Judging by the standards some of the leaders now in the Union cabinet set while in opposition, it is difficult and unfair to criticise Mrs Gandhi’s call for the liberation of the Pakistan-held part of Jammu and Kashmir. But Mrs Gandhi is not an ordinary opposition leader who can feel free to incite public opinion on sensitive foreign policy issues. As a former prime minister who continues to occupy an important place in the country’s public life by virtue of both her personal appeal and her party’s hold in most states of the Union, she owes it to herself and the Indian people to speak on such questions with a proper sense of responsibility. In all conscience it cannot be said that she has displayed such a sense of responsibility in calling for the liberation of Pakistan-occupied territories. As it happens, Mrs Gandhi herself concluded with the late Mr Bhutto the Simla agreement which in effect converted the old cease-fire line into the “line of control” and committed the two governments not to resort to force to change it. This did not settle the issue. At least Pakistan continues to insist that it did not. It did not formally convert the line of control into an international frontier. But for all practical purposes it did bring about such a change in its status. For it eliminated whatever role UN military observers in Kashmir had earlier played in ensuring that it was not violated. This has been the general view in this country ever since. Indeed, under the unwritten part of the agreement, Mr Bhutto tried to absorb the Pakistan-occupied part of the state into his country and thereby settle the dispute once and for all. For, in that case, Islamabad would not have been in a position to deny responsibility, as it tried to do in 1947 and 1965, for any move on its part to seize the state. Pakistan has not violated the agreement and India cannot and must not violate it.
Mrs Gandhi can argue that things have changed since, that discontent against Pakistan’s
occupation has grown in the so-called Azad Kashmir and that Mr Bhutto’s execution has
completely alienated the people in the territory from Islamabad. For all that we know, this may well be the case, though it appears to be rather premature to come to a firm conclusion. But our assessment of the level of discontent in “Azad” Kashmir is less pertinent than the fact that we have made a solemn commitment that we shall as a government not seek to alter the status quo to our advantage by the force of arms. It may also be relevant to make some other points. First, nothing would suit the military junta in Islamabad better than such an attempt on our part because that will help it to represent Mr Bhutto as an Indian stooge and to unite the people behind it. Secondly, the success of wars of national liberation depends essentially on their own strength. Finally, India has been and is a status quo power. It cannot be otherwise in view of its environment. It must not, therefore, make any move which can lend legitimacy to the actions of those who, like the Chinese, wish to disturb the status quo.
The Times of India, 16 April 1979