Pakistan’s recent suspension of the Simla Agreement marks a significant departure from efforts to resolve disputes peacefully. This 1972 agreement, designed to foster amicable relations and facilitate bilateral conflict resolution, has been put on hold by Pakistan due to India’s alleged involvement in terrorism and its perceived violation of international law.
Analysts warn that this decision could undermine the Line of Control (LoC) and eliminate boundaries for both nations, potentially heightening tensions and influencing India’s diplomatic approach.
In response to India’s earlier suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan’s announcement featured the cessation of the historic 1972 Simla Agreement, among other bilateral accords. Pakistan’s rationale for this action stems from its demand that India cease its “manifested behaviour of fomenting terrorism against Pakistan; trans-national killings; and non-compliance with international law and UN Resolutions regarding Kashmir.”
The Simla Agreement was signed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in July 1972 after Pakistan’s defeat in the Bangladesh war, with the intention of laying a groundwork for a stable, peaceful relationship between the two countries.
Notably, it emphasized the principle of bilateralism and advocated for peaceful means in addressing disputes, thereby overshadowing prior UN resolutions on Kashmir, which Pakistan has since cited, while reinforcing the importance of respecting the Line of Control (LOC).
The fact that only one limited conflict occurred in Kargil since the agreement, in contrast to the three wars that preceded it, may indicate the agreement’s relative effectiveness.
However, India perceives that Pakistan has undermined the agreement by actively seeking to internationalize the Kashmir issue since the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status in 2019 and by promoting cross-border terrorism. India has consistently aimed to prevent external interference, especially from major powers like the US, in the Kashmir conflict, which continues to shape its foreign policy.
The agreement also included a mutual commitment to refrain from interfering in each other’s domestic affairs.
Former diplomat Syed Akbaruddin suggests that Pakistan’s announcement indicates a lack of commitment to peaceful bilateral resolution. “This opens the LoC’s validity to question, which both nations have respected since 1971,” he explains. “Consequently, it may release both parties from the obligation not to unilaterally change the LoC, despite any differences or legal interpretations.”
The Simla Agreement affirms the need for both sides to respect the LOC established post the December 1971 ceasefire, stating that “neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally,” and calls for both nations to avoid threats or force in violation of this Line.
Ironically, Pakistan’s departure from bilateralism could align with Indian interests regarding the militarization of the PoK issue. Should Pakistan not commit to peaceful, bilateral resolutions, India might also feel liberated from such constraints.
Nevertheless, the Modi administration has reiterated the principle of resolving disputes through bilateral talks, opting to categorize a brief dialogue mechanism as “comprehensive bilateral dialogue” in 2015, thereby discouraging the notion of third-party involvement.
In his book, *Anger Management,* former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria remarks that although Bhutto seemed to advocate for a possible resolution during the Simla discussions, he quickly reversed his stance. By 1973, under a new Constitution, Bhutto began to advocate for a prolonged conflict with India. “By mid-1974, neither Bhutto nor Indira Gandhi possessed the political will or capital necessary for a lasting resolution,” Bisaria