On January 11, India commemorates the death anniversary of Lal Bahadur Shastri, the second Prime Minister of India and a leader celebrated for his humanity, simplicity, and unwavering commitment to the nation. As the nation observes its 59th death anniversary, the circumstances of Shastri’s untimely demise remain enveloped in uncertainty, sparkling one of India’s most debatable controversies. Here is an attempt to delve deeper into Shastri’s life, achievements, criticisms, the questions surrounding his death, and how popular media, like the film ‘The Tashkent Files,’ has kept the conversation alive.
The life and legacy of Lal Bahadur Shastri
Born on October 2, 1904, in Mughalsarai, Uttar Pradesh, Shastri rose from humble beginnings. After completing his education in Philosophy and ethics, he joined the freedom struggle and became an ardent follower of Mahatma Gandhi. Shastri was a true Gandhian because he embodied the values, principles, and philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi in his personal life, political career, and leadership style.
Key contributions
-
Green Revolution: Shastri championed agricultural reforms to tackle India’s food crisis in the 1960s laying the foundation for the Green Revolution.
-
White revolution: He supported initiatives to boost milk production, empowering rural dairy farmers and promoting the Amul cooperative model.
-
Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan: During the Indo-Pak War of 1965, he coined this iconic slogan, saluting the contributions of soldiers and farmers in strengthing the nation.
-
Tashkent Agreement: Shastri demonstrated statesmanship by signing a peace agreement with Pakistan after the war, aimed at fostering stability in South Asia.
Despite his short tenure, Shastri left an indelible mark as a leader of integrity and vision.
Tashkent agreement, Shastri’s final act, why does it face criticism?
Kuldip Nayar's autobiography, Beyond the Lines, sheds light on certain unanswered questions surrounding the Tashkent Agreement. In his book, Nayar recounts his conversations with Lal Bahadur Shastri on January 10, 1966, the day the agreement was signed. According to his description, Shastri appeared concerned about his decision to return Haji Pir and Tithwal to Pakistan.
Nayar revealed in his autobiography that Shastri had asked him to gauge the Indian press’s reaction to the Tashkent Declaration. Shastri faced harsh criticism during a press conference earlier, where journalists questioned his decision where he agreed to return Haji Pir and Tithwal to Pakistan.
Haji Pir and Tithwal were strategic locations in Jammu and Kashmir that played significant roles during the 1960 Indo-Pak War. Indian forces successfully captured Haji Pir and Tithwal during the 1965 war, further securing India’s positions in the region.
Under the Tashkent agreement signed, India agreed to return both Haji Pir and Tithwal to Pakistan as part of the commitment to resolve the pre-war territorial status quo (position held before August 5, 1965).
This decision drew significant criticism in India as these locations were seen as crucial gains achieved through the sacrifice of Indian soldiers during the war. Opposition leaders and public opinion questioned the wisdom of relinquishing these strategically vital territories, which became a contentious point in evaluating the Tashkent agreement. Ram Manohar Lohia, A.B Vajpayee, and Acharya Kripalani had vocally condemned the agreement, reflecting widespread dissatisfaction among political circles.
Did Shastri willingly sign the Tashkent agreement?
Some suggest that Shastri was compelled to sign the accord. The agreement mediated by the Soviet Union, required both nations to withdraw from pre-war positions and restore diplomatic relations causing loss of strategic locations to India.
Some theories suggest that the decision was made under immense international pressure, primarily from the Soviet Union and the United States. Both superpowers, wary of the Cold War’s implications, sought to prevent the Indo-Pak conflict from escalating further and destabilizing South Asia. the Soviet Union, led by Premier Alexei Kosygin, brokered the negotiations, while the United States actively encouraged peace talks to counter Soviet influence in the region.
Critics argue that Shastri might have signed the agreement reluctantly, as it seemingly negated India’s wartime gains and did not hold Pakistan accountable for its aggression. His sudden death hours after signing the agreement further fueled speculation about the stress and external pressure he faced during the negotiations.
The mystery surrounding Shastri’s death
Shastri passed the Tashkent Agreement with Pakistan President Ayub Khan. Officially, his death was attributed to a heart attack, but the circumstances raised numerous questions.
Lal Bahadur Shastri, who assumed office after Jawaharlal Nehru in June 1964, passed away in Tashkent on January 11, 1966, shortly after finalizing a peace accord with Pkistan’s President Ayub Khan under the mediation of Soviet Prime Minster Alexei Kosygin.
On September 26, 2015, Shastri’s elder son, Anil Shastri, a senior congress leader, publicly called for an investigation into his father’s death during a television interview. His younger son, Sunil Shastri, had earlier written to the Union Home Minister, requesting the declassification of files related to the incident.
While some dismiss the suspicion of foul play, comprehensive accounts of the Tashkent talks and Shastri’s activities, documented by individuals who accompanied him, provide a detailed perspective. These include narratives from C.P. Srivastava, Shastri’s joint secretary, Kuldeep Naryar, famous author, journalist, and Shastri’s information advisor along with prominent other journalists like Inder Malhotra and Prem Bhatiya, all of whom chronicled the events of Shastri’s final days in their writings.
Controversial elements
-
No post-mortem: despite requests from his family, no post-mortem was conducted. Reports of blue discoloration and marks on his body led to suspicions of poisoning.
-
Theories of foreign involvement: Some speculate that intelligence agencies like the KGB or CIA were involved, given Shastr’s role in geopolitics during the Cold War.
-
Domestic opposition: factions within India allegedly opposed the Tashkent Agreement and Shastri’s leadership, further fueling conspiracy theories.
-
Government secrecy: Documents related to Shastri’s death remain classified, with the government citing concern about national security. This lack of transparency has deepened public mistrust.
The Tashkent Files, a cinematic exploration
Released in 2019, the film ‘The Tashkent Files’, directed by Vivek Agnihotri resigned public interest in Shastri's mysterious death.
The movie weaves a fictionalized narrative around real-life events, presenting various theories about Shastri’s death, including poisoning, political conspiracy, and foreign intervention. It blends investigative drama with historical facts to question the official account.
Impact and reception
Awareness: the film succeeded in sparking debate about Shastri's death, introducing a new generation to the unresolved mystery.
Criticism: while the movie was praised for bridging attention to overlooked topics, some criticized it for relying on speculation on dramatization.
Appreciation for the director: Vivek Agnihotri deserves credit for tracking such a sensitive subject. The film may not have provided definitive answers, but it encouraged viewers to question and seek accountability.
Accusation and alleged involvement
Several individuals have been implicated in conspiracy theories surrounding Shatri’s death:
-
Intelligence agencies: The KGB and CIA have often been suspected due to their involvement in Cold War politics.
-
Political Rivals: Speculation exists about factions within India who might have viewed Shatri’s leadership or the Tashkent Agreement as a threat to their interests.
-
Medical negligence: questions about the absence of Shastri’s personal physician during the trip and the mishandling of evidence have also been raised.
While no conclusive evidence supports these allegations, the persistence of such theories highlights the need for transparency.
Call for clarity and closure
The enduring mystery of Lal Bahadur Shastri’s death is not just a political or historical issue but a matter of national interest. Shastri’s family and the public have repeatedly called for declassification of documents and a thorough investigation, but successive governments have resisted.
Altogether Lal Bahadur Shastri’s life was a testament to selfless service and visionary leadership, and his contributions to India remain unparalleled. As the nation remembers him on his death anniversary, it is crucial to honor his legacy by seeking truth and accountability.
Films like ‘The Tashkent Files’ play a vital role in keeping such discussions alive. Bridging the gap between history and public awareness. Whether the move blurred the lines between facts and pictorial documentation, its impact in reviving interest in Shastri’s life and death cannot be denied.
Let us remember Shastri not just for the question that lingers but for the answer he provided through his dedication to the nation. “Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan!”