Latest news with #TashkentDeclaration
Hindustan Times
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
The K-question facing the India-US relationship
Since the cessation of hostilities on the border, multiple voices in the government have spoken about a new normal in the India-Pakistan dynamic. A key aspect of this new normal is that the only point of contention in the bilateral relations that India is willing to discuss with Pakistan is the issue of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). On Tuesday, the ministry of external affairs (MEA) spokesperson reiterated this in Delhi when he was asked about US President Donald Trump's offer to mediate between India and Pakistan on resolving the Kashmir 'dispute', which Trump, for some reason, believes is a 'thousand years old'. It calls for a restatement that the Kashmir dispute is a legacy of Western colonialism in the subcontinent. Post Partition in 1947, Western powers tacitly backed Pakistan's claim over Jammu & Kashmir on the ground that it was a Muslim-majority kingdom though it had acceded voluntarily to India. They succeeded in convincing the newly independent India to take the matter to the UN when Pakistan invaded J&K in 1948. New Delhi, quickly recognising the trap, has refused international mediation since. The exception was in 1965 when the Soviet Union hosted the Indian Prime Minister and Pakistan's military dictator to sign the Tashkent Declaration. The 1972 Simla Agreement unambiguously states that all disputes would be resolved within the bilateral framework. There are two key points in India's stance on Kashmir. One, it does not see any scope for external mediation on J&K. Two, after Operation Sindoor, the 'only outstanding matter is PoK'. The fact is that following the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, J&K's constitutional status within the Indian federal framework has changed: Its special status has been revoked and it is just like any other Indian state. For sure, Washington can use its good offices to convince Pakistan to look beyond Kashmir, dismantle its terror ecosystem, and buy peace with India. But it is best advised to avoid a Pakistan hyphenation, or a Kashmir reference, as it seeks to firm up its relationship with India. Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
Time of India
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Thaw in hostilities on India's terms, says BJP, dismisses claims of US pressure
NEW DELHI: on Saturday dismissed claims that the pause in hostilities between India and Pakistan was driven by US pressure , emphasising that the agreement was firmly on New Delhi's terms. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Contrasting the current understanding with past instances where India lost strategic advantages, the party credited the govt for rewriting the narrative. Citing India's new ' war doctrine ' that any act of terror will be treated as an 'act of war' against India, a BJP neta said only the US and Israel had comparable doctrines, marking India's assertive global stance. The functionary also highlighted India's leverage over the , which remains unaffected by the current India-Pakistan border understanding. Notably, World Bank, once a guarantor, has distanced itself from the treaty, strengthening India's position. "India is a rising economic power , while Pakistan is a struggling state. Our focus is the welfare of 140 crore Indians, not wasting time on a delinquent jihadi state," the BJP neta said. BJP contrasted the current pause in hostilities with historical agreements where India ceded advantages. The 1949 ceasefire, based on the Karachi Agreement, followed US-brokered talks and UN monitoring. The 1965 war ended with the Tashkent Declaration, mediated by the Soviet Union and the US, forcing India to return hard-won territories. The 1971 war, despite Pakistan's surrender, led to the Simla Agreement under Moscow's and Washington's influence. India released 99,000 prisoners without securing strategic gains, such as Pakistan vacating POK or formalising borders. The Indian Peacekeeping Force (IPKF) operation in Sri Lanka (1987-1990) drained resources and ended in withdrawal, costing the life of former PM Rajiv Gandhi. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Similarly, the 1999 Kargil war ceasefire, facilitated by the Clinton administration, saw India halt its offensive just as victory was in sight, missing a tactical opportunity. BJP said the current pause in hostilities reflected New Delhi's terms, prioritising national security and economic progress while maintaining strategic leverage. This approach, the party argued, ensured India's rise as a global power, unburdened by past concessions or external pressures.
India.com
10-05-2025
- Politics
- India.com
India Pakistan ceasefire: History of ceasefires between two countries and what the current one means
New Delhi: Ceasefire means temporarily or permanently halting war or conflict. It is implemented when two or more parties (such as countries, armies, or groups) agree to stop firing, attacking, and military actions. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has confirmed the ceasefire with Pakistan. India has agreed to the ceasefire on its terms. In simple words, when there is a war-like situation between two countries and they decide that there will be no further attacks, this agreement is called a ceasefire. Main objectives of ceasefire: To protect human life (both military and civilian). To provide an opportunity for dialogue and peace process. To reduce tension and move towards a permanent solution. To respond to international pressure. A ceasefire occurred after the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War which primarily revolved around the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir, with both countries vying for control. The war began after Pakistan's Operation Gibraltar, which aimed to infiltrate forces into Jammu and Kashmir to instigate an insurgency against Indian rule. The Tashkent Declaration, also known as the Tashkent Agreement, was a peace treaty signed on January 10, 1966, in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, by the Prime Minister of India, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and the President of Pakistan, Muhammad Ayub Khan. It aimed to end the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Then, after the 1971 India-Pakistan war, the Shimla agreement was signed between India and Pakistan on 2 July 1972 in Shimla, the capital of Himachal Pradesh. Its official purpose was stated to serve as a way for both countries to 'put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations' and to conceive the steps to be taken for further normalization of India–Pakistan relations while also laying down the principles that should govern their future interactions. A ceasefire does not mean peace – a ceasefire is only a 'battle halted by agreement' – the war is not over yet. Peace is considered to be when both countries reach a permanent agreement or treaty. After several days of continuous shelling, drone attacks, and retaliatory military actions, India and Pakistan have agreed to a ceasefire along the borders. The armies of both countries have decided to halt all military activities at the border. The situation in Jammu and Kashmir is currently normal, and firing from the Pakistani side along the LOC has stopped.
Hindustan Times
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Proximity to LoC makes Poonch town vulnerable: Lt Gen (retd) Sharma
As Pakistan continues to pound villages and towns close to the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, Poonch is among the worst-hit areas, accounting for 12 casualties and over 40 of the injured. Smoke billows after an artillery shell landed in the main town of Poonch district in India's Jammu region on May 7, 2025. At least eight Indians were killed and 29 others wounded Wednesday in the town of Poonch in Kashmir, close to the de facto border with Pakistan, a local Indian government official said. (Photo by Punit PARANJPE / AFP) (AFP) According to Lieutenant General (retired) Rakesh Sharma, who served five stints in Jammu and Kashmir, Poonch town's proximity to the LoC makes it vulnerable to cross-border shelling and artillery fire. 'They are using artillery fire because it is well within their range,' he said, adding: 'Poonch is being targeted by Pakistan because of its proximity to the LoC. It is a soft target. There may be an attempt to trigger migration of population from Poonch.' He points out the strategic importance the Hajipir Pass, a mountain route currently located in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK) could have served at this time, had to not been handed over to Pakistan by erstwhile government, terming the move a 'blunder'. The Hajipir Pass connects Uri with Poonch, south of Pir Panjal range. India gave the pass to Pakistan following Tashkent Declaration in January 1966. India had captured it during the 1965 India-Pakistan war. The former general said, 'Had India not given strategic pass back to Pakistan, the situation would have been different. Had it been with us, PoK would have been in our direct range. Now, the pass is being used for pushing terrorists.' Defence minister Rajnath Singh on January 14 had blamed the previous governments for Pak-sponsored terrorism at an ex-servicemen's rally in Akhnoor. 'Panic taking over, people fleeing city' According to people living close to Poonch town, people have started fleeing the city as panic has set in amid the intensified cross-border shelling and civilian casualties. Ex-sarpanch of Islamabad village, located on the LoC in Poonch, Bagh Hussain Rathore said, 'There is panic among people, and they are fleeing Poonch city. The town is almost vacant. Only 5% to 7% of the population is left.' Rathore said that intense shelling has damaged their houses and killed the cattle. 'Bunkers were not constructed in adequate numbers. The people are forced to take shelter in their rooms. The district administration is doing everything possible but continuous shelling has hampered rescue and relief efforts,' he said. He said Pakistani troops are targeting the national highway from Poonch to Kalai, a seven-km stretch. 'They are also targeting Sher-e Kashmir bridge that connects Poonch town with Surankote,' he added.
Express Tribune
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
The missing diplomatic statesmanship
Why is diplomatic statesmanship missing in the case of the prevailing Indo-Pak tension? And how are the two countries bogged down for the last several years in the stand-off over occupied Kashmir? Since August 5, 2019 when India revoked article 370 of its constitution and annexed the disputed region, the two sides have touched their lowest level of diplomatic, security, economic and political interaction. According to AI overview, "Diplomatic statesmanship involves the skillful and strategic management of a state's foreign policy and international relations, utilizing diplomacy and negotiation to achieve its goals while maintaining peaceful relations. It encompasses the art and science of conducting foreign affairs to safeguard national interests, promote cooperation, and address international challenges". Nevertheless, diplomatic statesmanship is a fundamental requirement to manage and resolve a crisis by unleashing a process of dialogue. In the past, the leadership of India and Pakistan possessed political will and skills to seek a breakthrough for de-escalating tension and normalise their relations. Liaquat-Nehru pact of 1950, Indus-Water Treaty of 1960, Tashkent Declaration of January 1966, Shimla Pact of July 1972, Lahore Declaration of February 1999 and several military and non-military confidence-building measures under Track-1, Track-II and Track-III diplomacy reached during 1980s and 1990s reflected statesmanship on the part of New Delhi and Islamabad to move forward following different phases of cold war. In the second decade of 2000 and onwards when India took steps to absorb the occupied Kashmir and blamed Pakistan for terrorism, Islamabad was forced to respond accordingly. Hardcore evidence is available on how the Modi regime is trying to destabilise Pakistan by fanning the fire of terrorism in Balochistan and elsewhere. Diplomacy, which should have been an option to end the Indo-Pak standoff following the August 5, 2019 measures, was not utilised. Downgrading of diplomatic staff in each other high commissions; banning the use of airspace; suspending air, road and rail links; and ending bilateral trade reflect lack of diplomatic statesmanship on the part of the two countries. Post-2019 era is the worst in the context of Indo-Pak diplomacy, as statesmanship which had earliest helped defuse crises, was replaced by warmongering, threats and acts of brinkmanship. The only area in which diplomatic statesmanship relatively worked is the involvement of foreign powers like the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia and others to urge India and Pakistan for a strategic restraint. President Donald Trump has called upon Islamabad and New Delhi to de-escalate tension. Efforts are being made by external powers to prevent another round of hostilities. It is strange that foreign powers remind India and Pakistan to exercise strategic restraint whereas the two nuclear-armed neighbours lack the wisdom to deal with critical issues by diplomatic means. When the mindset of BJP and the Modi regime is to use 'Pakistan bashing' and 'terrorism' for domestic consumption and create media hype in the wake of any terrorist incident, the application of diplomatic statesmanship is not possible. For Modi, winning elections in Bihar is more important by exploiting the Pahalgham incident than conducting a transparent investigation into how the terrorists could kill 28 tourists in the occupied region where more than half a million Indian troops have been deployed. From any standpoint, it is certain that the Pahalgham incident was a false-flag operation conducted by the Modi regime itself to use it for winning elections in Bihar and strengthening its anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan rhetoric. The absence of critical thinking in Indian civil society and opposition parties to gauge what actually happened and how tourists were killed in a heavily fortified region reflects the lack of statesmanship on their part. Modi regime is not even innovative while blaming Pakistan for acts of terrorism, using the same old tactics. Independent voices in India, although muted, are pointing their fingers at the Modi regime. There is no dearth of such voices who believe that the Modi government staged drama in Pahalgham to malign Pakistan. Even the relatives of the tourists who were killed in the attack blame the Indian government for lack of security in Pahalgham to the extent that even relief and rescue operation was conducted quite late and the FIR of the incident was launched only within 10 minutes of the attack. BJP has a track record of letting terrorist incidents take place and then blame Pakistan or Kashmiri resistance groups. This time too, immediately after the Pahalgham incident, Indian Muslims and Kashmiris studying in India were subjected to mistreatment, harassment and attacks. Houses of Kashmiris in the Valley were demolished on the suspicion of involvement in the killing. Taking advantage of the Pahalgham attack, Indian Home Minister Amit Shah and the occupied Kashmir governor started taking measures to harass Kashmiris. More than 2,000 Kashmiris have been arrested on charges of Pahalgham terrorist attack and the lives of Muslims in the held region are being made miserable by the occupying Indian military. Diplomacy serves as the only option for normalising the Indo-Pak relations and resolving the contentious issues between them. Three steps can be helpful in the context. First, the Indian leadership, led by Narendra Modi, has acted in an irresponsible manner. They have themselves committed a false-flag operation for domestic political gains. In 2019, BJP won the general election by using Pakistan Card; and in 2025 it wants to win the elections in Bihar by taking advantage of the Pahalgham attack. Modi knows that his party's electoral support is waning, evident from the fact that it failed to win a two-thirds majority in the 2024 general election. Yet, as the world's largest democracy, Indian civil society and opposition parties should have acted in a responsible manner instead of creating war hysteria. India should have opted for diplomatic statecraft rather than threatening Pakistan with dire consequences on the Pahalgham incident without providing any credible evidence. Second, the United States has used its highest diplomatic channels to prevail over India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and defuse the crisis. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio talked to Pakistan's Prime Minister and India's Minister of External Affairs urging them to launch credible investigation into the April 22 terrorist attack and take strong measures against terrorism. Third, the UN and EU should also launch diplomatic endeavours to defuse the prevailing Indo-Pak tension. Russia, China and Saudi Arabia have already played their role in this regard. Remember, failure of diplomacy means the outbreak of hostilities.
