The declaration only ended the hostilities between India and Pakistan, but left the issue of Kashmir between the two, and neither side has been able to reach an agreement to date. Absolutely to my personal opinion under no circumstances, India should be attacked for the deal for (1) it Pakistan, India and attacked … VI The Indian Prime Minister and the President of Pakistan agreed to consider measures to restore economic and trade relations, communication and cultural exchanges between India and Pakistan and to take steps to implement existing agreements between India and Pakistan. From 7 to 16 September, the Secretary-General visited the subcontinent to fulfil the mandate given to him by the Security Council. In his 16 September report to the Security Council, he said that both sides had expressed their desire to cease hostilities, but that each side had set conditions that made it difficult for the other side to adopt a ceasefire. On 20 September, after hostilities spread to the international border between India and western Pakistan, the Council adopted Resolution 211 (1965) calling for a ceasefire to enter into force on 22 September 1965 at 7000 GMT, and called for the subsequent withdrawal of all armed workers from the posts before 5 August. The agreement was negotiated by Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin, who had invited the parties to Tashkent. The parties agreed to remove all armed forces from positions that were occupied before August 5, 1965; Renewing diplomatic relations; and to discuss economic, refugee and other issues. The agreement was criticized in India because it contained no war pact or renouncement of guerrilla aggression in Kashmir. The Tashkent Agreement was a peace agreement signed on 11 January 1966 between India and Pakistan. The agreement was signed on 11 January 1966 in a town called Tashkent, in the former Soviet Union, after a lengthy meeting between Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani Prime Minister Ayub Khan. The agreement contained the following points… The points contained in the Tashkent Agreement were very valuable and, if translated into letter and spirit, could mark the beginning of a new era of peace and friendship.
The question remains why Shastri agreed to return the strategic territories occupied by the Indian army. While the real answer cannot be obtained, since Shastri died within a few hours of signing the agreement, only a few assumptions can be made. Shastri may have been persuaded to accept this by assuring that Pakistan would not use force in the future (which was accepted in the agreement). He may have been motivated to accept it in order to have lasting peace and goodwill with his neighbour, especially when the Soviet Union had given assurances that Pakistan would not use force. Ayub was quoted as saying that Pakistan would no longer use force in the future. The way India was misled quickly became apparent. Bhutto said that “the UN Charter does not prevent a state from using force to defend itself. Mr. Ayub also stated that the Tashkent agreement had not changed Paks` attitude towards Kashmir. This reflects the fact that Indian leaders did not read the real intentions of Pak`s leaders and missed an opportunity to keep Pakistan under pressure until all problems were resolved.
Examinierter Altenpfleger und Blogger aus Leidenschaft. Betreiber von Altenpflege.team und weiteren Blogs für Verbraucher und zum Thema Nachhaltigkeit.