What does the Tashkent Agreement stand for? It exists even today. We accept and honour it; we will continue to do so in future and it would be our earnest desire that Pakistan should also accept and honour that Agreement. We will, no doubt, be watchful about the policy adopted by Pakistan towards the Tashkent Agreement, but to say that Pakistan is bent upon dishonouring the Tashkent Agreement and, therefore, we should also not honour it, is not correct. I would say that those who advocate this kind of approach understand neither politics nor defence strategy. Let us see what is the historical background of the Tashkent Agreement. A reference to the question of Jammu & Kashmir was inevitable when we were discussing an agreement at Tashkent. India and Pakistan forcefully stated their cases. The only understanding we had after these discussions was that these two countries, on the question of Jammu & Kashmir, can never see eye to eye. But the main achievement was that in spite of this area of disagreement, the Tashkent talks were not a failure. The discussions succeeded in so far as there was an agreement about the renunciation of force against one another, and about non-interference in each other's internal affairs. The basic principle of the Taskhent Agreement was that the ceasefire line will be honoured. The true meaning of this Agreement is the code that was evolved to govern relations between two nations even when serious differences of opinion exist on important matters.
In this context one must analyse the stand taken by China. A communist nation had taken the initiative in restoring peace on this sub-continent and had succeeded in attaining that objective. Another communist nation has viewed this as its failure and has done its very best to break this Agreement. China today claims that it stands for self-determination for Kashmir. If they are really serious about the principle of self-determination, they should have thought of acting upon it in respect of the people of Tibet, long before talking about the people of Jammu & Kashmir. The fact is that in respect of Tibet, they are not willing to even consider it as a problem, but for the people of another country they are willing to interfere and create trouble. The main reason behind this is that China is keen on maintaining a state of tension between India and Pakistan. In fact the same thought encourages their present-day friendship with Pakistan. Their sole objective is that India should always remain harassed. Why do they want it to be so? To understand this attitude properly one must analyse the reasons which prompt China to react in this manner.
