As part of the agreement, the two nations, India and Pakistan, had agreed to refrain from threats and violence in violation of the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. In the main part of the agreement, the word Kashmir is mentioned in two separate sections. Section 5 of the agreement provides that “in Jammu and Kashmir, the Line of Control resulting from the ceasefire of 17 December 1971 shall be respected by both parties, without prejudice to the recognized position of both parties”. This claim shows that India, through the 1972 agreement, abandoned its own claim that Kashmir was an integral part of it. According to section seven: “The two Governments agree that in the future their respective Heads of State and Government will meet at a time favourable to both parties and that, in the meantime, representatives of both sides will meet to discuss further modalities and modalities for the establishment of lasting peace and the normalization of relations, including issues relating to the repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees. a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the restoration of diplomatic relations. This statement indicates that, despite India`s domestic attitude towards the consumption of its people in 1972, India bilaterally admitted that the Kashmir issue had not yet been definitively adopted. On July 2, 1972, the two countries reached an agreement. The main clauses of the Simla agreement are as follows: the agreement did not prevent relations between the two countries from deteriorating until an armed conflict, the last time during the 1999 Kargil war. In Operation Meghdoot in 1984, India seized the entire inhospitable Siachen Glacier region, where the border was not clearly defined in the agreement (perhaps because the area was deemed too arid to be controversial); This was considered by Pakistan as a violation of the Simla agreement. Most of the deaths that followed in the Siachen conflict were caused by natural disasters, for example. B avalanches in 2010, 2012 and 2016. While the deadline for the settlement of the Kashmir issue is not set by the Simla Agreement, it is also not written that the final settlement of Kashmir can be suspended indefinitely.
In this way, the right of the Kashmiris to self-determination was made conditional on the absence of a time clause in the agreement. The Kashmiris may demand the time clause to enforce their right to self-determination. While the disadvantage of the Simla agreement is that no timetable has been set for the final settlement of the Kashmir issue, the advantage of the agreement is that no signatory party prohibits the return of the Kashmir issue to the United Nations. Despite the expiration of 44 years, the Cashmere part of the De Simla agreement gave nothing to the Kashmiris, who were not even signatories to the agreement. Nor was the 1971 war fought in the name of the Kashmir affair. Without the agreement and will of the Kashmiris, the Simla Agreement reduced the Kashmir issue from an international rank (like the UN) to a bilateral issue, and the right of the Kashmiris to self-determination was subordinated to the implementation of the agreement. In this way, if the ultimate profit of the 1971 war was Bengal, the ultimate loser of the 1971 war was Kashmiris through no fault. Indeed, in 1971, the Kashmiris had lost the Battle of Kashmir without even fighting it. The objective part of the agreement has been cut off from the word cashmere and the absence is rationalized because the events that led to the agreement arose from the disagreement on different issues between the east and west wings of Pakistan. . .