Bangladesh liberated war, India held the significant landmass of Pakistan and had captured around 90,000 prisoners of war. Six months later, when the game of negotiation started at Shimla, India held all the cards to win the game. But still India is said to have lost the game when Indira Gandhi signed the Shimla agreement with Pakistani President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Let us retrospect if India really lost the game.

The Initiation of Talks
In Pakistan, Yahya Khan had resigned and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto stepped in to take his place. Bhutto told the former British prime minister Sir Alec Douglas-Home that he was keen to forge ‘an entirely new relationship with India’, beginning with a summit meeting with Mrs. Gandhi. The message was passed on, with the advice that in view of Pakistan’s wounded pride, the invitation should come from India.

The Indians were at first apprehensive, given Bhutto’s unpredictability and history of animosity against India. Confidants of the Pakistani president rushed to assure them of his good intentions. The journalist Mazhar Ali Khan, the editor of Dawn, told his fellow ex-communist the Indian Sajjad Zaheer that Bhutto was honestly trying to forget the past. New Delhi should work to strengthen his hand, otherwise, the army and the religious right would gang up to remove him, an outcome that would be disastrous for both India and Pakistan.

Zaheer and Khan had worked together in pre-Partition days as fellow activists of the Student Federation of India. Now, encouraged by their former fellow-traveller P. N. Haksar, they met in London in the third week of March 1972 to discuss the terms of a possible agreement between their two national leaders. Khan reported on these talks directly to Bhutto, while Zaheer conveyed
them via P. N. Haksar to Mrs. Gandhi.

The Talk
The Pakistani president was invited for a summit to be held in the old imperial summer capital of Simla in the last week of June 1972. He came accompanied by his daughter Benazir and a fairly large staff. First, the officials met, and then their leaders. The Indians wanted a comprehensive treaty to settle all outstanding problems including Kashmir, while the Pakistanis preferred a piecemeal approach. At a private meeting, Bhutto told Mrs. Gandhi that he could not go back to his people ‘empty-handed’.

The Pakistanis bargained hard. The Indians wanted a ‘no-war pact’; they had to settle for a mutual ‘renunciation of force’. The Indians asked for a ‘treaty’; what they finally got was an ‘agreement’. India said that they could wait for a more propitious moment to solve the Kashmir dispute, but asked for an agreement that the ‘line of control shall be respected by both sides’. Bhutto successfully pressed a caveat: ‘Without prejudice to the recognised position of either side’

However, Bhutto had apparently assured Mrs Gandhi that, once his position was more secure, he would persuade his people to accept conversion of the line of control into the international border.

Defeat in Diplomacy

The Clauses in Agreement

1. India agreed to return the Pakistani territory it had occupied, except some strategic points in Kashmir, mainly in the Kargil sector, which were necessary to safeguard the strategic road link between Srinagar and Leh in Ladakh.
2. In return, Pakistan agreed to respect the existing Line of Control in Kashmir and undertook not to alter it unilaterally by force or threat of force.
3. The two countries also agreed to settle all their disputes through bilateral negotiations without any outside mediation by the UN or any other power.
4. India also agreed to return the prisoners of war to Pakistan but this was to be contingent upon a Bangladesh– Pakistan agreement. This occurred the next year when Pakistan recognized Bangladesh in August 1973.
5. In order to restore and normalize relations between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that: 
1. Steps shall be taken to resume communications, postal, telegraphic, sea, land, including border posts, and air links, including overflghts. 
2. Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the other country. 
3. Trade and cooperation in economic and other agreed fields shall be resumed as far as possible. 
4. Exchange in the fields of science and culture shall be promoted

(Check full text of agreement here)

Reactions after Treaty

The ink had hardly dried on the Simla Agreement when Bhutto reneged on this (admittedly informal) promise. On 14 July he spoke for three hours in the National Assembly of Pakistan, his text covering sixty-nine pages of closely printed foolscap paper. He talked of how he had fought ‘for the concept of one Pakistan from the age of 15’. He blamed Mujib, Yahya, and everyone but himself for the ‘unfortunate and tragic separation of East Pakistan’. Then he came to the topic that still divided Pakistan and India – the future of Jammu and Kashmir. As the victor in war, said Bhutto, ‘India had

all the cards in her hands’ – yet he had still forged an equal agreement from an unequal beginning. The Simla accord was a success, he argued, because Pakistan would get back its POWs and land held by Indian forces, and because it did ‘not compromise on the right of self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir’. He offered the ‘solemn commitment of the people of Pakistan, that if tomorrow the people of Kashmir start a freedom movement, if tomorrow Sheikh Abdullah or Maulvi Farooq or others start a people’s movement, we will be with them’.

There was widespread displeasure in India after the signing of the treaty and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, then leader of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, called it a “sell out”. Vajpayee said that Pakistan’s agreement to not use force was of no consequence since Pakistan had made similar promises in the past as well, but never adhered to them. He also went on to say that some sort of a secret understanding had been agreed upon between Indira Gandhi and Zulfkar Ali Bhutto during the signing of the treaty. 

The justification Indira Gandhi offered to parliament in July 1972 for signing the Shimla Declaration was significant. She said: ‘All I know is that I must fight for peace and I must take those steps which will lead us to peace . . . The time has come when Asia must wake up to its destiny , must wake up to the real needs of its people, must stop fighting amongst ourselves, no matter what our previous quarrels, no matter what the previous hatred and bitterness. The time has come today when we must bury the past.’

Was it a failure?

Looking back between the relations between India and Pakistan, one can safely say that the Shimla Treaty did nothing much to preserve the relations between both countries which went on to deteriorate. The most recent was Operation Meghdoot in 1984 (in which India seized most of the inhospitable areas of the Saichen Glacier where the frontier had not been clearly defined in the agreement) and the Kargil war of 1999 (in which Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri militants had occupied positions on the Indian side of the LoC).

Sources:
India after Gandhi by Ramachandra Guha
India since Independence by Bipin Chandra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simla_Agreement

http://www.mapsofindia.com/on-this-day/july-2-1972-shimla-treaty-is-signed-between-indira-gandhi-and-zulfikar-ali-bhutto

1857 - First War of Independence: The Retrospect

“Among the many lessons the Indian mutiny conveys to the historian, none is of greater importance than the warning that it is possible to have a Revolution in which Brahmins and Sudras, Hindus and Mahomedans, could be united against us…”
~ George William Forrest, British historian

What British call the 'Sepoy Mutiny', was the first war independence for India. On 10th May 1857, commenced this war from which many revolutionaries drew their inspiration in the later period. Whether it was mutiny or war, whether it was failed or not, one thing is certain - it changed the course of politics in British India. That is what makes this war an important event in the India's struggle for independence. Let us have retrospect of this war.

Why it happened:
The immediate reason is well-known. The Company introduced new Enfield rifle, which required to bite the cartridge for loading the rifle. The grease used on these cartridges had (or was rumoured to have) tallow derived from beef which was offensive to Hindus and pork which was offensive to Muslims. Mangal Pandey refused to use the rifle and was hanged for his defiance. This made a way for the unrest among the soldier. In several other military cantonments,Indian soldiers refused to use new cartridges. In Meerut, 85 men were court martialled and humiliated on 9th May. The next day, the Indian troops led by 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry broke into revolt. They freed the 85 comrades from the jail and 800 other prisoners. After taking over the Meerut, they headed straight for Delhi.

But this was just an incidental reason. In reality, there was unrest among soldiers as well as civilians. There were rumours about Government's secret designs to promote conversions to Christianity. The official-missionary nexus gave credence to it. In some cantonments, missionaries were permitted to preach openly and their diatribe against other religions angered the soldiers.

Moreover, soldiers were unhappy with their emoluments. This was further aggrieved by the sense of deprivation compared to his British counterpart. Indian soldiers were made to feel subordinated and were discriminated against racially and in matters of promotion and privileges.

The grievances of peasants added to the unrest. Every soldier was the peasant in uniform. As the situation of peasants was worsening, it was getting reflected into the unrest among soldiers.

All this added to the incidental reasons commenced the war, which spread rapidly to the north Indian regions.

Role of Nobility:
British had antagonised princes, by greatly depriving their rights. 'Doctrine of Lapse' refused to recognise adopted children of princes as legal heirs. Due to this, many princes lost their titles. In areas of Central India, where such losses of privilege had not occurred, the princes remained loyal to the Company.

This is why nobility was ready to take the leadership of the revolt/war. In fact, there is one school of history which believes that the war was not merely a mutiny, but a planned conspiracy against the British rule initiated by Indian princes.

On 11th May, after capturing Delhi, soldiers appealed to the Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah II, to become their leader, thus giving legitimacy to their cause. Similarly, Nana Saheb, the last adopted son of Peshwa Baji Rao II, was leading in Kanpur. Begum Hazrat Mahal took the reigns at Lucknow. In Bihar, 70-years old Kunwar Singh, the zamindar of Jagdishpur, was leading the soldiers. The most outstanding leader of 1857 was Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi. The valour shown by her in the war made her name immortal.

Why it failed:
Though revolt spread rapidly in North India, it remained confined to the North. Most of the south India was indifferent. Even in the North India, Punjab and Bengal were not much affected. It is even said that British could not have won the war if Sikh soldier had not remained loyal to the Company. Almost half of the Indian soldiers not only did not revolt but also fought against their own countrymen.

For more than a year, soldiers carried on their struggle against heavy odds. They had no source of arms and ammunition. They were often forced to fight with swords and pikes, whereas their enemy had most modern weapons. They had no quick communication systems due to which no coordination was possible. Consequently, they were unaware of the strength and weaknesses of their compatriots. Everyone was left to play a lonely hand.

With such odds, there was never a chance for a victory. But still soldiers carried the struggle for more than year.

Aftermath:
Indian soldiers were brutally killed without any trial.  The exaggerated figures of atrocities by Indian soldiers appalled the Brtish public who felt British actions as just. Bahadur Shah was tried and exiled to Rangoon.

The rebellion saw the end of the East India Company's rule in India. In August, by the Government of India Act 1858, the company was formally dissolved and its ruling powers over India were transferred to the British Crown. A new British government department, the India Office, was created to handle the governance of India, and its head, the Secretary of State for India, was entrusted with formulating Indian policy. The Governor-General of India gained a new title, Viceroy of India.

British Crown wanted to make sure that no such uprising would happen again. British minimized the religious intervention. To increase the consultation between ruler and ruled, they introduced some political changes drawing Indians into government at a local level. Of course, this was on a limited scale.

And the most importantly, British reorganized the army. The Bengal army dominated the Indian army before 1857 and a direct result after the rebellion was the scaling back of the size of the Bengali contingent in the army. The Brahmin presence in the Bengal Army was reduced because of their perceived primary role as mutineers. Before the rebellion, each Bengal Native Infantry regiment had 26 British officers, who held every position of authority down to the second-in-command of each company. Now there were fewer European officers, but they associated themselves far more closely with their soldiers while more responsibility was given to the Indian officers. The British increased the ratio of British to Indian soldiers within India. From 1861 Indian artillery was replaced by British units, except for a few mountain batteries. The post-rebellion changes formed the basis of the military organisation of British India until the early 20th century.

Had it been succeeded:
We can do just a guesswork here. Bahadur Shah was recognized as the Emperor by all rebel leaders. This would have helped to hold India with unity. In Delhi, the court of administrators was established during the war which was responsible for all the matters of state. All decisions were taken by the majority vote. British official described it as a constitutional monarchy. So India could have expected to get rid of slavery as well as a dictatorship. Ruled by natives, the industrialization might have started early, the famines might have been managed better and overall economy could have flourished.

On the flip side, we can't be sure for how long the unity would have remained intact. It is perfectly possible that once the foreign power was eliminated, all princely states would have fought each other leading to a war-ridden country. India would have again been disintegrated into princely states who were at each other's throat.

But these are all imaginations now. Both sides have written an innumerable account of the war (sometimes exaggerating the atrocities committed by opponents). The only truth which certain is that Indian soldiers showed unprecedented valour, rose up against the mighty empire, fought fearlessly and were ruthlessly crushed in the end. 

First war of independence witnessed many gems like Tatia Tope, Nana Saheb, Rani Laxmibai and all those unsung heroes of the war who sacrificed their lives for the freedom.

Salute to those brave hearts!

References:

• India's Struggle for Independence by Bipin Chandra
• 1857 war of independence by Sawarkar
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857