Question

Tashkent Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan in the year of ____________.
A. 1960
B. 1966
C. 1970
D. 1950

Answer 1

Hint:
 Under United Nations, American and Soviet pressure, the Tashkent Conference forced India and Pakistan to comply with their prior treaty obligations and recognise the status “quo ante bellum” (the situation as it existed before the war) by returning the captured regions to the Kashmir ceasefire line of 1949.

Complete answer:
The Tashkent Agreement was a peace treaty signed on 10th January 1966 between India and Pakistan that settled the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. On 23rd September, peace was achieved through the intervention of external powers that pushed the two nations to cease fire, fearing that the conflict would intensify and draw in other powers.

The 1965 war between India and Pakistan was an escalation of small-scale and intermittent fighting between both countries from April 1965 to September 1965. Since Partition in 1947, it was about ownership of the wealth and population of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, a sore point between both nations.

The conference was seen as a great success, and a declaration was issued that was hoped to be a basis for permanent peace by stating that Indian and Pakistani powers would return to their pre-conflict roles, their pre-August lines, by 25 Feb 1966 at the latest; no nation would intervene in the internal affairs of each other; economic and diplomatic relations would be restored; an orderly transfer of prisoners of war will take place and the two leaders would work towards improving bilateral ties. The agreement has been criticised in India because it did not contain a no-war pact or any renunciation of guerrilla fighting in Kashmir.

Hence, the correct answer is option B.

Note:
 Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri died suddenly in Tashkent after signing the deal. The sudden death of Shastri resulted in widespread conspiracy theories that he had been poisoned. The Indian government declined to declassify a report on his death, arguing that this could damage international relations, disturb the nation and break parliamentary relations.