Latest news with #SimlaAgreement
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
5 hours ago
- Politics
- First Post
How Rajnath Singh's SCO gambit is a case of a Bharat rising confidently and surefootedly
Perhaps the most sobering takeaway from the SCO saga is the fact that Bharat is, in many ways, alone in its fight against terrorism emanating from Pakistan read more Not every agreement inked from a position of strength translates into strategic triumph. The 1971 war is a telling reminder. Bharat's decisive victory split Pakistan, created Bangladesh, and saw 93,000 Pakistani soldiers surrendering in Dhaka—one of the most humiliating defeats in modern military history. Yet, just months later, the Simla Agreement of 1972 exposed how battlefield gains could be squandered at the diplomatic table. Despite explicit warnings from then RAW chief RN Kao to 'count her fingers' after shaking hands with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Mrs Indira Gandhi fell for his charm, unilaterally agreeing to release the Pakistani prisoners without even securing the return of Indian soldiers languishing in Pakistani jails. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If all treaties signed from the point of strength are not success stories, then all treaties not signed aren't failures either. Last week, when Defence Minister Rajnath Singh refused to sign the SCO's joint statement on countering terrorism, he not only safeguarded Bharat's core security interests but also offered a glimpse of a country willing to stand firm—alone if necessary—in pursuit of its national priorities. The Defence Minister's conduct at the SCO summit reflects a growing confidence, maturity and self-assuredness of the country while dealing with global powers. Unlike in the past, when New Delhi would have been tempted to make a compromise for the sake of 'consensus' or 'regional solidarity', today's Bharat doesn't mind walking that extra mile on treacherous terrains if the country's long-term interest so demanded. The SCO draft statement was a watered-down document that, with Chinese collusion, sought to downplay Pakistan's terror connections. It also refused to acknowledge, far less condemn, Islamabad's sinister role in not just waging but also spreading global jihad. What particularly irked New Delhi was the refusal to give the dastardly Pahalgam attack a place in the draft statement. For Bharat—having borne the brunt of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism for decades—any endorsement of such a document would have compromised its core security interests. More so in the wake of the much successful Operation Sindoor where Bharat drew for Pakistan—and the world—a new Lakshman Rekha on terrorism. Critics argue that Bharat should reconsider its engagement with institutions like the SCO, given their internal dynamics and frequent tilt against Bharat's interests. But there is a compelling counterpoint: Bharat's very participation forces these blocs to confront their inconsistencies. By attending and then refusing to endorse a flawed document, Bharat highlighted the SCO's duplicity on terrorism. New Delhi's presence gives the SCO a democratic legitimacy, especially when most of its member-states lack genuine democratic credentials. At the same time, it does moderate the innate anti-Bharat tendencies of such institutions. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Yet, the incident is also a reminder of the solitary nature of Bharat's fight against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. The West's support often stops at rhetoric. Washington's Bharat policy is still largely China-driven, focused on counterbalancing Beijing rather than addressing Islamabad's terror machinery. Europe, preoccupied with internal crises, besides being wary of disturbing its fragile equations with Islamic states, rarely ventures beyond routine condemnations, followed by an exhortation to both sides to return to talks. Russia, Bharat's time-tested partner and an SCO member, finds itself increasingly aligned with China, compelled by geopolitical realities and economic compulsions after the Ukraine war. Moscow's growing dependence on Beijing inevitably narrows the space for unequivocal support to New Delhi, especially on issues where Chinese and Pakistani interests converge. Perhaps the most sobering takeaway from the SCO saga is the fact that Bharat is, in many ways, alone in its fight against terrorism emanating from Pakistan. While Western capitals may occasionally put up rhetorical support in Bharat's favour, very few will be willing to shun, far less confront, Pakistan for its terror connections. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD However, the path ahead is not without challenges. Bharat will likely face more such moments where standing up for its core interests may mean standing alone. The international system is inherently transactional. Allies shift their positions, interests evolve, and moral arguments often give way to strategic calculations. This reality makes it imperative for Bharat to continue diversifying its partnerships—deepening ties not just with the Quad countries but also with nations in Europe, Asean, Africa, and the Middle East. Simultaneously, Bharat must persist in exposing Pakistan's duplicity on terror at every available forum, denying Islamabad the international space it needs to whitewash its record. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that Bharat's conduct at the SCO summit reflects a growing maturity, decisiveness and self-assuredness in dealing with global powers. Yes, there is this concern of finding itself isolated on the international platform, but one needs to see it in the larger context of Bharat rising at an unprecedented pace and scale—a pace and scale that seem to be unnerving its friends and foes alike. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The next couple of decades will be critical. As Bharat continues its unprecedented economic and geopolitical ascent, it will inevitably unsettle entrenched interests, both among rivals and even some partners. How deftly Bharat navigates this phase—balancing assertion with strategic partnerships, principle with pragmatism—will determine how swiftly it cements its place as a global power. The good thing is, as Rajnath Singh's resolute stance at the SCO shows, 'Naya' Bharat not just counts the fingers after shaking hands with other powers; it has also started making them accountable if some of the fingers go missing after the handshake!
Indian Express
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
On Simla Agreement anniversary, 1971 war survivors in Punjab remember poignant homecoming: ‘Had lost all hope, but we made it'
Fifty-three years after the Simla Agreement between India and Pakistan was signed on July 2, 1972, to 'normalise relations after the 1971 war', several senior citizens in Punjab's border villages remember how the peace accord had paved the way for their safe homecoming. During the 1971 war, Pakistan detained at least 300 civilians from Bakhu Shah and Muhammad Peer villages in Punjab's border district of Fazilka. These villagers were only released months later, after the Simla Agreement was inked. According to the agreement, it was mutually agreed that 'prisoners of wars and civilian internees' detained by both countries during the war would be released by both sides. 'We were lodged in Sahiwal jail for four months (December – April 1972) before being shifted to a camp in Harappa. My wife went into labour at the camp and was taken to the Sahiwal district hospital in a jeep. I was not allowed to accompany her. A Pakistani policeman informed me about my son's birth after returning to the camp. I was elated, but we had no means, no money, or even a spoonful of sugar to celebrate the moment. All detainees in the camp had collectively named him Rawel Singh,' recalls Kashmir Singh, 76, from Bakhu Shah village. Kashmir's wife, Nanki Bai, 74, remembers how Pakistanis would gather around her to catch a glimpse of her son. 'At Sahiwal government hospital, where I delivered my son, locals would say 'India ka bachha paida hua (An Indian baby is born here). They would just gather to see him. We were hopeful that we would return to our country someday,' she says. Rawel died a few years ago. The Simla Agreement, signed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and then Pakistan President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, now lies in abeyance following the recent tension between the two neighbours after the Pahalgam terror attack, and Operation Sindoor. However, for the Fazilka villagers who spent months in detention camps in Pakistan, the accord was the only ray of hope to return to their homes and reunite with their families. 'We returned to India via the Wagah border on September 16, 1972. We can never forget that day. Those scenes still roll in front of my eyes every night. All the hopes to return home were lost, but we finally made it,' says Kashmir. Kashmir Singh was among the first batch of 273 Indian civilians released by Pakistan and handed over to Indian authorities at Wagah on September 16, 1972. In return, India had agreed to repatriate all 700 Pakistani civilians in its custody, according to a Reuters report dated September 16, 1972. The war ended with India's victory, the creation of Bangladesh, and the surrender of 93,000 Pakistani soldiers. Like Singh, Channo Bai, 70, was also detained. 'My son was left behind in Fazilka with his grandparents, but my husband and I were taken away. They had taken away all the jewellery we were wearing, and it was never returned to us even after our release. They looted everything we had,' she says. Chindo Bai, in her sixties, who is the current sarpanch of Muhammad Peer village was around seven or eight years old at the time. 'Firing had started, and an officer came. We were all captured and taken to Pakistan. We were lodged in Sahiwal jail. Half of the village was with us. Our elders said that it was only due to then PM Indira Gandhi that we were released and could return home,' says Chindo. Dalip Singh, the lambardar (revenue official) of Bakhu Shah village, says that of nearly 300 people who were detained by the Pakistan Army in 1971, around 111 were from Bakhu Shah and the rest from Mohammad Peer and Pakka Chishti. 'Very few of them are alive now. A 10-member committee from border villages, led by then panchayat member late Guradita Ram, had met Gandhi, demanding the release of our people. She had promised that she would secure their release, as we had 93,000 Pakistani soldiers in our captivity. She kept her word,' says Dalip. Satnam Singh, 70, also from Muhammad Peer, says that he was detained along with his deceased parents, Nain Singh and Kartaro Bai. 'I was around 16-17 then. They looted all our belongings. We were only left with the clothes we were wearing. I can never forget Sahiwal jail. We used to get roasted chana (chickpeas) once a week. Assi museebat badi vekhi hai (We have been through a lot),' he says. Military historian Mandeep Singh Bajwa's father, the late Major General K S Bajwa, was the head of the repatriations of the civilian internees and prisoners of war exchanged between India and Pakistan after the 1971 war ended. 'Fazilka was the epicentre of the 1971 war, where the Pakistani Army had launched its offensive, but we had defended it successfully. The Pakistan Army had plundered these villages in Fazilka,' he says. On their return from Pakistan, all that was left behind was 'devastation', the villagers recall, adding that their lives had to be rebuilt, brick by brick. 'The Pakistan army had even looted doors and windows and uprooted handpumps. Our houses were razed; farms were reduced to barrenness. They left nothing behind. We had to restart our lives and rebuild everything. We never really came out of that trauma and poverty. Our children are still without jobs. We are still the first to be on the edge whenever there is India-Pakistan tension,' says Kashmir Singh. Even after five decades, the border villages of Bakhu Shah and Muhammad Peer lack basic facilities such as proper roads, clean drinking water and a bridge for easy evacuation. Chindo's son Kulwinder Singh, 31, says, 'We are always at the frontlines whenever there is tension between India and Pakistan, but even now we do not have a bridge to evacuate easily if there is a war-like situation again. We have written multiple letters demanding better roads and infrastructure in case there is a war again, but no one listens.' 'Even the thought of leaving our homes and rebuilding them gives us nightmares. We request the government to give us land in safer areas to build our homes, and then fight as many wars as they want. But who will hear us now when no one did for five decades? No one remembers what we endured for our country,' rues Kashmir. Leela Dhar Sharma, 71, a Fazilka native and president of the Border Area Vikas Front, says: 'Governments should have focused on the development of these villages as the villagers have endured a lot, but they have been forgotten like they never existed.'
India Today
6 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
India–Pakistan rivalry: Holding the world hostage
The decades-old India-Pakistan rivalry has evolved from a regional border dispute into a significant impediment to international diplomacy. What began with the trauma of Partition and three full-scale wars has now metastasised into a global diplomatic fault line that consistently undermines multilateral 2025, this bilateral dysfunction reached new heights when India unilaterally suspended the Indus Waters Treaty—a cornerstone of cooperation since 1960. Pakistan retaliated by abandoning the Simla Agreement, closing its airspace, and halting trade routes. These weren't merely political gestures; they represented systematic breakdowns that weakened international water law and forced the World Bank into an uncomfortable The rivalry's destructive impact extends far beyond bilateral relations. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has become virtually invisible, with summits indefinitely postponed and initiatives on health and disaster relief consistently floundering. Even within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, India and Pakistan managed to undermine consensus—notably at the 2025 Defence Ministers' summit, where disagreements over language prevented the issuance of a joint statement the United Nations, both nations continue to use the global stage for theatrical displays of animosity. Pakistan's calls for closed-door consultations following Indian military operations predictably devolved into blame games that produced no resolutions or meaningful rivalry infiltrates every aspect of bilateral engagement. Cultural ties collapse with each tension spike—Indian platforms purge Pakistani music, films are shelved, and streaming services remove content. The digital sphere has become another battleground, with both countries blocking each other's social media platforms and content cricket, once a rare source of connection, has hardened into another cold front. There has been no bilateral series in over a decade, with matches only occurring under international banners in neutral dysfunction carries profound global implications. As the Global South gains prominence in international politics, India and Pakistan's conflicting narratives divide allies and distract from crucial issues like climate finance and regional infrastructure. South Asia remains one of the world's least integrated regions economically, with negligible trade and restricted travel between its two largest uncomfortable truth is that South Asia's volatility has become structurally embedded in global diplomacy, consistently stalling international forums and undermining multilateral progress when lasting solutions are most needed.- EndsTune InMust Watch
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
NIA arrests 2 in Pahalgam for harbouring terrorists who attacked tourists
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has arrested two men in Jammu and Kashmir for harbouring the terrorists who had carried out the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack. In a statement, the NIA said the two men are locals of Pahalgam. They have been identified as Parvaiz Ahmad Jothar from Batkote and Bashir Ahmad Jothar of Hill Park. "They have disclosed the identities of the three armed terrorists involved in the attack, and have also confirmed that they were Pakistani nationals affiliated to the proscribed terrorist outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT)," probe agency said. According to the NIA, Parvaiz and Bashir had knowingly harboured the three armed terrorists at a seasonal dhok (hut) at Hill Park before the attack. The two men had provided food, shelter and logistical support to the terrorists, the agency said. The duo has been arrested under Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Further investigations are underway. On April 22, a group of terrorists ambushed tourists holidaying in the scenic meadows of Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir, killing 26 people. The Resistance Front, a proxy of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility for the attack. The incident led to a major diplomatic escalation between India and Pakistan, with both sides suspending visa services and downgrading diplomatic presence in each other's capitals. India also suspended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, which governs water-sharing between the two nations. Pakistan, on the other hand, announced the suspension of all bilateral treaties with India, including the 1972 Simla Agreement, which governs the ceasefire line in Kashmir. On May 7, India launched precision air strikes targeting nine terror launchpad in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, including the Jaish-e-Mohammad stronghold of Bahawalpur and Lashkar-e-Taiba's base Muridke. Codenamed Operation Sindoor, the strikes resulted in killing of at least 100 terrorists, the government said.
New Indian Express
21-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Death of mediation: Statesmen as showmen
Mediation is the message. Whenever a conflict arises, politicians seeking the tag of statesmen rush in and claim credit. When Donald Trump boomed into the headlines in June 2025 claiming to have brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, the only thing louder than his announcement was the silence from New Delhi—until it was shattered by a phone call. Narendra Modi, with the practised precision of a man who has heard it all before, reportedly spent 35 minutes dismantling Trump's fantasy. The prime minister made it clear that the ceasefire was a result of direct military-to-military understanding rooted in the 1972 Simla Agreement. 'India has never accepted third-party mediation, nor will it ever,' Modi declared, according to sources familiar with the call. His disdain was unmistakable. This sharp exchange exposes a deeper crisis—that in a world fractured by wars like Iran-Israel, Israel-Hamas, Russia-Ukraine and India-Pakistan, there is total absence of credible, universally-accepted mediators. This has paralysed diplomacy, leaving violence unchecked. Going back to the 1970s, Henry Kissinger's secret diplomacy with Mao Zedong during the Cold War to check the Soviet Union exemplified the kind of strategic mediation absent in today's conflicts. Unlike today's self-promoting dealmakers, Kissinger operated with Cold War gravitas, using realpolitik to reshape global alliance. It's a stark contrast to the opportunistic mediation attempts plaguing 2025's fractured world order. If Trump fancied himself a reincarnation of Kissinger, Modi responded like a man unwilling to share the stage with a meddler playing diplomat in his own campaign circus. But behind this diplomatic snub lies a more troubling truth: we live in an age without credible mediators. The global landscape of June 2025 is a tinderbox of conflicts, each defying resolution due to the lack of a trusted peacemaker. The era of diplomatic giants like Franklin Roosevelt, who shaped post-World War II peace, or Jimmy Carter, who brokered the 1978 Camp David Accords, is a distant memory. The world in mid-2025 resembles a geopolitical powder-keg, with Israel and Iran exchanging missiles, Ukraine and Russia locked in a trench war stretching over a decade, Hamas and Israel in a perpetual loop of bloodshed, and India-Pakistan tensions now simmering dangerously post-Sindoor. What's missing isn't just resolution. It's trust. Gone are the days of Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy or handshakes of détente like that between Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin.
